This practice advisory provides information about recently implemented fee increases at USCIS and EOIR. These fee increases are a result of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” also known as HR1. This advisory explores what we know and what we still don’t know about the fees, how to pay them, and potential future changes.
For many noncitizens, naturalization is the best defense against deportation from the United States. Indeed, USCIS lacks the authority to detain or deport a U.S. citizen. However, applying for naturalization can be risky for some individuals because it can instigate immigration enforcement. This concern has increased following President Trump’s February 28, 2025 NTA Memo. The ILRC, NIPNLG, CLINIC, and the Ready to Stay collaborative wrote a practice advisory summarizing the most common reasons why USCIS may deny an N-400, providing guidance for ways to screen and avoid an N-400 denial and removal proceedings, and discussing immigration relief options in immigration court.
This practice advisory provides background on the disability waiver of the English and civics requirement for naturalization and describes the June 2025 revisions to the USCIS Policy Manual (PM) on the submission and review of disability waivers. The revised guidance in the PM applies to applications filed on or after the publication date of June 13, 2025. Overall, the PM revisions signal a change in tone that assumes fraud in the disability waiver process is frequent and encourages increased scrutiny by USCIS adjudicators.
In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has begun filing thousands of motions to recalendar administratively closed proceedings. This trend is raising questions about how attorneys and accredited representatives can respond to these motions and protect their clients’ interests, particularly in cases that have been administratively closed for many years. This advisory explores those questions and offers strategy considerations when determining how to proceed in each case.
This practice advisory focuses on motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of prior counsel. It reviews the basic requirements of motions to reopen and then dives into the specific procedural and substantive requirements of motions to reopen based on the ineffective assistance of prior counsel. It discusses the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen and how to use the doctrine of equitable tolling to overcome these limitations. It also covers what documents should accompany a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel so that the motion has the best chances of success. Finally, it briefly discusses the option of filing an appeal if the immigration court or the BIA denies the motion to reopen.
This advisory discusses the immigration consequences of a conviction for a controlled substance offense under California Prop 36, specifically Cal. H&S Code § 11395. This advisory explains the immigration consequences of a criminal plea to a Prop 36 controlled substance offense. It outlines criminal defense strategies for defenders to avoid these pleas and outlines removal defense strategies for immigration practitioners where the plea cannot be avoided.
Step by step explanation for criminal defense counsel of how to identify ICE detainers that may be issued in violation of the Gonzalez v. ICE class action. This class action settlement applies nation-wide to limit ICE’s issuance of detainers. This advisory walks through the basics of the case and how to monitor and respond to any violations of the settlement.
On April 11, 2025, the new Form G-325R took effect as a general tool to register all previously unregistered noncitizens under an antiquated and rarely invoked provision of the Immigration & Nationality Act, with criminal penalties for willful failure to register. This advisory was written to assist attorneys in discussing registration and the new Form G-325R with clients, including screening for prior registration and assessing the potential consequences of registering or not registering, so that individuals can make informed decisions about how to proceed in light of this new rule.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 confers initial jurisdiction over asylum claims filed by unaccompanied children (UCs) to the asylum office. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of M-A-C-O-, along with policy changes implemented during the first Trump administration, sought to strip away this crucial protection from many child asylum seekers. Because of these changes and legal challenges by immigrant youth advocates, the current landscape of initial UC asylum jurisdiction has changed. This practice advisory provides an overview of the current state of UC asylum jurisdiction following the Matter of M-A-C-O- decision and the outcome of the JOP v. DHS litigation. It also offers some arguments and practical tips to help practitioners advocate for their UC clients to receive the statutory protections afforded by the TVPRA, as well as the benefits from the JOP v. DHS litigation.