Practice Advisory

This practice advisory outlines the process for researching and commenting on federal forms. A previous advisory covers the process specific to commenting on regulations, which has many parallels to the forms comment process. Federal forms and their comment process are often overlooked by advocates, even those who regularly follow changes in regulations and comment on them. However, form changes can be significant and sometimes can be used to change policy by agencies. The statute regulating forms is the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

In 2024, USCIS issued a new Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, with more lengthy and complicated instructions on evidence that could be included. This guide will help practitioners understand what documents naturalization applicants must submit to the USCIS to accept and adjudicate the N-400 form and when to submit each document.

The Laken Riley Act (LRA) was signed into law by President Trump on January 29, 2025. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by expanding mandatory detention of certain inadmissible noncitizens who are merely arrested or charged with certain offenses. This practice advisory addresses the question of whether the provisions of the LRA that seek to vastly increase the number of people subject to mandatory immigration detention would be triggered by children engaging in acts of juvenile delinquency. In the advisory, we argue that the answer is no, in alignment with longstanding precedent in immigration law that treats acts of juvenile delinquency as distinct from adult criminal acts. However, given that this is a new law with unclear drafting, we also provide tips for juvenile defense attorneys to help clients avoid charges that could implicate the mandatory detention provision of the LRA.

New EOIR regulations published in 2024 now allow immigration judges and the BIA to administratively close or terminate removal proceedings in a variety of scenarios. These regulations permit—and sometimes require—administrative closure or termination even where the Department of Homeland Security does not agree. In the current hostile enforcement environment, and in light of the rescission of formal guidance regarding prosecutorial discretion, these regulations are an important tool for advocates seeking to get clients out of removal proceedings.

Eligibility for U Nonimmigrant Status, commonly known as the “U Visa,” hinges on whether the applicant has been the “victim” of a qualifying crime. The regulations implementing the U visa statute contemplate three categories of “victims” who may qualify for the U visa: direct, bystander, and indirect victims. This practice advisory provides a basic overview of the requirements for U nonimmigrant eligibility. It then discusses the definition of “victim” and three different ways to qualify as a victim for purposes of U visa eligibility. Finally, it addresses derivative eligibility for qualifying family members.

Under current USCIS regulations, any person under 21 years of age who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements may be granted SIJS. This practice alert addresses many of the unsuccessful arguments that USCIS has not accepted when a petition received by USCIS after the youth turns 21. In rare cases, USCIS has accepted petitions received after the petitioner’s 21st birthday when there is proof that the petition was improperly rejected or receipted by USCIS before the deadline. This practice alert primarily focuses on USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions and limited federal court cases to highlight successful and unsuccessful arguments when the SIJS petition is filed on or after the youth’s 21st birthday.

On October 25, 2019, the Attorney General published Matter of Thomas & Thompson holding that adjudicators could only recognize a sentence modification for immigration purposes where the sentence was vacated due to procedural or substantive defect as defined in Matter of Pickering. It was not clear whether this holding was retroactive. Under new DOJ regulations it is now clear that Matter of Thomas & Thompson is not retroactive. Adjudicators will recognize a sentence modification as vacating the sentence for immigration purposes where: (1) the person filed for the sentence modification on or before October 25, 2019; (2) the person relied on the availability to seek a sentence modification where the conviction date was on or before October 25, 2019; (3) there was a clerical or typographical error in the sentence regardless of the date of entry of the sentence; or (4) where the sentence was vacated due to a procedural or substantive defect in the sentencing - regardless of when the sentence modification was filed.

Part 2 of this 2-part advisory explores some of the unexpected consequences of PD policies adopted by the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) that can prejudice noncitizens in removal proceedings, including the practice of moving to dismiss proceedings over respondents’ objections and failing to appear at hearings.

Part 1 of this 2-part advisory provides updates on DHS’s prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings and explores the various factors that advocates should consider when deciding whether to seek a favorable exercise of discretion from the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). Part 1 also highlights new regulations and discusses how the upcoming presidential election may impact prosecutorial discretion.