Term Page
Path Fragment
This is the second part of a two-part practice advisory on how to effectively challenge an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The two advisories should be read together, as neither part is complete on its own. This second part of the advisory discusses how to challenge adverse credibility findings based on a witness's demeanor or responsiveness; findings that are based on an immigration judge's speculation and conjecture, particularly regarding the plausibility of a claim; and determinations regarding a respondent’s corroborative evidence. It also flags special circumstances to look out for when appealing an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding.
Immigration law demonizes people whom it labels as “drug abusers and addicts,” “habitual drunkards,” and “alcoholics.” The implication is that they are morally weak, dangerous, or evil. An immigrant who comes within such a category can be found inadmissible and ineligible to establish good moral character, and can be denied several forms of immigration relief as well as naturalization. But from a scientific perspective, these people suffer from a substance use disorder (SUD), a medical condition that frequently arises after the person has undergone severe trauma. Substance Use Disorder is a growing health crisis that currently affects over 20 million people in the United States.

This Advisory is written by immigration attorneys and medical doctors specializing in SUD, to examine the issue from both perspectives. Part I of the advisory discusses the several immigration law penalties based on substance use (even when use has not risen to a disorder) and suggests legal defense strategies. Part II of the advisory reviews current medical information about the disorders and discusses how this information can address questions that arise in immigration proceedings.
On March 27, 2023, the ILRC submitted comments on the Biden Administration’s proposed rule that would impose a rebuttable presumption against eligibility for asylum for those who transited through a third country before arriving in the United States. The ILRC detailed concerns with how this rule will essentially ban a large number of asylum-seekers from relief and how the rule impermissibly restricts the due process rights of asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Requesting Bond and Parole for Asylum Seekers


In this webinar, we will discuss how asylum seekers, including recent entrants, can seek release from immigration custody via bond and parole. We will review eligibility for bond and parole for arriving aliens, and the implications of Matter of M-S-...

Withholding of Removal and CAT

Removal Defense

Level: Beginner / Intermediate This webinar will cover withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It will discuss the differences between asylum, statutory and CAT withholding of removal, and CAT deferral of...

Federal Rulemaking is one of the most direct ways that the public can participate and shape policies and practices of executive agencies. Federal regulations govern the executive agencies charged with enforcing the United States’ immigration laws and granting immigration benefits to eligible applicants. However, the process of Federal Rulemaking is often misunderstood and public participation in the process is under-utilized. This practice advisory provides an overview of the federal regulatory and rulemaking process as well as the authorities that govern this process as well as a guide to commenting on proposed rules and practical tips for navigating the resources available to the public.