ILG focuses its resources on challenging systemic violations of the immigration laws. These suits range from circuit court appeals of individual asylum cases to challenges to national policies, procedures, or regulations implemented by DHS.
In 2004 and 2005 in Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales and Acosta v. Gonzales, the courts recognized the right of an immigrant who has otherwise played by the rules to regularize his immigration status.
Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales narrowed the government’s power to unnecessarily deport individuals.
In Chaly-Garcia v. Mukasey, the court loosened USCIS’s overly restrictive interpretation of which long-waiting Central American refugees qualified for permanent immigration status.
In Perez-Enriquez v. Ashcroft, the firm successfully convinced the court of appeals to limit the power of the Board of Immigration Appeals by requiring it to publish its decisions before it could exercise its law-making function.
ILG has successfully challenged the constitutionality of the government’s ability to detain individuals without a proper hearing, Estrada-Tarango v. Ashcroft, sought a common-sense implementation of the InfoPass program, and expanded the eligibility of individuals to maintain family unification under the Family Unity program while waiting for backlogged visa applications to be processed, Juarez-Martinez v. Ashcroft.
During the Del Monte raid in 2007, the firm coordinated legal strategy for the humane treatment of the impacted individuals and collaborated with the many amazing lawyers in Oregon and Washington who provided free screening, case assistance, and court representation on individual cases In 2006, the firm conducted a comprehensive analysis of federal court decisions in asylum cases to strengthen the protective rules adopted by some courts to insure fair treatment of asylum-seekers were uniformly applied.
Presently, the firm is active in coordinating United States Supreme Court litigation on a range of immigration related issues.