• Hours & Info

    3233 E. Broadway,
    Long Beach, CA 90803
    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

My Adopted Son is a U.S. Citizen

Posted on July 10, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: My wife and I were unable to have our own children. Therefore, we looked to adopt a child. Because this took years in the U.S., we decided to do an international adoption which has turned out to be much quicker. However, now that the adoption has gone through, we are unsure what must be done to bring our adopted child into the United States. Can you help?

Answer: Yes. Eduardo Aguirre, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), today announced an important step toward the fulfillment of the Child Citizenship Act (CCA). USCIS is launching a CCA Program to simplify and streamline the process by which parents obtain a Certificate of Citizenship for their children.

“I want prospective parents, who are seriously considering international adoption, to know that the process just got a little easier. This program will help parents to more rapidly realize the privileges of American citizenship for their children. It accelerates reassurance of their child’s citizenship status,” said Director Aguirre.

One of the Director’s eight strategic initiatives, the CCA Program will eliminate the backlog of N-643 forms (Application for Certificate of Citizenship in Behalf of an Adopted Child) relating to children affected by the CCA. Additionally, the program will soon automatically provide Certificates of Citizenship to certain adopted children within 45 days of entry into the United States. These Certificates of Citizenship will be produced and mailed to the parents without application and without fee.

Managed from the USCIS Buffalo, New York District Office, the program will initiate 45-day processing for children who fall within the Immediate Relative visa category. This will be for adoptions whereby adoptions are made final overseas. This program will eliminate the issuance of a Permanent Resident Card for newly entering children, since these cards are not applicable to U.S. citizens.

Question: What must I do to fall under this program?

Answer: Assuming you are a U.S. Citizen and your child is under 18 years old, he or she will be considered to be an Immediate Relative. You must petition him or her for lawful permanent residency. Once this is done, then the adopted child can enter the United States. The moment the child takes one step in the United States, he or she will automatically become a U.S. Citizen. According to the new policy, the Certificate of Citizenship should be sent within about 45 days.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

We Have Hope Yet!

Posted on July 9, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: Ever since 1996 when the immigration laws changed to make it much more difficult for immigrants to come to the United States and to stay in the United States, many of my friends have been deported, and many more have had no hope of staying here legally in the United States. Is there any hope that any new laws might change this?

Answer: Actually, you are not alone. There are many people in Congress who have submitted bills which would allow people who have suffered from the 1996 laws and who are currently suffering to fall under new provisions of law to help them. While none of the following bills are actually law as of the present, they are at least on the table. This means that the anti-immigrant movement shown in the 1996 laws is showing Congress that it is harsh, unfair and a burden to families trying to meet the American dream. Here are some of the bills proposed in Congress right now:

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2003: Introduced on July 31 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), S. 1545 would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to again permit states to determine residency for in-state tuition purposes. The DREAM Act also would grant conditional permanent resident status to young people who came to the U.S. before the age of 16, have good moral character, have lived in the U.S. at least five years at the time of enactment, and have graduated from high school.

The Family Reunification Act of 2003: Introduced on June 24 by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), H.R. 2585 would amend the INA to permit certain long-term permanent residents to seek cancellation of removal.

The Student Adjustment Act of 2003: Introduced on April 9 by Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT), Howard Berman (D-CA), and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), H.R. 1684 would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit states to determine state residency for in-state tuition purposes and would also provide for the adjustment of status of certain undocumented college-bound students.

The Central American Security Act: Introduced on March 17 by Representative Tom Davis (R-VA), H.R. 1300 would amend § 202 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) to make certain Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans eligible for relief under this section, and would give those individuals with applications for relief currently pending under § 203 the option of having their applications considered as applications for adjustment under § 202.

The Unity, Security, Accountability, and Family (USA Family) Act: Introduced by Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) on January 29, H.R. 440 would: provide legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for 5 years or more; grant conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the U.S. for less than 5 years; repeal the 3- and 10-year bars to admissibility and the provisions that render aliens removable from the U.S. for having committed certain minor nonviolent offenses; and create an improved system of accountability that allows critical resources and manpower to be redirected to fight the war on terror.

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) established a nonimmigrant category within the immigration law that allows the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen to be admitted to the United States in a nonimmigrant category. The admission allows the spouse or child to complete processing for permanent residence while in the United States. It also allows those admitted in the new category to have permission for employment while they wait processing of their case to permanent resident status.

Question: Are any of these items law yet?

Answer: Not yet. However, these are only a few of the bills in Congress at this time. However, we should write our representatives in Congress, and show our support for these bills. Hopefully, they will pass in the near future.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Why do I have to wait so long to be with my U.S. Spouse?

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I just married my U.S. Citizen husband in my home country. I thought I could just go to the United States and live with him. However, I found out it is actually is going to take over one year to get back together with my husband. I am heartbroken. Is there anything I can do to speed up this process?

Answer: Yes. There is what is known as a K-Nonimmigrant as the Spouse or Child of a U.S. Citizen? The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act and its amendments (LIFE Act) established a new nonimmigrant category within the immigration law that allows the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen to be admitted to the United States in a nonimmigrant category. The admission allows the spouse or child to complete processing for permanent residence while in the United States. It also allows those admitted in the new category to have permission for employment while they await processing of their case to permanent resident status.

Question: Who is Eligible?

A person may receive a K-3 visa if that person: has concluded a valid marriage with a citizen of the United States; has a relative petition (Form I-130) filed by the U.S. citizen spouse for the person; seeks to enter the United States to await the approval of the petition and subsequent lawful permanent resident status, and, has an approved Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé, forwarded to the American consulate abroad where the alien wishes to apply for the K-3/K-4 visa. The consulate must be in the country in which the marriage to the U.S. citizen took place if the United States has a consulate which issues immigrant visas in that country. If the marriage took place in the United States, the designated consulate is the one with jurisdiction over the current residence of the alien spouse.

Question: Will I Get a Work Permit?

Answer: Persons in K-3 or K-4 status and applicants for adjustment to permanent resident status from K-3 or K-4 are eligible to apply for a work permit while their cases are pending.

Question: Can I Travel Outside the United States?

Answer: If you are in K-3 or K-4 status, you may travel using your unexpired K-3/K-4 nonimmigrant visa to travel outside of the United States and return, even if you are applying for adjustment of status simultaneously.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Will I be locked up forever?

Posted on July 7, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

 Question: I am writing from the immigration detention facility. I have had my Green Card for many years, but committed a crime many years ago. After trying to become a U.S. Citizen, they not only denied my application, but put me in detention and deportation. I have heard that there is no way I can be bonded out during the proceedings. Is this true?

Answer: Partially. The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case known as the Kim case. The Court held that the government may detain classes of lawful permanent residents without conducting individualized bond hearings to determine whether they pose a flight risk or danger to the community. The INA lists broad categories of noncitizens that are subject to mandatory detention based on their removability under specific criminal provisions.

After the Court announced its decision, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) issued a memorandum saying that all persons subject to Kim would receive letters within six months asking them to report for an interview. BICE said it would re-detain individuals who had previously been released after a bond hearing, but who now fall within the mandatory detention provisions.

Question: Is there anyway around the Kim case?

Answer: There may be. The first step in analyzing any mandatory detention case is to determine whether the Kim case even applies. Only individuals who were released from criminal custody after October 8, 1998 are subject to mandatory detention. Thus, if you were released from custody before that time, you are not subject to the mandatory detention.

Also, it can be argued that only individuals who are taken into custody immediately upon their release from criminal incarceration fall within the confines of this case.

Assuming this cannot be argued, a “Joseph hearing” needs to be conducted. A Green Card holder is not “properly included” within a mandatory detention category if the “Service is substantially unlikely to establish at the merits hearing, or on appeal, the charges that would otherwise subject the alien to mandatory detention.” Individuals who prevail at the Joseph hearing are entitled to have a bond hearing.

For example, if the person is charged with removability based on convictions for two crimes involving moral turpitude, consider whether there are possible challenges to (1) the existence of the convictions, and (2) the classification of the crimes as crimes involving moral turpitude. In Matter of Joseph, the BIA concluded that it was substantially unlikely that INS would succeed because Joseph’s conviction was not correctly classified as an aggravated felony. Although Matter of Joseph addressed only the situation where the conviction was wrongly classified as a crime that would trigger mandatory detention, in thinking about whether there is a conviction, take account of the availability of post-conviction relief.

Question: Assuming I cannot prevail at the Joseph Hearing, is there anything else I can do?

Answer: You can bring actions in the U.S. Federal District Courts challenging the mandatory detention. Such factors to bring the attention of the Judge will be the length of the detention and removal from the United States is unlikely. Also, the Supreme Court’s decision was premised on the finding that Kim conceded removability. Individuals intending to challenge removability should state clearly this intention at both the immigration court and in any habeas corpus actions. Cases where the person is challenging deportability may be distinguished from Kim on that basis.

At this point, it will be difficult, but we must continue to argue and fight for the rights of people who are subject to mandatory detention.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

PERM: Am I an ‘Arriving Alien’?

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I am married to a U.S. Citizen and just entered the U.S. Unfortunately, I have a crime in my past. The Immigration Judge denied my case and stated that because I was an arriving alien that I do not qualify to adjust my status in the U.S. Is this true?

Answer: Actually, in a majority of the U.S. you would not be eligible to adjust status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident because you are considered to be an arriving alien. This is when a person basically enters the U.S. and is immediately put into deportation or removal proceedings. However, there was issued just recently a decision in the First Circuit Court of appeal a case that deals with this very issue. This case raises issues of first impression in immigration law as to the validity of a regulation promulgated in 1997 by the Attorney General, 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c) (8). The regulation redefines certain aliens as ineligible to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. Under that regulation, the Attorney General will not consider an application for adjustment of status from the entire category of aliens who have been granted parole status (permitted to enter the U.S.) but have been placed in removal proceedings.

Question: What was the reasoning of the court?

Answer: First, 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 specifically states who is eligible to adjust status. Previously, in 1997, the Attorney General carved out an exception to this (through implementing new regulations) that arriving aliens are not eligible to apply. First, the actual code 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 (made by Congress and signed by the President) specifically permits persons whom are paroled into the U.S. (and therefore an arriving alien) to adjust status in the U.S. Therefore, the actual Immigration and Nationality Act is not silent on the issue to which the Attorney General made the regulation.

Next, the Court ruled that Congress has specifically stated where the Attorney General had the authority to issue discretionary decisions as to eligibility for adjustment of status. Here, there was no authority given to the Attorney General (John Ashcroft at the time) to issue such a decision to bar people from adjusting status when the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically permitted those people to adjust. Basically, Congressional intent in making the policies of who can adjust status takes precedence over what the Attorney General thought that he could do.

Question: So, what was the final outcome?

Answer: The First Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back down to the Immigration Court for Adjustment of Status proceedings after ruling that the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General making arriving aliens (or those paroled into the U.S.) ineligible for adjustment proceedings unconstitutional.

Question: Does this rule apply all over the U.S.?

Answer: Unfortunately, it does not. It only applies if you happen to be living in the 1st Circuit. This would be in the Northeastern part of the U.S. Thus, in all other areas of the U.S. an arriving alien cannot adjust status in removal proceedings. However, this ruling from the First Circuit is very powerful and can be used to convince the Immigration Judge to permit such an adjustment. If he/she does not, you can take it up on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. After, if you lose, you can appeal this up to the Circuit Courts of Appeal in your jurisdiction. Finally, if you lose there, take it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

H-2B’s: There back!

Posted on July 3, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I had petitioned for temporary workers earlier, but was told all H-2B’s were used up. Is there anything that can be done? I really need these workers.

Answer: Yes, beginning May 25, 2005, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin to accept additional petitions for H-2B workers as required by the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005.

Question: Who will benefit from this Act?

Answer: The Act allows USCIS to accept filings beginning May 25, 2005 for two types of H-2B workers seeking work start dates as early as immediately: 1. For fiscal year 2005: Approximately 35,000 workers, who are new H-2B workers or who are not certified as returning workers, seeking work start dates before October 1, 2005.

2. For FY 2005 and 2006: All “returning workers,” meaning workers who counted against the H-2B annual numerical limit of 66,000 during any one of the three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year of the requested start date. This means: In a petition for a work start date before October 1, 2005 (FY 2005), the worker must have been previously approved for an H-2B work start date between October 1, 2001 and September 30, 2004. In a petition for a work start date on or after October 1, 2005 (FY 2006), the worker must have been previously approved for an H-2B work start date between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2005. If a petition was approved only for “extension of stay” in H-2B status, or only for change or addition of employers or terms of employment, the worker was not counted against the numerical limit at that time and, therefore, that particular approval cannot in itself result in the worker being considered a “returning worker” in a new petition. Any worker not certified as a “returning worker” will be subject to the numerical limitation for the relevant fiscal year.

Question: What is needed to file for the H-2B’s under this Act?

Answer: Petition forms and processing will follow current rules, with these additional requirements for “returning workers:” The petition must include a certification from the petitioner (employer) signed by the same person who signed the Form I-129 stating, “As a supplement to the certification made on the attached Form I-129, I further certify that the workers listed below have entered the United States in H-2B status or changed to H-2B status during one of the last three fiscal years.” The list must set forth the full name of the worker. If the petition seeks change of status of the worker within the United States, it must include evidence of previous H-2B admissions, such as a visa or a copy of I-94 admission document.

A single petition may benefit more than one worker, including unnamed workers in “special filing situations” for business reasons. However, any returning workers must be listed in a certification as described above. For multiple named workers, including returning workers, “Attachment 1” to Form I-129 must be included and completed.

A petition approval notice will list any returning workers, who must be prepared to show to the U.S. consulate (when requesting an H-2B visa) or CBP port inspector (if visa exempt) proof of the worker’s previous H-2B admissions, such as a visa or a copy of I-94 admission document. The State Department will confirm prior visas through its electronic system, and that alone may be sufficient, but failure to show these documents may result in denial of visa or admission.

Thus, because of the limited number of H-2B’s, you should file right away.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

New L1-B Provisions

Posted on July 2, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: My employer has a business in my home country and wants to send me to the United States to work in a branch office he is opening up. However, it would require that I work at different locations in the U.S. Is there a problem with doing this?

Answer: Since you will not actually be running the company, but rather, worker as a person who has specialized knowledge of the products of your company, you would fall under the L-1B category. Previously, there might not have been a problem. However, a new law regarding L-1B’s has just come into effect. The USCIS has just implemented the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004. The changes were mandated by L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004 which became law last December as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2005. The L-1 Visa Reform Act amends previous legislation to address the “outsourcing” of L-1B temporary workers. An L-1B nonimmigrant is an alien who has been employed overseas by a firm with an affiliated entity in the U.S., who comes to the U.S. to perform services for the international entity that involve specialized knowledge.

Question: What are the changes mandated by this law?

Answer: L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than that of their petitioning employer if either: (a) the work is controlled and supervised by a different employer or (b) the offsite arrangement is essentially one to provide a non-petitioning party with local labor for hire, rather than a service related to the specialized knowledge of the petitioning employer. USCIS will interpret the “control and supervision” provisions of the new law to require an L-1B petitioning employer to retain ultimate authority over the worker. The determination as to whether an alien is or will be employed primarily at a worksite other than that of the petitioner will depend on the specific facts presented. In addition, the bar will not apply if the satisfactory performance of such off-site employment duties requires that the L-1B temporary worker must have specialized or advanced knowledge of the petitioning employer’s product, service, or other interests, as defined under current USCIS regulations. General skills or duties that relate to ordinary business or work activities would not meet the test of whether specialized knowledge is required for the work.

Question: Therefore, what exactly is meant by this outsourcing provision?

Answer: The “outsourcing” provisions described above apply to all L-1B petitions filed with USCIS after June 6, 2005, and include extensions and amendments involving individuals currently in L-1 status. The Act also requires that all L-1 temporary workers must have worked for a period of no less than one year outside the United States for an employer with a qualifying relationship to the petitioning employer. Previously, participants in the “blanket L-1” program could participate after as little as six months of qualifying employment. This change applies to petitions for initial L-1 classification filed with USCIS after June 6, 2005; extensions of status under the blanket program are not affected by this new provision.

Question: Are the filing fees the same?

Answer: No. As with other applications, there is now a fraud related fee. There is the base filing fee of $185.00 plus the new $500.00 Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee as applicable. [Employers seeking a worker’s initial grant of H-1B or L nonimmigrant classification and employers seeking to hire an existing H-1B or L worker currently employed by another employer must pay the $500 Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee. The $500 fee does not need to be submitted by: 1) employers who seek to extend a current H-1B or L alien’s status where such an extension does not involve a change of employers; 2) employers who are seeking H-1B1, Chile-Singapore Free Trade Act nonimmigrants; or 3) dependents of H-1B or L principal beneficiaries.

Therefore, while there are changes, the L-1B still exists and you should go forward with the application assuming you qualify.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Retrogression: What it really means.

Posted on June 30, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have a Perm Labor Certification that only took 3 months to get. However, now I am being told it will take years to actually get the Green Card. I am being told there is a “Quota Backlog” or “Retrogression“. What does this mean?

Answer: The Immigration and Nationality Act sets limits on how many green card visas may be issued each Fiscal Year (October 1 through September 30) in all visa categories. In addition, in the employment-based area where immigration is based on employment and not family relationships or investment, nationals of each country may obtain immigrant visas (i.e., a green card), in different preference categories (i.e., EB-1, EB-2, EB-3). The law further provides that no one country may have more than a specific percentage of the total number of visas available annually. If these limits are exceeded in a particular category, for a particular nationality, a waiting list is created and applicants are placed on the list according to the date of their case filing. This date is called a “Priority Date.” The priority date is the single, most important, factor in any immigration case.

Question: What are the EB categories of employment based visas?

Employment-Based First Preference (EB-1) includes: (1) Persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business and athletics (persons who have risen to the top of their profession); (2) Outstanding professors and researchers; and (3) Multi-national executives and managers.

Employment-Based Second Preference (EB-2) includes: (1) Members of professions holding advanced degrees (Master’s or Ph.D.) (The position must be one that requires a Master’s or Ph.D. to perform the duties – the degree held by the individual does not determine whether or not it is an EB-2, rather it is the company’s job requirements. Additionally, the immigration regulations provide that a job which requires a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree PLUS a five years of progressively responsible experience will be considered equivalent to a Master’s level position and will qualify for EB-2.); and (2) Persons of exceptional ability in the sciences, art or business. Persons of exceptional ability are those who have a degree of expertise above that which is ordinarily expected.

Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3) includes: (1) Professionals and skilled workers (bachelor’s degree or two years of training). The position must require a minimum of a bachelor degree or two years of training.

Other Workers includes positions that require less than two years of experience.

Question: What is the “Priority Date”?

Answer: If your category is employment-based and requires a labor certification, the priority date is established on the date a labor certification is filed with the State Workforce Agency. If your category is employment-based but does not require a labor certification, then the priority date is established on the date the CIS receives the I-140 Immigrant Visa Petition. However, the priority date does not attach to your case until the I-140 has been approved.

In order for an individual to obtain an immigrant visa, a visa number must be available to you. This is referred to as the priority date being “current.” The priority date is current if there is no backlog in the category, or if the priority date is on or before the date listed as current in the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin.

Question: Is there anyway I can expedite the process?

Answer: There is no way to get ahead on the list, other than filing an Immigrant Visa Petition in a higher preference category, provided that the individual and/or their position meet the criteria to do so. Otherwise, the individual must wait until eligible to apply along with others on the list before proceeding with filing the last step in the green card process. The last step is accomplished by filing an application to adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident in the U.S., or by obtaining an immigrant visa at a U.S. Consulate abroad.

Question: What does it mean to be “current”?

Answer: If there is a “C” in your employment-based category on the Visa Bulletin, then there is no quota backlog and you may proceed with your I-485 adjustment application or immigrant visa application.

Question: my spouse was born in a different country than I as. Since the I-485 is based on my employment, does my spouse’s country of birth help me?

Answer: Your spouse’s country of birth may also be used to determine chargeability. For instance, if you were born in India, but your spouse was born in France and there is a quota backlog for India, but no quota backlog for France in your preference category, you and your spouse may proceed with your immigrant process based on your spouse’s country of birth.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

What does the REAL ID Act mean?

Posted on June 25, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have heard so much about the REAL ID Act, but do not really understand what it is. Can you explain?

Answer: The REAL ID Act made two changes to INA § 242(a)(2)(B), an INA subsection added by IIRIRA that precludes federal court jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions. One of these changes purports to expand § 242(a)(2)(B) to non-removal cases.

Courts have only recently begun to interpret the REAL ID Act.

Question: What is INA § 242(a)(2)(B)?

Answer: INA § 242(a)(2)(B), entitled “Denials of Discretionary Relief,” restricts when federal courts have jurisdiction over certain types of discretionary decisions and action by the government in immigration cases.

INA § 242(a)(2)(B) includes two subparts. The first limits federal court jurisdiction over a “judgment regarding the granting of relief under section criminal and fraud waivers, cancellation of removal or adjustment proceedings. The second subpart restricts federal court jurisdiction over “any other decision or action … the authority for which is specified under this title [Title II] to be in the discretion or the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” Asylum decisions are specifically exempted from this bar on jurisdiction.

For § 242(a)(2)(B) to apply, a case must fall within one of these two subsections. Each subpart has been interpreted narrowly, in accord with the specific language chosen by Congress.

The REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits in non-removal cases?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdictions over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, a practitioner may carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: While there are several issues in such an analysis, the first issue will be looked at in this article. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to every immigration-related case. Thus, the first step is to determine if the case is entirely outside the reach of § 242(a)(2)(B). There are at least four general categories of cases that arguably fall outside the reach of this section.

A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. Neither this section nor the REAL ID Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction where the government has a nondiscretionary duty to act. In mandamus cases in particular, the existence of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on the part of the government is an essential element of the claim. Thus, mandamus actions by definition generally should not fall within the restrictions of INA § 242(a)(2)(B).

B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions. Asylum is not one of the forms of discretionary relief specifically mentioned in § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), and thus this subsection does not apply to asylum cases. Additionally, asylum is specifically exempted from § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), and thus this subsection also does not apply to asylum cases. Consequently, § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue with respect to federal court jurisdiction over asylum cases, even if the challenged agency action is a discretionary one.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions. Additionally, § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) states that it applies to agency decisions or action, “the authority for which is specified under this title” to be discretionary. Consequently, INA § 242(a)(2)(B) should never be an issue in federal court jurisdiction over a naturalization decision, even one involving discretion.

D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas. While generally, this provision contains definitions that do not authorize discretion, there are a few exceptions. For example, the definition of the non-immigrant “T” visa category includes as an eligibility requirement that the Attorney General determine if the individual “would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal.” The determination of extreme hardship has been held to be a discretionary determination. Arguably, however, the exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion with respect to a T visa would not fall within the bar to jurisdiction in § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the statutory authority for this discretion is found in Title I, not Title II. The definitions of the “S” and “U” visa categories contain similar grants of discretion that fall outside the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B).

Thus, the REAL ID Act did not completely eliminate federal court jurisdiction.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Can I get review of my denied case under the REAL ID Act?

Posted on June 24, 2025 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney

Question: I have had my case denied in Immigration Court and I have heard about the REAL ID act and am very confused if I can get some type of judicial review of my case. Can you clarify?

Answer: The REAL ID Act did not change the language of either subpart (i) or (ii) of the statute giving/denying review. Rather, the Act made two changes to the paragraph preceding these subparts. First, it specified that the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” applied to “statutory and nonstatutory” law and included the habeas corpus statute, the mandamus statute, and the All Writs Act. Second, the REAL ID Act also expanded the scope of § 242(a)(2)(B) so that it now applies “regardless of whether the [discretionary] judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” Prior to the REAL ID Act, some – though not all – courts had held that § 242(a)(2)(B) was applicable only in removal cases. Presumably, this amendment was intended to reverse these earlier court decisions.

Question: Do these amendments eliminate all mandamus and other types of affirmative suits?

Answer: No, these changes do not eliminate all jurisdiction over mandamus and other affirmative lawsuits in non-removal cases. To determine whether jurisdiction remains available in a particular case, it is necessary to carry out a several step analysis. This analysis is essentially the same as the analysis to determine whether jurisdiction exists in a removal case involving agency discretion. Consequently, court decisions interpreting § 242(a)(2)(B) in the removal context will be helpful in determining whether the provision applies in a non-removal case.

Question: What steps are involved in determining whether a court has jurisdiction under § 242(a)(2)(B) in a removal or non-removal case?

Answer: There are several items that one must look at to determine if this section applies. 1. Does the issue/case fall completely outside the scope of INA § 242(a)(2)(B)? A. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) only limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. B. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply to asylum decisions.

C. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) also does not apply to naturalization decisions and D. INA § 242(a)(2) should not apply to S, T and U visas.

Question: What if the case is one that appears to have fallen under the provision not permitting discretionary review?

Answer: Again, it is necessary to do an analysis. First, has there been an actual exercise of discretion? Even where there has been an actual exercise of discretion, is this exercise of discretion the issue in the case? Is the challenged action or decision discretionary? Is the decision or action specified by statute to be discretionary? Is the grant of discretion one of pure discretion unguided by legal principles? (9th Circuit cases.)

Thus, while the REAL ID Act may seem to completely limit judicial review of cases, if you fight the matter and analyze the case, there are different ways to still get judicial review of your case.

Filed under: best deportation attorney | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »

  • Brian D. Lerner

    Immigration Lawyer

  • Blog Stats

    • 305,638 Visitors

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts