As always, make sure to consult the Immigration Court Practice Manual for formatting and procedural requirements for motions. If your client is released from detention while her or his case is pending, he or she will need to file a motion to change venue to the immigration court with jurisdiction over her or his new residence.
This page contains sample briefs on a range of issues. Sample Witness List Immigration Justice Campaign You will need to submit a witness list, even if the Respondent is the only witness who will be testifying at the Individual Hearing.
The materials on this page will help you prepare for the hearing. Sample Legal Representation Agreement Immigration Justice Campaign This is a sample pro bono engagement agreement that you can adapt for your case. Sample Engagement Agreement - Spanish Immigration Justice Campaign This is a Spanish translation of the sample pro bono engagement agreement provided above. Proposed Order Template Immigration Justice Campaign This is a template for a proposed order that can be used for any kind of motion.
All motions must be accompanied by a proposed order. Sample Bond Sponsor Letter Immigration Justice Campaign This is an example of a sponsor letter that gives you an idea of what such a letter should contain.
This is only used after an Immigration Judge has already held a bond hearing before. Motion for Bond Hearing — Changed Circumstances Immigration Justice Campaign A sample motion requesting a new bond hearing in light of changed circumstances of the respondent.
Sample Sponsor Letter for Parole Immigration Justice Campaign A sample of a letter written by a parole sponsor in support of a parole request. Finally, the opinion also advises that law offices and lawyers with supervisory responsibilities must take reasonable steps to address the ethics issues detailed in the opinion. The lawyer must first submit to the court a written or oral motion to withdraw. See 8 C. Until the immigration court has granted the attorney leave to withdraw, the attorney must continue to diligently and competently represent the client, including attending any scheduled hearings.
The opinion concludes by pointing out that, even if a lawyer wishes to withdraw, she may still be required to continue representation if so ordered by the court under Rule 1. NYSBA Ethics Opinion involved a similar inquiry from an attorney who was required to make an in-person appearance in immigration court during the pandemic, but was concerned about contracting the virus or infecting a family member, given the lack of safety protocols that the immigration court had implemented at the time.
The lawyer might also be inclined to consent to a premature disposition of the case, even though prolonging the case through additional appearances and motions could lead to a more favorable outcome. The lawyer may also try to complete the hearing quickly without calling witnesses to testify or waiving cross examination of government witnesses.
EOIR has attempted to offer alternatives to in-person hearings to mitigate health concerns. All EOIR courtrooms are equipped with telephones and some with video equipment, so hearings conducted by telephone or video conference may be appropriate alternatives in many cases.
In July , The AILA New Jersey Chapter filed a complaint in district court seeking an injunction to prevent the Newark Immigration Court from forcing immigration attorneys to appear for in-person court proceedings during the pandemic, but the U.
Lawyers must carefully consider whether they may be able to competently and diligently represent a client through a telephonic, or video hearing if they are reluctant to attend a live hearing. There are times when the immigration court may force a remote hearing on all the parties. A solo practitioner may arrange for a competent colleague to appear at the hearing.
While many immigration courts remain closed, or close whenever there is a COVID incident, USCIS has been more regularly conducting in person adjustment and naturalization interviews. A lawyer would face a similar dilemma in deciding to attend an adjustment of status or naturalization interview on behalf of a client. The current USCIS policy is to allow the lawyer to represent the client via telephone while the client appears in person for the interview.
In this case too, the lawyer must ensure that representing the client via telephone will not compromise the representation. It is easier for a lawyer to withdraw from representation before the USCIS than immigration court, but whether the lawyer has withdrawn from representation of a client for an in person appearance in immigration court or an in person appointment at USCIS, it is important that the lawyer follows Rule 1.
Lawyers must carefully consider whether they may be able to competently and diligently represent a client through a telephonic, or video hearing if they are reluctant to attend a live hearing.
There are times when the immigration court may force a remote hearing on all the parties. A solo practitioner may arrange for a competent colleague to appear at the hearing. While many immigration courts remain closed, or close whenever there is a COVID incident, USCIS has been more regularly conducting in person adjustment and naturalization interviews.
A lawyer would face a similar dilemma in deciding to attend an adjustment of status or naturalization interview on behalf of a client. The current USCIS policy is to allow the lawyer to represent the client via telephone while the client appears in person for the interview. In this case too, the lawyer must ensure that representing the client via telephone will not compromise the representation.
It is easier for a lawyer to withdraw from representation before the USCIS than immigration court, but whether the lawyer has withdrawn from representation of a client for an in person appearance in immigration court or an in person appointment at USCIS, it is important that the lawyer follows Rule 1.
Cyrus D. He is a prolific speaker and writer on contemporary immigration topics. This blog is for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. Originally published in blog. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Search for:.
0コメント