Background
IDP participates in litigation efforts to limit retroactive application of new laws and policies that restrict the rights of immigrants. For example, IDP has worked to prevent retroactive application of certain provisions of the 1996 laws, such as the repeal of former 212(c) relief and restrictions on re-entry for lawful permanent residents.
Practice Advisories
- Matter of Abdelghany: Implications for LPRs seeking § 212(c) Relief (Mar. 14, 2014, by IDP and NIP-NLG)
- Vartelas v. Holder: Implications for LPRs Who Take Brief Trips Abroad and Other Potential Favorable Impacts (Apr. 5, 2012, by IDP, Legal Action Center, and NIP-NLG)
- Implications of Judulang v. Holder for LPRs Seeking 212(c) Relief and for Other Individuals Challenging Arbitrary Agency Policies (Dec. 16, 2011, by IDP, AIC, NIP-NLG, and Nancy Morawetz of NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic)
Amicus Briefs
- Amicus Brief filed with BIA in Support of Eligibility for 212(c) Relief (filed with BIA 2018; pending)
- Taylor v. Holder, 503 Fed. Appx. 205 (4th Cir. 2013) – Brief of NIP-NLG and IDP in Support of Petitioner (Amicus Counsel NIP-NLG)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012) – Brief of NACDL, NLADA, IDP, ILRC, and NIP-NLG in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
- Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2004) – Brief of NACDL and IDP (Amicus counsel Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering LLP)
- Bell v. Ashcroft, Nos. 03-2737 & 03-2977 (2d Cir. 2004) – Brief of the New York State Defenders Association, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and NACDL in Support of Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-Appellee (Amicus counsel Wilmer Cutler Pickering LLP, IDP, and NACDL)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) – Brief of IDP and associations of public and private criminal defense lawyers in Support of Respondent (by NACDL and IDP)