Case Law

You are a Spanish-speaking defendant waiting years for a retrial — and the court keeps postponing because it cannot find a second interpreter. A South Carolina judge dismissed all charges, saying your rights had been violated. In September 2026, the state's Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling the interpreter shortage could not be held against prosecutors — and sent the case back for trial.

A federal court in Washington, DC, ruled in September 2026 that a 14-year-old Guatemalan boy named Elias — who arrived in the US alone in 2023 fleeing abuse — can continue his legal challenge against deportation. DHS had issued him a Notice to Appear but never filed it with an immigration court, raising serious questions about whether his removal was lawful. The ruling means a federal judge will keep reviewing whether the government violated the rights of unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings.

Over Labor Day weekend in 2025, federal agencies pulled hundreds of unaccompanied Guatemalan children from shelter beds in the middle of the night and prepared to deport them — without asking a single child if they wanted to go. A federal court blocked the removals and, in September 2026, refused to dismiss the lawsuit, keeping protections in place. The case tests whether the government can bypass immigration court hearings and legal counsel requirements for children in federal custody.

Two Iraqi brothers waited nearly 17 years for family reunification visas after their U.S. citizen brother filed I-130 petitions in 2007. A federal court in Washington, DC dismissed their lawsuit in September 2026 — and one son's visa is still pending. If your family visa case has been stuck for months or years, this ruling shows exactly how hard it is to force the government to act.

Raymundo Meza Medina never got notice of his immigration court hearing — because the government mailed it to an address his relatives filled in on a bond form, and it came back undeliverable. The government then did nothing. The Ninth Circuit ruled in September 2026 that ordering him deported under those circumstances violated the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee, and threw out his removal order.

You trusted an immigration lawyer with your case — your green card, your asylum claim, your future in the US. On September 18, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals suspended attorney Ashley Briana Cuber from all US immigration courts and DHS proceedings for one year, after Washington state's Supreme Court issued its own final suspension. Clients whose cases she was handling must now find new representation — and their court deadlines keep running.

Sanny Montefar Nemis had a green card for eight years when a federal fraud conviction caught up with him at the border. In September 2026, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that helping submit false H-1B visa applications is a "crime involving moral turpitude" — a finding that makes green card holders deportable, even if they only received probation.

What if a criminal conviction from years ago now permanently bars you from getting a green card — or ever becoming a US citizen? The Board of Immigration Appeals answered that question in September 2026, ruling that anyone convicted of an aggravated felony is inadmissible under federal law and cannot adjust status or naturalize. The decision overturns a 26-year-old precedent and affects immigrants already in removal proceedings.

You told your story under oath, submitted documents, and waited — then the judge said they didn't believe you. In September 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of asylum for Natalia Golban, a Moldovan national, ruling that contradictions between her testimony and her mother's letter — combined with demeanor concerns — gave immigration authorities enough reason to find her not credible. The decision is a stark reminder of how small inconsistencies can end an asylum case.

What happens when a family court judge cites your immigration status as part of a custody decision — and you never got a real chance to explain it? In September 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals remanded the custody case Parente v. Texeira back to the trial court, finding that key findings needed more development. The case is a warning for any immigrant parent in family court: your immigration status can become part of the record, and you need to be prepared to address it.

A federal judge blocked a DHS rule that would have capped international student F visas and J exchange visas at four years — stopping it one day before it was set to take effect. US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor II ruled the policy was "arbitrary and capricious" and its rationale "exceptionally weak." About 2.1 million people currently holding F and J visas are directly affected by the outcome of this case.

David Streever sent a harsh email to ICE's Acting Director in January 2026. Five months later, federal agents showed up at his home, handed his wife a warning notice threatening prosecution, and told him to stop criticizing ICE. In September 2026, a federal court ruled that the warning notice likely violated the First Amendment and ordered ICE to stop using it.

You have a green card and have lived in the United States for years — then a federal court you have never heard of orders your deportation using classified evidence. In September 2026, that happened for the first time in US history. The Justice Department used the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a 30-year-old court that had never been used before, to deport an Afghan green card holder from Fort Worth, Texas.

You filed your U visa petition years ago, you made it onto the waiting list, and you still cannot visit your family abroad — because USCIS won't give you advance parole to leave and come back. More than 150 petitioners took that fight to federal court. In September 2026, the Ninth Circuit largely ruled against them.

A new Department of Homeland Security rule took effect on September 15, 2026, and it changed the rules for J-1 visa holders who have overstayed their programs. For the first time, those holders now begin accruing "unlawful presence" on a fixed date — not just after a judge or agency formally finds a violation. A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled in September 2026 that it could not block the rule from applying to one Colombian doctor caught in the middle of an ongoing lawsuit.