This case presented similar issues to Afanwi v. Mukasey, with the difference that the ineffective assistance of counsel occurred prior to removal proceedings rather than after those proceedings had terminated.  The Supreme Court certiorari petition was filed pro se by the asylum seeker, who thereafter requested the National Immigrant Justice Center’s (NIJC) assistance.  NIJC agreed to represent Mr. Machado in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.  After negotiations between the Solicitor General’s office and both Mr. Machado and Mr. Afanwi, the Solicitor General recommended that the Supreme Court vacate the lower court’s decision, and remand for reconsideration.  The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case.

The Supreme Court ruled that individuals who seek to reopen their deportation orders have the right to appeal to the federal courts if the immigration courts refuse to do so.

The Seventh Circuit found that the district court has power to make a citizenship finding for an individual who was once in removal proceedings.

The Seventh Circuit found that former gang membership is a cognizable particular social group for asylum purposes.

The Seventh Circuit ruled that a personal change in circumstances can support reopening for asylum if it occurs abroad.

The Seventh Circuit reversed Mr. Castilho de Olveira's asylum denial and harshly criticized the immigration judge’s bias and illogical analysis of the case.

In Nken, the Supreme Court considered the proper standard for deciding whether to stay removal for a person challenging a removal order. 

The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) drafted an amicus brief in this longstanding litigation over detainee access to legal representation.  The government asked the district court to dissolve an injunction that requires the government to provide basic access to legal services to Salvadorans (a mandate later applied to all detainees).  The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit when it lost.  NIJC supported the plaintiffs’ efforts to retain the injunction by demonstrating how broadly and consistently the detention standards are violated nationwide.  The National Immigration Law Center, representing the plaintiffs, won this round of litigation, with the Ninth Circuit refusing to dissolve the injunction.

The Seventh Circuit found that the analysis of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied the client’s asylum claim without addressing credibility, simply did not make sense.

In a case in which the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) presented objective medical corroboration of gang-rape, NIJC argued that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding was erroneous and that the Board of Immigration Appeals irrationally refused to reopen the case. The Court of Appeals refused to reopen the case in an unpublished and unexplained decision.  The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review and a subsequent petition for rehearing.  NIJC’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected.