IDP engages in strategic litigation before the immigration agencies and the federal courts in support of the conviction “finality rule,” which is the longstanding rule that a criminal conviction may not trigger certain immigration consequences unless all direct appeals of right have been exhausted or waived.
- The Conviction Finality Requirement in Light of Matter of J.M. Acosta: The Law Circuit-by-Circuit and Practice Strategies Before the Agency and Federal Courts (January 24, 2019, by IDP)
- Issue-Spotting Finality Arguments in Immigration Practice: Checklist for Immigration Attorneys Representing Clients with Criminal Convictions in Affirmative Applications and Removal Proceedings (January 24, 2019, by IDP)
- Mohamed v. Sessions, 727 Fed. Appx. 32 (2d Cir. June 20, 2018): Brief of IDP in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Julia J. Peck of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and IDP)
- Amicus Brief to BIA: Brief of IDP in Support of Termination of Removal Proceedings (Redacted) (Amicus counsel Julia J. Peck of Quinn Emanuel Qrquhart & Sullivan, LLP)
- Orabi v. Att’y General, 738 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2014): Motion of IDP for Leave to Proceed as Amicus Curiae, opposing the Respondent’s petition for panel rehearing (Amicus counsel Julia J. Peck of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP)
- Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2011): Brief of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, IDP, and the Washington Defender Association in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Rehearing (Amicus counsel Julia J. Peck of Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP)
- Cardenas Abreu v. Holder, 378 F. Appx 59 (2d Cir. May 24, 2010): Brief of IDP and New York State Defenders Association in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Julia J. Peck, Esq.)