On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Emergency Legal Challenges to Imminent Removals: Emergency Petitions for Review of Administrative and Reinstatement Orders, Emergency Motions to Reopen, and Whether Habeas Might Be a Viable Option (Free)

Released on: Jul. 14, 2017
Running Time: 03:05:35

In 2015 alone, there were 333,341 documented removals, or deportations, from the United States. Not only is the large number of removals concerning, it is particularly alarming that so many removals could have been successfully challenged, but so many of the deportees were never advised regarding any such options. Many individuals facing removal do not obtain legal assistance, and unwittingly forfeit critical rights and legal protections. This training will provide you with the tools that you need to assess the options of individuals facing imminent deportations due to administrative or reinstatement orders, orders issued by the Immigration Courts, and the role of habeas and other legal actions in the context of imminent removal.

You will learn:

  • When can I file an Emergency Petition for Review in the context of Administrative and Reinstatement Orders?
  • What type of Emergency Motions to Reopen might be possible?
  • Is a Habeas Petition or another Federal Court action a viable option?

This training is designed for immigration attorneys who want to learn how imminent removals might be halted with legal challenges.  Participants should have a basic knowledge of immigration law, but need not have prior experience with challenging orders of removal.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:05:35]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:04:56]
    Monica O. Howell, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Emergency Petitions for Review of Administrative and Reinstatement Orders [01:00:19]
    Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall
  • Emergency Motions to Reopen [01:00:15]
    Valerie A. Zukin, Katherine M. Lewis
  • Whether Habeas or Other Federal Court Actions Might Be Viable Options [01:00:05]
    Julia H. Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale

Presentation Material

  • Emergency Legal Challenges to Imminent Removals - Complete Course Handbook
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Emergency Legal Challenges to Imminent Removals (PowerPoint slides)
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Justice & Diversity Emergency Response Packet
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Practice Advisory - How to File a Petition for Review, Updated November 2015, American Immigration Council
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Practice Advisory - Administrative Removal under 238(b): Questions and Answers, February 16, 2017, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and Immigrant Defense Project
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Practice Advisory - Reinstatement of Removal, April 29, 2013, American Immigration Council, Legal Action Center and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Practice Advisory - Seeking Remedies for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Immigration Cases, January 2016, American Immigration Council
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Practice Advisory - Rescinding an In Absentia Order of Removal, Updated March 2010, American Immigration Council, Legal Action Center
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Violence Against Women Act
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Lack of Notice
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Vacated Conviction
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Changed Country Conditions (1)
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. NIghtingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Changed Country Conditions (2)
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Sample Motion to Reopen, Exceptional Circumstances
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Practice Advisory - Expedited Removal: What Has Changed Since Executive Order No. 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (Issued on January 25, 2017), February 20, 2017
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Kar v. Bush, 1:05-cv-01348-JR (D.DC.)
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Petitioner’s Amended Application for Temporary Restraining Order; Points & Authorities in Support, Vayeghan v. Kelly, Case No. 2:17-cv-00702-SJO-GJS (C.D. Cal.)
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
  • Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Vayeghan v. Kelly, Case No. 2:17-cv-00702 (C.D. Cal.)
    Monica Oca Howell, Katherine M. Lewis, Julia Harumi Mass, Zachary M. Nightingale, Ilyce Shugall, Valerie A. Zukin
Co-Chair(s)
Monica O. Howell ~ Senior Immigration Attorney, CARECEN
Valerie A. Zukin ~ Lead Attorney Coordinator, Northern California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice
Speaker(s)
Katherine M. Lewis ~ Immigration Attorney, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale
Julia Harumi Mass ~ Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
Zachary M. Nightingale ~ Partner, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale
Ilyce Shugall ~ Directing Attorney, Immigration Program, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.