On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Motions to Suppress and to Terminate Removal Proceedings: Litigating Fourth Amendment Violations in Immigration Court

Released on: Jun. 6, 2017
Running Time: 02:38:20

Threats of increased immigration enforcement, promises of increased hiring of immigration and border patrol agents, and the elimination of “priority enforcement” categories likely mean a return to unconstitutional practices such as racial profiling and unreasonable searches and seizures, forced entry into homes, and workplace raids. The constitution provides a remedy for egregious constitutional violations by immigration authorities: immigration courts may exclude evidence obtained through such means and terminate the removal proceedings.  

We will cover the legal standards and immigration court procedures that govern suppression and termination motions. We will provide sample briefs and checklists for proving the elements necessary to succeed in a motion to suppress and related motions, including motions to terminate removal proceedings.

Suppression hearings are based on constitutional law and therefore are well-suited pro bono opportunities for immigration and non-immigration attorneys alike. Anyone who is interested in providing pro bono representation to individuals whose constitutional rights were violated in the course of an arrest—either alone or with a group that is representing multiple people arrested in a mass enforcement action—would benefit from this training.

Lecture Topics [Total time  02:38:20]

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

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:04:02]
    Avantika Shastri, Julia Harumi Mass
  • El Balazo Raids Case Study, Review of Immigration Court Procedures and Rules for Motions to Suppress [01:18:08]
    Jason R. Bartlett, Julia Harumi Mass, Rosy H. Cho, Francisco M. Ugarte, Nicholas S. Napolitan
  • Legal Standard for Suppression in Immigration Court, as Illustrated Through Examples [01:16:10]
    Jason R. Bartlett, Julia Harumi Mass, Rosy H. Cho, Francisco M. Ugarte, Nicholas S. Napolitan

Presentation Material


  • Motions to Suppress and to Terminate Removal Proceedings: Litigating Fourth Amendment Violations in Immigration Court Complete Course Handbook
  • Motions to Suppress and to Terminate Removal Proceedings: Litigating Fourth Amendment Violations in Immigration Court (PowerPoint slides)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings and Suppress Evidence; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (June 1, 2009)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Department’s Motion to Pretermit and Deny (As Moot) Respondent’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (August 7, 2009)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Opposition to Government’s Motion to Pretermit and Deny (As Moot) Motion to Suppress (July 1, 2009)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Immigration Judge Decision on Motion to Suppress (July 30, 2009)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Opposition to Government’s Motion to Pretermit and Deny (As Moot) Motion to Suppress (August 11, 2009)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Respondent’s Closing Argument in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Terminate Proceedings (May 9, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Department’s Written Closing to Suppression Hearing (June 6, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Department’s Reply to Issues Raised in Respondent’s “Reply in Support of Her Closing” to Suppression Hearing (July 11, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Immigration Judge Decision (July 13, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Board Immigration Appeals Decision (March 7, 2013)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Motion to Terminate Proceedings and Suppress Evidence (March 9, 2010)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Declaration in Support of Motion to Suppress
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Department of Homeland Security Response and Submission of Additional Evidence of Alienage
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Redacted Reply to Department of Homeland Security Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Terminate Proceedings and Suppress Evidence
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Immigration Judge Order (April 1, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings and Suppress Evidence of Alienage; Memorandum in Support of Motion (2009) - Sutter Street Raid
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Immigration Judge Order, Granting Motion to Suppress (May 2, 2014)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings and Suppress Evidence of Alienage; Memorandum in Support of Motion (2009) – Visitation Valley Raid
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Motion in Limine to Suppress (January 2, 2014)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Immigration Judge Order – Motion in Limine to Suppress (August 25, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Ninth Circuit Petitioner’s Opening Brief (December 5, 2012)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Respondent’s Brief on Fourth Amendment Case Law Relating to Detentions Pursuant to ICE Detainers: Pertinent to Respondent’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Terminate (July 30, 2014)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • ICE Detainer Policy Memo (March 27, 2017)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • ICE Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations Memo (October 24, 2011)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Sensitive Locations Frequently Asked Questions
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Practice Advisory, “Remedies to DHS Enforcement at Courthouses and Other Protected Locations” (April 12, 2017)
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
  • Sample Letter to Senators and Congressional Representatives
    Jason Bartlett, Rosy H. Cho, Julia Harumi Mass, Nicholas S. Napolitan, Avantika Shastri, Francisco M. Ugarte
Co-Chair(s)
Julia Harumi Mass ~ Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
Avantika Shastri ~ Legal Director, San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative, Justice & Diversity Center of The Bar Association of San Francisco
Speaker(s)
Jason R. Bartlett ~ Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
Rosy H. Cho ~ Attorney, Law Office of Rosy H. Cho
Nicholas S. Napolitan ~ Senior Counsel, Litigation,
Francisco M. Ugarte ~ Immigration Attorney, San Francisco Public Defender's Office
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 9 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 “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded 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 15 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.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

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.