On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Habeas Petitions for Detained Immigrants

Released on: Mar. 6, 2017
Running Time: 03:18:20
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security detains more than 400,000 noncitizens in civil immigration detention every year. A congressional quota mandates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintain 34,000 beds daily for immigrants in detention, many in privately run detention facilities. Tens of thousands more are subject to onerous conditions of release, including high bonds and GPS tracking devices. Immigrants who are detained include asylum seekers, victims of trafficking or crimes in the United States, longtime lawful permanent residents, and others with avenues to immigration relief. Research shows that in Northern California, represented noncitizens who are released from detention are nearly three times more likely to win their immigration case as represented noncitizens who remain detained.

The writ of habeas corpus is a constitutionally-protected device by which individuals can petition a federal district court judge to remedy unlawful deprivation of liberty by government officials. Yet many immigration advocates---whose day-to-day practice is largely before administrative agencies---feel ill-equipped to enter federal court to challenge ICE and immigration court custody decisions. This training is designed to provide immigration attorneys the knowledge and tools necessary to litigate habeas petitions on behalf of detained immigrant clients.

You will learn:
  • When Can I File a Habeas Petition? – Overview of Immigration Custody Regimes and Corresponding Habeas Opportunities
  • What Are My Arguments? – Common Challenges to Detention Through Habeas and Possible Hurdles
  • How Do I Get into Federal Court? –Nuts and Bolts of Filing a Habeas Petition

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:18:20]

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

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:02:17]
    Etan Newman, Marie Vincent
  • When Can I File a Habeas? – Overview of Immigration Custody Regimes and Corresponding Habeas Opportunities [01:11:00]
    Holly S. Cooper, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • What Are My Arguments? – Common Challenges to Detention Through Habeas and Possible Hurdles [01:02:18]
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • How Do I Get Into Federal Court? –Nuts and Bolts of a Habeas Petition [01:02:45]
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale

Presentation Material

  • Habeas Petitions for Detained Immigrants Complete Course Handbook
  • When Can I File a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court? PowerPoint Slides
    Holly S. Cooper, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Detention Regimes Chart
    Holly S. Cooper, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Introduction to Habeas Corpus, 2008
    Holly S. Cooper, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Habeas Corpus: What Are My Arguments? PowerPoint Slides
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Hernandez v. Lynch, No. EDCV 16-00620-JGB (KKx), 2016 WL 7116611 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Shaboyan v. Holder, 652 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2011)
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • University of Michigan School of Law, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse Web Page
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Darweesh v. Trump, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Sample Appeal Brief on Old Convictions and Dangerousness
    Ahilan Arulanantham, Holly S. Cooper
  • Nuts and Bolts of Filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court PowerPoint Slides
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Habeas Checklist
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Sample Civil Cover Sheet and Statement of Related Cases
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Sample Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Sample Prisoner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Sample Proposed Order to Show Cause
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Sample Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Sample Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Summons in a Civil Case
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
  • Aziz v. Trump, Sample Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
    Raha Jorjani, Zachary M. Nightingale
Co-Chair(s)
Etan Newman ~ Immigration Attorney, Pangea Legal Services
Marie Vincent ~ Immigration Attorney and Co-Director, Pangea Legal Services
Speaker(s)
Ahilan Arulanantham ~ Director of Advocacy and Legal Director, ACLU Of Southern California
Holly S. Cooper ~ UC Davis School of Law
Raha Jorjani ~ Director, Immigration Representation Project, Alameda County Public Defender
Zachary M. Nightingale ~ Partner, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale
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.