I’m on the Amicus Committee for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). When there are cases involving immigration law with important issues, AILA likes to be heard on these issues. The Amicus Committee writes briefs for AILA on these important issues. I recently filed an amicus brief for AILA in a case before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board requested briefing from AILA about whether or not the Board should reconsider its decision in Matter of Acosta-Hidalgo, 24 I. & N. Dec. 586 (BIA 2007). In Matter of Acosta-Hidalgo, the Board held that a motion to terminate removal proceedings to apply for naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f) requires a statement from either a U.S. District Court or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) that the individual is eligible for naturalization. Due to a technicality in the immigration laws, once someone is placed in removal proceedings, neither a U.S. District Court or CIS may consider a naturalization application. Thus, under the Board’s interpretation of the regulation, no one can ever have their proceedings terminated. In the brief, I argued that an Immigration Judge has the power to make all the determinations that are necessary for termination for naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f). Immigration attorneys Russell R. Abrutyn and Vikram K. Badrinath worked with me on the brief. If we are successful, this case could be very important because it would give people facing deportation an additional way to fight their case.