I spoke at the AILA Federal Litigation Section meeting again today.  This is the second time that I’ve been asked to speak at the AILA Federal Litigation Section Meeting.  Previously, I had posted that I spoke at the AILA Federal Litigation Section meeting on November 17, 2011.

Today, I spoke about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang v. Holder.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang involves the availability of waivers pursuant to INA § 212(c) to criminal aliens.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang overturned two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals: (1) Matter of Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (2005); and (2) Matter of Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 766 (2005).  In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected the method that the Board was using to determine when deportable aliens could receive the waiver in deportation proceedings.  The Supreme Court ordered the Board to come up with a new test.  I spoke about strategies that immigration lawyers should use until there is a new test.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) has a Federal Court Litigation section for members that specialize in federal litigation.  AILA’s Federal Court Litigation section had a teleconference for its members on November 17, 2011.  I was invited to speak about litigation issues regarding waivers pursuant to INA § 212(c).  A waiver pursuant to INA § 212(c) can be used to allow a lawful permanent resident with a conviction to remain in the United States.

Because I have litigated cases like Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007) and Restrepo v. McElroy, 369 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2004), many attorneys consider me to be an expert on 212(c) relief.  Normally, when I speak at continuing legal education courses, I’m in the same room as the people that I’m speaking to.  It was kind of interesting to be able to sit in my office in New York and be able to speak to other immigration attorneys from all over the country.