My experience with Kriezelman Burton & Associates through my immigration process was so smooth. Nothing but true professionalism and help.

Chicago Immigration Litigation Attorneys

The federal courts may be useful to seek review of a Department of Homeland Security action or simple failure to act. The federal courts have the power to order the Department to take action on long-delayed applications or petitions.  This is an especially useful tool with the Immigration Service, where applications sometimes linger in the system for years on end for no known reason.  In addition, the federal courts have the power to review some decisions of the Department of Homeland Security, and even some of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals.  Federal courts may be the only recourse when a family member is detained for a lengthy period of time.  Our attorneys are experienced litigators in the federal courts.

Delay Litigation:

Under federal law, an agency of the U.S. government is required to complete a matter presented to it within a “reasonable” time.  U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services is an agency, and is therefore required to issue decisions on application within a “reasonable” time.  Sometimes, the length of time it takes the Immigration Service to decide an application falls far outside of what can be considered “reasonable” or what is normal for that type of case. In those cases, the delay may be resolved by seeking a “writ of mandamus” from a U.S. District Court.  Though the court cannot grant or deny an immigration-related application, the court may be able to order the Immigration Service to do its job, and complete adjudication of the application within a certain brief period of time.

Our attorneys are experienced, federal court practitioners.  We have sought time and again to hold the Immigration Service accountable, and worked within the court system to force the Immigration Service to issue decisions in delayed cases.

Federal Appeals:

In some cases, where a person was ordered removed and her applications denied by the Immigration Court, and then again by the Board of Immigration Appeals, she can seek additional review by a federal Court of Appeals.  This is called a “Petition for Review.” The Courts of Appeals are limited to hearing only a small number of issues.  The process is formal and particular.

Petitions for review filed in the nation’s prestigious Courts of Appeals require experienced appellate counsel.  Our attorneys have filed petitions for review, drafted and filed briefs, negotiated with opposing counsel, argued before panels, and brought cases to successful conclusions throughout the United States. We have represented clients before the Seventh, Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Other federal court actions:

Federal courts also have the power to review denied naturalization applications, to review the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to act in accordance with federal regulations, and to review some custody determinations of foreign nationals by the Department of Homeland Security.

Contact the Chicago Immigration With The Experience You Need On Your Side.

If you’re working toward citizenship, Kriezelman Burton & Associates can help. Call us at 312-332-2550 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation. Contact us now to learn more about how a Chicago, IL immigration attorney can help you or your family. For a sampling of our appellate work, please see the following opinions:

  • Niam v. Aschroft, 354 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004)
  • Abdelqadar v. Gonzalez, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005)
  • Tabaku v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 417 (7th Cir. 2005)
  • Giday v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2006)
  • Hashish v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2006)
  • Skorusa v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2007)
  • Zeqiri v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2008)
  • Hamdan v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2008)
  • Patel v. Holder, 563 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2009)
  • Rama v. Holder, 607 F. 3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010)
  • Stanojkova v. Holder, 645 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2011)
  • Pouhova v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2013)

Our Team Of Attorneys

Schedule a Consultation!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.