Authority in Immigration Strategy

Immigration practice has never been more demanding. Removal dockets are expanding, enforcement priorities are shifting, and appellate windows are narrowing. Emeriti Law works alongside solo practitioners, small firms, and large practices as behind-the-scenes co-counsel or direct partners on cases that require additional depth.

Our attorneys write and review BIA appellate briefs, consult on trial-level strategy, conduct mock hearings, and assist with complex motions practice. Attorney Aliza Lopes Baker — a former EOIR Attorney Advisor who has drafted hundreds of opinions for various Immigration Judges — leads our appellate work. When you need a brief that holds up on review, she has written from both sides of that standard. Ms. Lopes Baker knows how the BIA reviews IJ decisions and how to best defend favorable outcomes and overcome unfavorable ones.

Ryan Wood, Elizabeth Young, and Wynne Kelly have presented at AILA conferences across the country — from Minnesota to Washington, D.C. to Nashville to Chicago to Florida — on enforcement procedure, appellate practice, and immigration court operations. We are active participants in the immigration bar, not observers of it.

When a client's missteps create complications — missed deadlines, incomplete filings, or proceedings that require reopening — we work alongside existing counsel to protect the client's interests, preserve viable claims, and navigate the procedural requirements with precision. Our focus is on the facts and what can still be done even under difficult circumstances.

No organization with employees is exempt from federal immigration risk. That is not a future concern — it is the current operating environment.

Emeriti Law has counseled organizations across health care, agriculture, media, hospitality, financial services, and the nonprofit sector on the practical and legal dimensions of immigration enforcement. We have developed and delivered immigration enforcement presentations and policy reviews on understanding organizational risk — including the risk of harboring or obstruction liability, the legal boundaries of federal officer authority on private property, employee and manager rights during enforcement encounters, and proactive steps for C-suite executives and HR leadership to mitigate exposure.

Our work reflects judgment developed through years on the enforcement and adjudication side of these encounters — including experience as ICE counsel, as a federal prosecutor, and as supervising immigration judges overseeing some of the highest-volume courts in the country. We work proactively to prevent enforcement issues and reactively when worksite enforcement investigations or white-collar investigations with an immigration nexus demand immediate counsel.

Criminal convictions, family court orders, and civil judgments can carry immigration consequences that neither the client nor their attorney anticipated. For non-citizen defendants in particular, the consequences of a criminal conviction can be far more severe than the sentence itself — including mandatory deportation, permanent inadmissibility, and the loss of decades of ties to the United States.

Under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), criminal defense counsel has a constitutional obligation to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. That duty is not discharged by telling a client they “may” face immigration consequences. It requires accurate, case-specific advice — which requires understanding immigration law.

Emeriti Law provides expert declarations, in-court testimony, case-by-case consultation, and firm-wide training on immigration consequences in non-immigration proceedings. If you represent non-citizen clients in criminal, family, or civil proceedings and need an immigration analysis before you advise them, call us before the plea — not after.

If you are in removal proceedings or facing an appellate deadline, Emeriti Law offers direct representation and limited-scope services. We handle BIA appeals, motions to reopen and reconsider, asylum-based relief, and other complex removal matters.

If your case was decided without an attorney — including cases where an immigration judge pretermitted your claims or entered an order against you when you did not have counsel — you may still have options. We represent individuals whose cases were decided on the bench without the benefit of legal representation. In many of these situations, meritorious claims were never raised, the record was never developed, and the respondent never had a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

The deadline to appeal an Immigration Judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals is 30 days. If you are facing that deadline — or if you have already received an order and believe your case was not properly heard — contact us now.