One of the most difficult and highly complex areas of immigration law is Removal Proceedings, formerly known as Deportation Proceedings. Often an individual’s most important rights are at stake in these proceedings – their ability to live and work in the United States is at jeopardy. Their ability to come back to this country, or for that matter, even visit this country is often called into question, sometime for long periods of time, often for the duration of these individuals’ lives.
Hiring an experienced and knowledgeable immigration lawyer can make all the difference in the world. At The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, it is our number one priority to protect our clients’ best interest by providing experienced, knowledgeable, and aggressive representation in removal or deportation proceedings, while making sure that no client of ours is unjustly deported or removed from the United States.
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) imposes a non-derogable obligation on States Parties: no signatory may return a person to a country where that person faces a substantial risk of torture.
Immigration appeals sometimes outlive the appellant’s physical presence in the United States. Yet Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) regulations include a “withdrawal-by-departure” rule: 8 C.F.R. § 1003.4 provides that a respondent’s “departure” after taking an appeal, but before a Board decision, “shall constitute a withdrawal of the appeal.”
The U.S. immigration detention system is a multifaceted and ever-changing domain of law, shaped by a complex interplay of statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, and agency policies. On January 13, 2026, Chief Immigration Judge Teresa L. Riley issued comprehensive nationwide guidance from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), directly addressing the implications of the federal district court decision in Maldonado-Bautista v. Santacruz Jr..
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recently issued a precedential decision in Matter of Tepec-Garcia, clarifying the authority of immigration judges to terminate removal proceedings under specific circumstances. This ruling addresses situations where neither the respondent nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appears at a scheduled hearing, and no evidence of removability has been submitted in advance.
