Legal info for lawyers
Disclaimer: Legal Information Only – Not Legal Advice. VAAP provides resources on this website for informational purposes only. While we strive to offer helpful, relevant, and accurate information, the legal landscape is constantly evolving, and we cannot guarantee that all resources or content here remain up-to-date. The information on this website is not intended as legal advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. Every legal situation is unique, and individuals should consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to their case. VAAP is a small team with limited capacity, and while we do our best to connect you with valuable information, we are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the resources provided by third parties. Please verify the reliability of any external sources and updates to the law before relying on any information found here.
Resources introducing immigration law and practice
Resources introducing asylum law and practice
-
-
-
Several organizations publish example completed I-589s that VAAP would considered complete and appropriate for filing an initial claim, assuming everything stated is true and correct to the best of the asylum seeker’s knowledge:
Sample I-589 by Tahirih Justice
Download Human Rights First’s tips for filling out Form I-589
-
-
-
-
Resources about special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) and other youth matters
Resources about criminal-immigration law and practice
Resources about nationality-specific immigration relief
Practice alerts highlighting important changes to immigration law and policy
-
-
In Akinsanya v. Garland, the First Circuit held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) unlawfully applied Fifth Circuit precedent in assessing acquiescence to torture, rejecting the approach as inconsistent with First Circuit law. The court reaffirmed its two-part framework for determining governmental acquiescence and, for the first time, acknowledged the United Nations Committee Against Torture’s due diligence standard for evaluating breaches of a legal duty to prevent torture. No. 24-1412, ___ F.4th ___ (1st Cir. 2025).
In Escobar Larin v. Garland, the First Circuit rejected the agency’s determination that the petitioner could not invoke the changed circumstances exception to the one-year asylum filing deadline due to pre-existing eligibility on a different basis. The court also implicitly endorsed an aggregate approach to analyzing torture claims under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), requiring consideration of all sources of potential torture collectively rather than in isolation. No. 23-2088, ___ F.4th ___ (1st Cir. 2025).
In De Pena-Paniagua v. Barr, the First Circuit remanded the petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal case, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in categorically rejecting her proposed particular social group of "women unable to leave a domestic relationship." The court found the BIA’s decision arbitrary and inadequately reasoned, emphasizing that such groups are not inherently deficient and require individualized examination. 957 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2020).
Resources about speaking with the help of an interpreter
Resources about holding the government accountable on a case-by-case basis