Client Communication & Case Management Update


We are honored to represent you, and we take your case seriously.


To protect your case and to safeguard our team’s ability to advocate effectively, we are reinforcing key systems and boundaries during this period of overwhelming demand.


Please read carefully.


These updates reflect current law, court trends, and operational realities. They are designed to keep you informed, prepared, and supported.

Reminder: Staying Connected the Right Way

This information was shared upon initiation of your case (welcome); however, we are repeating it here because consistency and clarity are essential, especially during high-demand periods.


We send automated text alerts for case updates, appointment reminders, and urgent announcements. Your secure client portal remains active for document uploads, status checks, and direct communication.


These systems allow us to stay connected while focusing our limited resources on what matters most: the legal fight for your loved ones. Without them, we’d be forced to turn people away—and we refuse to let that happen. Boundaries protect our ability to keep showing up.


What You Can Expect

  • Text alerts notify you of deadlines, appointments, and urgent updates.
  • Client portal access allows you to upload documents, view case status, and send secure messages.


What to Avoid

  • Do not rely on phone calls or walk-ins. These are reserved for emergencies or scheduled appointments.
  • Do not block or ignore text alerts. You may miss critical deadlines or opportunities to protect your loved one.
  • Do not send repeated messages. If you haven’t received portal access or alerts, contact our office once. Repeated outreach causes delays for everyone.


We know this is a difficult time. These systems are designed to support you, and to ensure we can continue fighting for every family who needs us.

⚠️ What We’re Facing

We are witnessing unprecedented and gruesome acts by the government—mass detentions, coercive tactics, and legislation designed to pressure families into accepting removal. We are in this fight with you. But we are a small team of four legal professionals (About US), plus Attorney Daniel Lippmann, and every moment spent on repeated calls or non-urgent messages takes time away from the filings, motions, and advocacy that could save someone’s life.


The entire immigration legal field is inundated. Law firms across the country are experiencing record-high demand, with detention populations now exceeding 56,000 daily. This work requires a skill set not many possess—and we are doing everything we can to help those we can. The alternative is turning people in need away.


Changes are happening daily. We make every effort to stay on top of new laws, policies, and court decisions—and to adjust our strategy accordingly. This means timelines may shift, priorities may change, and urgent action may be required with little notice.

⚠️ Immigration Removal Defense: What You Should Know

  • EOIR-43: Stay of Bond ICE may file Form EOIR-43 to automatically stay a judge’s bond decision, keeping your loved one detained while ICE appeals. This tactic delays release even after a favorable ruling.


  • Civil Actions Pending: Federal lawsuits are underway challenging EOIR-43—especially in cases involving individuals who entered without inspection (EWIs). Plaintiffs argue that automatic stays violate due process and undermine judicial authority.


  • New Civil Penalty Rule (June 2025): ICE and EOIR now impose monetary penalties on individuals who fail to depart voluntarily or are apprehended while entering unlawfully. Appeals of these penalties now go directly to DHS, not immigration court.


  • Laken Riley Act (2025): This new law expands mandatory detention and limits ICE’s discretion to release individuals, even those with no violent history. It increases the risk of prolonged detention for many.


  • Transfers Outside Jurisdiction: ICE has broad discretion to move individuals to detention centers outside Nevada, often far from their families, attorneys, or pending court proceedings. If transferred, your case may be reassigned to a new immigration court. Because the immigration court is federal, we can continue to represent the client remotely, but transfers often cause delays.  Our only legal mechanism to challenge a transfer is through an emergency federal writ, filed in U.S. District Court. This option is rare, time-sensitive, and will be explained if it becomes applicable to your case. We will notify you if any legal action is possible.


  • Constitutional Pushback: Federal courts are beginning to challenge ICE’s use of military-style raids and racial profiling under the Fourth Amendment. Courts are also scrutinizing the use of expedited removal under section 235(b), especially for EWIs and those subject to EOIR-43, citing potential violations of due process and access to counsel.

⚖️Family-Based Immigration Clients - What You Need to Know

You have retained our office to handle your family-based immigration process—whether it’s a petition, adjustment of status, or consular filing. Now is not the time for missteps.


Any error, delay, or denial can trigger removal proceedings or result in long-term visa ineligibility. Visa denials—especially those based on fraud, misrepresentation, or prior immigration violations—can lead to permanent bars from reentry and may require complex legal waivers.


We want to see you succeed—and to help bring your family together. Whether your loved one is already in the U.S. or waiting abroad, our goal is to guide you through this process with clarity, care, and precision. That means following instructions, staying organized, and avoiding risky decisions that could jeopardize your case.


  • Each team member is assigned to specific case types and monitors your progress once you’ve retained our office.


  • Our standard preparation window is 90 days from the date we receive all required documents. Some cases may move faster; complex matters may take longer. This timeline is explained during intake and reflected in your onboarding materials.


  • Delays in submitting requested documents—or providing incomplete or inconsistent information—will delay your case. Multiple follow-ups slow down preparation. We cannot move forward until your file is complete and accurate. Your responsiveness and attention to detail directly affect how quickly and efficiently we can prepare and file your application.


Please note: This administration has allocated significant funding to immigration enforcement and removal operations. As a result, divisions such as USCIS and U.S. Consular Posts (embassies) may experience delays in case processing. These delays are, unfortunately, beyond our control and stem from policy decisions made at the federal level.


We remain committed to monitoring all cases while pending, and we encourage you to contact us immediately if you receive any government updates, notices, or correspondence. Timely communication helps us protect your case and respond appropriately.


Nothing is done overnight. Your active participation—responding to texts, using the portal, and following instructions—is essential to moving your case forward. We are committed to your success, but we need your full cooperation to get there.

Our Commitment in a Broken System


The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July 2025, allocated an unprecedented amount of funding to immigration enforcement and removal operations. Here's a breakdown of the key figures:


Enforcement & Removal Funding Highlights


ICE Detention Expansion - $45 billion;

Purpose: Build new ICE facilities and double detention capacity


Deportation Operations - $15 billion;

Purpose: Increase deportation flights, personnel, and logistics


ICE Personnel & Infrastructure - $30 billion;

Purpose: Bonus pay, recruitment, training, vehicles, and enforcement tools


DHS Slush Funds (Enforcement Use) - $12.1 billion;

Flexible funds for DHS, much of which may be directed to ICE


This brings the total enforcement-related funding to over $100 billion, with ICE’s budget alone tripling compared to previous years. The administration expects this surge to result in:


  • A 50% increase in ICE personnel
  • A 100% expansion in detention capacity
  • A 268% increase in removals by 2029


⚠️ What This Means for Clients


This massive investment in enforcement has already begun to strain the processing capacity of USCIS and U.S. Consular Posts. While enforcement operations are being supercharged, case adjudication and visa processing are facing delays, a direct consequence of federal priorities.


We do not agree with the priorities of this administration, especially the decision to invest billions in detention and deportation while families wait years for reunification. But we remain steadfast in our mission: to advocate, to prepare, and to protect.


Our commitment is to you, not to the politics. We will continue to monitor every case, respond to every update, and fight for every opportunity to move your process forward.


Justice may be delayed, but it is not abandoned. We’re with you—every step of the way.


Source: H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress; TITLE IX--COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

⚠️ Out of Custody - In Removal or

With a Pending Immigration Process

Your freedom is a privilege—and a responsibility. If you are out of custody but still in removal proceedings or have a pending immigration case, it is absolutely critical that you avoid any legal trouble. Arrests of any kind—even for minor offenses—can severely impact your case and may result in detention or removal.


  • Stay out of trouble. Avoid any situation that could lead to police contact, citations, or criminal charges. Your caution and cooperation are essential. We are doing everything we can to protect your case—but we need you to protect yourself too.


  • Be prepared. Keep our office card with you at all times in case of an emergency, and make sure your loved ones have our contact information. If you are detained or face unexpected legal trouble, this can help ensure we are notified quickly and can respond appropriately.


  • Pending cases: We are actively monitoring your case. If we haven’t contacted you, it means there is no action required from you at this time. Immigration cases often involve long waiting periods, and not every phase requires immediate updates or filings.


Please do not flood our office with updates unless instructed. We are managing high volumes and will initiate contact when your case requires it. In the meantime, keep your contact information updated and check your portal for any new messages or document requests.

What We Ask of You

  • Use text and the client portal—these are the fastest ways to stay informed.
  • Do not call or message repeatedly—this delays help for everyone.
  • Allow 1-2 business days for non-urgent responses.
  • Make sure your contact information is current.
  • Please be prepared when we contact you—have documents ready, follow instructions carefully, and respond promptly.

💛 Patience & Purpose — Everyone Matters

We know the waiting is hard. The fear is real. And the stakes feel unbearable. But we ask you to remember:

You matter. Your loved ones matters. Every case matters.


We are not choosing one person over another. We are triaging based on urgency, risk, and legal opportunity, so that no one is forgotten, and no one is rushed into failure.


Please be patient. Please trust that we are working quietly, urgently, and relentlessly on behalf of every client we’ve committed to.


Your case is not just paperwork. It’s a life. And we treat it that way.

Victory for Due Process: A Landmark Update for Our Community

By Lilliana Mier Lartigue • April 14, 2026
The Ruling: A Rejection of Unlawful Detention On March 30, 2026, Judge Richard F. Boulware II issued a landmark decision in Jacobo-Ramirez v. Mullin (Case No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC). The court granted a class-wide declaratory judgment, officially ruling that the government’s policy of mandatory detention for certain individuals was unlawful. For years, the government has argued that people arrested deep within the U.S. interior could be held indefinitely without a bond hearing. Judge Boulware has now decisively rejected that interpretation, vacating the policies that allowed for this practice. What This Victory Means The court's ruling has created an immediate path for relief for many individuals currently held at the Nevada Southern Detention Center: Right to a Bond Hearing: Members of the " Jacobo-Ramirez Class " are now entitled to a prompt bond hearing where the government—not the individual—must prove that continued detention is necessary. Release Orders: In several cases, the court has already ordered that if a constitutionally adequate hearing is not held by mid-April, detainees must be released on their own recognizance. Systemic Accountability: By vacating these federal policies, the court has ensured that the right to due process remains a standard, not an exception, in Nevada. Our Continued Support This victory has been a long time coming. Our community may remember our earlier work on the Maldonado case, which sought the foundational injunction for our valley. While we eventually stepped back from that litigation to focus on other advocacy efforts, we are incredibly proud to see the ACLU and their partners take those early seeds and run them through to this massive success. It is a testament to the power of a coordinated legal network, where one organization’s spark can lead to a community-wide flame of justice. We remain committed to ensuring our community has the information they need to advocate for their loved ones. If you believe a family member may be a member of this class, it is important to consult with legal counsel regarding their right to a bond hearing under this new precedent. We applaud the tireless work of the legal teams who secured this victory. We will continue to monitor these developments and share how they impact the families we serve every day. In Solidarity, Team Lippmann

Historic Rise in Immigrant Habeas Petitions

By Lilliana Mier Lartigue • March 16, 2026
A significant increase in habeas petitions filed by immigrants challenging their detention has been observed in federal courts during the early part of President Trump's second term. According to a ProPublica analysis, this surge has surpassed the combined number of such petitions filed under the previous three presidential administrations, marking a historic high. Key Findings: Historic Influx: The number of habeas cases filed in federal courts has reached unprecedented levels, with a ProPublica analysis revealing that in the first 13 months of the second Trump administration, more petitions were filed than during the entire Obama, Trump (first term), and Biden administrations combined. Daily Filing Rate: On average, immigrants are filing over 200 habeas petitions daily across the country. Geographic Concentration: California and Texas account for a substantial portion (approximately 40%) of the new cases being filed. Driver of Increase: The dramatic rise in habeas petitions is directly linked to the Trump administration's policies focused on accelerating deportations. These policies mandate that most immigrants who entered the country illegally remain in detention while their immigration cases are pending. Legal Context: Lawyers argue that these new policies disrupt decades of established legal precedent that allowed immigrants with deep ties to the community and minimal security risks to remain in the US while their cases progressed. Judicial Response and Ramifications: Judges Siding with Immigrants: While federal appeals courts have sometimes supported the administration's detention policies, a vast majority of federal district judges are ruling in favor of immigrants. Politico's analysis indicates that over 300 judges have ruled against the administration's new policies, compared to only 14 who have upheld them. Consequences of Rulings: These judicial rulings are forcing the government to release immigrants from detention or provide them with bond hearings to determine eligibility for release. Overwhelmed System: The unprecedented surge in habeas cases is placing a massive strain on the federal court system and the resources of both immigrant advocates and government attorneys. Administration Position: DHS Stance: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials maintain they are fully enforcing federal immigration law and attribute the backlog to federal judges who they contend are not adhering to the law. Broader Context: Increasing Detention Numbers: The number of immigrants held in detention has grown significantly, from approximately 40,000 when Trump first took office to over 70,000 currently. Shifting Demographics in Detention: While the number of recent border crossers in detention has decreased, arrests by federal immigration agents elsewhere in the country have tripled, according to the Deportation Data Project. Conclusion: The historic rise in habeas petitions filed by immigrants highlights the profound impact of the Trump administration's immigration policies on the federal judiciary and the lives of immigrants. This ongoing trend points towards continued legal challenges and heightened public scrutiny of the immigration detention system. Reference: Pratheek Rebala, Jeff Ernsthausen, and Perla Trevizo, "Habeas Petitions Filed in Second Trump Term Hit Historic High," ProPublica, February 10, 2026, https://www.propublica.org/article/habeas-petitions-immigrant-detentions-trump

Nationwide Class Relief Granted in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz

By Liliana Mier • November 26, 2025
Today marks a major step forward for immigrant families. In Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz , Judge Sunshine S. Sykes certified a nationwide class of detained immigrants entitled to bond hearings under INA § 1226. This ruling strikes down DHS’s recent policy of treating long‑time residents as “applicants for admission” and denying them the chance to seek release. Background: Maldonado in Nevada Earlier this year, our firm filed Maldonado v. Feeley in Nevada, challenging ICE’s automatic stay policy. Judge Boulware issued an injunction after Hurtado, rejecting the government’s new interpretation of detention statutes. While nationwide class relief was not available in that case, the injunction paved the way for individuals in our district to file habeas petitions and secure bond hearings. Today’s Victory The Bautista ruling builds on those district‑level efforts and extends relief nationwide: Nationwide Class Certification: All qualifying detainees across the U.S. must now be given bond hearings. Declaratory Relief: The court declared DHS’s July 2025 policy unlawful, ensuring families are not left in indefinite detention. Immediate Impact: Tens of thousands of detained immigrants now have a pathway to seek release. What This Means for Families Bond hearings are now guaranteed nationwide for those covered by the class. ICE can no longer rely on its July 2025 policy to block hearings. Families can expect faster opportunities for release and reunification. Our Commitment We remain dedicated to pursuing relief on both fronts: Continuing our Nevada litigation to ensure ICE cannot delay release through unlawful automatic stays. Leveraging today’s nationwide declaratory relief to secure bond hearings for our clients and their families. Bottom Line: District‑level victories like Maldonado paved the way, and today’s nationwide ruling in Bautista delivers a sweeping win for immigrant communities across the country. Closing Note This nationwide victory would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the ACLU and its litigation team. Their tireless advocacy has ensured that immigrant families across the country now have meaningful access to bond hearings and a fair chance at release. We applaud their commitment and join in celebrating this important step toward justice.

Immigration Bond - Post July 2025

By Lilliana Mier Lartigue • November 24, 2025
Due to recent changes in how ICE and the Immigration Court handle certain cases—especially for individuals who entered without inspection (EWI)—many clients are being informed that the Immigration Judge has “no jurisdiction” to grant them bond. That’s not the end of the story. Here is the step-by-step process we are now following for many detained clients in Nevada: 1. First Step: Bond Request in Immigration Court We first file a bond motion in Immigration Court, like normal. At the bond hearing, the Immigration Judge will often say something like: “I don’t have jurisdiction to set bond because DHS says you’re detained under INA § 235 / 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” In many current cases, the IJ does not weigh danger or flight risk at all – they deny bond only because they believe the law doesn’t allow them to set bond. We need this denial on the record so we can present it to the federal judge and show exactly what is happening. 2. Second Step: Habeas Petition in Federal Court After bond is denied for “lack of jurisdiction,” we file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (federal court). In that petition, we argue that: The government is using the wrong detention statute; People who are long-term residents arrested in Nevada and in regular § 1229a removal proceedings) should be detained, if at all, under INA § 236 / 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows bond; and The Immigration Court is wrongly refusing even to consider bond. 3. What the Federal Judge Has Been Doing (Current Pattern) In recent similar cases, the federal judge (Judge Boulware) has: Rejected the government’s “no bond jurisdiction” theory, and Issued orders that: Require the government to give a new bond hearing by a specific deadline, and Make clear that, at that hearing, the Immigration Judge cannot deny bond based on “no jurisdiction. Instead, the Immigration Judge must go back to the normal bond standard under § 1226(a): Consider whether the individual is a danger to the community; Consider whether you are a flight risk; and Weigh your family ties, work history, community support, and alternatives to detention. In other words, we get a real bond hearing on the merits, not just a one-line “no jurisdiction” denial. 4. If the Government Does Not Comply In those same cases, the judge has also made clear that: If the government does not schedule and hold the new bond hearing by the court’s deadline, → they must release the person from custody. So, the government’s options become: Hold a proper bond hearing on time, or Release the individual if they cannot or will not comply with the federal court order. 5. How Your Federal Case Records Are Managed (PACER, Sealing, and Access) Federal court records are handled very differently from state court records. Our office has an attorney PACER account (the federal courts’ online system) that we use to file documents and to monitor your case. You are welcome to create your own PACER account if you are able to and wish to see what is publicly available in your case. However, it’s important to understand: Immigration-related cases often involve sensitive personal information, and, under Nevada law and court practice, portions of these records may be sealed or partially sealed. That means not everything will be visible to you in PACER, even if you create your own login. Some filings, attachments, or orders may only be accessible to the parties’ attorneys and the court. We will always keep you informed about important filings and orders in your case. If you’re interested in setting up your own PACER account, we can provide general guidance on where to start. However, please note that your access will be limited by federal and state confidentiality rules. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account Please note: this link goes directly to PACER — it is not managed by our office. Important Notes for Clients Every case is different; past results do not guarantee future outcomes, even if the facts are similar. The federal judge can still decide that detention is lawful. Laws and policies can change. All of this is to be reviewed at the time of your specific case review.

Client Update: Federal Court Grants Injunction in Maldonado v. Feeley, Striking Down ICE’s Automatic Stay Policy

By Lilliana Mier Lartigue • October 17, 2025
On September 9, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a landmark ruling in Maldonado Vázquez v. Feeley et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, granting a preliminary injunction and ordering the same-day release of our client, Miguel Maldonado Vázquez, from ICE custody. The court found that DHS’s use of the automatic stay provision under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) — which blocks Immigration Judge bond orders — violated Mr. Maldonado’s constitutional rights, both facially and as applied. This litigation began as a dual complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on behalf of Mr. Maldonado and similarly situated individuals. The complaint includes a putative class action challenging the systemic use of the automatic stay to override Immigration Judge bond determinations. The court’s injunction — one of the first known in the District of Nevada addressing this issue — now paves the way for broader relief and future challenges. The decision came just days after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado , 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), adopting DHS’s sweeping new interpretation of INA § 1225(b)(2) to mandate detention for nearly all noncitizens who entered without inspection, regardless of their ties to the United States or location of apprehension. In direct contrast, the federal court affirmed that due process cannot be suspended by regulation, and that liberty must be protected even in the face of bureaucratic overreach. Mr. Maldonado, a longtime Las Vegas resident, father of three U.S. citizen children, and small business owner, was detained in July 2025 during a roadside stop far from any border or port of entry. Despite having no criminal history and deep community ties, ICE invoked the automatic stay to prevent his release after an Immigration Judge found he posed no danger or flight risk. Our legal team argued that the automatic stay deprived Mr. Maldonado of due process and prolonged his detention unlawfully. The court agreed. This litigation was initiated by our small team in Las Vegas — not by a national organization, but by a local legal team committed to protecting our clients and resisting injustice in our own community. We drew strength and strategy from prior cases, including Herrera Torralba v. Feeley , Case No. 2:25-cv-01366-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), and Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock , Case No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.), whose counsel we thank for their foundational work. We are also deeply appreciative of the assistance provided by both local and national chapters of the ACLU. These cases helped expose the systemic misuse of the automatic stay and the absence of lawful DHS certifications, and we are proud to have carried that momentum forward in Nevada. The challenges we faced were immense. Transfers, silence, procedural gamesmanship — all designed to break resolve. But we refused to bend. This victory is a token of resistance. It has already helped others in Nevada secure release, restore hope, and reclaim their voice. And it reminds us that even in the face of systemic injustice, justice is still possible. The case remains active. Our request for declaratory relief is pending, and we continue to pursue class-wide remedies for those subjected to unconstitutional detention under DHS’s automatic stay policy. We will also continue to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ holding in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which seeks to expand mandatory detention far beyond statutory limits. This fight is not over — and we remain steadfast in our commitment to liberty, due process, and community defense. We will continue to fight. We will continue to file. And we will not be moved. For press inquiries or to learn more about our litigation efforts, contact: Lipp Law LLC 📍 2580 Sorrel St, Las Vegas, NV 89146 📧 info@lipplaw.vegas Case Citation: Maldonado Vázquez v. Feeley et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.)

BIA Eliminates Bond Hearings: What Matter of Yajure Hurtado Means for Immigrants

By Lilliana Mier Lartigue • September 8, 2025
On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a major decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that will affect thousands of immigrants in the United States. In this ruling, the BIA held that individuals who entered the U.S. without being formally admitted are no longer eligible for bond hearings before an immigration judge. Instead, they must remain in detention while their cases are pending—unless the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants discretionary parole, which is rare and difficult to obtain. Why This Matters Immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years without admission may now face indefinite detention during removal proceedings. Immigration judges have been stripped of their authority to grant release on bond in these cases. The only option for release is parole, which is entirely within DHS’s discretion. This decision builds on earlier cases like Matter of Q. Li and a July 2025 ICE memo that instructed officers to treat nearly all undocumented immigrants as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention. How We Can Help At Lipp Law LLC, we understand how devastating this ruling can be for families. Our team can help you: Evaluate parole requests File Federal legal challenges where possible Explore all available relief options for detained loved ones If you or a family member is affected by this change, contact us today for a consultation. Call us at (702) 745-4700 or schedule a case review here .