Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a statutory procedure for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration matters.
It allows an alien to raise a claim if prior counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced the proceeding, defines key terms, and applies the standard to past, present, and future cases.
The bill references Strickland v.
Narrow, rights‑focused change with limited fiscal effect improves prospects, but immigration politics and retroactivity amplify resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines the problem and creates a substantive statutory right to raise ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in immigration matters with basic definitions and broad retroactive application, but it lacks detailed procedural mechanics, implementation direction, fiscal acknowledgement, edge-case handling, and accountability provisions.
Due process expansion versus finality of removal orders
Due process expansion versus finality of removal orders
Likely supportive because the bill expands due-process protections and access to effective counsel in immigration proceedings.
It removes procedural barriers that have deterred immigrants from seeking relief and aligns immigration law with criminal law standards for attorney performance.
Cautiously favorable: appreciates clearer, uniform standard for ineffective assistance claims but worries about administrative consequences and cost.
Support would likely depend on implementation details, timetables, and funding to prevent backlogs.
Likely skeptical or opposed because the bill may undermine the finality of removal orders and impose new burdens on immigration enforcement.
Concern centers on incentives for delay and additional administrative costs to process widespread claims.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, rights‑focused change with limited fiscal effect improves prospects, but immigration politics and retroactivity amplify resistance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Due process expansion versus finality of removal orders
Narrow, rights‑focused change with limited fiscal effect improves prospects, but immigration politics and retroactivity amplify resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines the problem and creates a substantive statutory right to raise ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in immigration matters with basic definitions…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.