The Guerra Law Firm

The Guerra Law Firm Abogada De Inmigracion y Defensa Criminal/Immigration and Criminal Defense Attorney Con dos localidades convenientes en Colorado Springs y Littleton.

Peticiones, cancelacion de deportacion para residentes y personas sin status, ajuste de status, perdones, visas "U" (para victimas de crimenes).

08/13/2026

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of DELCARMEN-LARA, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026).
A departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is a “departure” within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), overruled.

07/02/2026

The 5th circuit got involved today on detention for immigrants and found bond is required

The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall . . . be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend.
V. In 2001, the Supreme Court stated that the Due Process Clause protects
“all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their
presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693–94 (2001). It is part of the historic majesty of this
long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic
rights to those within our boundaries, including a right to be heard when
personal liberty is taken.

07/01/2026

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a unanimous 3-0 decision in Quiroz v. Mullin, ruling that the federal government cannot enforce a mandatory detention policy against long-term noncitizens arrested in the interior of the United States. The precedent-setting ruling directly rejects the administration's recent legal shift toward denying bond hearings to interior detainees.

06/18/2026

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the government can constitutionally hold noncitizens in mandatory immigration detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing. On June 15, 2026, the justices granted a review petition from the Trump administration in the case Genalo v. Black. The administration is challenging a lower court ruling that favored detained immigrants

05/12/2026

Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court of Colorado directed ICE to implement new training and reporting procedures to address its “manifest noncompliance” with the preliminary injunction he issued in November. ICE officers in Colorado, he wrote then, were “routinely” violating federal law by making warrantless arrests without showing probable cause that the individual poses a flight risk.

“The Court finds that defendants have demonstrated material noncompliance with the (preliminary injunction order) and relief at this juncture is warranted and necessary,” Jackson wrote.

05/11/2026

BREAKING: 6th Circ. Becomes 3rd To Reject Trump's No-Bond Policy
By Britain Eakin
A divided Sixth Circuit panel ruled Monday that 11 noncitizens were improperly detained under the mandatory detention provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, joining the Second and Eleventh Circuits in holding that noncitizens arrested in the U.S. interior are entitled to bond hearings.

The 10th Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments soon regarding the Government's challenges to mandatory detention p...
05/11/2026

The 10th Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments soon regarding the Government's challenges to mandatory detention policies under Section 1225(b). These policies have frequently been contested through habeas corpus petitions, which seek bond hearings for individuals facing prolonged detention. The outcome of these arguments could significantly impact how detention is handled for those subject to Section 1225(b) in the future. Will the 10th Circuit join the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit, and find in favor or bond?

04/25/2026

This should be alarming:

The respondent was placed in removal proceedings upon the filing of a notice to appear with the Immigration Court on August 5, 2025. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) (2026). The notice to appear charged her with removability under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2024), as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The respondent filed a motion to terminate her removal proceedings without prejudice because she is a
recipient of DACA and alleges prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen. DHS opposed the respondent’s motion to terminate, arguing that deferred action does not confer any right or entitlement to remain in or reenter the United States and
does not prohibit DHS from moving forward with removal proceedings.DHS also noted that there is no evidence indicating the respondent’s spouse had filed an immigrant visa petition on the respondent’s behalf

04/25/2026

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026).

The Immigration Judge erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent has been accorded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and without considering the reasons for any opposition to termination.

Time alone doesn’t change your immigration status.
04/23/2026

Time alone doesn’t change your immigration status.

Address

3600 S Yosemite Street Ste. , 530
Denver, CO
80237

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm
Friday 8am - 12pm
1pm - 5pm

Telephone

+13033470900

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Guerra Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to The Guerra Law Firm:

Shortcuts

Share

Category