Sponsors
Need help making sense of this bill?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Creates a clear legal rule letting a noncitizen challenge past or current immigration representation as constitutionally ineffective and requires courts to evaluate those claims using the Strickland v. Washington standard (deficient performance + prejudice). It defines the scope of "immigration matter," explains what counts as "prejudice," and makes the rule apply to cases pending, filed after, or already decided before the law is enacted. The change is intended to remove procedural hurdles that have forced some immigrants to bring state bar complaints before seeking immigration relief, to standardize how ineffective-assistance claims are judged in immigration proceedings, and to allow reopening or reconsideration where poor legal help likely changed the outcome.
An alien has the right to effective counsel in removal proceedings and in pursuing applications for discretionary and nondiscretionary immigration relief and benefits in the United States (consistent with the Fifth Amendment).
Effective counsel must be competent to be meaningful, and aliens do not always receive effective counsel.
Board of Immigration Appeals precedent and Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security policy have been interpreted to require aliens who have been victims of ineffective assistance of counsel to file official complaints with State bar associations before seeking further relief under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a))).
A mandatory filing of a bar complaint is unique to the application of immigration laws.
The requirement to file a bar complaint has had a chilling effect on immigration attorneys.
Adds a new section (titled '295 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel') at the end of chapter 9 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act establishing a statutory claim allowing an alien to raise ineffective assistance of counsel in any immigration matter and defining 'immigration matter' and 'prejudice'.
Amends the table of contents for the Immigration and Nationality Act by inserting a new item for the added section (295) immediately after the item relating to section 294.
Primary effect on noncitizens who were represented by counsel in removal proceedings or other immigration matters: they gain a statutory, uniform route to claim that bad legal help caused the adverse outcome. That can lead to motions to reopen, new adjudications of relief applications, or other remedial actions. Immigration courts and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) will likely see more ineffective-assistance claims and may need to allocate time and resources to resolve them; federal courts could also face more appeals and habeas petitions asserting Strickland-based errors. Legal aid organizations and private immigration attorneys will see increased demand for post-conviction/post-order review and for quality assurance, while attorneys face greater malpractice and professional-responsibility exposure. Because the rule is retroactive, previously final removal orders could be reopened where prejudice is shown, producing case-processing and administrative burdens but also potential relief for individuals who lost the chance at lawful status due to counsel errors. The legislation changes legal process and outcomes rather than funding or program structure, so direct fiscal impact is mostly operational (court/agency workload, attorney demand) rather than appropriations-driven.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced March 31, 2025 by Christopher Murphy · Last progress March 31, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate