Federal Court Representation
Federal Immigration Litigation: Challenging agency delays, unlawful detention, and reviewable immigration decisions.
Former DHS Trial Attorney and former Immigration Judge Sammy Aliferis brings experience from government service, the immigration bench, and private practice to the evaluation of federal immigration matters.
Family member in immigration detention? Call the office to request a case review.
Sammy Aliferis, Esq.
Admitted in 19 federal courts, including the Eleventh Circuit.
Read Sammy's backgroundHow Federal Court Differs From Immigration Court
Federal immigration cases arise when the standard administrative process has failed — when agencies delay indefinitely, make unlawful decisions, or violate your constitutional rights. In these situations, the federal district courts and courts of appeals become the arena where justice is pursued.
Unlike immigration court proceedings before EOIR, federal litigation takes place in Article III courts with independent judges who are not part of the executive branch. This independence is critical when challenging agency overreach, unconstitutional detention, or years of bureaucratic inaction.
Attorney Sammy Aliferis brings a distinctive perspective to federal immigration litigation. Having served as a DHS Trial Attorney and as an Immigration Judge, he has direct experience with how federal agencies build and defend their positions — experience he applies when evaluating the legal basis for challenging agency action in federal court. Based in Miami, he represents clients in federal district courts and the Eleventh Circuit, and nationwide where admitted. English, Spanish, and Portuguese consultations available.
Areas of Federal Practice
Federal Remedies We Pursue
Agency Delays: Mandamus and APA Claims
When an immigration application remains pending, the firm evaluates whether a mandamus or Administrative Procedure Act claim may be available to seek legally required agency action. The analysis considers the application, the circumstances of the delay, and the court's authority.
A lawsuit seeking a decision does not guarantee approval. Challenges to existing agency decisions involve a different analysis and are addressed below.
Immigration Detention and Habeas Corpus
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in federal district court challenges the lawfulness of immigration detention. It may be appropriate when ICE or DHS is holding someone without adequate legal basis, when detention has become prolonged without a meaningful bond hearing, or when due process rights have been violated. If a court finds detention unlawful, it may order a bond hearing or release. Filing does not automatically result in release; the court evaluates the specific legal basis for detention.
A challenge to detention is separate from the underlying question of whether the person may remain in the United States.
Federal Appellate Review
A Petition for Review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals is the proper vehicle for challenging a final order of removal after the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled. This is distinct from a BIA appeal, which is an administrative proceeding within the executive branch. Strict deadlines apply, and filing a petition does not automatically stay removal — a separate motion for a stay of removal must be filed and granted.
Reviewable Agency Decisions and Policies
Federal courts can review certain agency decisions and policies that affect immigration benefits — including denials that lack a lawful basis, policy changes that conflict with statute or regulation, and constitutional claims. The scope of review depends on the type of decision and the applicable law. Not all agency decisions are subject to federal court review; a case evaluation will assess whether judicial review is available in a particular matter.
Not sure which remedy fits your case?
A consultation helps us assess whether federal litigation may be an option and what additional information is needed to evaluate your case.
How We Work
Our Federal Litigation Process
Case Evaluation
We review your immigration history, prior proceedings, and agency actions to assess whether federal litigation is a viable option and what legal basis may exist for the claim.
Strategy & Filing
If the firm accepts representation, we develop a strategy within the agreed scope of work and prepare the appropriate filings.
Litigation & Negotiation
We litigate the matter on its merits while remaining attentive to any agency response. Whether a case resolves through court order, agency action, or otherwise depends on the facts and the applicable law.
Resolution
Whether through court order, settlement, or agency action, we pursue the outcome that best serves your immigration goals.
Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Reviewed by Attorney Sammy Aliferis — October 2026
Still have questions? Ask us directly.
For Families
Preparing for a Detention Consultation
If a family member is currently detained by ICE or DHS, a consultation can help you understand the legal basis for the detention, available options, and next steps. To make the most of a consultation, it helps to have the following information available if possible:
- The detained person’s full legal name and date of birth
- The facility or location where they are being held, if known
- Any paperwork received from ICE, DHS, or the immigration court — including any bond determination or hearing notice
- The current stage of any immigration court proceedings, if applicable
You do not need to have all of this information before calling. The consultation is designed to help us understand the situation and identify what options may be available. You do not need all of this information before calling. Contact the office to explain that the inquiry concerns immigration detention. Please do not send sensitive records through the general contact form or ordinary email until the office provides instructions for sharing them.
Your Federal Case Deserves Experienced Counsel
Contact us today for a confidential consultation about your federal immigration matter.
Submitting an inquiry does not establish an attorney-client relationship, extend a deadline, or stop removal. The firm must confirm whether it can accept representation.
