On March 20, students from Minnesota Law’s Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic, Kristen Eiswerth ’26 and Nikita Deep ’26, advanced arguments with significant consequences for immigration law before a panel of federal judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Eiswerth and Deep, third-year students in the Clinic, worked together on an appeal that raises important questions about how courts should interpret key provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The litigation centers on the proper application of the categorical approach, a doctrine used to determine whether a state conviction triggers severe immigration consequences.
At oral argument, Eiswerth presented the case before the court, drawing on months of joint work developing the legal strategy and briefing.
“This was our opportunity to really bring the case to life for the court—to help them understand not just the effect this decision will have on our client, but also the import of the legal issues themselves,” Eiswerth says. “This case has the potential to affect how certain criminal convictions are applied in the immigration context and what process the immigration courts are required to follow when barring noncitizens from relief. I was excited to have this opportunity to advocate for our client and contextualize the broader stakes for the court. And as a law student, I learned so much from this experience that I will take into my future career as a litigator.”
Deep played an equally central role throughout the litigation, helping to shape the legal arguments, conduct extensive research, and draft the briefing submitted to the court. Together, they authored the principal and reply briefs and spent weeks preparing for oral argument.
“It’s incredibly rewarding to see all the hours of prep and complex research distilled into such sharp advocacy at the podium, and to support these arguments from the counsel table,” Deep says. “Having been a part of this case for nearly two years—working with such a fantastic team—there’s something especially meaningful about holding those briefs in my hand, listening to the arguments unfold, and just recognizing how much we want this win for our client.”
The matter reflects the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic’s longstanding commitment to high-impact appellate advocacy, particularly at the intersection of immigration and criminal law. At issue is whether the underlying state statute is broader than the federal definitions that trigger immigration consequences, a question with implications beyond this individual appeal.
The litigation also highlights the Clinic’s deep collaboration with national partners. The students co-counseled the matter with the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) in Chicago and were supervised by Nadia Anguiano ’17, director of the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic, and Mary Georgevich ‘18, an adjunct professor at the Law School and senior litigation attorney at NIJC. Together with NIJC, the team represents a collaborative model that bridges legal education, public interest practice, and national advocacy organizations.
“This case reflects the kind of work our students are trained to do,” Anguiano says. “They are engaging with difficult legal questions that have profound consequences for individuals and families, while contributing to the development of the law in federal courts.”
The case further demonstrates the enduring role of Clinic alumni in ongoing advocacy. Alex Lloyd ’25, now an Immigrant Justice Corps Attorney Fellow at NIJC, first worked on the matter as a student in the Clinic and has remained actively involved following graduation. Her continued engagement reflects a hallmark of the Clinic’s model, in which matters often extend beyond a single semester and students remain connected to their work as it progresses through the courts.
Opportunities for law students to argue before a federal court of appeals are rare. For Eiswerth and Deep, the experience marks the culmination of months of intensive work, from developing legal theories and drafting briefs to participating in moot courts and refining their oral advocacy.