By Asukwo Mendie Archibong, Esq., licensed in D.C. & Maryland
As cross state legal representation becomes more common in a remote work era, federal administrative employment practice is often compared to federal immigration practice. Both areas involve federal agencies that authorize representation independent of state residency, but the two systems operate under different statutory frameworks, regulatory structures and professional practice boundaries. Understanding these distinctions is essential for attorneys navigating multistate matters.
Federal Agencies Govern Representation in Both Systems
In both employment and immigration matters, federal agencies do not state bars determine who may appear before them.
Employment representation typically occurs before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board. Immigration representation occurs before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which includes the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
In each system, eligibility to appear is tied to federal regulations rather than the claimant’s state of residence.
Immigration Practice Has a Formal Accreditation System
A key difference is that immigration law includes a federal accreditation structure that does not exist in employment practice. Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 292 and 1292, representation may be provided by:
• Attorneys admitted in any U.S. jurisdiction
• Accredited representatives authorized by the Department of Justice
• Recognized nonprofit organizations that supervise accredited representatives
Federal employment agencies do not authorize non lawyer representatives in this manner.
Cross State Representation Is Permitted in Both Areas
Both systems allow attorneys licensed in one state to represent clients nationwide in federal administrative proceedings. A lawyer admitted in Maryland may handle an EEOC charge in California, just as a lawyer admitted in D.C. may represent a client in an immigration case pending in Texas or New York.
The attorney’s state of licensure does not restrict federal administrative representation.
State Unauthorized Practice Rules Still Apply
Despite federal authorization, state unauthorized practice of law rules remain fully enforceable.
In employment matters, federal authority does not permit state court appearances, state law employment advice or federal court litigation without proper admission. In immigration matters, federal authority does not permit state law family court representation, criminal defense or state specific legal advice outside the immigration context.
Federal administrative permission is not a substitute for state licensure in either system.
Immigration Practice Is More Uniform; Employment Practice Is More Fragmented
Immigration law operates under a single statutory framework the Immigration and Nationality Act with nationwide regulations, standardized forms and a unified administrative court system. Employment law, by contrast, involves multiple federal statutes, multiple agencies and varied procedures across regions.
The result is a more centralized structure in immigration practice and a more decentralized one in employment practice.
Litigation Pathways Differ
Employment matters may proceed to federal district court, state court or arbitration, depending on the claims. Immigration matters proceed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and, if necessary, to the federal circuit courts through petitions for review. District court involvement is limited to specific habeas or constitutional issues.
Immigration litigation is exclusively federal, while employment litigation may be federal or state.
Scope of Representation Is Narrower in Immigration Practice
Immigration representation is limited to immigration benefits, removal defense, humanitarian applications and related appeals. Employment representation may include discrimination claims, wage and hour matters, labor relations, retaliation claims, workplace investigations and contract disputes.
Employment practice is broader in subject matter, while immigration practice is more specialized.
Conclusion
Federal immigration practice and federal administrative employment practice share a common feature: both allow cross state representation under federal authority. But the systems diverge in structure, accreditation, litigation pathways and the scope of permissible work. Attorneys navigating multistate matters must understand these differences to remain compliant with federal regulations and state unauthorized practice rules while providing effective representation in an increasingly interconnected legal landscape.
