Results

This report provides a thorough analysis of California’s Proposition 64, or The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and its potential impact on immigrants with marijuana offenses. The report covers the intersection of immigration and criminal law, the current impact of marijuana offenses on a variety of immigration outcomes, and the ways in which Proposition 64 could help mitigate the immigration consequences of some marijuana-related drug offenses. This report was generously funded by Drug Policy Action.

AB 813 Provides a New Vehicle to Vacate a California ConvictionSB 1242 Makes the 364-Day Misdemeanor Law RetroactiveSB 2792 (TRUTH Act) Protects the Rights of Immigrants in California Jails

A new law will go into effect January 1, 2017 that will provide people who are no longer in custody with a new way to vacate legally invalid convictions. This advisory discusses how the law can help immigrants erase old convictions thus opening up new pathways to immigration relief.

On January 25th, 2017, Trump issued two Executive Orders related to interior immigration enforcement policies. Taken together, these new policies are extremely harsh, and install a new deportation and detention enforcement scheme. This advisory is intended to provide community groups with a preliminary summary and analysis regarding these changes in interior immigration enforcement, which we will revise as we learn more about enforcement practices under the New Administration.

These flyers inform community members of the fact that it is very dangerous for any noncitizen, including a permanent resident, to discuss marijuana use with any official. This is true even if the person used marijuana in their own home and it was legal under the law of their state (because of medical or legalized marijuana state laws). Get legal counsel and get informed!

The immigration statute designates certain types of crimes as “aggravated felonies.” See INA § 101(a)(43), 8 USC § 1101(a)(43). These are the most dangerous type of convictions for a noncitizen. Despite the name, this definition reaches offenses that are neither felonies nor aggravated. It can include selling $10 worth of marijuana, a misdemeanor shoplifting offense with a one-year suspended sentence, or failure to appear at a criminal hearing. The person must be convicted of the offense, not merely commit it, for aggravated felony penalties to apply.

Students at the UC Irvine Immigrant Rights Clinic prepared a Penal Code 1473.7 motion to vacate for one of their clients and offered it as a resource for others filing similar motions. This motion is a reference tool only, and should not be used as a template or a model, nor should it be reproduced without substantial alterations. If you are filing a 1473.7 motion, you must perform your own legal research and draft your own materials, as the law in this area is rapidly changing and case-specific motions have significantly higher success rates in criminal courts.

This intake form, available in both English and Spanish, is designed to assist legal service providers and nonprofit organizations interested in screening clients for immigrant post-conviction relief services.

Immigrants who are alleged to be involved with gangs are top immigration enforcement priorities for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is true even if they have no criminal convictions and DHS is targeting them based on allegations alone. If such individuals choose to apply for immigration benefits, they may be exposing themselves to serious risk. This practice advisory discusses what gangs and gang databases are, how allegations of gang membership arise in immigration cases, the over-inclusive process law enforcement employs to allege gang membership, and strategies to identify whether your client may be labeled a gang member or associate. The purpose of this advisory is to help immigration advocates better understand how law enforcement in the United States documents and alleges gang membership or association, such that advocates are able to identify red flags in cases, and are better prepared to work with clients to assess possible risks in filing for relief.

Cal. P.C. § 261.5(c) is not an aggravated felony, but the law may change for the worse on § 261.5(d)Esquivel Quintana v. AG Sessions (May 30, 2017)

This one-page infographic summarizes the various California post-conviction relief vehicles, their requirements, and their immigration benefits.

This document provides guidelines to prosecutor offices on considering the immigration consequences of criminal cases.

In May, the US Commission on Civil Rights convened a hearing on collateral consequences. The Commission solicited testimony from thought leaders about the lingering consequences that convictions can cause. Rose Cahn submitted testimony regarding the intersection of crimes and immigration law and laid out clear policy recommendations for jurisdictions interested in mitigating or eliminating the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.

This page offers resources on “crim/imm,” the law governing the intersection of immigration and crimes, especially as it applies to California law.

Heidi Altman and Angie Junck authored this article for the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.Originally published in Lex Quod Ordo, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys Quarterly Newsletter, Winter/Spring 2014, Volume IV, Issue IV. http://www.apainc.org/

The Judicial Council of California produces forms for pro se petitioners.  The CR-180 and CR-181 forms cover various forms of “clean slate” remedies, including reducing felonies to misdemeanors (17(b)), set asides and dismissals (1203.4), and vacaturs after successful completion of probation (1203.43).  The forms also contain a notation to 18.5 which makes clear that felonies reduced to misdemeanors carry a maximum of 364-day sentence.

Prepared by Angie Junck and Raha Jorjani, this primer is designed to educate District Attorneys interested in learning more about the immigration impact of criminal convictions.

Criminal sentence can have a big impact on immigration status and eligibility for relief. In this Advisory, we discuss how immigration law treats different sentencing dispositions in general, and then apply that to California sentencing law. We talk about how advocates can use California law, including the newly amended Penal Code § 18.5, to help their clients.

This practice advisory goes through all of the ways that an arrest or conviction for California driving under the influence (DUI) can affect an immigrant, and reviews possible changes to the law. It also will discuss reckless driving as an alternative to DUI.

This introductory guide to representing clients in bond hearings is divided into two sections. The first covers basic bond topics that advocates are likely to encounter when representing any client in a bond hearing. Section two includes a review of more advanced bond topics, including how to challenge mandatory and prolonged detention.

This guide provides fundamental Know Your Rights information to immigrants in California’s criminal justice system.  It provides a review of what immigrants should know once in criminal custody, as well as what to expect if they are transferred to immigration custody.

A conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) may or may not hurt an immigrant, depending on a number of factors set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act:  the number of CIMT convictions, the potential and actual sentence, when the person committed or was convicted of the offense, and the person’s immigration situation. A single CIMT conviction might cause no damage, or it might cause a variety of penalties ranging from deportability to ineligibility for relief to mandatory detention.

As of January 1, 2018, California has changed its “Deferred Entry of Judgment” program to a true “pretrial diversion” program. See Penal Code § 1000, amended by AB 208. Qualifying defendants charged with minor drug offenses can participate in pretrial diversion without incurring a drug conviction for immigration purposes. This Advisory will discuss how pretrial diversion works, and how to assist immigrants who went through the old Deferred Entry of Judgment.

This page provides several tools: an updated and a comprehensive Practice Advisory on the legal issues; a Practice Alert on the Policy Manualamendment; community flyers that you can download and use to help warn clients and community; and a sample written warning about working in the industry from the California Employment Development Department.

This is a summary of the California Criminal and Immigration Laws Passed over the last several years to mitigate the impact of deportations, immigration enforcement, and immigration detention.

In the past four years, California voters and the California Legislature have created many new mechanisms for people to reclassify, vacate, and resentence offenses to eliminate the ongoing impact of criminal convictions. This advisory discusses how these new laws can benefit immigrants and can erase or mitigate certain criminal grounds of removability.

This advisory discusses the provisions of SB 54 (De Leon) and the California Values Act, relevant to criminal defense counsel who represent noncitizen clients. In addition to discussing specific provisions of the California Values Act, this advisory discusses how to incorporate this new law into your defense practice.

Immigration law has its own definition of what constitutes a criminal "conviction." Because most, although not all, immigration consequences require a conviction, if your client does not have a conviction the immigration case might be saved. This Advisory discusses which dispositions that come out of criminal court actually constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, and how to avoid a conviction. It has been updated to include the BIA's decision that a conviction on direct appeal of right does not have sufficient finality to be a conviction for immigration purposes.

Since 1986, the Continuing Education of the Bar, in its “Crim Law Bible,” California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, has included a chapter about representing the noncitizen criminal defendant. This chapter and the advice therein is often cited as establishing the prevailing professional norms at the date of any given conviction.

Noncitizens with certain criminal records are subject to mandatory immigration detention under INA § 236(c), 8 USC § 1226(c). This means that they may remain detained during the weeks, months, or years of their entire immigration case, without even the right to a bond hearing. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Jennings v. Rodriguez and Nielsen v. Preap have made the situation even worse, although litigation has produced some protections. This advisory outlines how to identify whether your client may be subject to mandatory detention, and what immigration advocates and criminal defense counsel can do to help their clients to avoid it.