Results

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.

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.

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

So you’ve won a 1473.7 motion, now what? For immigration purposes it’s important to document the victory and secure a signed order from an immigration judge. The signed order need not go into great detail; under Matter of Pickering, it is sufficient for the order to state generally that the conviction was vacated on a ground of legal invalidity. Attached please find a sample order for a grant of a 1473.7 motion.

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.

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.

The Trump Administration has announced the “phase-out” of DACA, and tens of thousands of DACA recipients must decide whether to apply for a last renewal.  Other DACA recipients are wondering what may happen to them if they can’t or don’t renew.  This is an especially worrisome situation for DACA recipients who have a criminal record. Acknowledging that we don’t yet have clear answers, this advisory will provide information to help advocates address the following questions with their clients: Is it “safe” for someone with a criminal history to renew their DACA application? What kinds of legal self-defense steps can people take, whether or not they apply to renew? What are the “dangerous crimes” that are bars to DACA and/or listed in the Notice to Appear Memorandum (NTA Memo)?

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.

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.

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.

Upon the January 1, 2017 enactment of Penal Code 1473.7, the LA District Attorney took the position that the motions were not ripe unless a final removal order or notice to appear had issued. Thanks to advocacy of organizations and individuals, especially Harland Braun, on April 17, 2018, the LA District Attorney Office changed their policy noting that “the Office is persuaded that the Legislature intended section 1473.7 to apply regardless of whether the moving party has received notice of removal proceedings or a removal order.”

For years, the ILRC has published a free chart detailing California crimes and their immigration consequences. Older charts are frequently used by post-conviction practitioners to establish the prevailing professional norms at the time of a conviction. These charts no longer contain accurate law and should not be relied upon for the status of the current immigration consequences of criminal convictions. For a summary of current law, please see www.ilrc.org/chart.

In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion holding that methamphetamine as defined under California law is not a controlled substance for federal immigration purposes.  In January 2019, however, the court withdrew the published opinion, and issued a non-published opinion that came to the same conclusion.  See Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018), withdrawn by Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2019), and unpublished decision at Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019). The case has been remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  At this time, California defenders must assume that California methamphetamine is a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Immigration advocates in removal proceedings have no precedent to rely upon, but they can make the Lorenzo argument and cite to the unpublished case, while also aggressively pursuing other defense strategies.

The ILRC is proud to stand with 30 of our partners in the criminal justice reform movement to release this report, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California. Our report is part of a national effort, called #TimeDone, to raise awareness of how many people are affected by the barriers associated with convictions and the extent to which they undermine, economic security, family stability, and public safety.

On May 16, 2018, the California Supreme depublished People v. Landaverde, which had narrowly construed defense counsel’s pre-Padilla duty to advise immigrants about the consequences of a criminal conviction. The ILRC and Mike Mehr filed the request to depublish which was cosigned by 13 public defender offices, 8 immigrant rights and criminal justice groups; and 9 immigrant rights and criminal justice professors and clinics throughout the state.

Thanks to the advocacy of the ILRC, CPDA, CACJ, and the ACLU, on September 27, 2018, Governor Brown signed into law amendments to California Penal Code Section 1473.7. The amendments will take effect January 1, 2019. This advisory contains practice tips for advocates and a detailed discussion about the changes to section 1473.7.

The BIA has held that that it will not give retroactive effect to California Penal Code § 18.5(a) on convictions from before January 1, 2015. It will consider a California misdemeanor conviction from before January 1, 2015 to have a potential sentence of up to one year, while a misdemeanor conviction on or after that date will have a potential sentence of up to 364 days. Having a potential sentence of just 364 days can help some immigrants who are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Note that this decision does not affect how immigration treats a sentence that actually was imposed. It only concerns the maximum possible sentence.) Advocates will appeal this decision.

In August 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a call for amicus briefs to respond to the question of whether an ILRC-sponsored law, California Penal Code 1203.43, effectively vacated convictions for the purposes of federal law. With gratitude for the assistance of Prof. Jennifer Lee Koh, Western State College of Law, and Michael Mehr, the ILRC coordinated 37 other legal services organizations, nonprofits, public defender offices, law school clinics, and law firms, to sign onto an amicus contending that the Board of Immigration Appeals should not treat convictions vacated under Penal Code 1203.43 as convictions for federal immigration purposes.

This guide provides step-by-step guidance on how to check if you have a criminal record from the FBI and state government agencies.

Over the past four years, working with partner organizations throughout California and nationally, the ILRC has helped advocate and pass a series of reforms at the local and state levels that advance the rights of both citizens and noncitizens and connect the dots between the criminal and immigrant justice movements.  This graphic describes some of these campaigns.  If you would like support leading similar policy efforts of your own, please feel free to reach out to Rose Cahn, rcahn@ilrc.org.

Gubernatorial pardons have become an increasingly important and accessible tool for immigrants to erase certain immigration consequences of criminal convictions. This two-page primer, written in collaboration with the UCLA School of Law Criminal Defense Clinic and available in both English and Spanish, provides an overview of the California Pardon process for potential applicants and their advocates.  

For noncitizens, even a low level offense like a shoplifting conviction can lead to mandatory deportation. However, this can be avoided when people secure post-conviction relief to erase or modify their old convictions. If the convictions are vacated, or the sentences reduced, the grounds for removal often evaporate.

On October 25, 2019, Attorney General Barr issued a precedential opinion limiting when immigration authorities will give effect to a state court modification of an imposed sentence.  See  Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (AG 2019), available at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1213201/download (“Matter of Thomas/Thompson”)  While advocates plan to challenge this decision in the courts of appeals, it is now binding law. This advisory summarizes the case, provides advice to defenders, post-conviction practitioners, and immigrant advocates about its implementation, and suggests arguments to raise on appeal. 

Cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) is an important defense for lawful permanent residents who have become removable, due to criminal record or other reasons. The requirements for statutory eligibility are complex, and it is critical for advocates to understand the risks and strategies that arise from the Supreme Court’s decision on the “stop-time” rule, Barton v. Barr, --U.S.--, 140 S.Ct. 1442 (2020). This Advisory is an updated step-by-step guide to eligibility, potential arguments, and defense strategies for LPR cancellation.

California law requires prosecutors to consider immigration consequences when plea bargaining.  Cal. Pen. C. 1016.3(b).  This memo describes the unique duties prosecutors have when charging and negotiating DUI-related cases with DACA recipients.

In 2016, California passed California Penal Code § 1473.7, a critical post-conviction relief vehicle for people no longer in criminal custody to move to eliminate prior convictions that violated constitutional and statutory rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Under decades of legal precedent, prior offenses vacated on this basis are outside the federal immigration definition of "conviction." Nevertheless, some DHS attorneys incorrectly argue that § 1473.7 vacaturs are not effective for immigration purposes. This practice advisory, a Sample Memorandum of Law and Table of BIA Cases, presents arguments and precedent for refuting DHS's arguments.