Results

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/

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.

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 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.

This article is an updated guide to selected California offenses that discusses precedent decisions and other information showing that the offenses avoid at least some adverse immigration consequences.

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.

Diversion refers to a variety of programs that seek to avoid the processing of a defendant through the traditional criminal legal system. The goal of diversion is to direct an individual who has been accused of a crime into a treatment or care program as an alternative to imprisonment and/or prosecution. 

Moving Texas Forward: Local Policies Towards Inclusive Justice was created for the many organizations and elected officials in Texas that are struggling to find solutions to disrupt the harmful arrest-to-deportation pipeline. Texas has helped deport more people than any other state. In fiscal year 2017, more than 395,000 people, or 17% of all deportations nationwide, were deported from Texas. Texas’ role in the detention and deportation of immigrants has increased under the Trump administration and will continue to increase because of SB 4. This guide attempts to provide a comprehensive and thorough look at some of the ways advocates, policymakers, and local law enforcement can work together to minimize the arrest-to-deportation pipeline.

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.

Over the years, various courts throughout the country have agreed that prolonging custody of a person solely based on an ICE detainer request is unlawful for numerous reasons. This practice advisory provides a summary of the court decisions related to ICE detainers and the arguments to challenge localities that continue to detain people for ICE. The cases discussed here illustrate some of the detailed arguments that are developing over what the Fourth Amendment requires and what is authorized or not by federal and state laws.  

As more and more jurisdictions are contemplating releasing people from jails and prisons, it is critical that we consider ways to ensure that people released are not immediately transferred to the harmful deportation system.  ILRC, together with our allies, Asian Prisoners Support Committee, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, and California Alliance for Youth and Criminal Justice, put together this list of recommendations that advocates can use to demand responsible releases. 

COVID-19 has made one thing clear; when law enforcement cooperates with ICE this has dire public health implications. There have been renewed and urgent efforts to stop this cooperation, including a recently filed lawsuit California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, California Governor, et al., challenging the transfer of people from state and local custody to ICE in the midst of COVID-19. Ten current and former district attorneys and police chiefs from across California filed an amicus curiae letter brief in support of this lawsuit.  This letter brief was authored and organized by Fair and Just Prosecution, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

This Practice Advisory is a detailed follow-up to our prior Practice Alert on the Supreme Court's April 23, 2020 decision in Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020). In Barton, the Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) triggers the "stop-time" rule for purposes of cancellation of removal eligibility, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. This Advisory provides an in-depth discussion of the Barton decision, focusing on legal arguments to push back against overreaching DHS efforts seeking to trigger the stop-time rule, legal arguments and trial strategies to prevent conduct that did not result in conviction from triggering the stop-time rule, and considerations for criminal defense lawyers representing immigrants in criminal proceedings.

Immigration law has its own definition of what constitutes a criminal conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and other courts have held that certain types of pretrial diversion and intervention agreements that result in dismissal under state law can still constitute a conviction for immigration purposes. Practitioners must pay close attention to the structure of such agreements, and the variety of available diversion programs, when evaluating a client’s criminal history and advising about the potential immigration consequences of criminal offenses and dispositions. This advisory discusses when such diversion agreements and programs will constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, strategies to avoid triggering an immigration conviction, and tips for advocating for “immigration-safe” agreements.

Harris County, home to approximately 1.2 million immigrants, is one of the largest and most diverse counties in the United States. Unfortunately, it also operates an expansive jail system and is an epicenter of immigration enforcement. This report looks at criminal case outcomes before Harris County courts and highlights disparities between U.S. citizens and non-citizens in arrests, charges, bail, case disposition, and sentencing. Through this report, we seek to raise awareness about how non-citizens are unjustly treated in Harris County, and we provide key policy recommendations for stakeholders to take immediate action to address such inequities.

So, you’re organizing a local town hall or candidate forum about DA and immigration; great! ILRC has developed a number of resources that can be helpful.

Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences of Crimes in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky.