Results

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.

This reference chart provides a quick comparison between the most common forms of relief for immigrant survivors of abuse: VAWA, U visas, T visas, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and Asylum.

This practice alert provides a summary of Flores v. Sessions, a recent Ninth Circuit decision that held that all detained children have the right to a bond hearing. It discusses why Flores v. Sessions was necessary, what its impact may be for detained youth, and details practice tips for advocates representing detained children seeking bond hearings.

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.

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.

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.

In a time of increased immigration enforcement, advocates must consider all possible forms of relief for clients facing deportation. U nonimmigrant status (also frequently referred to as a “U visa”) is commonly pursued as an affirmative immigration benefit for undocumented individuals, but it may also be a particularly important form of removal defense for certain lawful permanent residents (LPRs) facing deportation, likely on the basis of criminal convictions. This Practice Advisory provides an introduction to U nonimmigrant status and details its benefits for LPRs facing deportation, as well as the particular issues LPRs may face in seeking this form of protection.

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.

This report details findings from a national survey of legal practitioners concerning the increased use of gang allegations against young immigrants as a means of driving up deportation numbers, at the encouragement of the Trump administration. The report suggests emerging best practices for immigration attorneys to employ in both fighting against unfounded gang allegations and working to mitigate the impact of prior gang involvement.

Cancellation of removal for Non–Permanent Residents under INA § 240A(b)(1) is a critical defense to deportation available to certain non-citizens with family in the United States. A person who is granted non-LPR cancellation of removal receives a green card, but the eligibility requirements for non-LPR cancellation are distinct from other means of applying for a green card, and also from other types of cancellation of removal. It is important for immigration practitioners to be familiar with non-LPR cancellation, as it may be the only form of immigration relief available for many people in removal proceedings who entered the United States without inspection. This practice advisory will walk through the basic requirements to help practitioners screen for cancellation eligibility.

Over 300,000 people currently benefit from Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and many have been protected by it for nearly 20 years. However, the current administration is terminating the program for certain countries and is reviewing the designation of several others. This practice advisory describes what TPS recipients and their advocates can do now to understand their legal options. It will review the most common forms of relief, with a particular focus on family-based immigration and how recent federal court cases allow some TPS recipients in the 6th (Flores) and 9th (Ramirez) circuits to adjust status in the United States.

Are you thinking about helping detained immigrants? It’s time to get your feet wet. This guide talks you through the initial basic steps to support someone requesting from bond from the immigration judge. This guide includes simple steps to get you started, including how to find your client and what to present to the court.

Every year, millions of people wait for Congress to advance a solution that would provide stability for undocumented persons and their families. The numbers left waiting and worrying without a pathway to citizenship, protection from deportation, or the ability to work under the Trump Administration has only increased with the limitations on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain countries.

Overview of ILRC’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request

This resource is a collection of one-page fact sheets on various forms of immigration relief meant to provide a brief overview of options that may exist for undocumented immigrant children. While geared towards children and youth, it may also be helpful as an introduction to some of the immigration options available to adults as well. This is not meant to be an exhaustive resource. We recommend consulting with an immigration expert before filing any applications for immigration relief.

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.

On June 28, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a memorandum stating the expanded circumstances in which the agency will begin issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA), including upon denying most affirmative applications. This practice advisory provides an overview of the new USCIS NTA Memo and gives tools for identifying possible red flags that could trigger enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also identifies some precautions that advocates should take when preparing affirmative applications in light of this new policy.

This advisory focuses on defense strategies for naturalization applicants who are in removal proceedings, especially within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

USCIS's Policy Memorandum of June 28, 2018, provides new guidance for when USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to applicants requesting immigration benefits. This practice advisory outlines the NTA Memo’s impact on naturalization cases.  Specifically, this advisory discusses the NTA Memo’s particular directives for naturalization cases; provides the legal context for when a naturalization applicant can be placed in removal proceedings; discusses best practices for preparing a naturalization application under the new NTA Memo; and offers practice tips if your naturalization client is placed in removal proceedings.

The master calendar hearing is the first hearing in removal proceedings before an immigration judge of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, during which serious substantive decisions can be made in an immigrant’s removal case. Advocates must be well prepared and have a clear case strategy in mind prior to the master calendar hearing, as well as a detailed plan for how to advocate during this hearing. This advisory and accompanying checklist are designed to provide a quick guide for advocates to flag the issues that need to be addressed when representing clients at a master calendar hearing.

This advisory gives an orientation to the deportation process for community members and new advocates. It breaks down the process into four steps that typically happen in an immigrant’s experience with the deportation system, providing a basic overview of ICE enforcement, the court system, and the effect of a removal or deportation order.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any noncitizen who “within five years from the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.” In current practice, this ground of deportability rarely comes up in pending removal proceedings or as a reason for the initiation of removal proceedings.

This community resource provides a brief explanation of the Immigration Court experience. It gives an overview of what happens in Immigration Court, how to confirm information about a case in Immigration Court, and what a person in removal proceedings should do if they do not have an attorney to represent them at an upcoming hearing. This information is useful for community members and advocates working with the immigrant community.

On July 23, 2019, DHS issued a notice, expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals who have been living in the United States for two years or less, and who live anywhere in the United States. This would allow noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence or to present their case to a judge. On August 6, 2019, the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm of Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP filed suit challenging the legality of this expansion, Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, Case 1:19-cv-02369. On September 27, 2019, the court granted a preliminary injunction in this case, which blocks the expansion of expedited removal from taking effect while the court decides the case.

In certain immigration cases, you may want to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of State (DOS), such as to try to find information about previous visa applications and passport records. This Practice Advisory will go over the DOS FOIA process in detail and provide practice tips for obtaining personal records from them, including best practices.

Sanchez v. Sessions was a landmark Ninth Circuit ruling on suppression of evidence and termination of removal proceedings.  This advisory explains the decision, lays out the different legal standards for suppression and termination in immigration court, and highlights key holdings that practitioners can use to better defend their clients.

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.

People who were wrongfully admitted to the United States due to a misrepresentation—i.e., those who were in fact inadmissible at time of admission—may be eligible for a waiver of deportability under INA § 237(a)(1)(H). This lesser-known waiver is only available in removal proceedings and unlike most waiver requests, does not involve any application form or fee. This advisory explains who can request a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver and the process for applying.

Preparing a strong case for bond for detained clients has become more important than ever. This practice advisory discusses how to address evidentiary issues and challenges in bond proceedings and provides tips for proving your bond case, as well as overcoming negative factors.