Results

This advisory contains general information shared by USCIS staff during multiple stakeholder events in 2016.  It is authored by ASISTA, ICWC, ILRC, AILA, Just Neighbors Ministry, and Sanctuary for Families.

This Question and Answer (Q&A) addresses potential changes in a Trump administration, written for domestic violence and sexual assault advocates and attorneys who are serving immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. This information may change as we learn more about the plans of the incoming administration. This document was written by Americans for Immigrant Justice, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Casa de Esperanza, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Freedom Network USA, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Immigration Center for Women and Children, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University, Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, National Immigrant Justice Center, Tahirih Justice Center, and We Belong Together.

This practice advisory is designed to introduce legal workers to the T visa.  It outlines T visa eligibility requirements, discusses the advantages of applying for T visas over other forms of humanitarian immigration relief, and analyzes how President Trump's recent executive orders impact T visa applicants.

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 advisory outlines some suggestions and resources for immigration advocates working with law enforcement agencies to obtain law enforcement certification for U Visa applicants.  It also includes a summary of all state laws, as of July 2017, that have either passed or are pending regarding U Visa certification policies and protocols.

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.

SB 674 is a new California law that took effect on January 1, 2016. The goal of this law is to ensure that all immigrant crime victims in California have equal access to immigration status through the U visa.

Immigration Center for Women and Children (ICWC) administers a database of information sourced from more than 700 advocates nationwide with helpful information about law enforcement agencies who certify victim helpfulness for U cases and consulates abroad who issue U visas. The database includes information on who the U certifying officers are and where to send the requests, as well as the most updated policies and practices, nationwide. The goal is to update information on every state and federal agency, whether they do or don’t sign certifications. The database also includes information about consulates’ and embassies’ practices in processing U visa cases. These are both critical resources to any organization or office with a U visa caseload.For more information on these and other U-related databases that ICWC administers, go to http://icwclaw.org/services-available/icwc-u-travel-and-certifier-database/. If you’re new to using Zoho databases (the platform for ICWC’s databases), watch the helpful video below.

These notes were taken at the May 18-19, 2012 conference and contain lots of important practice questions, updates and filing tips for U visa cases.

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.

This page from DOS provides information on how to apply for a U nonimmigrant visa, the required documents and fees, visa ineligibility and more.https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/other-visa-categories/visas-for-victims-of-criminal-activity.html

This practice advisory addresses the impact of drug trafficking on unaccompanied minor (UC) cases by looking at overall drug trafficking patterns within UC cases, identifying the substantive and procedural issues that may arise when UC with drug trafficking histories pursue immigration relief, and drawing parallels to other bodies of law to provide practitioners with recommendations for use in the immigration context. This advisory discusses how children impacted by drug trafficking issues are able or unable to access legal relief and the challenges they face before DHS and immigration courts. It aims to provide practitioners with strategies to most effectively overcome these challenges in defending youth who have been involved in drug trafficking against deportation and to obtain immigration legal relief on their behalf.

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 December 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intent to revoke Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) for H-4 visa holders. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to be published in the coming months. We encourage people to oppose this senseless, cruel, and unnecessary rule. This rule will strip work authorization from over 100,000 women, forcing many to choose between work, family, and their home. This resource provides a description of the rule and its disproportionate effect on AAPI women, why you should oppose the rescission, and what you can do to stop this harmful proposal.

This comment period has closed. Click here respond to the latest notice of proposed fee waiver rule change.

On June 28, 2018, USCIS published new guidance expanding the circumstances in which it will issue a Notice to Appear, placing immigrant applicants in removal proceedings.  On November 19, 2018, USCIS began implementation of this new guidance on many forms of humanitarian relief, including U visa, T visa, VAWA, SIJS, I-730s, and related applications.  Authored by ASISTA, ILRC, and AILA, these annotated notes contain the verbatim information shared by USCIS during the November 15, 2018 national stakeholder teleconference along with practice pointers and suggestions for advocacy.

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.

A noncitizen can pursue lawful permanent residence through a family member in two different ways—one, through consular processing at a U.S. consulate abroad,  or two, through adjustment of status at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) office or Immigration Court in the United States.  For people who are already in the United States, adjustment of status is preferable if they are otherwise eligible. The adjustment process is completed entirely in the United States and thus unlawful presence bars are not triggered by a departure to attend the consular interview. It also avoids the travel costs, family separation resulting from completing the process abroad, and provides an appeal or review process, unlike consular processing.  This advisory focuses on family-based adjustment of status through INA § 245(a) and INA § 245(i).

On August 8, 2019 the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted a second opportunity for notice and comment on the new USCIS Tip Form to collect information from the public regarding purported immigration fraud. 

This comment period has closed. Click here respond to the latest notice of proposed fee waiver rule change.

This practice alert provides a brief overview of some of the main changes practitioners can expect with the proposed change to fee waiver eligibility and process, most significantly by eliminating receipt of means-tested benefits as a basis for requesting a fee waiver. Given that these significant changes to the fee waiver process will make it more difficult and time-intensive to establish inability to pay an immigration filing fee, we urge practitioners to advise clients who are eligible for a fee waiver based on receipt of means-tested benefits to apply as soon as possible, before this option is eliminated.

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.

On June 5, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a third notice regarding its plans to dramatically change fee waiver eligibility and process. The June 5 notice attempts to provide additional justification for its plan to eliminate means-tested benefits as a basis for requesting a fee waiver, among other changes, following April 5 and September 28 notices that lacked rationale for why such changes to fee waivers are justified. Now, USCIS is also claiming lost fee revenue as a reason for its proposed changes to fee waivers, making clear its intention to reduce the number of fee waivers that are granted. If finalized, these proposed changes will discourage eligible individuals from filing for fee waivers and immigration benefits and place heavy time and resource burdens on those who do still apply for fee waivers. 

Over the last month, some practitioners have reported that USCIS has issued a number of NTAs in connection with denied U and T visa applications. Given these reports, ILRC, ASISTA, CAST, Freedom Network USA, American Association of Immigration Lawyers (AILA), and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles created a practice update to address some of the actions practitioners can take in individual cases as well as to support policy-level advocacy efforts.  

Noncitizen victims of violence, serious crimes, and persecution may be eligible for certain forms of immigration protection and status.  These options are often referred to as Humanitarian Forms of Relief.  They include: T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, VAWA self-petition, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status.

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.

This practice advisory is the second resource in a two-part series on Humanitarian Forms of Relief for noncitizen victims of violence, serious crimes and persecution. They include: T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, VAWA self-petition, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status.   The first advisory focused on giving an overview of VAWA, U, and T Visas.  Including, eligibility requirements and some factors to consider before applying.  This practice advisory will focus on giving an overview of asylum and special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS), including their eligibility requirements and some factors to consider before applying. 

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center created this template to help you draft your own comments in opposition to this interim rule with request for comment. The new rule can be found here. Comments are due by October 25, 2019.  We are very concerned about this rule’s “reorganization” at EOIR that eliminates OLAP, the office that has operated the Recognition and Accreditation (R & A) Program  and the legal orientation programs until now. The rule places the  remaining functions of OLAP under an Office of Policy.