Results

This resource outlines some best practices for advocates and stakeholders working to expand access to, and automate, state record clearance. 

On June 5, 2020, the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, published People v. Ruiz, holding that the defendant could vacate her conviction because she was not advised that her conviction will carry deportation consequences.  Rose Cahn, Mike Mehr, and appellant’s counsel, filed the above letter with the Court of Appeal, suggesting clarification that defense counsel bears the duty to advise about specific immigration consequences, and distinguishing from the court’s more general obligation to advise about potential immigration consequences.

Penalties for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) are based on several factors, such as the number of CIMTs, date of commission, imposed and/or potential sentence, and whether there was a conviction versus admission of the conduct. The result is that determining whether a CIMT penalty actually applies can be quite complex.  This set of four flow charts can be used to answer four questions about a case: is the particular person deportable; inadmissible or barred from establishing good moral character; barred from applying for non-LPR cancelation; or subject to mandatory detention, based on CIMTs?

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.

This toolkit will help reentry service providers expand services for noncitizens impacted by the criminal legal system. It offers an escalating service menu, starting with tools to provide general information about how a conviction can impact immigration status, advancing to tools to help clients gather information necessary for an individualized legal analysis, tools to perform that analysis, and last, tools to pursue immigration-related post-conviction relief. This toolkit was designed with reentry providers in mind, but may also be useful for immigration legal providers serving clients with prior records.

This toolkit is designed for legal service organizations who want to engage pro bono attorneys in providing immigrant post-conviction relief screening and services. It contains tools to run a legal clinic to screen for crim/imm issues and post-conviction relief options, tools to perform case-specific legal analysis for noncitizens with prior convictions, and tools to place and supervise post-conviction relief motions with pro bono attorneys. Although this toolkit was designed with pro bono engagement in mind, many tools may also be useful to organizations expanding their own immigrant post-conviction relief practice. 

In October 2019, Attorney General Barr issued Matter of Thomas & Matter of Thompson, altering the standard for when immigration law will recognize a criminal sentencing modification. Since then, government attorneys from ICE and adjudicators from DHS and DOJ have misused and exploited the decision to incorrectly impose immigration consequences on vacated and modified past convictions and sentences. Immigrant rights advocates have pushed back by attacking this decision in the federal courts. In this amicus brief submitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immigration law experts directly challenge the AG's decision, arguing it is incorrect as a matter of law, is not entitled to any level of deference, and if permitted to stand cannot be applied retroactively. These arguments build on a growing body of case law refusing to offer deference to the DOJ on interpretation of immigration provisions that have both civil and criminal application. E.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 4519085 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2020). Advocates challenging Thomas/Thompson in agency and court proceedings can use the arguments in this brief to attack the case on the merits and to resist its retroactive application.

On July 30, 2020, Attorney General Barr issued Matter of Reyes, 28 I&N Dec. 52 (A.G. 2020), a case involving a longtime lawful permanent resident with a single conviction for violating a larceny statute that criminalizes both theft and fraud, and is indivisible as between these means of commission. She had been sentenced to over one year in prison and there was an established loss amount of greater than $10,000. This practice alert provides a summary of the decision and potential practice tips for both immigration practitioners and criminal defense attorneys representing noncitizens in criminal and immigration cases. These tips focus on challenging the correctness of the AG's new theory of removability, challenging any judicial deference to the AG's opinion, fighting DHS efforts to file new NTAs or motions to reopen past proceedings, contesting retroactive application of the new decision, and criminal defense strategies for avoiding its reach in advising noncitizens on resolving open criminal matters.  

A one-page issue spotting decision tree to help screen for potential forms of post-conviction relief.  For an in-depth discussion of any of these vehicles, see this guide, created by the ILRC and Californians for Safety and Justice.

This brief advisory written by Rose Cahn, ILRC and Anoop Prasad, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus, discusses how petitions for relief using PC 1437, the reform to the felony murder rule, can be helpful to immigrants seeking to mitigate immigration consequences.

Across the country, states and localities are increasingly moving to end marijuana prohibition laws. For immigrant communities, despite the changing attitude toward marijuana-related conduct at the state level, an old conviction can still form the basis for immigration-related consequences at the federal level. Though federal legal reforms may be the only way to completely eradicate the immigration consequences of marijuana-related conduct and convictions, reforms at the state level can nevertheless help stop the arrest-to-deportation pipeline. Drawing from our experience with state and municipal efforts across the country, this resource, jointly produced by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Drug Policy Alliance, lists best practices for municipalities and states looking to decriminalize in a way that lessens the immigration-related harms of marijuana criminalization.

In January 2020, the Committee for Review of the Penal Code began convening with the intent of putting forward wide ranging recommendations for reforms to the California criminal legal code. Understanding the significant impact of the process for California’s immigrant population, the ILRC has formally submitted recommendations, advice, and expert testimony as the committee engages in its deliberations. We will continue to update this site with our recommendations to the committee.

This one-pager, a partnership between the UCLA Criminal Defense Clinic, Al Otro Lado, and the ILRC, describes the how and why of CA Penal Code s. 1473.7.

In some cases, the amount of an imposed, potential, or served criminal sentence can determine the outcome of the immigration case. The law governing how state sentencing dispositions affect immigration penalties is fast-changing. The good news is that an informed defender often can structure a sentence that gives the prosecution what they require, while avoiding immigration penalties. An informed immigration advocate wants to be able to explain this to an immigration judge or adjudicator to win the case.

In October 2020, DHS and DOJ published a final regulation that sets out wide-ranging and draconian bars to applying for, and bases to terminate a grant of, asylum. For example, the bars include conviction of any felony, any controlled substance offense, a single DUI with injury, a DUI with a DUI prior (regardless of injury), and domestic violence bars based on the underlying conduct.

This practice advisory explains the various immigration consequences of a conviction for Assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01 and provides tips for mitigating such consequences in criminal proceedings. This August 2022 update includes analysis of the Texas Assault statute in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States. The Texas Assault statute is complex and includes several subsections, so we have included a chart in the appendix describing the potential immigration consequences for each subsection of the Texas Assault statute.

This one-pager goes over basic Know Your Rights information for immigrants incarcerated in California prisons.  It includes suggested contact information for families and community members in need of  immigration screening.

Certain criminal convictions are bars to eligibility for DACA.  However, if these convictions can be “expunged,” they will cease to be an absolute bar. Here, an “expungement” refers to any legal process where a criminal court can withdraw, erase, seal, or otherwise eliminate a conviction under a state statute, based on the fact that the person completed probation or other requirements, or for humanitarian reasons. Note that while DACA government materials call this an “expungement,” different state laws may use different terms for this kind of rehabilitative relief. An expungement is not given effect for most immigration purposes – but it does work for DACA.  For example, a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence is a bar to applying for DACA as a “significant misdemeanor.” If  the person has the conviction “expunged,” however, they are not barred from applying, and if they have enough positive equities they may well be granted DACA.

We previously circulated a sample brief,  Using and Defending PC 1473.7 Vacaturs. But, at times, DHS continues to object to 1473.7 vacaturs. Thanks to Pangea Removal Defense Attorney Luis Angel Reyes Savalza and Immigration Attorneys Merle Kahn and Daniel Shanfield for agreeing to sharing their his recent redacted responses to DHS opposition. This briefing includes a response as to why the 2019 amendments to 1473.7 do not, in fact, turn the statute into a rehabilitative mechanism.

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (March 4, 2021), the Supreme Court issued another opinion on the categorical approach, which is the analysis authorities use to decide whether a criminal conviction triggers removal grounds.  Pereida focuses on the “modified” categorical approach, which is how courts approach a conviction under a statute that sets out multiple, separate, offenses (a “divisible” statute). Pereida overruled Marinelarena v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

The majority of states have legalized some use of marijuana, but marijuana remains a federal Schedule I controlled substance. Therefore, any conduct involving marijuana can be very dangerous for immigrants – including conduct that is permitted under state law. Admitting that one has “legally” used marijuana, being employed in the fast-growing cannabis industry, and any conviction can cause serious immigration problems. A prior marijuana conviction must be vacated based on some error; the fact that the state has since legalized the conduct does not erase it, and many state “mass expungement” actions also do not. Evidence that a person has sold marijuana can harm any noncitizen, in some cases including immigrant youth. Marijuana issues can cause bars to eligibility for affirmative applications such as adjustment of status and naturalization; admission at the border; and cancellation and other applications in removal 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.

On January 1, 2021, multiple California criminal reform laws took effect. These laws were passed to help all defendants regardless of immigration status, but they can be of special help to noncitizens. Advocates should understand how these laws may help a client’s immigration case. They include: 

With a few exceptions, immigration authorities must use the “categorical approach” to determine whether a criminal conviction triggers a ground of removal. Expert use of the categorical approach may be the most important defense strategy available to immigrants charged with or convicted of crimes. This Update of our long-running article includes discussion of Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (2021).

This Chart summarizes the criminal record bars to many forms of relief, to provide a quick way to check whether your client is potentially eligible for relief. See also ILRC, Immigration Relief Toolkit (2018).

The ILRC and partner organizations submitted the attached letter and BIA case summary to OPLA leadership, clarifying that vacaturs issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) correct legally and procedurally defective convictions, meeting the standard set forth in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).

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.

This advisory provides detailed instruction on how and where to file a motion to reopen for attorneys who have successfully vacated a conviction for immigration purposes and their client is now eligible for termination or a form of relief. In addition, the advisory addresses the impact of the post-departure bar and reinstatement of prior removal order on post-conviction relief motions to reopen.

Thousands of noncitizens in California are at risk of removal or cannot qualify for immigration relief because they have unlawfully imposed criminal convictions. The good news is that there are several options under California law to eliminate these convictions for immigration purposes, using post-conviction relief (PCR).  This Advisory can help advocates to identify which of these forms of California PCR may help your client, and direct you to more resources about how to obtain it.

In 2016, California enacted California Penal Code § 1473.7, a post-conviction relief vehicle allowing people no longer in criminal custody to vacate legally defective convictions. Ever since, the ILRC has supported advocates to implement this law, including helping to defend the vacaturs from DHS attempts to erode its impact. In Arias v. Garland, a case currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, the court will decide whether 1473.7 should be given full effect, erasing the conviction for immigration purposes. The ILRC helped coordinate Mr. Arias’s amicus strategy and we offer his redacted merits brief as well as the extraordinary amicus briefs submitted in support so that they might help practitioners facing similar arguments. The briefing in the Arias case represents some of the most robust arguments for why 1473.7 vacaturs should be recognized, but we also include below the various prior briefs, advisories, and sample materials we have developed in the defense of the full reach of 1473.7.