Results

Section 212(h) of the INA provides a waiver for crimes inadmissibility grounds, which can be surprisingly useful for undocumented people, VAWA applicants, or permanent residents. It can be applied for multiple times; it has the potential to waive an aggravated felony conviction (unless it is related to drugs); it can be used both affirmatively and as a defense to removal; and it does not always require proof of "extreme hardship." Unfortunately, it can't be used to waive drug convictions or conduct, other than a single incident involving possessing a small amount of marijuana. 

Effective December 20, 2019, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) act opened a one-year window that will allow many Liberians living in the United States to apply for permanent residence. The act was buried in Section 7611 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. This practice advisory will provide a summary of the law, which went into effect immediately and will only allow applications for relief up to December 20, 2020.

Enacted on December 20, 2019, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LIRF) act began a program that will allow many Liberians living in the United States to apply for permanent residence. The statute originally had a one-year application window that ended on December 20, 2020, but Congress extended the application period another year to December 20, 2021 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.

This advisory seeks to clarify when, where, and how to file an I-212. It also discusses certain special circumstances such as conditional I-212s, nunc pro tunc I-212s, and how a grant to TPS or advance parole may affect the need for an I-212. The advisory addresses strategic concerns such as deciding when to file a motion to reopen versus a conditional I-212, and assessing the risks of triggering other inadmissibility or enforcement issues when advising clients.

This advisory provides an overview of the most common types of motions filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. It discusses the types of motions the Board will accept while proceedings are pending before it, such as motions to remand. It also discusses motions filed with the Board after it has issued a final order of removal, which includes motions to reconsider and motions to reopen. It contains guidelines on determining what type of motion is appropriate in specific circumstances and how to prepare and file motions in a way that meets legal requirements and complies with the Board’s procedural rules.

ILRC sent a request to USCIS headquarters to provide more information and to also take certain actions to deal with the consequences of the closure of USCIS public services and the impact of COVID-19 on the immigrant public. These are  concerns raised  by the individuals and organizations with whom we partner. We have promised to raise more issues as the emergency situation continues.

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. 

Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is an important relief option for individuals who are unable to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. This advisory reviews the legal standard for CAT protection. It also provides an overview of seminal Board of Immigration Appeals and federal circuit court decisions that discuss the various elements of a CAT claim. The end of the advisory contains a useful chart which compares asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT.

On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an adverse, 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020), a case regarding the “stop-time rule” and eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) stops time for purposes of cancellation, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. The Barton opinion will primarily limit eligibility for LPR cancellation, but will have some impact on non-LPR cancellation and VAWA cancellation. This Practice Alert provides a summary and some analysis of the Barton opinion, and some initial tips for practitioners.

Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal is an important deportation defense for eligible individuals in removal proceedings who have resided in the United States for many years. Proving “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to a qualifying relative can be difficult, but when medical or psychological conditions are present, they are often the strongest hardship factor. This advisory explains how to meet the requisite hardship burden in Non-LPR Cancellation cases by demonstrating medical and psychological hardship, especially in light of the BIA’s recent decision, Matter of J-J-G. The advisory discusses various ways to document medical and psychological conditions and show how those conditions would cause hardship to qualifying relatives, in the event of the applicant’s removal. 

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.

A Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862, is a charging document that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues and files with the immigration court to start removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) against an individual, known in removal proceedings as the “respondent.” The NTA serves many functions in an immigration case, like explaining why the government thinks the respondent maybe deportable and gives notice to the respondent. This practice advisory will go over some of the information you should find on the NTA. This is a general introduction on issues to look out for when representing someone in immigration court.  

This practice advisory will update applicants on the changes in interpretation of LRIF since its inception. We also discuss the administrative guidance, advocacy efforts, and hurdles to the application process to date.

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.  

This resource provides helpful charts of the grounds of inadmissibility as applied to special immigrant juveniles (SIJs). It also describes the waiver standard and process for SIJs.

On September 25, ILRC submitted comments in opposition to EOIR's proposed rule regarding court procedures. The proposed rule is an unlawful attempt to curb Immigration Judges’ authority, limit case review, and drastically restrict due process for immigrants. The rule undermines the appellate process and curtails the efficient adjudication of the courts. 

On June 30, 2020, the Third Country Asylum Rule, or asylum transit ban, was found unlawful and struck down nationwide in CAIR Coalition v. Trump. This advisory discusses the asylum transit ban, the CAIR Coalition decision, and possible strategies for people who have been denied under the ban to reopen their cases and receive asylum.

On October 30, 2020, ILRC filed a comment opposing an EOIR proposed rule that would have a substantial negative impact on legal orientation programs operated by non-profit immigration legal services programs.

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.

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.

On December 22, 2020, the ILRC submitted comments in opposition to EOIR’s notice of proposed rulemaking regarding what constitutes “good cause” for a continuance in removal proceedings. The proposed changes severely restrict the circumstances in which respondents can obtain continuances in removal proceedings, as well as the number and length of continuances. These changes will have a devastating impact on respondents’ due process rights, essentially eliminate protections from removal for VAWA and U-visa petitioners, further interfere with the independence of immigration judges, and curtail administrative efficiency.

The Biden administration announced the designation of Venezuela for TPS, effective March 9, 2021 through September 9, 2022. TPS provides protection from removal, work authorization, and the option to request permission to travel abroad. The 180-day registration period is currently open through September 5, 2021. This advisory provides an overview of the requirements and application process for TPS for Venezuela. It also includes a brief summary of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Venezuela which is also currently in effect through July 20, 2022.

ICE enforcement policies have changed under the Biden administration, and opened new opportunities to defend your clients from arrest, detention, and deportation.  This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP provides immigration practitioners with an overview of the interim enforcement priorities and other key policy changes described in recent DHS and ICE memos, and discusses strategies to use these priorities to advocate for prosecutorial discretion.

On March 16, 2021, ILRC and seven other coalition members of the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) Strategy Group submitted recommendations to the Administration and USCIS leadership for equitable implementation of LRIF. The group requested a meeting with the government to discuss these recommendations.

This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP advises criminal defense attorneys on new immigration enforcement policies and how to use the new guidance to defend clients in criminal proceedings.

In the summer of 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published two regulatory rules relating to eligibility for employment authorization documents (EADs) for individuals with pending asylum applications. Both rules went into effect in August 2020. This advisory provides a summary of the rules and the preliminary injunction currently in effect for members of Casa de Maryland (CASA) and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). The end of this advisory contains a helpful chart for quick reference, outlining current eligibility requirements for an EAD based on a pending asylum application, and which provisions are temporarily enjoined by the case Casa de Maryland v. Wolf, No. 8:20-CV-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020), for certain organizational members.

The Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness  Act (LRIF) created a limited-term program allowing many Liberians living in the United States to apply for permanent residence. Initially, LRIF’s application period opened on December 20, 2019 and was set to expire on December 20, 2020. On January 3, 2021, however, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, extending the application period for LRIF for another year, until December 20, 2021.

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).