Results

Summaries of key court decisions analyzing the legal and constitutional problems with ICE detainers and the liability of local agencies who hold individuals based on ICE detainers.

In addition to a number of other requirements, to qualify for deferred action a person must not be convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors, and not pose a threat to public safety or national security.

This webinar, hosted on July 13, 2018 by ASISTA and ILRC, is intended only for advocates and attorneys who work advancing the rights of immigrants, and is not for media attribution. Panelists discuss how this updated guidance vastly expands the circumstances in which USCIS will issue NTAs, what this means for humanitarian cases like VAWA self-petitions, U and T visas, as well as strategies for advocacy. If you are interested in accessing the recording, please contact Cecelia Friedman Levin, cecelia@asistahelp.org, or Alison Kamhi, akamhi@ilrc.org

In this issue: Separating Children from Their Families at the Border: Our Newest Inhumanity to Immigrants (A Child Psychiatrist’s Take); 2018 Phillip Burton Immigration & Civil Rights Awards; When Water Is Safer than Land: A Day Inside Our Nation’s Immigration Border Jails; Mark Silverman: An Immigration Law Titan Retires; Immigrant Rights in the San Joaquin Valley; 2017 Annual Report; Writing in the Age of Trump

In addition to a number of other requirements, to qualify for deferred action a person must not be convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors, and not pose a threat to public safety or national security.

Needless to say, the immigration law field faced unique and disturbing challenges during the first year of the new administration. The public fought back and drew a firm line to affirm their differing values. Still, the Department of Justice and Homeland Security persisted with xenophobic policies and enforcement practices. Read more about the ways we have pushed back in our 2017 Annual Report.

Outlines all of the benefits that come with obtaining DACA approval. Special thanks to our Spring 2013 law students, Andrew Briggs and Maria  Dominguez, for their efforts in helping to create this resource.

The DOJ created new conditions for state and local recipients of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and other federal grants, in an effort to prevent jurisdictions with certain sanctuary policies from receiving any funds. Several federal courts have found these requirements to be unconstitutional, and ordered the DOJ to distribute the grants to sanctuary cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia. This advisory explains the specific grants at issue, the various lawsuits against DOJ’s conditions, and other new developments in the fight over federal funding of sanctuary cities.

The purpose of this advisory is to provide service providers with an update on the status of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and how to counsel clients now. In it we include information on the current status of the DACA program, what to tell clients, factors to consider in deciding when and if to renew DACA, and ideas for what people should do now if they have never had DACA.

This advisory explains how some DACA recipients may be eligible to adjust their status to permanent residents after travellng outside the United States on advance parole. We explain what is required for advance parole, what is required for adjustment of status, and how those two are related for certain DACA recipients who entered the United States without inspection. Although the advisory is focused on DACA, most of the analysis will also apply to TPS holders.

USCIS recently issued updated guidance on when it will refer a person to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) or issue a Notice to Appear (NTA, the charging document that begins a case in immigration court). Advocates must consult this memorandum in evaluating the risk of referral in individual cases, as it now requires USCIS to issue an NTA in any case in which, “upon issuance of an unfavorable decision on an application, petition, or benefit request, the alien is not lawfully present in the United States.” This Practice Advisory answers common questions about the risks of filing affirmative SIJS cases for youth in a variety of scenarios, such as when the youth has a delinquency history, the youth is over the age of 18, or the youth is alleged to be gang-involved.

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.

For years, the ILRC has published a free chart detailing California crimes and their immigration consequences. Older charts are frequently used by post-conviction practitioners to establish the prevailing professional norms at the time of a conviction. These charts no longer contain accurate law and should not be relied upon for the status of the current immigration consequences of criminal convictions. For a summary of current law, please see www.ilrc.org/chart.

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.

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.

As of January 2018, the California Values Act (SB 54) is the law in California. This sweeping legislation curtails the role of state and local police agencies in federal immigration enforcement. This webinar, tailored to criminal defenders, will provide an overview of the Act’s major provisions and how to incorporate this new law into your defense practice. If you are interested in accessing the recording, please contact Grisel Ruiz, gruiz@ilrc.org.

This resource, co-created by the ACLU and ILRC, discusses the Trump administration's denaturalization operation and describes the process of denaturalization, who the targets are and the number of cases as well as the historical context for these efforts.

In June 2018, the U.S. Attorney General issued Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), which threatens the viability of asylum claims by domestic violence survivors and others who have faced persecution by private actors. In addition to the harmful legal rhetoric in the decision about the nature of domestic violence, Matter of A-B- also highlights the Trump administration’s broad and unrelenting attacks on due process for asylum seekers. In this practice advisory, we provide a brief summary of the AG’s decision. In addition, we note how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) guidance published in the following weeks exacerbate the issues presented by the decision. We also share several due process concerns in light of this decision and offer information about additional resources for advocates.

The ILRC is proud to stand with 30 of our partners in the criminal justice reform movement to release this report, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California. Our report is part of a national effort, called #TimeDone, to raise awareness of how many people are affected by the barriers associated with convictions and the extent to which they undermine, economic security, family stability, and public safety.

On May 16, 2018, the California Supreme depublished People v. Landaverde, which had narrowly construed defense counsel’s pre-Padilla duty to advise immigrants about the consequences of a criminal conviction. The ILRC and Mike Mehr filed the request to depublish which was cosigned by 13 public defender offices, 8 immigrant rights and criminal justice groups; and 9 immigrant rights and criminal justice professors and clinics throughout the state.

Thanks to the advocacy of the ILRC, CPDA, CACJ, and the ACLU, on September 27, 2018, Governor Brown signed into law amendments to California Penal Code Section 1473.7. The amendments will take effect January 1, 2019. This advisory contains practice tips for advocates and a detailed discussion about the changes to section 1473.7.

This document describes how a person with DACA who travels outside the U.S. with Advance Parole may be able to apply for a green card in the U.S. based on an immediate relative visa petition.

This webinar covers the basics you need to know about how local law enforcement and other agencies work with ICE or CBP, and how to think about who are the likely local targets for organizing. We talk about identifying the key problems in your community, mobilizing important allies, and what kinds of stories can help drive the narrative. Experienced organizers from Juntos in Philadelphia and Grassroots Leadership in Austin talk about how they addressed these strategies in their local campaigns, and the importance of building alliances on criminal justice issues broadly.

“Sanctuary” policies exist all over the country, but they are under attack from the Trump Administration, which is trying to withhold federal funding. What is the DOJ trying to do, what funding is at stake, and what is the status of all these lawsuits over it? Most importantly, a key federal statute limiting sanctuary policies has been found unconstitutional, which means that sanctuary jurisdictions have even more power. Hear from legal experts and local campaigns about how sanctuary policies have played out across the country.

The BIA has held that that it will not give retroactive effect to California Penal Code § 18.5(a) on convictions from before January 1, 2015. It will consider a California misdemeanor conviction from before January 1, 2015 to have a potential sentence of up to one year, while a misdemeanor conviction on or after that date will have a potential sentence of up to 364 days. Having a potential sentence of just 364 days can help some immigrants who are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Note that this decision does not affect how immigration treats a sentence that actually was imposed. It only concerns the maximum possible sentence.) Advocates will appeal this decision.

In August 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a call for amicus briefs to respond to the question of whether an ILRC-sponsored law, California Penal Code 1203.43, effectively vacated convictions for the purposes of federal law. With gratitude for the assistance of Prof. Jennifer Lee Koh, Western State College of Law, and Michael Mehr, the ILRC coordinated 37 other legal services organizations, nonprofits, public defender offices, law school clinics, and law firms, to sign onto an amicus contending that the Board of Immigration Appeals should not treat convictions vacated under Penal Code 1203.43 as convictions for federal immigration purposes.

This guide outlines steps DACA renewal applicants can take if their renewal is delayed.

This practice advisory covers how to prepare consular processing clients for questions at the immigrant visa interview about alien smuggling, receipt of public benefits, drug use, tattoos, and other issues.

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.