The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) immigration attorneys’ expertise focuses on family-based immigration, humanitarian relief, naturalization and citizenship, immigration enforcement, and removal defense.
Since 1979 we have helped expand the immigration expertise of attorneys, nonprofit staff, criminal defenders, and others assisting immigrant clients.
In addition to authoring the ILRC’s practice manuals, our expert attorneys have been published by Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB), American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), ILW.com, Huffington Post, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Center for Law and Social Policy, The Hill, LexisNexis Emerging Issues, and Fox News Latino.
We have also provided training to National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), American Bar Association Commission on Immigration, Federal Bar Association, The State Bar of California, Legal Aid Association of California, Judicial Council of California and more.
Warning: Immigrant Defendants with a First Minor Drug Offense: “Rehabilitative relief” will no longer eliminate a first conviction for simple possession for immigration purposes, unless the conviction occurred before 7/14/11
This packet is designed to help advocates prepare naturalization fee waiver applications. The packet includes information from USCIS and ILRC on how to complete and review a fee waiver application to accompany naturalization applications, the adjudication standards for fee waiver applications, and a sample completed fee waiver form.
Planes v. Holder (9th Cir. July 5, 2011): Criminal defenders must assume that filing a timely direct appeal of right will not prevent a conviction from having immigration effect. This is a change in the law, created by Planes v. Holder, supra. Advocates will file a petition for rehearing and there is a good chance that this will be granted, and a reasonable chance, although no guarantee, that Planes may be reversed.
Legal Services Support Centers and Rebellious Advocacy: A Case Study of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, by Bill Hing.
Practice Advisory: California Health and Safety Code § 11357(b) prohibits possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. After January 1, 2011 it will be treated as an infraction.
Testimony before an IJ may not be used to characterize an offense, or to link two documents from the record of conviction. A Ninth Circuit panel has withdrawn a very bad opinion on the modified categorical approach and substituted a substantially better one.
Eligibility for Waiver in Removal Proceedings under the Former INA § 212(c), Pursuant to Judulang v. Holder
This 77-page guide contains checklists, step-by-step help and sample materials for detained pro so applicants (those without lawyers) who are representing themselves in filing a U visa application. It was produced by the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic of Stanford Law School on behalf of Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California.
Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences of Crimes in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky.
This Q&A fact sheet from USCIS provides information on making the appointment and preparing for the interview for U nonimmigrants who need to consular process.
Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012). Section 212(h) of the INA1 is an important waiver of crimes-based grounds ofinadmissibility.
The Ninth Circuit En Banc Decides Key Issues About the Categorical Approach; overturns Sandoval-Lua: Young v. Holder __F.3d__ (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2012) (en banc). This quick Advisory provides the headlines from an important Ninth Circuit case published today. Further advisories may provide a more in-depth analysis.
Practice Advisory: The BIA held that a violation of a Kansas municipal ordinance is a conviction for immigration purposes despite the lack of appointed defense counsel or right to a jury trial in those proceedings. Matter of Cuellar, 25 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2012).
A reference sheet on the immigration consequences of delinquency and diagnostic questions for noncitizen youth: determining potential avenues for legal status.
Many noncitizen defendants are already deportable (“removable”). This includes all undocumented people, as well as lawful permanent residents (green card-holders) who have become deportable because of a conviction. If immigration authorities find these people – which is likely to happen – they will be deported unless they are granted some kind of immigration relief. For these defendants, staying eligible to apply for immigration relief is their most important immigration goal, and may be their highest priority in the criminal defense.
In Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. _____, ____S.Ct.____, 2013 WL 610201, (February 20, 2013) the U.S. Supreme Court held that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) was a “new rule” that did not apply retroactively to convictions final before March 31, 2010. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise a noncitizen about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
"The Immigration and Naturalization Service, Community-based Organizations, and the Legalization Experience: Lessons for the Self-Help Immigration Phenomenon,” is a law review article written by ILRC’s founder, Bill Hing, in which he discusses lessons learned from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
The ILRC, along with WDA, IDP, and NIP, summarize and discuss some of our immigration system’s most egregious aspects, outline five main principles to advocate for with immigration reform, and caution against possible new harmful provisions that we would have to fight for decades to come.
The long-delayed congressional debate over vital immigration reform begins this week following the filing of a bipartisan measure that creates a roadmap to citizenship for a portion of the 11 million immigrants now in the country without documents.
Mark Silverman, ILRC Director of Immigration Policy, discusses concerns about fraud under the SAW program and why fraud is less likely to occur under a future legalization program.
In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the full categorical approach applies in immigration proceedings. A result is that where the criminal statute defines the offense more broadly than the immigration definition at issue, the conviction will not trigger the immigration penalty.