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.
This practice advisory discusses the confidentiality policies and practices currently in place protecting information submitted in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applications in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California that allowed the DACA program to remain open.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on June 18, 2020 should have restored the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in its entirety, a recent announcement by the Trump administration has once again thrown the program and DACA recipients into limbo. This resource goes over frequently asked questions to help orient the community of this new change with DACA program.
On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a memorandum instructing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to: 1) reject all initial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) requests from applicants who have not received DACA in the past; 2) reject all advance parole applications from DACA recipients except where there are “exceptional circumstances;” and 3) shorten the DACA renewal and work authorization period from two years to one year. This Memorandum was followed by USCIS additional guidance on August 21, 2020.
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.
The ILRC teamed up with community-based organizations Faith in the Valley and the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, to file an amicus brief in support of California’s defense of SB 29 in GEO v. CA. SB 29, codified at Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.9 and co-sponsored by the ILRC and Freedom for Immigrants, was passed in order ensure that the community would have a voice on an issue which so critically impacts them; immigration detention. Our amicus details the importance of community engagement, as detailed in recent community battles to halt three new proposed immigration detention centers. Many thanks to Sidley Austin LLP for its generous support in the amicus.
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.
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?
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.
The COVID-19 pandemic demands a bold, urgent public health response for incarcerated communities. Even before this health crisis, California’s jails, prison system, and immigration detention centers were dangerously overcrowded and medically negligent. The Dignity not Detention Coalition, in partnership with CURB, JusticeLA, and Human Impact partners, created A Budget to Save Lives, a community-based decarceration strategy which presents intersectional reforms in five key areas including: Jail population reduction, prison population reduction, immigration detention population reduction, youth decriminalization & decarceration, and community-based services & alternatives to incarceration. Now more than ever before, it is imperative that California divest from criminalization and incarceration and invest in cost and life-saving solutions for the health and wellbeing of our communities.
Jails and prisons are the primary funnel into immigration detention centers across the nation. Instead of letting people who are due for release from custody go home, jails transfer them to ICE. During this pandemic, these transfers to ICE not only affect the individuals themselves, but contribute to community spread of COVID-19. Local and state actors are making a choice to spread the virus by transferring people to ICE, rather than allowing them to go home and shelter in place. In order to halt the unnecessary spread of COVID-19, we must stop all these transfers now. The resource below is available with both a national and CA-specific focus.
On June 18, 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court sided with DACA recipients ruling that the way in which the Trump administration rescinded the DACA program in 2017 was unlawful. The decision is a huge victory for immigrant communities and their allies who mobilized to protect the DACA program.
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.
Before pushing for change at the county level, it is crucial to understand the powers and responsibilities of different county officials and bodies. This resource is for Texas advocates and explains the authority and jurisdiction of various local elected county officials in Texas.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency funded by the fees of US citizens, employers, and immigrants, is asking Congress for $1.2 billion in appropriated money to cover up years of deliberate fiscal and policy mismanagement by the Trump administration. The ILRC and DHS Watch drafted a letter signed by over 100 groups asking that Congress condition any appropriated funds to USCIS's reversal of policies and actions that produced the current deficit and subverted the agency’s core services mission.
This resource outlines some best practices for advocates and stakeholders working to expand access to, and automate, state record clearance.
Immigration policies put forth under President Trump have had a unique and significant impact on immigrant survivors of gender-based violence, who now face even greater barriers to access safety and justice. This report seeks to document the impact of President Trump’s administrative actions on immigrant survivors of gender-based violence and to examine how the Trump administration has empowered abusers to use institutions and systems to silence survivors.
These printable resources are practical information and easy steps for the immigrant community to follow when completing the 2020 Census. They are in English and Spanish and include the various ways the census can be submitted.
On May 7, 2020, ILRC co-authored and signed on to a comment opposing recently published USCIS policy manual instructions for adjustment applications under the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (LRIF).
As a local elected law enforcement official and operator of county jails, Sheriffs play a critical role in ending the arrest-to-deportation pipeline. This advisory for advocates in Texas explains the power of county sheriffs, and measures they can take to reduce the number of people being funneled into the deportation pipeline, without violating state laws like SB 4.
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.
COVID-19 has made one thing clear; when law enforcement cooperates with ICE this has dire public health implications. There have been renewed and urgent efforts to stop this cooperation, including a recently filed lawsuit California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, California Governor, et al., challenging the transfer of people from state and local custody to ICE in the midst of COVID-19. Ten current and former district attorneys and police chiefs from across California filed an amicus curiae letter brief in support of this lawsuit. This letter brief was authored and organized by Fair and Just Prosecution, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
On April 22, 2020, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation cutting off some forms of immigration for 60 days, beginning on April 23, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the president extended this proclamation through December 31, 2020 and added restrictions to other immigrants seeking certain temporary visas. This brief guide addresses what this means, who it will most likely impact, and what it may mean in broader immigration terms.