Areas of Expertise

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 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 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.  

On July 28, 2020 the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum severely restricting the DACA program. Despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision fully reinstating the program, the Trump administration has issued another attack on the program. This community alert gives a brief summary of memorandum and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Implementing Guidance issued on August 21, 2020 and what it means for community members.

On August 13, 2020, ILRC submitted comments on recent changes to USCIS’s policy manual. The new chapters on discretion will radically alter adjudications of  a wide variety of applications for immigration benefits. We recommend that the changes be stricken because they are ultra vires, lack legal support, and will exacerbate USCIS’s current crisis. The policy manual changes compound agency inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement at a time when the agency has crisis-level backlogs and is seeking a bailout from Congress. Instead of looking for ways to streamline adjudications, the policy manual imposes a secondary adjudication process on dozens of application types that will require adjudicators to multiply the amount of time that they spend determining eligibility, a move that will  grind adjudications to an even slower pace  and deny applicants relief for which they would otherwise be eligible.

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.

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. 

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.

Alert: On September 29, 2020 the Fee Rule was enjoined nation-wide in its entirety by a District court in the Northern District of California, ILRC et al. v. Chad F. Wolf, et al. (ND California) (Case 4:20-cv-05883-JSW) (Sept. 29, 2020).   

Throughout the Trump Administration, the federal government has sought to undermine sanctuary policies by requiring that cities help ICE with immigration enforcement in order to receive certain federal grants from the DOJ. These policies have spurred a dozen lawsuits, almost all of which have ruled in favor of the cities challenging DOJ’s conditions. In 2021, the Biden administration removed all current and prior immigration conditions on federal grants. This advisory explains more about the grant programs affected, the litigation, and what localities should know and do in the current environment.

On November 15, 2019, the ILRC and Public Counsel submitted comments in response to the re-opened comment period on the proposed SIJS regulations, originally published in 2011. The ILRC and Public Counsel each submitted comments on the proposed rule during the original 2011 comment period, organizationally and as part of the Immigrant Children Lawyers Network. Accordingly, in 2019, we wrote to renew our 2011 comments and briefly supplement them due, in part, to concerns and changes in practice that had arisen in the intervening eight years.

This timeline provides a quick, visual summary of the changes to public charge policy at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) from January 2018 through July 29, 2021.

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 light of the continued failure of the U.S. Congress to pass meaningful immigration reform and the continued dysfunction of our immigration system, President Obama announced a series of immigration policy changes though executive action during his presidency. This manual discusses the law, policy, and practice regarding the parts of President Obama’s executive action that have been implemented as of the time of this writing. These new changes, even if short-lived, can help many. They can provide individuals with much-needed immigration relief, and also provide a blueprint for future immigration policy and legislation. Many programs mentioned in this manual, such as parole, DACA, and the enforcement priorities, are in flux, particularly after the 2016 election. We therefore invite you to visit the Immigrant Legal Resource Center’s website at www.ilrc.org for updates and to join our education listserv by subscribing at www.ilrc.org/subscribe to receive email messages about updates to this manual as well as in-person and webinar trainings opportunities related to immigration executive actions.

For an immigrant survivor of crime to qualify for U nonimmigrant status, they must obtain and submit to USCIS a certification of their helpfulness to law enforcement. A law enforcement agency (LEA) or other certifier must complete Form I-918, Supplement B, “U Nonimmigrant Status Certification,” attesting to the survivor’s assistance. In July 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued an updated guide explaining the U visa requirements and the U visa certification process and identifying best practices for certifying agencies and officials. The new guide is more anti-immigrant in tone than former guidance, but parts of it can still be a useful tool for immigrant advocates. This practice advisory describes the 2019 and previous guidance to certifiers on U visa certification, analyzes the changes in the recently issued guidance, and provides advocacy tips for practitioners involved in the U certification process who wish to utilize the guidance to encourage certifications.

This video details how to complete a DACA renewal application packet by walking through the various forms’ questions to highlight what they mean and focus on areas worth paying close attention to. As always, we highly encourage applicants to seek a consultation with a trusted legal service provider before submitting their packets. Namely this is so applicants can ensure they are submitting their information as accurately as possible and addressing the dimensions of their specific case that may or may not allow them to be eligible for other forms of immigration relief. In this one-hour walkthrough video, the ILRC’s Legal Outreach Coordinator, Abraham Bedoy, dives deep into each form required for a renewal so those taking on their own application packet (forms: I-821D, I-765, I-765WS, G-1145) can follow along to double-check their entries. 

USCIS Naturalization processing was already delayed as long as 3-4 years in many jurisdictions before the pandemic and ensuing USCIS closures hit. Many thousands of applicants are waiting to complete the application process.

Before pushing for change at the city level, it is important to understand your city government’s structure, as well as the responsibilities and powers of elected and appointed city officials, such as the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, City Attorney and City Manager. This resource is for Texas advocates and explains the differences between the two major forms of city government in Texas, the powers of important city officials, and how various forms of city government affect the roles of those officials.

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?