Areas of Expertise

In Stokeling v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the definition of a "crime of violence" under the ACCA.  This advisory alerts public defenders and immigration advocates to possible immigration challenges caused by Stokeling, and defense strategies.

In spite of the constant attacks on sanctuary policies from the current administration, these policies continue to spread, and continue to win in the courts.  More than 120 new sanctuary-type laws have been enacted since January 2017, and at least 20 federal court rulings have found in favor of jurisdictions that limit their assistance or involvement in immigration enforcement.

This report outlines the state of immigration enforcement in Orange County, California by providing a window into the historical and current state of Orange County’s immigration policies, their impact on local residents and the considerations and values that ought to guide a vision for a new Orange County. Specifically, the report offers a first look at data obtained through Public Records Act requests from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and ICE. It concludes with 20 questions that ought to inform any discussion going forward about immigration policy in the sixth most populous county in the nation.

It has always been important to screen naturalization applicants thoroughly to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for naturalization, and to assess any potential issues that could cause them to denied or deported. While the laws governing how and when someone is eligible to naturalize and how and when someone is deportable have not changed, the importance of screening applicants has increased in light of the new NTA Memo. This packet is meant to assist practitioners in screening naturalization applicants for any issues that may cause them to be denied and deported. It includes a Red Flag Checklist, an Annotated Red Flag Checklist, a Guide for Legal Reviewers, and a Review Cheat Sheet for Workshops. 

In July 2018, USCIS issued a new policy memorandum that limits the circumstances in which it will issue Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID). This practice advisory provides an overview of the law governing RFEs and NOIDs, outlines the changes to USCIS policy announced in the July 2018 policy memo, and sets forth a six-step process to follow when responding to requests for additional evidence. The advisory also includes sample arguments to make when responding to common RFE and NOID scenarios in the SIJS context.

This advisory gives an orientation to the deportation process for community members and new advocates. It breaks down the process into four steps that typically happen in an immigrant’s experience with the deportation system, providing a basic overview of ICE enforcement, the court system, and the effect of a removal or deportation order.

In the past, denaturalization proceedings were rare and usually brought only against alleged war criminals and in other extreme cases. However, continuing their assault on immigrants, families, and communities of color, the Trump administration has increased resources dedicated to pursuing denaturalization in an effort to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens and there are concerns this number will continue to grow. This practice advisory will briefly describe these recent efforts to increase denaturalizations, the legal grounds and process for denaturalizing a citizen, and the consequences of denaturalization. 

A noncitizen can pursue lawful permanent residence through a family member in two different ways—one, through consular processing at a U.S. consulate abroad,  or two, through adjustment of status at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) office or Immigration Court in the United States.  For people who are already in the United States, adjustment of status is preferable if they are otherwise eligible. The adjustment process is completed entirely in the United States and thus unlawful presence bars are not triggered by a departure to attend the consular interview. It also avoids the travel costs, family separation resulting from completing the process abroad, and provides an appeal or review process, unlike consular processing.  This advisory focuses on family-based adjustment of status through INA § 245(a) and INA § 245(i).

The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was devised to protect intending immigrant children from “aging-out” while undergoing the lengthy process to status. This advisory discusses how CSPA protects children of U.S. citizens in their applications for permanent residency. This is one of three advisories in a series detailing the benefits and limitations of the CSPA in the immigration process. For more information on the CSPA, see our advisories, “The CSPA and Children of Permanent Residents” and “The CSPA and Asylees.”

The master calendar hearing is the first hearing in removal proceedings before an immigration judge of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, during which serious substantive decisions can be made in an immigrant’s removal case. Advocates must be well prepared and have a clear case strategy in mind prior to the master calendar hearing, as well as a detailed plan for how to advocate during this hearing. This advisory and accompanying checklist are designed to provide a quick guide for advocates to flag the issues that need to be addressed when representing clients at a master calendar hearing.

USCIS's Policy Memorandum of June 28, 2018, provides new guidance for when USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to applicants requesting immigration benefits. This practice advisory outlines the NTA Memo’s impact on naturalization cases.  Specifically, this advisory discusses the NTA Memo’s particular directives for naturalization cases; provides the legal context for when a naturalization applicant can be placed in removal proceedings; discusses best practices for preparing a naturalization application under the new NTA Memo; and offers practice tips if your naturalization client is placed in removal proceedings.

This advisory focuses on defense strategies for naturalization applicants who are in removal proceedings, especially within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A prospective client’s complete entry and exit history to the United States is one of the most important pieces of information to gather so that you can properly evaluate their immigration case. However, sometimes it can be challenging to figure out what questions to ask to elicit the information you need, or what the answers mean. This practice advisory describes different types of entries to the United States—entries without inspection, entries with valid documents, entries with fraudulent documents, “wave throughs”—as well as different outcomes of unsuccessful attempted entries—voluntary returns or expedited removals—and the legal significance of these different entries and attempted entries. We also provide suggestions for questions to ask clients to identify what happened at each entry or attempted entry. This discussion applies to entries and attempted entries made by people who are not lawful permanent residents; it is primarily meant to help you assess a client’s options for obtaining legal status, by understanding their entry and exit history to the United States.

On June 28, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a memorandum stating the expanded circumstances in which the agency will begin issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA), including upon denying most affirmative applications. This practice advisory provides an overview of the new USCIS NTA Memo and gives tools for identifying possible red flags that could trigger enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also identifies some precautions that advocates should take when preparing affirmative applications in light of this new policy.

Males living in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, including naturalization applicants, must register for the Selective Service. While failure to register for the Selective Service is not a statutory or regulatory bar, it may still stop a person from naturalizing. This practice advisory will look deeper into the Selective Service requirements, how USCIS will evaluate the case depending on the good moral character time period, and discuss possible strategies for overcoming a failure to register.

It is essential that we enact policies that support our youth in becoming healthy, productive adults. Unfortunately, many localities engage in unnecessary, and sometimes unlawful, practices that negatively impact the development of young people. This fact sheet, written together with the National Juvenile Justice Network, describes policy changes that could help protect immigrant youth.

Resources on the FIRST STEP Act—legislation to reform the criminal justice system—and its impacts on non-citizens.

On June 28, 2018, USCIS published new guidance expanding the circumstances in which it will issue a Notice to Appear, placing immigrant applicants in removal proceedings.  On November 19, 2018, USCIS began implementation of this new guidance on many forms of humanitarian relief, including U visa, T visa, VAWA, SIJS, I-730s, and related applications.  Authored by ASISTA, ILRC, and AILA, these annotated notes contain the verbatim information shared by USCIS during the November 15, 2018 national stakeholder teleconference along with practice pointers and suggestions for advocacy.

In this issue: Public Charge: The Threat America is Not Talking Enough About; The ILRC Introduces its First Andy Grove Immigrants’ Rights Fellowship; In Focus: Big Things Happening in Texas; Field Office Rundown; Joining the ILRC; and our 2017 Program Partners

This comment period has closed. Click here respond to the latest notice of proposed fee waiver rule change.

These materials provide guidance for educators and other professionals working with immigrant parents to be able to conduct family preparedness workshops. Family preparedness workshops help families engage in contingency planning for their children, in the event of detention or deportation of a parent. The materials contained here include a script, a sample PowerPoint, and other helpful resources.

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.

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 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.

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.