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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Overview of ILRC’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request
Every year, millions of people wait for Congress to advance a solution that would provide stability for undocumented persons and their families. The numbers left waiting and worrying without a pathway to citizenship, protection from deportation, or the ability to work under the Trump Administration has only increased with the limitations on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain countries.
This practice advisory addresses the impact of drug trafficking on unaccompanied minor (UC) cases by looking at overall drug trafficking patterns within UC cases, identifying the substantive and procedural issues that may arise when UC with drug trafficking histories pursue immigration relief, and drawing parallels to other bodies of law to provide practitioners with recommendations for use in the immigration context. This advisory discusses how children impacted by drug trafficking issues are able or unable to access legal relief and the challenges they face before DHS and immigration courts. It aims to provide practitioners with strategies to most effectively overcome these challenges in defending youth who have been involved in drug trafficking against deportation and to obtain immigration legal relief on their behalf.
A brief summary of recent court precedents that analyze the limits of the federal government’s power to tell states how to regulate, and what this means for 8 USC § 1373. One court so far has found 8 USC § 1373 unconstitutional, and others are pending. These cases mean that a key anti-sanctuary weapon of the federal government may be struck down by the courts, and communities may be legally able to stop any communication with ICE and CBP.
This advisory discusses how the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) protect children of permanent residents in their applications for permanent residency. We discuss how a child’s age is calculated and how they might move through different preference categories through their process to become residents.