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.
The ILRC’s work is about far more than politics and immigration law. It is about keeping families and communities of all backgrounds where they rightfully belong–together. This compels the ILRC’s staff to remain focused on protecting the progress made in our field to date and to continue to call for greater protections for immigrants in our country. Read more on ILRC’s 2016 Annual Report.
In this issue: The ILRC Champions Sanctuary for Immigrants; AB 103 | Victory Halts California Immigration Detention Center Expansion; Coverage of the 2017 Phillip Burton Immigration and Civil Rights Awards; and the 2016 Annual Report
This practice advisory goes through all of the ways that an arrest or conviction for California driving under the influence (DUI) can affect an immigrant, and reviews possible changes to the law. It also will discuss reckless driving as an alternative to DUI.
This guide provides California employers with guidance in the event of ICE workplace enforcement including a brief introduction to immigration enforcement, a review of rights and best practices if ICE comes to the workplace for both employers and employees, and a list of additional resources.
Absences from the United States can affect an applicant’s eligibility for naturalization in numerous ways. In this practice advisory, we focus specifically on how absences of varying lengths of time affect the continuous residence requirement.
Criminal sentence can have a big impact on immigration status and eligibility for relief. In this Advisory, we discuss how immigration law treats different sentencing dispositions in general, and then apply that to California sentencing law. We talk about how advocates can use California law, including the newly amended Penal Code § 18.5, to help their clients.
This resource explains key provisions that Texas cities and counties can enact in order to protect immigrants in light of SB 4.
Cities, counties, commissioners, mayors, sheriffs, and other elected officials have all sued the state of Texas over its controversial anti-immigrant law, SB4. This backgrounder explains the primary claims of the lawsuits, who all the parties are, and what is happening with SB4.
Chart comparing the criminal and inadmissibility bars for the DREAM Act of 2017, Recognizing America's Children Act, SUCCEED Act, American Hope Act of 2017, BRIDGE Act, and DACA.
This practice advisory outlines some suggestions and resources for immigration advocates working with law enforcement agencies to obtain law enforcement certification for U Visa applicants. It also includes a summary of all state laws, as of July 2017, that have either passed or are pending regarding U Visa certification policies and protocols.
Prepared by Angie Junck and Raha Jorjani, this primer is designed to educate District Attorneys interested in learning more about the immigration impact of criminal convictions.
The Judicial Council of California produces forms for pro se petitioners. The CR-180 and CR-181 forms cover various forms of “clean slate” remedies, including reducing felonies to misdemeanors (17(b)), set asides and dismissals (1203.4), and vacaturs after successful completion of probation (1203.43). The forms also contain a notation to 18.5 which makes clear that felonies reduced to misdemeanors carry a maximum of 364-day sentence.
Heidi Altman and Angie Junck authored this article for the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.Originally published in Lex Quod Ordo, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys Quarterly Newsletter, Winter/Spring 2014, Volume IV, Issue IV. http://www.apainc.org/
This practice alert provides a summary of Flores v. Sessions, a recent Ninth Circuit decision that held that all detained children have the right to a bond hearing. It discusses why Flores v. Sessions was necessary, what its impact may be for detained youth, and details practice tips for advocates representing detained children seeking bond hearings.
In May 2017, Attorney General Sessions issued a memo clarifying the interpretation of Trump's Executive Order to de-fund "sanctuary furisdictions." The Memo narrowly defines "sanctuary jurisdictions" and explains that the de-funding threat only applies to a few grant programs. This advisory explains what Sessions' Memo said, and how it affects communities that might be considered "sanctuary jurisdictions."
Alien smuggling can affect an immigrant in several different ways: Alien smuggling is a ground of inadmissibility, a ground of deportability, a bar to good moral character, and a conviction for alien smuggling is an aggravated felony. Screening for alien smuggling is particularly important in light of Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security John Kelly’s memoranda directing his agency to prioritize immigration enforcement against alien smugglers, and U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions’ directive to federal prosecutors to prioritize prosecution of alien smuggling. This practice advisory will walk through what “alien smuggling” is, how it can affect an immigrant client in each of these contexts, and practice tips for when alien smuggling might come up in your client’s case.
Letter from 300+ national, state, and local non-profit organizations to the U.S. Senate opposing Lee Francis Cissna's nomination for director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and asking senators to "hold" his nomination.
This reference chart provides a quick comparison between the most common forms of relief for immigrant survivors of abuse: VAWA, U visas, T visas, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and Asylum.
In May, the US Commission on Civil Rights convened a hearing on collateral consequences. The Commission solicited testimony from thought leaders about the lingering consequences that convictions can cause. Rose Cahn submitted testimony regarding the intersection of crimes and immigration law and laid out clear policy recommendations for jurisdictions interested in mitigating or eliminating the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.
Letter from 400+ national, state, and local non-profit organizations opposing H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.
Please reference the below documents for examples of the Red Cards in action. Special thanks to CultureStrike for creating helpful illustrations!
This document provides guidelines to prosecutor offices on considering the immigration consequences of criminal cases.
So you’ve won a 1473.7 motion, now what? For immigration purposes it’s important to document the victory and secure a signed order from an immigration judge. The signed order need not go into great detail; under Matter of Pickering, it is sufficient for the order to state generally that the conviction was vacated on a ground of legal invalidity. Attached please find a sample order for a grant of a 1473.7 motion.
This one-page infographic summarizes the various California post-conviction relief vehicles, their requirements, and their immigration benefits.
The ILRC joins numerous child welfare and immigration advocates across the country in urging all members of the House Judiciary Committee to protect the best interests of children by opposing H.R. 495, the “Protection of Children Act.” H.R. 495 asks Congress to break away from long-held standards of child welfare in the United States. This bill inhumanely seeks to strip vulnerable children of existing legal protections, and goes a step further to encourage the increased deportation of these children back to the very danger they fled from.