Every family should have a Family Preparedness Plan in case of an emergency. It is critical for immigrant families to think ahead and set more concrete plans for immigration emergencies that can arise. For example, this Resource Toolkit goes into detail about different childcare options available in case of an absent parent, where to find trusted immigration services in your community, and how to prepare to assert your constitutional rights in the presence of an immigration officer.

This downloadable and printable toolkit is divided into different sections that give guidance on family preparedness planning, regardless of immigration status. It gives additional advice to undocumented and/or mixed status families.

Under current USCIS regulations, any person under 21 years of age who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements may be granted SIJS. This practice alert addresses many of the unsuccessful arguments that USCIS has not accepted when a petition received by USCIS after the youth turns 21. In rare cases, USCIS has accepted petitions received after the petitioner’s 21st birthday when there is proof that the petition was improperly rejected or receipted by USCIS before the deadline. This practice alert primarily focuses on USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions and limited federal court cases to highlight successful and unsuccessful arguments when the SIJS petition is filed on or after the youth’s 21st birthday.

While U.S. immigration laws provide certain special protections to children migrating without a parent or legal guardian on account of their vulnerabilities, these laws and policies fall short of both domestic and international child welfare principles. Those impacted by and involved with U.S. systems for responding to child migrants have known for years that they do not meet the needs of most children. This resource aims to demonstrate that a different approach to how the United States welcomes migrant children, particularly as relates to their time in government custody/detention, is not just possible but necessary.

On October 25, 2019, the Attorney General published Matter of Thomas & Thompson holding that adjudicators could only recognize a sentence modification for immigration purposes where the sentence was vacated due to procedural or substantive defect as defined in Matter of Pickering. It was not clear whether this holding was retroactive. Under new DOJ regulations it is now clear that Matter of Thomas & Thompson is not retroactive. Adjudicators will recognize a sentence modification as vacating the sentence for immigration purposes where: (1) the person filed for the sentence modification on or before October 25, 2019; (2) the person relied on the availability to seek a sentence modification where the conviction date was on or before October 25, 2019; (3) there was a clerical or typographical error in the sentence regardless of the date of entry of the sentence; or (4) where the sentence was vacated due to a procedural or substantive defect in the sentencing - regardless of when the sentence modification was filed.