Results

On May 4, 2026, The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) submitted a formal comment opposing proposed changes to the EOIR-33 change-of-address form, arguing that the revisions are procedurally improper and substantively harmful.

In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. This practice advisory provides guidance to immigration attorneys and advocates who are asked to provide such advice and walks through common issues for the client to consider before deciding to leave the United States. It also includes a checklist of helpful questions and information to review with the client before they depart.

On April 10, 2026, USCIS issued a new memo again terminating the SIJS deferred action (DA) policy (“April 10th Memo”). Under the April 10th Memo, USCIS will no longer automatically consider granting DA to young people granted SIJS. This termination memo does not, however, go into effect until May 10, 2026, and only applies to SIJS petitions filed on or after that date. This practice alert discusses what the April 10th Memo means for SIJS petitions and SIJS DA renewals filed prior to and on or after May 10, 2026, including helpful charts.

On April 23, 2026, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) submitted a comment opposing a proposed rule that would significantly limit work authorization for asylum seekers. The ILRC comments that the rule would drastically restrict access to work permits and make it nearly impossible for many asylum seekers to survive while their cases are pending. It highlights that the proposal would lengthen wait times, add new eligibility barriers, and allow broad discretionary denials, effectively undermining the asylum system and deterring legitimate applicants. The ILRC contends the rule would cause severe economic, social, and health harms, including lost wages, increased exploitation, family instability, and reduced access to legal representation and basic services, while also disproportionately harming immigrants of color. Additionally, the ILRC criticizes related form changes as unlawful and overly burdensome, concluding that the proposal lacks evidence to support its stated goals and urging DHS and USCIS to withdraw it entirely.

This case table of California post-conviction relief decisions is designed to help practitioners quickly find the cases they need.

This step-by-step guide will walk you through the steps for filing your first petition for habeas corpus (immigration) in the Eastern District of California.

The U.S. Department of Justice transferred out all permanent staff from the Recognition and Accreditation program in March 2026, rendering the future of the program uncertain. ILRC wrote to DOJ demanding reinstatement of staff and a return to reasonable processing times for applications.

This practice alert, created in partnership with the End SIJS Backlog Coalition, explores a largely un-tested legal argument that young people with approved SIJS petitions can use the SIJS-specific adjustment provisions at INA § 245(h) to satisfy the “inspected and admitted or paroled” requirement to adjust using some other non-SIJS immigrant petition (for example, a spousal petition).

When an immigration judge denies bond based on a finding that a person is a danger to the community or a flight risk, what options remain to challenge that decision? As immigration detention expands and bond denials become increasingly common, federal court litigation is emerging as a critical tool to obtain judicial review of these determinations.

This practice alert will highlight some of the updates and changes implemented with the December 2025 policy manual update. It is important to note that these changes went into effect immediately, on December 22, 2025, and apply to all pending and future cases.

This practice advisory is Part I of a two-part advisory on civil fines and civil penalties instituted by DHS against noncitizens. Part I discusses the procedures for instituting a fine and recommendations for contesting and appealing a civil fine instituted by DHS. Part II will discuss statutory and Constitutional arguments and defenses against the issuance of fines.

Every family should have a family preparedness plan in case of an emergency. It is equally critical for immigrant families to think ahead and set more concrete plans for immigration-related emergencies that may arise.

To assist in this, we've created this toolkit that goes into detail about different childcare options available in case of an absent parent, how to find trusted immigration services in your community, and how to prepare to assert your constitutional rights in the presence of an immigration officer.

On January 13, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision holding that a violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon) is not a crime of violence. United States v. Gomez, No. 23-435 (9th Cir., Jan. 13, 2026) (en banc).

ILRC submitted this comment to DHS opposing recent changes to FOIA rules effective January 22, 2026 that restrict public access. DHS published a final rule in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act by unlawfully bypassing public notice and comment. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests and allows DHS in its discretion to administratively close requests that it deems to insufficiently describe the records sought.

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a new rule that changes how immigration appeals are handled. The new rule shortens the time you have to appeal—which is how you ask for another court to review an unfavorable decision from an immigration judge.

This guide offers practical answers to common questions, so community members can feel more prepared and confident when facing interactions with federal immigration enforcement officials. The guide also highlights specific details concerning Texas and Californian residents.

On December 22, 2025, DHS published a final rule impacting processing of FOIA requests by all DHS components. The rule is effective January 22, 2026. Despite the major changes made by the rule, no period of public comment was provided. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests with DHS as of January 22, 2026. FOIAs to DHS must be filed online after that date. The rule also states that DHS can, in its discretion, administratively close or make “requests for clarification” where it deems the request to be an inadequate description of the records sought.

In recent months, practitioners have been reporting troubling new patterns in FOIA processing of A-file requests. Some people report unusually high rejection rates on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for reasons related to address requirements. Rejections due to “no record” also have been reported even where the requester is sure that there is a record because they have a partial paper trail of contacts with USCIS. Frequent over redaction of FOIA responses also has been reported. This alert discusses the address issue and suggests how to respond.

This advisory explains each of the three statutory grounds for mandatory detention, and defenses and strategies that advocates can use to challenge the designation. It discusses the Laken Riley Act of 2025, the BIA’s decisions in Matter of Q. Li and Matter of Yajure Hurtado, and the current state of national litigation challenging ICE’s expansive use of mandatory detention.

This practice advisory will highlight some trends, policy changes, and what could happen with the future of DACA.

This brief spotlights legislative activity in Texas and Florida, it also covers a non-exhaustive list of other states that have recently enacted a patchwork of anti-immigrant laws and policies seeking to harm and hinder immigrant communities and their allies.

From October 3-7, 2025, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research surveyed a statewide representative sample of 1,213 registered voters. The poll explored voter attitudes towards mass deportation, recent ICE actions, and sanctuary protections in the state. Uniquely, this poll explores key themes that may be driving Californians’ growing disapproval of mass deportation, including revealing voters’ strong support for due process, including for people with past records, and equal treatment in the legal system, regardless of immigration status. Voters also expressed deep concern with the cost of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration on taxpayers.

Information about these agreements and the rights of asylum seekers in immigration court proceedings if the government makes this argument in an immigration court hearing.

ILRC submitted this comment on November 25, 2025 opposing the Interim Final Rule (IFR) eliminating automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”). The IFR was improvidently issued without prior notice and comment, is unsupported by data or reasoned analysis, and falsely claims that it is part of a foreign affairs exception intended for regulations which impact international policies.

This resource – created with our partners at the Children’s Immigration Law Academy and National Immigration Project – answers common questions about expedited removal and its application to children and offers arguments against its application to young people who were processed as UCs and young people with approved special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS), should the government attempt to apply it to those groups.