Post-Conviction Relief in California Should Be Unaffected by Chaidez v. United States

In Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. _____, ____S.Ct.____, 2013 WL 610201, (February 20, 2013) the U.S. Supreme Court held that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) was a “new rule” that did not apply retroactively to convictions final before March 31, 2010. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise a noncitizen about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.

DACA Criminal Bars Chart

In addition to a number of other requirements, to qualify for deferred action a person must not be convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors, and not pose a threat to public safety or national security.

Understanding the Criminal Bars to the Deferred Action Policy

Practice Advisory for Criminal Defenders: Certain Criminal Offenses May Bar Persons from Applying for the New Deferred Action Status Program Announced by President Obama

This advisory for criminal defense counsel outlines defense strategies to preserve a client’s possible eligibility for deferred action.

Arguing That a California Infraction is Not a Conviction; Test for Non-Misdemeanor Offenses

Practice Advisory: The BIA held that a violation of a Kansas municipal ordinance is a conviction for immigration purposes despite the lack of appointed defense counsel or right to a jury trial in those proceedings. Matter of Cuellar, 25 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2012).

The Quick Reference Chart and Notes for Arizona Offenses

Updated October 2012! A guide to assist public defenders and other to determine the immigration consequences of selected Arizona offenses.

Ninth Circuit Decides Key Issues about Categorical Approach; Overturns Sandoval-Lua

The Ninth Circuit En Banc Decides Key Issues About the Categorical Approach; overturns Sandoval-Lua: Young v. Holder __F.3d__ (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2012) (en banc). This quick Advisory provides the headlines from an important Ninth Circuit case published today. Further advisories may provide a more in-depth analysis.

LPR Bars to § 212(h) – To Whom Do They Apply?

Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012). Section 212(h) of the INA1 is an important waiver of crimes-based grounds ofinadmissibility.

Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences in Light of Padilla

Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences of Crimes in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky.

Chart: Eligibility for Waiver in Removal Proceedings under the Former INA § 212(c)

Eligibility for Waiver in Removal Proceedings under the Former INA § 212(c), Pursuant to Judulang v. Holder

Advisory: Ninth Circuit Panel Reverses Itself in Pagayon II

Testimony before an IJ may not be used to characterize an offense, or to link two documents from the record of conviction. A Ninth Circuit panel has withdrawn a very bad opinion on the modified categorical approach and substituted a substantially better one.

Immigration Consequences of a Plea to Calif. H&S § 11357(b) Now an Infraction

Practice Advisory: California Health and Safety Code § 11357(b) prohibits possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. After January 1, 2011 it will be treated as an infraction.

Conviction on Direct Appeal of Right Remains a “Conviction” for Immigration Purposes

Planes v. Holder (9th Cir. July 5, 2011): Criminal defenders must assume that filing a timely direct appeal of right will not prevent a conviction from having immigration effect. This is a change in the law, created by Planes v. Holder, supra. Advocates will file a petition for rehearing and there is a good chance that this will be granted, and a reasonable chance, although no guarantee, that Planes may be reversed.

Practice Advisory: Lujan & Nunez, July 14, 2011

Warning: Immigrant Defendants with a First Minor Drug Offense: “Rehabilitative relief” will no longer eliminate a first conviction for simple possession for immigration purposes, unless the conviction occurred before 7/14/11

Who Decides? Overview of Chevron, Brand X and Mead Principles

"A brief overview of principles governing deference to an agency may be useful to practitioners new to this area. In immigration law, the immigration judge and the BIA may resolve almost all issues presented in an immigration case, and DHS and the AG will address many issues in regulation or other policy rulings." By Kathy Brady.

Update on INA § 212(h) Defense Strategies

"Many Permanent Residents Are Not Subject to the § 212(h) Permanent Resident Bar; The Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms § 212(h) as a Direct Waiver of Deportability; Using § 212(h) When LPR Cancellation is Not an Option" by Kathy Brady

Practice Advisory: Adjustment of Status Following an Admission Does Not “Re-Start” the Five-Year Clock for Purposes of the Moral Turpitude Deportation Ground

Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011), overruling in part Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005).

Practice Advisory by Katherine Brady on the Supreme Court Case Nijhawan v. Holder

Practice advisory by Katherine Brady on the Supreme Court case Nijhawan v. Holder, which deals with the categorical approach and aggravated felonies.

Immigration Criminal Law Resources for California Criminal Defenders

A description of critical resources available for California criminal defenders defending noncitizens:

Results