Results

This report details findings from a national survey of legal practitioners concerning the increased use of gang allegations against young immigrants as a means of driving up deportation numbers, at the encouragement of the Trump administration. The report suggests emerging best practices for immigration attorneys to employ in both fighting against unfounded gang allegations and working to mitigate the impact of prior gang involvement.

As more and more jurisdictions are contemplating releasing people from jails and prisons, it is critical that we consider ways to ensure that people released are not immediately transferred to the harmful deportation system.  ILRC, together with our allies, Asian Prisoners Support Committee, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, and California Alliance for Youth and Criminal Justice, put together this list of recommendations that advocates can use to demand responsible releases. 

Despite new state laws legalizing cannabis for recreational use, archaic U.S. drug laws still classify marijuana as federally illegal. Because immigration is governed by federal law, this means that noncitizens may face serious problems down the line if they are not aware of how their experiences with cannabis could impact their immigration journey. This video and accompanying infographic detail the specific risks associated with the use or possession of cannabis and/or industry employment.

In November 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, a historic record changing opportunity. The below resources are aimed at educating community members, advocates, and lawyers on the immigration benefits of Proposition 47.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic demands a bold, urgent public health response for incarcerated communities. Even before this health crisis, California’s jails, prison system, and immigration detention centers were dangerously overcrowded and medically negligent.  The Dignity not Detention Coalition, in partnership with CURB, JusticeLA, and Human Impact partners, created A Budget to Save Lives, a community-based decarceration strategy which presents intersectional reforms in five key areas including: Jail population reduction, prison population reduction, immigration detention population reduction, youth decriminalization & decarceration, and community-based services & alternatives to incarceration. Now more than ever before, it is imperative that California divest from criminalization and incarceration and invest in cost and life-saving solutions for the health and wellbeing of our communities.

On June 14, 2021, USCIS announced a new “bona fide determination” process whereby certain U petitioners and their family members with pending U petitions can receive four-year work authorization and deferred action while they wait for full adjudication. This process could be very good for many of the 270,000 folks who have filed for a U visa and are waiting – but there are many folks left out, and of course, much of this depends on how the process is implemented. ILRC and ASISTA wrote this advisory to provide updated information on the new process and discuss eligibility, decisions and renewals, and other issues.

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

Immigrants who are alleged to be involved with gangs are top immigration enforcement priorities for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is true even if they have no criminal convictions and DHS is targeting them based on allegations alone. If such individuals choose to apply for immigration benefits, they may be exposing themselves to serious risk. This practice advisory discusses what gangs and gang databases are, how allegations of gang membership arise in immigration cases, the over-inclusive process law enforcement employs to allege gang membership, and strategies to identify whether your client may be labeled a gang member or associate. The purpose of this advisory is to help immigration advocates better understand how law enforcement in the United States documents and alleges gang membership or association, such that advocates are able to identify red flags in cases, and are better prepared to work with clients to assess possible risks in filing for relief.

Over the past four years, working with partner organizations throughout California and nationally, the ILRC has helped advocate and pass a series of reforms at the local and state levels that advance the rights of both citizens and noncitizens and connect the dots between the criminal and immigrant justice movements.  This graphic describes some of these campaigns.  If you would like support leading similar policy efforts of your own, please feel free to reach out to Rose Cahn, rcahn@ilrc.org.

A one-page issue spotting decision tree to help screen for potential forms of post-conviction relief.  For an in-depth discussion of any of these vehicles, see this guide, created by the ILRC and Californians for Safety and Justice.

This Chart summarizes the criminal record bars to many forms of relief, to provide a quick way to check whether your client is potentially eligible for relief. See also ILRC, Immigration Relief Toolkit (2018).

Many noncitizen defendants are already deportable (“removable”). This includes all undocumented people, as well as lawful permanent residents (green card-holders) who have become deportable because of a conviction. If immigration authorities find these people – which is likely to happen – they will be deported unless they are granted some kind of immigration relief.   For these defendants, staying eligible to apply for immigration relief is their most important immigration goal, and may be their highest priority in the criminal defense.

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.

Preparing a strong case for bond for detained clients has become more important than ever. This practice advisory discusses how to address evidentiary issues and challenges in bond proceedings and provides tips for proving your bond case, as well as overcoming negative factors.

In October 2020, DHS and DOJ published a final regulation that sets out wide-ranging and draconian bars to applying for, and bases to terminate a grant of, asylum. For example, the bars include conviction of any felony, any controlled substance offense, a single DUI with injury, a DUI with a DUI prior (regardless of injury), and domestic violence bars based on the underlying conduct.

In 2016, California enacted California Penal Code § 1473.7, a post-conviction relief vehicle allowing people no longer in criminal custody to vacate legally defective convictions. Ever since, the ILRC has supported advocates to implement this law, including helping to defend the vacaturs from DHS attempts to erode its impact. In Arias v. Garland, a case currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, the court will decide whether 1473.7 should be given full effect, erasing the conviction for immigration purposes. The ILRC helped coordinate Mr. Arias’s amicus strategy and we offer his redacted merits brief as well as the extraordinary amicus briefs submitted in support so that they might help practitioners facing similar arguments. The briefing in the Arias case represents some of the most robust arguments for why 1473.7 vacaturs should be recognized, but we also include below the various prior briefs, advisories, and sample materials we have developed in the defense of the full reach of 1473.7.

In Rendon v. Holder the Ninth Circuit clarified when a statute is truly “divisible” under the categorical approach, and held that California burglary (Penal Code § 459) never constitutes the aggravated felony “attempted theft.” This holding also means that California burglary never is a crime involving moral turpitude, under the categorical approach.

This advisory discusses the provisions of SB 54 (De Leon) and the California Values Act, relevant to criminal defense counsel who represent noncitizen clients. In addition to discussing specific provisions of the California Values Act, this advisory discusses how to incorporate this new law into your defense practice.

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

On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an adverse, 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020), a case regarding the “stop-time rule” and eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) stops time for purposes of cancellation, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. The Barton opinion will primarily limit eligibility for LPR cancellation, but will have some impact on non-LPR cancellation and VAWA cancellation. This Practice Alert provides a summary and some analysis of the Barton opinion, and some initial tips for practitioners.

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (March 4, 2021), the Supreme Court issued another opinion on the categorical approach, which is the analysis authorities use to decide whether a criminal conviction triggers removal grounds.  Pereida focuses on the “modified” categorical approach, which is how courts approach a conviction under a statute that sets out multiple, separate, offenses (a “divisible” statute). Pereida overruled Marinelarena v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

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

On January 25th, 2017, Trump issued two Executive Orders related to interior immigration enforcement policies. Taken together, these new policies are extremely harsh, and install a new deportation and detention enforcement scheme. This advisory is intended to provide community groups with a preliminary summary and analysis regarding these changes in interior immigration enforcement, which we will revise as we learn more about enforcement practices under the New Administration.

The BIA stated that Cal PC § 273a(b) is not a deportable crime of child abuse, in Matter of Mendoza-Osorio.

The BIA has held that that it will not give retroactive effect to California Penal Code § 18.5(a) on convictions from before January 1, 2015. It will consider a California misdemeanor conviction from before January 1, 2015 to have a potential sentence of up to one year, while a misdemeanor conviction on or after that date will have a potential sentence of up to 364 days. Having a potential sentence of just 364 days can help some immigrants who are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Note that this decision does not affect how immigration treats a sentence that actually was imposed. It only concerns the maximum possible sentence.) Advocates will appeal this decision.

This toolkit will help reentry service providers expand services for noncitizens impacted by the criminal legal system. It offers an escalating service menu, starting with tools to provide general information about how a conviction can impact immigration status, advancing to tools to help clients gather information necessary for an individualized legal analysis, tools to perform that analysis, and last, tools to pursue immigration-related post-conviction relief. This toolkit was designed with reentry providers in mind, but may also be useful for immigration legal providers serving clients with prior records.

4.5 million people in America are on probation.  What is probation, and what does a probation officer do?  How are probation departments involved in immigration enforcement?  This short explainer seeks to provide basic information about probation and highlight the nefarious role that many probation agencies take in turning immigrants over to ICE for deportation.

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