Results

The nonimmigrant status, often referred to as the “T visa” is a form of immigration status for certain noncitizen survivors of trafficking.  This visa was created by Congress to help combat human trafficking and provide immigration relief to persons who were affected. As part of the protections given, Congress allowed for applicants to petition for certain family members to gain status.  These family members are known as “derivatives.” For many family members, being a derivative on an application may be the only way they will be able to get legal status in the United States. This practice advisory provides information on derivatives for T nonimmigrant status as well as considerations to keep in mind when filing an application. 

It is important to remember that immigration law and regulations exempt some categories of immigrants from public charge inadmissibility and provide many types of immigration status that are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This advisory provides an overview of the exemptions to public charge inadmissibility and the forms of relief a client may seek without being subject to a public charge test. It also discusses public charge issues to keep in mind when advising immigrants who may be considering adjustment of status or consular processing through a family or employer petition after having a status that is not subject to public charge inadmissibility. Understanding these considerations will help advocates best counsel their clients and prepare applications in the current climate of uncertainty surrounding public charge policy.

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 order to qualify for naturalization, lawful permanent residents must meet several residence and physical presence requirements that are often mistaken for one another and muddled together. Traveling outside of the United States can not only affect these requirements for naturalization, but they can cause United States Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) officials to find that a person abandoned their lawful permanent resident status, which can have severe consequences. In this practice advisory, we review these requirements in detail as well as the related issues surrounding abandonment of lawful permanent residence.

People who were wrongfully admitted to the United States due to a misrepresentation—i.e., those who were in fact inadmissible at time of admission—may be eligible for a waiver of deportability under INA § 237(a)(1)(H). This lesser-known waiver is only available in removal proceedings and unlike most waiver requests, does not involve any application form or fee. This advisory explains who can request a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver and the process for applying.

This advisory provides an overview of basic concepts in immigration law and describes the government agencies that work in this area. It is a primer for paralegals and accredited representatives who are new to the subject.

On November 1, 2019 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the automatic extension of employment authorization and other documentation for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Each of those TPS-designated countries was set to expire in 2020 but will now be automatically extended through January 4, 2021. This practice advisory lays out what community members need to know and should do now.

This practice alert highlights the key take-aways from three recently adopted AAO decisions and some of the most important elements of the proposed regulations for advocates to challenge through comments, and contains an Appendix with case summaries of the AAO decisions.

On October 25, 2019, Attorney General Barr issued a precedential opinion limiting when immigration authorities will give effect to a state court modification of an imposed sentence.  See  Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (AG 2019), available at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1213201/download (“Matter of Thomas/Thompson”)  While advocates plan to challenge this decision in the courts of appeals, it is now binding law. This advisory summarizes the case, provides advice to defenders, post-conviction practitioners, and immigrant advocates about its implementation, and suggests arguments to raise on appeal. 

Sanchez v. Sessions was a landmark Ninth Circuit ruling on suppression of evidence and termination of removal proceedings.  This advisory explains the decision, lays out the different legal standards for suppression and termination in immigration court, and highlights key holdings that practitioners can use to better defend their clients.

While the best-case scenario would be for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to approve a person’s naturalization application, receiving a denial after a naturalization interview is not the end of the road. If USCIS denies the naturalization application, persons can seek a USCIS hearing to appeal the denial by submitting form N-336 (informally known as an administrative appeal). Although the process is simple, many do not take advantage of this process. 

This practice advisory is the second resource in a two-part series on Humanitarian Forms of Relief for noncitizen victims of violence, serious crimes and persecution. They include: T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, VAWA self-petition, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status.   The first advisory focused on giving an overview of VAWA, U, and T Visas.  Including, eligibility requirements and some factors to consider before applying.  This practice advisory will focus on giving an overview of asylum and special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS), including their eligibility requirements and some factors to consider before applying. 

In a flawed but significant decision, the Ninth Circuit held that California Penal Code § 243(d), battery with injury, is a crime of violence. United States v. Perez (9th Cir. July 11, 2019). Because of Perez, criminal defenders must assume that § 243(d) is a crime of violence and seek other dispositions when necessary.  Immigration advocates should appeal adverse decisions and preserve the argument on appeal.  See this Advisory for a discussion of the decision, alternative pleas, and suggestions for arguments.

This practice advisory provides an overview of ways to advocate with USCIS and DHS components for solutions to individual case problems and systemic issues.

Noncitizen victims of violence, serious crimes, and persecution may be eligible for certain forms of immigration protection and status.  These options are often referred to as Humanitarian Forms of Relief.  They include: T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, VAWA self-petition, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status.

This advisory is the second in a two-part series on unlawful presence and unlawful presence waivers. This advisory covers the requirements and process for the provisional waiver, as well as updates and pitfalls to avoid in light of recent changes that have made pursuing the provisional waiver process more challenging. These include: State Department updates to public charge guidance and increased visa denials based on public charge inadmissibility at the consulate, Attorney General decisions in Matter of Castro-Tum and Matter of S-O-G & F-D-B- making it more difficult to pursue the provisional waiver in removal proceedings, heightened risk pursuing the conditional I-212 option as part of the provisional waiver expansion given updated enforcement priorities, and new considerations for preparing and filing provisional waiver cases in light of new USCIS policy memos on RFEs/NOIDs and Notices to Appear.

Over the last month, some practitioners have reported that USCIS has issued a number of NTAs in connection with denied U and T visa applications. Given these reports, ILRC, ASISTA, CAST, Freedom Network USA, American Association of Immigration Lawyers (AILA), and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles created a practice update to address some of the actions practitioners can take in individual cases as well as to support policy-level advocacy efforts.  

This practice alert provides a brief overview of some of the main changes practitioners can expect with the proposed change to fee waiver eligibility and process, most significantly by eliminating receipt of means-tested benefits as a basis for requesting a fee waiver. Given that these significant changes to the fee waiver process will make it more difficult and time-intensive to establish inability to pay an immigration filing fee, we urge practitioners to advise clients who are eligible for a fee waiver based on receipt of means-tested benefits to apply as soon as possible, before this option is eliminated.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any noncitizen who “within five years from the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.” In current practice, this ground of deportability rarely comes up in pending removal proceedings or as a reason for the initiation of removal proceedings.

This advisory covers three possible immigration remedies that beneficiaries might be able to pursue if a family member dies during the immigration process.

Immigration law has its own definition of what constitutes a criminal "conviction." Because most, although not all, immigration consequences require a conviction, if your client does not have a conviction the immigration case might be saved. This Advisory discusses which dispositions that come out of criminal court actually constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, and how to avoid a conviction. It has been updated to include the BIA's decision that a conviction on direct appeal of right does not have sufficient finality to be a conviction for immigration purposes.

This advisory explains unlawful presence under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) and the differences between the I-601 and I-601A waivers of unlawful presence. It covers who needs a waiver of unlawful presence, what are the requirements for a waiver of unlawful presence, and which waiver process to use depending on the applicant’s circumstances.

In July 2018, USCIS issued a new policy memorandum that limits the circumstances in which it will issue Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID). This practice advisory provides an overview of the law governing RFEs and NOIDs, outlines the changes to USCIS policy announced in the July 2018 policy memo, and sets forth a six-step process to follow when responding to requests for additional evidence. The advisory also includes sample arguments to make when responding to common RFE and NOID scenarios in the SIJS context.

It has always been important to screen naturalization applicants thoroughly to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for naturalization, and to assess any potential issues that could cause them to denied or deported. While the laws governing how and when someone is eligible to naturalize and how and when someone is deportable have not changed, the importance of screening applicants has increased in light of the new NTA Memo. This packet is meant to assist practitioners in screening naturalization applicants for any issues that may cause them to be denied and deported. It includes a Red Flag Checklist, an Annotated Red Flag Checklist, a Guide for Legal Reviewers, and a Review Cheat Sheet for Workshops. 

In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion holding that methamphetamine as defined under California law is not a controlled substance for federal immigration purposes.  In January 2019, however, the court withdrew the published opinion, and issued a non-published opinion that came to the same conclusion.  See Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018), withdrawn by Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2019), and unpublished decision at Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019). The case has been remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  At this time, California defenders must assume that California methamphetamine is a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Immigration advocates in removal proceedings have no precedent to rely upon, but they can make the Lorenzo argument and cite to the unpublished case, while also aggressively pursuing other defense strategies.

The master calendar hearing is the first hearing in removal proceedings before an immigration judge of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, during which serious substantive decisions can be made in an immigrant’s removal case. Advocates must be well prepared and have a clear case strategy in mind prior to the master calendar hearing, as well as a detailed plan for how to advocate during this hearing. This advisory and accompanying checklist are designed to provide a quick guide for advocates to flag the issues that need to be addressed when representing clients at a master calendar hearing.

The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was devised to protect intending immigrant children from “aging-out” while undergoing the lengthy process to status. This advisory discusses how CSPA protects children of U.S. citizens in their applications for permanent residency. This is one of three advisories in a series detailing the benefits and limitations of the CSPA in the immigration process. For more information on the CSPA, see our advisories, “The CSPA and Children of Permanent Residents” and “The CSPA and Asylees.”

In the past, denaturalization proceedings were rare and usually brought only against alleged war criminals and in other extreme cases. However, continuing their assault on immigrants, families, and communities of color, the Trump administration has increased resources dedicated to pursuing denaturalization in an effort to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens and there are concerns this number will continue to grow. This practice advisory will briefly describe these recent efforts to increase denaturalizations, the legal grounds and process for denaturalizing a citizen, and the consequences of denaturalization.