Results

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.

The purpose of this advisory is to provide service providers with an update on the status of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and how to counsel clients now. In it we include information on the current status of the DACA program, what to tell clients, factors to consider in deciding when and if to renew DACA, and ideas for what people should do now if they have never had DACA.

USCIS recently issued updated guidance on when it will refer a person to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) or issue a Notice to Appear (NTA, the charging document that begins a case in immigration court). Advocates must consult this memorandum in evaluating the risk of referral in individual cases, as it now requires USCIS to issue an NTA in any case in which, “upon issuance of an unfavorable decision on an application, petition, or benefit request, the alien is not lawfully present in the United States.” This Practice Advisory answers common questions about the risks of filing affirmative SIJS cases for youth in a variety of scenarios, such as when the youth has a delinquency history, the youth is over the age of 18, or the youth is alleged to be gang-involved.

The DOJ created new conditions for state and local recipients of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and other federal grants, in an effort to prevent jurisdictions with certain sanctuary policies from receiving any funds. Several federal courts have found these requirements to be unconstitutional, and ordered the DOJ to distribute the grants to sanctuary cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia. This advisory explains the specific grants at issue, the various lawsuits against DOJ’s conditions, and other new developments in the fight over federal funding of sanctuary cities.

This practice advisory addresses the impact of drug trafficking on unaccompanied minor (UC) cases by looking at overall drug trafficking patterns within UC cases, identifying the substantive and procedural issues that may arise when UC with drug trafficking histories pursue immigration relief, and drawing parallels to other bodies of law to provide practitioners with recommendations for use in the immigration context. This advisory discusses how children impacted by drug trafficking issues are able or unable to access legal relief and the challenges they face before DHS and immigration courts. It aims to provide practitioners with strategies to most effectively overcome these challenges in defending youth who have been involved in drug trafficking against deportation and to obtain immigration legal relief on their behalf.

This advisory discusses how the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) protect children of permanent residents in their applications for permanent residency. We discuss how a child’s age is calculated and how they might move through different preference categories through their process to become residents.

The domestic violence deportation ground at INA § 237(a)(2)(E) sets out four bases for deportability. Recent Board of Immigration Appeals and federal decisions, including the Supreme Court decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, significantly affect each of the four bases. This advisory will provide a brief overview of the deportation ground, and then outline the recent decisions and how they may affect representation in California and the Ninth Circuit. It includes an appendix analyzing common California offenses as crimes of violence.

Cancellation of removal for Non–Permanent Residents under INA § 240A(b)(1) is a critical defense to deportation available to certain non-citizens with family in the United States. A person who is granted non-LPR cancellation of removal receives a green card, but the eligibility requirements for non-LPR cancellation are distinct from other means of applying for a green card, and also from other types of cancellation of removal. It is important for immigration practitioners to be familiar with non-LPR cancellation, as it may be the only form of immigration relief available for many people in removal proceedings who entered the United States without inspection. This practice advisory will walk through the basic requirements to help practitioners screen for cancellation eligibility.

This practice advisory discusses how the Child Status Protection Act protects children of asylees and refugees through the immigration process, including the asylum application, the Form I-730, and adjustment.

The final step in the naturalization process is the oath of allegiance to the United States. The oath demonstrates loyalty to the United States and the Constitution. All applicants must demonstrate that they are “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.” The oath also includes statements that the applicant is willing to “bear arms on behalf of the United States,” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces” when required by law.

In October 2017, the Department of Defense issued new policies that impact lawful permanent residents and other non-U.S. citizens in the military. This practice advisory discusses how these policies affect those who seek to enlist, and those who currently serve in the military, including in the Reserve Components. This practice advisory was jointly authored by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the National Immigration Forum, and the New Americans Campaign.

In a time of increased immigration enforcement, advocates must consider all possible forms of relief for clients facing deportation. U nonimmigrant status (also frequently referred to as a “U visa”) is commonly pursued as an affirmative immigration benefit for undocumented individuals, but it may also be a particularly important form of removal defense for certain lawful permanent residents (LPRs) facing deportation, likely on the basis of criminal convictions. This Practice Advisory provides an introduction to U nonimmigrant status and details its benefits for LPRs facing deportation, as well as the particular issues LPRs may face in seeking this form of protection.

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.

In the past four years, California voters and the California Legislature have created many new mechanisms for people to reclassify, vacate, and resentence offenses to eliminate the ongoing impact of criminal convictions. This advisory discusses how these new laws can benefit immigrants and can erase or mitigate certain criminal grounds of removability.

This advisory is a follow-up to the ILRC’s free webinar on hardship in waivers from the fall, 2017. Given the volume of questions received during the webinar and overall strong interest in this topic (over 1,000 people registered for this webinar!), this advisory covers the basics and also incorporates frequently asked questions. In this practice advisory you will find an overview of hardship in waivers: when you need to prove hardship, whose hardship counts, and what is hardship. It also covers tips and strategies for analyzing and proving “extreme hardship” in your case by using USCIS guidance, case law, and working closely with your client.

This practice advisory is designed to introduce practitioners to the concept of Conditional Permanent Residence, and to explain the requirements and processes  for removing the conditions on residence,  thereby enabling the conditional resident to obtain Lawful Permanent Residence that can last indefinitely.

As of January 1, 2018, California has changed its “Deferred Entry of Judgment” program to a true “pretrial diversion” program. See Penal Code § 1000, amended by AB 208. Qualifying defendants charged with minor drug offenses can participate in pretrial diversion without incurring a drug conviction for immigration purposes. This Advisory will discuss how pretrial diversion works, and how to assist immigrants who went through the old Deferred Entry of Judgment.

This practice advisory goes through all of the ways that an arrest or conviction for California driving under the influence (DUI) can affect an immigrant, and reviews possible changes to the law. It also will discuss reckless driving as an alternative to DUI.

This practice advisory outlines some suggestions and resources for immigration advocates working with law enforcement agencies to obtain law enforcement certification for U Visa applicants.  It also includes a summary of all state laws, as of July 2017, that have either passed or are pending regarding U Visa certification policies and protocols.

This practice alert provides a summary of Flores v. Sessions, a recent Ninth Circuit decision that held that all detained children have the right to a bond hearing. It discusses why Flores v. Sessions was necessary, what its impact may be for detained youth, and details practice tips for advocates representing detained children seeking bond hearings.

Cal. P.C. § 261.5(c) is not an aggravated felony, but the law may change for the worse on § 261.5(d)Esquivel Quintana v. AG Sessions (May 30, 2017)

This practice advisory is designed to introduce legal workers to the T visa.  It outlines T visa eligibility requirements, discusses the advantages of applying for T visas over other forms of humanitarian immigration relief, and analyzes how President Trump's recent executive orders impact T visa applicants.

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.

This practice advisory reviews options for naturalization applicants who cannot afford the filing fee for the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization: the reduced fee option (Form I-942) and the USCIS fee waiver (Form I-912). The practice advisory also provides resources and tips for completing either application.

The immigration statute designates certain types of crimes as “aggravated felonies.” See INA § 101(a)(43), 8 USC § 1101(a)(43). These are the most dangerous type of convictions for a noncitizen. Despite the name, this definition reaches offenses that are neither felonies nor aggravated. It can include selling $10 worth of marijuana, a misdemeanor shoplifting offense with a one-year suspended sentence, or failure to appear at a criminal hearing. The person must be convicted of the offense, not merely commit it, for aggravated felony penalties to apply.

This advisory describes how practitioners with clients whose DACA renewal is outside of processing time or whose biometrics appointment notice is delayed can elevate their cases for resolution with USCIS.

A noncitizen who is convicted of a “crime of domestic violence” is deportable. INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 USC 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). In Matter of H. Estrada the BIA reaffirmed that the categorical approach must be used to determine that the offense is a “crime of violence” under 18 USC § 16, but it held that the circumstance-specific approach can be used to determine whether the victim and defendant shared the required domestic relationship. Under that approach, the BIA found that ICE can use any reliable evidence, including evidence from outside the record of conviction, to try to meet its burden of proving the relationship.

This advisory explains how some DACA recipients may be eligible to adjust their status to permanent residents after travellng outside the United States on advance parole. We explain what is required for advance parole, what is required for adjustment of status, and how those two are related for certain DACA recipients who entered the United States without inspection. Although the advisory is focused on DACA, most of the analysis will also apply to TPS holders.