USCIS Naturalization processing was already delayed as long as 3-4 years in many jurisdictions before the pandemic and ensuing USCIS closures hit. Many thousands of applicants are waiting to complete the application process.
This practice advisory discusses the confidentiality policies and practices currently in place protecting information submitted in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applications in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California that allowed the DACA program to remain open.
A Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862, is a charging document that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues and files with the immigration court to start removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) against an individual, known in removal proceedings as the “respondent.” The NTA serves many functions in an immigration case, like explaining why the government thinks the respondent maybe deportable and gives notice to the respondent. This practice advisory will go over some of the information you should find on the NTA. This is a general introduction on issues to look out for when representing someone in immigration court.
This Practice Advisory is a detailed follow-up to our prior Practice Alert on the Supreme Court's April 23, 2020 decision in Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020). In Barton, the Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) triggers the "stop-time" rule for purposes of cancellation of removal eligibility, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. This Advisory provides an in-depth discussion of the Barton decision, focusing on legal arguments to push back against overreaching DHS efforts seeking to trigger the stop-time rule, legal arguments and trial strategies to prevent conduct that did not result in conviction from triggering the stop-time rule, and considerations for criminal defense lawyers representing immigrants in criminal proceedings.
Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal is an important deportation defense for eligible individuals in removal proceedings who have resided in the United States for many years. Proving “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to a qualifying relative can be difficult, but when medical or psychological conditions are present, they are often the strongest hardship factor. This advisory explains how to meet the requisite hardship burden in Non-LPR Cancellation cases by demonstrating medical and psychological hardship, especially in light of the BIA’s recent decision, Matter of J-J-G. The advisory discusses various ways to document medical and psychological conditions and show how those conditions would cause hardship to qualifying relatives, in the event of the applicant’s removal.
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.
Increasingly prosecutors are asked to consider immigration consequences in the charging and plea-bargaining process. Some states have adopted policies requiring prosecutors to consider such consequences, see, e.g., Cal. Pen. C. § 1016.3(b), and some prosecutor offices have adopted internal guidelines mandating the consideration of immigration consequences. This advisory provides context for why such a prosecutorial policy or practice is legally necessary and permitted, if not mandated, by constitutional law and governing codes of conduct.
Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is an important relief option for individuals who are unable to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. This advisory reviews the legal standard for CAT protection. It also provides an overview of seminal Board of Immigration Appeals and federal circuit court decisions that discuss the various elements of a CAT claim. The end of the advisory contains a useful chart which compares asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT.
U nonimmigrant status and T nonimmigrant status, often called “U visas” and “T visas,” are humanitarian forms of immigration relief for crime survivors. Congress created these forms of relief with the dual purpose of aiding law enforcement, by encouraging crime victims to cooperate, and providing humanitarian relief for crime survivors. Both forms of relief have a certification process by which applicants request certification from a law enforcement agency to document their cooperation. In recent years, many states have enacted U and T visa certification legislation in order to assist eligible immigrants in obtaining law enforcement certifications. This practice advisory provides a summary of the current and pending state statutes regarding certifications as of March 2020.
In 2016, California passed California Penal Code § 1473.7, a critical post-conviction relief vehicle for people no longer in criminal custody to move to eliminate prior convictions that violated constitutional and statutory rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Under decades of legal precedent, prior offenses vacated on this basis are outside the federal immigration definition of "conviction." Nevertheless, some DHS attorneys incorrectly argue that § 1473.7 vacaturs are not effective for immigration purposes. This practice advisory, a Sample Memorandum of Law and Table of BIA Cases, presents arguments and precedent for refuting DHS's arguments.