Alert: On September 29, 2020 the Fee Rule was enjoined nation-wide in its entirety by a District court in the Northern District of California, ILRC et al. v. Chad F. Wolf, et al. (ND California) (Case 4:20-cv-05883-JSW) (Sept. 29, 2020).
Throughout the Trump Administration, the federal government has sought to undermine sanctuary policies by requiring that cities help ICE with immigration enforcement in order to receive certain federal grants from the DOJ. These policies have spurred a dozen lawsuits, almost all of which have ruled in favor of the cities challenging DOJ’s conditions. In 2021, the Biden administration removed all current and prior immigration conditions on federal grants. This advisory explains more about the grant programs affected, the litigation, and what localities should know and do in the current environment.
This practice advisory will update applicants on the changes in interpretation of LRIF since its inception. We also discuss the administrative guidance, advocacy efforts, and hurdles to the application process to date.
For an immigrant survivor of crime to qualify for U nonimmigrant status, they must obtain and submit to USCIS a certification of their helpfulness to law enforcement. A law enforcement agency (LEA) or other certifier must complete Form I-918, Supplement B, “U Nonimmigrant Status Certification,” attesting to the survivor’s assistance. In July 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued an updated guide explaining the U visa requirements and the U visa certification process and identifying best practices for certifying agencies and officials. The new guide is more anti-immigrant in tone than former guidance, but parts of it can still be a useful tool for immigrant advocates. This practice advisory describes the 2019 and previous guidance to certifiers on U visa certification, analyzes the changes in the recently issued guidance, and provides advocacy tips for practitioners involved in the U certification process who wish to utilize the guidance to encourage certifications.
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.