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.
A noncitizen can pursue lawful permanent residence through a family member in two different ways—one, through consular processing at a U.S. consulate abroad, or two, through adjustment of status at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) office or Immigration Court in the United States. For people who are already in the United States, adjustment of status is preferable if they are otherwise eligible. The adjustment process is completed entirely in the United States and thus unlawful presence bars are not triggered by a departure to attend the consular interview. It also avoids the travel costs, family separation resulting from completing the process abroad, and provides an appeal or review process, unlike consular processing. This advisory focuses on family-based adjustment of status through INA § 245(a) and INA § 245(i).
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.”
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.
USCIS's Policy Memorandum of June 28, 2018, provides new guidance for when USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to applicants requesting immigration benefits. This practice advisory outlines the NTA Memo’s impact on naturalization cases. Specifically, this advisory discusses the NTA Memo’s particular directives for naturalization cases; provides the legal context for when a naturalization applicant can be placed in removal proceedings; discusses best practices for preparing a naturalization application under the new NTA Memo; and offers practice tips if your naturalization client is placed in removal proceedings.
This advisory focuses on defense strategies for naturalization applicants who are in removal proceedings, especially within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Males living in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, including naturalization applicants, must register for the Selective Service. While failure to register for the Selective Service is not a statutory or regulatory bar, it may still stop a person from naturalizing. This practice advisory will look deeper into the Selective Service requirements, how USCIS will evaluate the case depending on the good moral character time period, and discuss possible strategies for overcoming a failure to register.
This practice advisory covers how to prepare consular processing clients for questions at the immigrant visa interview about alien smuggling, receipt of public benefits, drug use, tattoos, and other issues.
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.
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.