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 See Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018), withdrawn by Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2019), and unpublished decision at Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019).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advocates in removal proceedings have no precedent to rely upon, but they can make the Lorenzo argument and cite to the unpublished case, while also aggressively pursuing other defense strategies.
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 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.
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.
This introductory practice advisory explains 245(i), including “grandfathering” and “after acquired,” and includes screening questions to assist in identifying and evaluating possible 245(i) options for your clients.
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.