Practice Advisory

On September 13, 2023, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, a federal judge in the Southern District of Texas, ruled that the Biden administration’s final DACA rule, issued in August 2022, is unlawful. Judge Hanen previously ruled in July 2021 that the 2012 DACA memorandum, which preceded the rule, was. His earlier ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but the appellate court sent the case back to Judge Hanen to consider whether there are any material differences between the DACA rule and the 2012 memo.

This Practice Alert goes over Judge Hanen’s latest ruling. It’s important to note that the amended order does not change the status quo. Current DACA recipients, or those whose DACA has lapsed for less than a year, can continue to renew their DACA and work authorization, as well as apply for Advance Parole. However, first-time DACA applications continue to be blocked and cannot be processed.

This advisory provides basic information on how to obtain the SIJS predicate order in juvenile court. It describes the benefits, requirements, and deadlines associated with SIJS, and discusses the role of the juvenile defense or children’s attorney in the process. It includes a sample SIJS predicate order from juvenile justice proceedings.

This practice alert provides an overview of new USCIS policy guidance and a recent BIA case that now officially acknowledge that the three- and ten-year unlawful presence bars can run in the United States. This practice alert summarizes current policy on the three- and ten-year bars as well as covering who does (and does not) benefit from this policy.

This practice advisory covers ways to gather information to determine whether your client might be inadmissible, how to address inadmissibility issues when applying for U nonimmigrant status, and how to file for an inadmissibility waiver for a U nonimmigrant applicant.

This is the second part of a two-part practice advisory on how to effectively challenge an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The two advisories should be read together, as neither part is complete on its own. This second part of the advisory discusses how to challenge adverse credibility findings based on a witness's demeanor or responsiveness; findings that are based on an immigration judge's speculation and conjecture, particularly regarding the plausibility of a claim; and determinations regarding a respondent’s corroborative evidence. It also flags special circumstances to look out for when appealing an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding.

Conviction of “obstruction of justice” is an aggravated felony if a sentence of a year or more is imposed. In Pugin v. Garland, No. 22-23 (June 22, 2023), the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s definition of obstruction, but failed to provide a clear definition of its own. Now some California offenses are likely aggravated felonies if there is a sentence of year or more, including Penal Code §§ 32, 69, 136.1, 148, Vehicle Code § 10851, and others.

This Advisory discusses California offenses under Pugin, and discusses California criminal sentencing dispositions that avoid a sentence of a year or more for immigration purposes.

This practice advisory provides an overview of the grounds of inadmissibility for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) explaining which grounds do not apply to TPS applicants, which grounds are non-waivable, and which grounds are waivable. It also offers an overview of the TPS waiver of inadmissibility.