Practice Advisory

In order to qualify for naturalization, lawful permanent residents must meet several residence and physical presence requirements that are often mistaken for one another and muddled together. Traveling outside of the United States can not only affect these requirements for naturalization, but they can cause United States Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) officials to find that a person abandoned their lawful permanent resident status, which can have severe consequences. In this practice advisory, we review these requirements in detail as well as the related issues surrounding abandonment of lawful permanent residence.
People who were wrongfully admitted to the United States due to a misrepresentation—i.e., those who were in fact inadmissible at time of admission—may be eligible for a waiver of deportability under INA § 237(a)(1)(H). This lesser-known waiver is only available in removal proceedings and unlike most waiver requests, does not involve any application form or fee. This advisory explains who can request a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver and the process for applying.
Cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) is an important defense for lawful permanent residents who have become removable, due to criminal record or other reasons. The requirements for statutory eligibility are complex, and it is critical for advocates to understand the risks and strategies that arise from the Supreme Court’s decision on the “stop-time” rule, Barton v. Barr, --U.S.--, 140 S.Ct. 1442 (2020). This Advisory is an updated step-by-step guide to eligibility, potential arguments, and defense strategies for LPR cancellation.
On November 1, 2019 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the automatic extension of employment authorization and other documentation for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Each of those TPS-designated countries was set to expire in 2020 but will now be automatically extended through January 4, 2021. This practice advisory lays out what community members need to know and should do now.
On October 25, 2019, Attorney General Barr issued a precedential opinion limiting when immigration authorities will give effect to a state court modification of an imposed sentence.  See  Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (AG 2019), available at: (“Matter of Thomas/Thompson”)  While advocates plan to challenge this decision in the courts of appeals, it is now binding law. This advisory summarizes the case, provides advice to defenders, post-conviction practitioners, and immigrant advocates about its implementation, and suggests arguments to raise on appeal. 
Sanchez v. Sessions was a landmark Ninth Circuit ruling on suppression of evidence and termination of removal proceedings.  This advisory explains the decision, lays out the different legal standards for suppression and termination in immigration court, and highlights key holdings that practitioners can use to better defend their clients.