ILRC filed comments opposing USCIS’s changes to discretion in adjustment because they violate existing case law. The changes represent an attempt to impose new eligibility requirements that are also a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they went into effect without the required regulatory notice and comment process. The agency has provided no explanation for this abrupt departure from prior procedure and application of the law. In addition, the policy manual will unduly burden eligible applicants and USCIS adjudicators by requiring a separate, lengthy adjudication of thirty specific discretionary factors under a heightened burden of proof that requires adjustment applicants to show “clearly and beyond doubt” that they are eligible for adjustment. The new emphasis on a balancing of a myriad of factors invites arbitrary and inconsistent application of the law.
On October 30, 2020, ILRC filed a comment opposing an EOIR proposed rule that would have a substantial negative impact on legal orientation programs operated by non-profit immigration legal services programs.
On September 25, ILRC submitted comments in opposition to EOIR's proposed rule regarding court procedures. The proposed rule is an unlawful attempt to curb Immigration Judges’ authority, limit case review, and drastically restrict due process for immigrants. The rule undermines the appellate process and curtails the efficient adjudication of the courts.
In January 2020, the Committee for Review of the Penal Code began convening with the intent of putting forward wide ranging recommendations for reforms to the California criminal legal code. Understanding the significant impact of the process for California’s immigrant population, the ILRC has formally submitted recommendations, advice, and expert testimony as the committee engages in its deliberations. We will continue to update this site with our recommendations to the committee.
On August 13, 2020, ILRC submitted comments on recent changes to USCIS’s policy manual. The new chapters on discretion will radically alter adjudications of a wide variety of applications for immigration benefits. We recommend that the changes be stricken because they are ultra vires, lack legal support, and will exacerbate USCIS’s current crisis. The policy manual changes compound agency inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement at a time when the agency has crisis-level backlogs and is seeking a bailout from Congress. Instead of looking for ways to streamline adjudications, the policy manual imposes a secondary adjudication process on dozens of application types that will require adjudicators to multiply the amount of time that they spend determining eligibility, a move that will grind adjudications to an even slower pace and deny applicants relief for which they would otherwise be eligible.
On November 15, 2019, the ILRC and Public Counsel submitted comments in response to the re-opened comment period on the proposed SIJS regulations, originally published in 2011. The ILRC and Public Counsel each submitted comments on the proposed rule during the original 2011 comment period, organizationally and as part of the Immigrant Children Lawyers Network. Accordingly, in 2019, we wrote to renew our 2011 comments and briefly supplement them due, in part, to concerns and changes in practice that had arisen in the intervening eight years.
On June 5, 2020, the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, published People v. Ruiz, holding that the defendant could vacate her conviction because she was not advised that her conviction will carry deportation consequences. Rose Cahn, Mike Mehr, and appellant’s counsel, filed the above letter with the Court of Appeal, suggesting clarification that defense counsel bears the duty to advise about specific immigration consequences, and distinguishing from the court’s more general obligation to advise about potential immigration consequences.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency funded by the fees of US citizens, employers, and immigrants, is asking Congress for $1.2 billion in appropriated money to cover up years of deliberate fiscal and policy mismanagement by the Trump administration. The ILRC and DHS Watch drafted a letter signed by over 100 groups asking that Congress condition any appropriated funds to USCIS's reversal of policies and actions that produced the current deficit and subverted the agency’s core services mission.
On May 7, 2020, ILRC co-authored and signed on to a comment opposing recently published USCIS policy manual instructions for adjustment applications under the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (LRIF).