Crimes

The COVID-19 pandemic demands a bold, urgent public health response for incarcerated communities. Even before this health crisis, California’s jails, prison system, and immigration detention centers were dangerously overcrowded and medically negligent.  The Dignity not Detention Coalition, in partnership with CURB, JusticeLA, and Human Impact partners, created A Budget to Save Lives, a community-based decarceration strategy which presents intersectional reforms in five key areas including: Jail population reduction, prison population reduction, immigration detention population reduction, youth decriminalization & decarceration, and community-based services & alternatives to incarceration. Now more than ever before, it is imperative that California divest from criminalization and incarceration and invest in cost and life-saving solutions for the health and wellbeing of our communities.

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.

Before pushing for change at the county level, it is crucial to understand the powers and responsibilities of different county officials and bodies. This resource is for Texas advocates and explains the authority and jurisdiction of various local elected county officials in Texas.

This resource outlines some best practices for advocates and stakeholders working to expand access to, and automate, state record clearance. 

As a local elected law enforcement official and operator of county jails, Sheriffs play a critical role in ending the arrest-to-deportation pipeline. This advisory for advocates in Texas explains the power of county sheriffs, and measures they can take to reduce the number of people being funneled into the deportation pipeline, without violating state laws like SB 4.

On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an adverse, 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020), a case regarding the “stop-time rule” and eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) stops time for purposes of cancellation, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. The Barton opinion will primarily limit eligibility for LPR cancellation, but will have some impact on non-LPR cancellation and VAWA cancellation. This Practice Alert provides a summary and some analysis of the Barton opinion, and some initial tips for practitioners.

Increasingly prosecutors are asked to consider immigration consequences in the charging and plea-bargaining process. Some states have adopted policies requiring prosecutors to consider such consequences, see, e.g., Cal. Pen. C. § 1016.3(b), and some prosecutor offices have adopted internal guidelines mandating the consideration of immigration consequences. This advisory provides context for why such a prosecutorial policy or practice is legally necessary and permitted, if not mandated, by constitutional law and governing codes of conduct.

In 2016, California passed California Penal Code § 1473.7, a critical post-conviction relief vehicle for people no longer in criminal custody to move to eliminate prior convictions that violated constitutional and statutory rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Under decades of legal precedent, prior offenses vacated on this basis are outside the federal immigration definition of "conviction." Nevertheless, some DHS attorneys incorrectly argue that § 1473.7 vacaturs are not effective for immigration purposes. This practice advisory, a Sample Memorandum of Law and Table of BIA Cases, presents arguments and precedent for refuting DHS's arguments. 

As more and more jurisdictions are contemplating releasing people from jails and prisons, it is critical that we consider ways to ensure that people released are not immediately transferred to the harmful deportation system.  ILRC, together with our allies, Asian Prisoners Support Committee, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, and California Alliance for Youth and Criminal Justice, put together this list of recommendations that advocates can use to demand responsible releases. 

Over the years, various courts throughout the country have agreed that prolonging custody of a person solely based on an ICE detainer request is unlawful for numerous reasons. This practice advisory provides a summary of the court decisions related to ICE detainers and the arguments to challenge localities that continue to detain people for ICE. The cases discussed here illustrate some of the detailed arguments that are developing over what the Fourth Amendment requires and what is authorized or not by federal and state laws.