Crimes

This advisory provides an overview of the immigration consequences of delinquency and helps advocates understand the distinctions between delinquency and crime to be able to assess whether a youth has committed an act of delinquency or a crime. It arms advocates with arguments to protect their noncitizen clients who have engaged in unlawful conduct as minors.

In response to recent ICE enforcement practices, noncitizens who need to attend state and local courts in California may express fear of civil arrest if they attend court. This two-page tool, written for defenders and legal services providers, presents California-specific strategies for representing and advising noncitizens who may require additional procedural protections for their right to attend court. It includes discussion of recent California laws and how they affect daily court practice, as well as recommendations for documenting unlawful civil arrests and for empowering communities to exercise their rights if confronted by ICE.

Section 212(h) of the INA provides a waiver for crimes inadmissibility grounds, which can be surprisingly useful for undocumented people, VAWA applicants, or permanent residents. It can be applied for multiple times; it has the potential to waive an aggravated felony conviction (unless it is related to drugs); it can be used both affirmatively and as a defense to removal; and it does not always require proof of "extreme hardship." Unfortunately, it can't be used to waive drug convictions or conduct, other than a single incident involving possessing a small amount of marijuana. 

Preparing a strong case for bond for detained clients has become more important than ever. This practice advisory discusses how to address evidentiary issues and challenges in bond proceedings and provides tips for proving your bond case, as well as overcoming negative factors.

California law requires prosecutors to consider immigration consequences when plea bargaining.  Cal. Pen. C. 1016.3(b).  This memo describes the unique duties prosecutors have when charging and negotiating DUI-related cases with DACA recipients.

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 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: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1213201/download (“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. 

Moving Texas Forward: Local Policies Towards Inclusive Justice was created for the many organizations and elected officials in Texas that are struggling to find solutions to disrupt the harmful arrest-to-deportation pipeline. Texas has helped deport more people than any other state. In fiscal year 2017, more than 395,000 people, or 17% of all deportations nationwide, were deported from Texas. Texas’ role in the detention and deportation of immigrants has increased under the Trump administration and will continue to increase because of SB 4. This guide attempts to provide a comprehensive and thorough look at some of the ways advocates, policymakers, and local law enforcement can work together to minimize the arrest-to-deportation pipeline.

In a flawed but significant decision, the Ninth Circuit held that California Penal Code § 243(d), battery with injury, is a crime of violence. United States v. Perez (9th Cir. July 11, 2019). Because of Perez, criminal defenders must assume that § 243(d) is a crime of violence and seek other dispositions when necessary.  Immigration advocates should appeal adverse decisions and preserve the argument on appeal.  See this Advisory for a discussion of the decision, alternative pleas, and suggestions for arguments.

For noncitizens, even a low level offense like a shoplifting conviction can lead to mandatory deportation. However, this can be avoided when people secure post-conviction relief to erase or modify their old convictions. If the convictions are vacated, or the sentences reduced, the grounds for removal often evaporate.