Crimes

As of January 2018, the California Values Act (SB 54) is the law in California. This sweeping legislation curtails the role of state and local police agencies in federal immigration enforcement. This webinar, tailored to criminal defenders, will provide an overview of the Act’s major provisions and how to incorporate this new law into your defense practice. If you are interested in accessing the recording, please contact Grisel Ruiz, gruiz@ilrc.org.

This article is an updated guide to selected California offenses that discusses precedent decisions and other information showing that the offenses avoid at least some adverse immigration consequences.

In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion holding that methamphetamine as defined under California law is not a controlled substance for federal immigration purposes.  In January 2019, however, the court withdrew the published opinion, and issued a non-published opinion that came to the same conclusion.  See Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018), withdrawn by Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2019), and unpublished decision at Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019). The case has been remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  At this time, California defenders must assume that California methamphetamine is a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Immigration advocates in removal proceedings have no precedent to rely upon, but they can make the Lorenzo argument and cite to the unpublished case, while also aggressively pursuing other defense strategies.

Are you thinking about helping detained immigrants? It’s time to get your feet wet. This guide talks you through the initial basic steps to support someone requesting from bond from the immigration judge. This guide includes simple steps to get you started, including how to find your client and what to present to the court.

The domestic violence deportation ground at INA § 237(a)(2)(E) sets out four bases for deportability. Recent Board of Immigration Appeals and federal decisions, including the Supreme Court decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, significantly affect each of the four bases. This advisory will provide a brief overview of the deportation ground, and then outline the recent decisions and how they may affect representation in California and the Ninth Circuit. It includes an appendix analyzing common California offenses as crimes of violence.

This statement from a coalition of immigrant rights organizations urges members of Congress to vote no on the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 (H.R. 5682). This bill excludes a wide swatch of immigrants, further criminalizes aspects of migration, and fails to address root systemic causes of incarceration nor advance any meaningful criminal justice reform.

This report details findings from a national survey of legal practitioners concerning the increased use of gang allegations against young immigrants as a means of driving up deportation numbers, at the encouragement of the Trump administration. The report suggests emerging best practices for immigration attorneys to employ in both fighting against unfounded gang allegations and working to mitigate the impact of prior gang involvement.

Upon the January 1, 2017 enactment of Penal Code 1473.7, the LA District Attorney took the position that the motions were not ripe unless a final removal order or notice to appear had issued. Thanks to advocacy of organizations and individuals, especially Harland Braun, on April 17, 2018, the LA District Attorney Office changed their policy noting that “the Office is persuaded that the Legislature intended section 1473.7 to apply regardless of whether the moving party has received notice of removal proceedings or a removal order.”

Noncitizens with certain criminal records are subject to mandatory immigration detention under INA § 236(c), 8 USC § 1226(c). This means that they may remain detained during the weeks, months, or years of their entire immigration case, without even the right to a bond hearing. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Jennings v. Rodriguez and Nielsen v. Preap have made the situation even worse, although litigation has produced some protections. This advisory outlines how to identify whether your client may be subject to mandatory detention, and what immigration advocates and criminal defense counsel can do to help their clients to avoid it.

Since 1986, the Continuing Education of the Bar, in its “Crim Law Bible,” California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, has included a chapter about representing the noncitizen criminal defendant. This chapter and the advice therein is often cited as establishing the prevailing professional norms at the date of any given conviction.