Post-Conviction Relief

This practice advisory explains the various immigration consequences of a conviction for Assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01 and provides tips for mitigating such consequences in criminal proceedings. This August 2022 update includes analysis of the Texas Assault statute in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States. The Texas Assault statute is complex and includes several subsections, so we have included a chart in the appendix describing the potential immigration consequences for each subsection of the Texas Assault statute.

In October 2020, DHS and DOJ published a final regulation that sets out wide-ranging and draconian bars to applying for, and bases to terminate a grant of, asylum. For example, the bars include conviction of any felony, any controlled substance offense, a single DUI with injury, a DUI with a DUI prior (regardless of injury), and domestic violence bars based on the underlying conduct.

In some cases, the amount of an imposed, potential, or served criminal sentence can determine the outcome of the immigration case. The law governing how state sentencing dispositions affect immigration penalties is fast-changing. The good news is that an informed defender often can structure a sentence that gives the prosecution what they require, while avoiding immigration penalties. An informed immigration advocate wants to be able to explain this to an immigration judge or adjudicator to win the case.

This one-pager, a partnership between the UCLA Criminal Defense Clinic, Al Otro Lado, and the ILRC, describes the how and why of CA Penal Code s. 1473.7.

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.

Across the country, states and localities are increasingly moving to end marijuana prohibition laws. For immigrant communities, despite the changing attitude toward marijuana-related conduct at the state level, an old conviction can still form the basis for immigration-related consequences at the federal level. Though federal legal reforms may be the only way to completely eradicate the immigration consequences of marijuana-related conduct and convictions, reforms at the state level can nevertheless help stop the arrest-to-deportation pipeline. Drawing from our experience with state and municipal efforts across the country, this resource, jointly produced by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Drug Policy Alliance, lists best practices for municipalities and states looking to decriminalize in a way that lessens the immigration-related harms of marijuana criminalization.

This brief advisory written by Rose Cahn, ILRC and Anoop Prasad, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus, discusses how petitions for relief using PC 1437, the reform to the felony murder rule, can be helpful to immigrants seeking to mitigate immigration consequences.

A one-page issue spotting decision tree to help screen for potential forms of post-conviction relief.  For an in-depth discussion of any of these vehicles, see this guide, created by the ILRC and Californians for Safety and Justice.

On July 30, 2020, Attorney General Barr issued Matter of Reyes, 28 I&N Dec. 52 (A.G. 2020), a case involving a longtime lawful permanent resident with a single conviction for violating a larceny statute that criminalizes both theft and fraud, and is indivisible as between these means of commission. She had been sentenced to over one year in prison and there was an established loss amount of greater than $10,000. This practice alert provides a summary of the decision and potential practice tips for both immigration practitioners and criminal defense attorneys representing noncitizens in criminal and immigration cases. These tips focus on challenging the correctness of the AG's new theory of removability, challenging any judicial deference to the AG's opinion, fighting DHS efforts to file new NTAs or motions to reopen past proceedings, contesting retroactive application of the new decision, and criminal defense strategies for avoiding its reach in advising noncitizens on resolving open criminal matters.  

In October 2019, Attorney General Barr issued Matter of Thomas & Matter of Thompson, altering the standard for when immigration law will recognize a criminal sentencing modification. Since then, government attorneys from ICE and adjudicators from DHS and DOJ have misused and exploited the decision to incorrectly impose immigration consequences on vacated and modified past convictions and sentences. Immigrant rights advocates have pushed back by attacking this decision in the federal courts. In this amicus brief submitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immigration law experts directly challenge the AG's decision, arguing it is incorrect as a matter of law, is not entitled to any level of deference, and if permitted to stand cannot be applied retroactively. These arguments build on a growing body of case law refusing to offer deference to the DOJ on interpretation of immigration provisions that have both civil and criminal application. E.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 4519085 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2020). Advocates challenging Thomas/Thompson in agency and court proceedings can use the arguments in this brief to attack the case on the merits and to resist its retroactive application.