Post-Conviction Relief

This Practice Advisory is a detailed follow-up to our prior Practice Alert on the Supreme Court's April 23, 2020 decision in Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020). In Barton, the Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) triggers the "stop-time" rule for purposes of cancellation of removal eligibility, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. This Advisory provides an in-depth discussion of the Barton decision, focusing on legal arguments to push back against overreaching DHS efforts seeking to trigger the stop-time rule, legal arguments and trial strategies to prevent conduct that did not result in conviction from triggering the stop-time rule, and considerations for criminal defense lawyers representing immigrants in criminal proceedings.

Penalties for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) are based on several factors, such as the number of CIMTs, date of commission, imposed and/or potential sentence, and whether there was a conviction versus admission of the conduct. The result is that determining whether a CIMT penalty actually applies can be quite complex.  This set of four flow charts can be used to answer four questions about a case: is the particular person deportable; inadmissible or barred from establishing good moral character; barred from applying for non-LPR cancelation; or subject to mandatory detention, based on CIMTs?

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.

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

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. 

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. 

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.

Gubernatorial pardons have become an increasingly important and accessible tool for immigrants to erase certain immigration consequences of criminal convictions. This two-page primer, written in collaboration with the UCLA School of Law Criminal Defense Clinic and available in both English and Spanish, provides an overview of the California Pardon process for potential applicants and their advocates.