Removal Defense

Many noncitizen defendants are already deportable (“removable”). This includes all undocumented people, as well as lawful permanent residents (green card-holders) who have become deportable because of a conviction. If immigration authorities find these people – which is likely to happen – they will be deported unless they are granted some kind of immigration relief.   For these defendants, staying eligible to apply for immigration relief is their most important immigration goal, and may be their highest priority in the criminal defense.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 confers initial jurisdiction over asylum claims filed by unaccompanied children (UCs) to the asylum office. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of M-A-C-O-, along with policy changes implemented during the first Trump administration, sought to strip away this crucial protection from many child asylum seekers. Because of these changes and legal challenges by immigrant youth advocates, the current landscape of initial UC asylum jurisdiction has changed. This practice advisory provides an overview of the current state of UC asylum jurisdiction following the Matter of M-A-C-O- decision and the outcome of the JOP v. DHS litigation. It also offers some arguments and practical tips to help practitioners advocate for their UC clients to receive the statutory protections afforded by the TVPRA, as well as the benefits from the JOP v. DHS litigation.

Last month, DHS issued a notice expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals living in the interior of the United States. This would allow certain noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence, contact an attorney, or to present their case to a judge. Because of the devastating impact of expanded expedited removal, noncitizens should be informed of the risks of expedited removal and learn how to assert their rights in the face of possible removal under this changed enforcement policy. This toolkit is designed to help legal services practitioners and know-your-rights presenters assist and counsel people who might be subject to expedited removal in an encounter with ICE or CBP.

New EOIR regulations published in 2024 now allow immigration judges and the BIA to administratively close or terminate removal proceedings in a variety of scenarios. These regulations permit—and sometimes require—administrative closure or termination even where the Department of Homeland Security does not agree. In the current hostile enforcement environment, and in light of the rescission of formal guidance regarding prosecutorial discretion, these regulations are an important tool for advocates seeking to get clients out of removal proceedings.

Part 1 of this 2-part advisory provides updates on DHS’s prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings and explores the various factors that advocates should consider when deciding whether to seek a favorable exercise of discretion from the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). Part 1 also highlights new regulations and discusses how the upcoming presidential election may impact prosecutorial discretion.

Since November 9, 2016, the definition of cannabis under California law is different and broader than the federal definition. Therefore, a California conviction for cannabis from on or after that date is arguably not a controlled substance conviction under federal immigration law. No court has yet made a finding on this issue for California offenses, but they have done so in other states with similar cannabis definitions. This template brief can be used to file a Motion to Terminate Proceedings or to file an Opposition to a Motion to Pretermit Proceedings (where the client is applying for adjustment of status or for cancellation of removal) to argue that any California cannabis conviction entered on or after November 9, 2016, is not a federal controlled substance offense.

Thousands of noncitizens in California are at risk of removal because they have criminal convictions that were unlawfully imposed. California law provides several ways to eliminate these convictions with post-conviction relief (PCR). The challenge is that there are not enough PCR experts to meet the need, especially for low-income immigrants.

This downloadable flyer is designed to raise awareness about the misinformation that often circulates in the undocumented community about the viability of qualifying for lawful permanent resident status solely for having lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years.

This practice advisory addresses what a practitioner can and should do when DHS submits an I-213 to prove “alienage” or any other facts in a case. After a brief discussion of the purpose of an I-213 and why DHS often submits it during removal proceedings, this advisory discusses objections that practitioners should consider making in order to exclude the I-213 from the record in removal proceedings or, at a minimum, to argue that the I-213 should not be given any significant weight by the immigration judge. It discusses how to overcome the presumption that I-213s are inherently trustworthy and concludes with a synopsis of when and how to submit a motion to suppress in cases involving regulatory or constitutional violations.