Removal Defense

Term Page
Removal Defense
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.

Updates on Prosecutorial Discretion

Removal Defense

This webinar will provide immigration practitioners with an overview of the current prosecutorial discretion landscape after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. ___(2023). We will discuss how DHS is applying its...

Challenging a Deficient NTA

Removal Defense

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions in 2018, there has been a long line of caselaw about whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) missing the time, date or location of proceedings strips the immigration court of jurisdiction to hear a...

This is the second part of a two-part practice advisory on how to effectively challenge an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The two advisories should be read together, as neither part is complete on its own. This second part of the advisory discusses how to challenge adverse credibility findings based on a witness's demeanor or responsiveness; findings that are based on an immigration judge's speculation and conjecture, particularly regarding the plausibility of a claim; and determinations regarding a respondent’s corroborative evidence. It also flags special circumstances to look out for when appealing an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding.
Conviction of “obstruction of justice” is an aggravated felony if a sentence of a year or more is imposed. In Pugin v. Garland, No. 22-23 (June 22, 2023), the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s definition of obstruction, but failed to provide a clear definition of its own. Now some California offenses are likely aggravated felonies if there is a sentence of year or more, including Penal Code §§ 32, 69, 136.1, 148, Vehicle Code § 10851, and others.

This Advisory discusses California offenses under Pugin, and discusses California criminal sentencing dispositions that avoid a sentence of a year or more for immigration purposes.
Immigration law demonizes people whom it labels as “drug abusers and addicts,” “habitual drunkards,” and “alcoholics.” The implication is that they are morally weak, dangerous, or evil. An immigrant who comes within such a category can be found inadmissible and ineligible to establish good moral character, and can be denied several forms of immigration relief as well as naturalization. But from a scientific perspective, these people suffer from a substance use disorder (SUD), a medical condition that frequently arises after the person has undergone severe trauma. Substance Use Disorder is a growing health crisis that currently affects over 20 million people in the United States.

This Advisory is written by immigration attorneys and medical doctors specializing in SUD, to examine the issue from both perspectives. Part I of the advisory discusses the several immigration law penalties based on substance use (even when use has not risen to a disorder) and suggests legal defense strategies. Part II of the advisory reviews current medical information about the disorders and discusses how this information can address questions that arise in immigration proceedings.