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.

USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate certain applications for immigration relief that protect survivors of crime and other forms of abuse. Many people who are in active removal proceedings are eligible for one or more of these forms of relief. In the past, it was often possible to postpone or terminate removal proceedings to pursue such relief at USCIS. However, current policies at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and increasingly negative caselaw from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have made navigating removal proceedings for these applicants extremely challenging. The challenges are exacerbated due to visa backlogs and USCIS adjudication delays for these forms of relief. This advisory provides an overview of affirmative relief for immigrant survivors, summarize recent BIA cases on point, and offer practice tips for protecting against removal.

On May 4, 2026, The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) submitted a formal comment opposing proposed changes to the EOIR-33 change-of-address form, arguing that the revisions are procedurally improper and substantively harmful.

This step-by-step guide will walk you through the steps for filing your first petition for habeas corpus (immigration) in the Eastern District of California.

When an immigration judge denies bond based on a finding that a person is a danger to the community or a flight risk, what options remain to challenge that decision? As immigration detention expands and bond denials become increasingly common, federal court litigation is emerging as a critical tool to obtain judicial review of these determinations.

In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. In the current landscape of increased immigration enforcement, many noncitizens are considering the option of leaving the United States in order to return to their home country or to seek opportunities in a different country. This practice advisory provides guidance to immigration attorneys and advocates who are asked to provide such advice and walks through common issues for the client to consider before deciding to leave the United States. It also includes a checklist of helpful questions and information to review with the client before they depart.

This practice advisory is Part I of a two-part advisory on civil fines and civil penalties instituted by DHS against noncitizens. Part I discusses the procedures for instituting a fine and recommendations for contesting and appealing a civil fine instituted by DHS. Part II will discuss statutory and Constitutional arguments and defenses against the issuance of fines.

On January 13, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision holding that a violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon) is not a crime of violence. United States v. Gomez, No. 23-435 (9th Cir., Jan. 13, 2026) (en banc).

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a new rule that changes how immigration appeals are handled. The new rule shortens the time you have to appeal—which is how you ask for another court to review an unfavorable decision from an immigration judge.

On December 22, 2025, DHS published a final rule impacting processing of FOIA requests by all DHS components. The rule is effective January 22, 2026. Despite the major changes made by the rule, no period of public comment was provided. The rule eliminates paper filing of FOIA requests with DHS as of January 22, 2026. FOIAs to DHS must be filed online after that date. The rule also states that DHS can, in its discretion, administratively close or make “requests for clarification” where it deems the request to be an inadequate description of the records sought.