Removal defense involves representing and advocating for immigrants facing deportation from the United States. For many immigrants facing removal from the United States, the process involves appearing before an immigration judge in immigration court. Most immigrants cannot afford to have an attorney represent them in court. Sadly, legal representation is the single most important factor in determining whether someone will win or lose their case.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) builds the capacity of practitioners to represent clients in immigration court proceedings. As national experts in immigration law, the ILRC publishes a hands-on comprehensive manual, Removal Defense: Defending Immigrants in Immigration Court, and offers trainings on this topic. We also support practitioners and pro bono attorneys in their specific cases through our Attorney of the Day (AOD) technical assistance service.
Latest Resources
Toolkit & Reports
Resources
Publication Date
12/10/2024
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.
Practice Advisory
Resources
Publication Date
04/17/2025
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.
Practice Advisory
Toolkit & Reports
Resources
Publication Date
02/21/2025
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.
Practice Advisory
Resources
Publication Date
02/05/2025
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.
Practice Advisory
Resources
Publication Date
10/15/2024
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.
FAQs & Explainers
Resources
Publication Date
09/03/2024
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.
FAQs & Explainers
Resources
Publication Date
05/22/2024
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.
FAQs & Explainers
Resources
Publication Date
01/09/2024
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.
Practice Advisory
Resources
Publication Date
12/15/2023
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.
Practice Advisory
Resources
Publication Date
12/12/2023
This advisory analyzes and explains the particularly serious crime bar to asylum and withholding of removal. It describes the factors to consider in determining whether a crime is a "particularly serious crime" and how to challenge a particularly serious crime determination.
Related Products
Webinar
Webinar
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 recently reinstated enforcement priorities and strategies to continue advocating for prosecutorial discretion during various stages of a case.
Webinar
Webinar
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 case, triggers the stop-time rule in various contexts, or is sufficient for the issuance of an in absentia removal order. In this webinar, we will discuss how to challenge a NTA that is missing the time, date, or location of proceedings, and we will review the latest caselaw on this topic, including Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022). We will also discuss best practices for preserving arguments for appeal, even when BIA or circuit court caselaw is not on our side.
Webinar
Webinar
In this webinar, we will discuss the distinction between motions to terminate, remand, reconsider and reopen. We will discuss which motion to file depending on the posture of your case in immigration court. We will take a deep dive into motions to reopen including how to make effective equitable tolling and sua sponte arguments. In addition, we will discuss hurdles to overcome if your client has departed the United States after the vacatur. Lastly, we will learn how to successfully obtain a bond redetermination hearing in immigration court pending the motion to reopen with the BIA.
Webinar
Webinar
In this webinar, we will explore the various ways a criminal incident can impact an application for non-LPR cancellation. We will look at the criminal conviction bars, good moral character, the stop-time rule, and discretion. This is an opportunity for those familiar with the basics of Non-LPR Cancellation to think through how to analyze the eligibility of clients with some potential bad facts in the mix.
Webinar
Webinar
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 case, triggers the stop-time rule in various contexts, or is sufficient for the issuance of an in absentia removal order. In this webinar, we will discuss how to challenge a NTA that is missing the time, date, or location of proceedings, and we will review the latest caselaw on this topic, including Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022). We will also discuss best practices for preserving arguments for appeal, even when BIA or circuit court caselaw is not on our side.
Webinar
Webinar
Level: Beginner / Intermediate
This webinar will cover withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It will discuss the differences between asylum, statutory and CAT withholding of removal, and CAT deferral of removal and review the current case law and recent developments. It will also provide tips to help argue for withholding or CAT as an alternative in an asylum case as well as prepare standalone withholding or CAT claim for clients who are asylum-barred or otherwise ineligible.
Presenters
Andrew Craycroft
Andrew joined the ILRC in May 2019 as a Staff Attorney focusing on immigrant youth issues. Prior to joining the ILRC, he worked at Staten Island Legal Services representing clients in a variety of affirmative and defensive immigration matters. Previously, Andrew worked at the Unaccompanied Minors Program of Catholic Charities Community Services in New York, representing detained and released unaccompanied minors in removal defense.
Andrew received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he participated in the Center for Applied Legal Studies Clinic. Andrew earned his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he majored in Political Economy of Industrial Societies. Andrew is admitted to the bar in New Jersey and New York. He is fluent in French and Spanish with some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, and Arabic.
Priscilla Olivarez
Priscilla Olivarez is a Policy Attorney and Strategist based in San Antonio, Texas. In her role with the ILRC, Priscilla works alongside other Texas advocates to develop and promote local and state policies that protect the dignity of immigrant communities. Prior to joining the ILRC, Priscilla was a Managing Attorney at American Gateways (AG), a nonprofit organization that provides direct legal services in immigration matters. While at AG, Priscilla focused her efforts on representing and assisting individuals who were in immigration detention. She helped manage the organization's Legal Orientation Program, providing assistance to unrepresented individuals in immigration detention, as well as its National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP), which provides legal representation to individuals deemed mentally incompetent in immigration proceedings. Priscilla also provided direct representation to individuals in detention, with a focus on advocacy for individuals with mental disabilities or other heightened vulnerabilities. Priscilla has represented clients before the Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Priscilla's other advocacy experience includes working abroad, providing legal support to survivors of human trafficking in the Philippines. Priscilla has also advocated on behalf of survivors of domestic violence and volunteered near the Texas-Mexico border representing unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings. Outside of her immigration work, Priscilla has advocated for fair housing for vulnerable populations, and worked to coordinate a national research study that examined racial discrimination in the housing market.
Priscilla is a graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law and is licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, Texas, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
This webinar will cover withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It will discuss the differences between asylum, statutory and CAT withholding of removal, and CAT deferral of removal and review the current case law and recent developments. It will also provide tips to help argue for withholding or CAT as an alternative in an asylum case as well as prepare standalone withholding or CAT claim for clients who are asylum-barred or otherwise ineligible.
Presenters
Andrew Craycroft
Andrew joined the ILRC in May 2019 as a Staff Attorney focusing on immigrant youth issues. Prior to joining the ILRC, he worked at Staten Island Legal Services representing clients in a variety of affirmative and defensive immigration matters. Previously, Andrew worked at the Unaccompanied Minors Program of Catholic Charities Community Services in New York, representing detained and released unaccompanied minors in removal defense.
Andrew received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he participated in the Center for Applied Legal Studies Clinic. Andrew earned his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he majored in Political Economy of Industrial Societies. Andrew is admitted to the bar in New Jersey and New York. He is fluent in French and Spanish with some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, and Arabic.
Priscilla Olivarez
Priscilla Olivarez is a Policy Attorney and Strategist based in San Antonio, Texas. In her role with the ILRC, Priscilla works alongside other Texas advocates to develop and promote local and state policies that protect the dignity of immigrant communities. Prior to joining the ILRC, Priscilla was a Managing Attorney at American Gateways (AG), a nonprofit organization that provides direct legal services in immigration matters. While at AG, Priscilla focused her efforts on representing and assisting individuals who were in immigration detention. She helped manage the organization's Legal Orientation Program, providing assistance to unrepresented individuals in immigration detention, as well as its National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP), which provides legal representation to individuals deemed mentally incompetent in immigration proceedings. Priscilla also provided direct representation to individuals in detention, with a focus on advocacy for individuals with mental disabilities or other heightened vulnerabilities. Priscilla has represented clients before the Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Priscilla's other advocacy experience includes working abroad, providing legal support to survivors of human trafficking in the Philippines. Priscilla has also advocated on behalf of survivors of domestic violence and volunteered near the Texas-Mexico border representing unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings. Outside of her immigration work, Priscilla has advocated for fair housing for vulnerable populations, and worked to coordinate a national research study that examined racial discrimination in the housing market.
Priscilla is a graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law and is licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, Texas, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.