What Our Clients Say

Testimonials

“I consider the consulting agreement with the ILRC as one of the best resources available for attorneys and their clients. I have no idea how we managed without it! Thanks so much.”

Vic Eriksen, Felony Team Supervising Attorney, San Diego, CA

“The ILRC is a godsend; what a great resource. Being able to consult the AOD literally allows me to sleep better at night. I cannot thank you enough!”

Anna Teruel, Deputy Public Defender, Martinez, CA

“Whether you are confronting a complex case requiring a waiver, an imminent removal, or a criminal issue, the AOD service has the expertise to guide you in the right direction. You can expect an authoritative and complete response to your questions and suggestions about the next step or available options. This is a service well worth the cost when your client’s life or well-being is on the line.”

Anita R. Schneider, Esq., Law Office of Anita R. Schneider, Richmond, VA

"Our organization could not function without the expert advice we receive from ILRC's consultation services. Whenever we are stymied, stumped or confused, we shoot off an e-mail to the expert attorneys at ILRC, and our peace of mind returns."

Susan Bowyer, Managing Attorney, International Institute of the East Bay, Oakland, CA

“As a solo practitioner with a demanding case load, I find the advice of ILRC’s Attorney of the Day to be invaluable. From researching legal issues to giving general practice tips or encouragement, these attorneys are responsive and can draw from years of practical experience”

Joshua L. Goldstein, Esq., Law Offices of Joshua L. Goldstein, PC, Boston, MA

"While I do my own research as a solo practitioner, it is invaluable to have the expert opinion of the attorneys at ILRC, particularly at a time when immigration law continues to evolve. I am particularly happy with their expertise in the area of criminal defense as it relates to immigration, not to mention their quick turn around time for the answers to my complex questions."

Meredith Brown, Esq., Former Chair-Los Angeles County Bar Association-Immigration Section

An AOD Success Story

The Problem: An LPR client has been convicted of two petty theft crimes after being admitted to the Unites States and he is now in removal proceedings. He is not eligible for cancellation of removal. His attorney calls the ILRC’s Attorney of the Day.

 

Attorney of the Day Advice: Under Matter of V-Z-S, 22 I.&N. Dec. 1338, I.D. 3434 (BIA 2000) “petty theft” is not a necessarily a crime of moral turpitude. In Matter of V-Z-S, the BIA held that “theft” is only a moral turpitude offense if the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of his property. The BIA distinguished between “theft” which can encompass temporary as well as permanent takings, and “larceny” which is always permanent, and therefore always a moral turpitude offense, citing Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330 (BIA 1973). See also Matter of Garcia, 11 I&N 521 (1966). Since the burden of proof for deportability is on the government, and since deportability must be established by clear and convincing evidence, where a theft statute encompasses both permanent and temporary takings, the government cannot meet its burden of proving that the crime is a moral turpitude offense.

Result: The client’s attorney filed a motion for termination of removal proceedings. The government attorney did not oppose the motion. The judge terminated removal proceedings.