Results

Immigrants who are alleged to be involved with gangs are top immigration enforcement priorities for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is true even if they have no criminal convictions and DHS is targeting them based on allegations alone. If such individuals choose to apply for immigration benefits, they may be exposing themselves to serious risk. This practice advisory discusses what gangs and gang databases are, how allegations of gang membership arise in immigration cases, the over-inclusive process law enforcement employs to allege gang membership, and strategies to identify whether your client may be labeled a gang member or associate. The purpose of this advisory is to help immigration advocates better understand how law enforcement in the United States documents and alleges gang membership or association, such that advocates are able to identify red flags in cases, and are better prepared to work with clients to assess possible risks in filing for relief.

This advisory discusses the provisions of SB 54 (De Leon) and the California Values Act, relevant to criminal defense counsel who represent noncitizen clients. In addition to discussing specific provisions of the California Values Act, this advisory discusses how to incorporate this new law into your defense practice.

The DOJ created new conditions for state and local recipients of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and other federal grants, in an effort to prevent jurisdictions with certain sanctuary policies from receiving any funds. Several federal courts have found these requirements to be unconstitutional, and ordered the DOJ to distribute the grants to sanctuary cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia. This advisory explains the specific grants at issue, the various lawsuits against DOJ’s conditions, and other new developments in the fight over federal funding of sanctuary cities.

This advisory gives an orientation to the deportation process for community members and new advocates. It breaks down the process into four steps that typically happen in an immigrant’s experience with the deportation system, providing a basic overview of ICE enforcement, the court system, and the effect of a removal or deportation order.

Over the years, various courts throughout the country have agreed that prolonging custody of a person solely based on an ICE detainer request is unlawful for numerous reasons. This practice advisory provides a summary of the court decisions related to ICE detainers and the arguments to challenge localities that continue to detain people for ICE. The cases discussed here illustrate some of the detailed arguments that are developing over what the Fourth Amendment requires and what is authorized or not by federal and state laws.  

Throughout the Trump Administration, the federal government has sought to undermine sanctuary policies by requiring that cities help ICE with immigration enforcement in order to receive certain federal grants from the DOJ. These policies have spurred a dozen lawsuits, almost all of which have ruled in favor of the cities challenging DOJ’s conditions. In 2021, the Biden administration removed all current and prior immigration conditions on federal grants. This advisory explains more about the grant programs affected, the litigation, and what localities should know and do in the current environment.

There have been many recent developments regarding the litigation challenges to the Department of Homeland Security enforcement priorities. This brief guide provides a quick summary to help you keep up. In short, the Enforcement Priorities are currently still in effect, although a change could come within the next few weeks. Below you will additionally find the Fifth Circuit’s temporary stay of the lower federal district court’s preliminary injunction order. While these issues are quickly moving, this update is current as of September 2021.

DHS issued new enforcement and prosecutorial discretion guidance on September 30, 2021.  This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP provides criminal defense practitioners with an overview of the enforcement priorities and other key policy changes described in recent DHS and ICE memos, and discusses strategies to use these priorities to advocate for prosecutorial discretion.

DHS issued new enforcement and prosecutorial discretion guidance on September 30, 2021.  This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP provides immigration practitioners with an overview of the enforcement priorities and other key policy changes described in recent DHS and ICE memos, and discusses strategies to use these priorities to advocate for prosecutorial discretion.

What are ICE detainers, how do they affect a criminal case, and how can counsel get rid of them?  This advisory walks through all the legal and practices issues around ICE detainers, including the role of ICE in issuing them and the role of local or state jailors in responding.  We discuss the importance of incorporating ICE detainers into pre-trial strategy, the legal and constitutional issues implicated by ICE detainers, and the various ways to challenge or rescind a detainer.  This advisory is national; it identifies various different state laws affecting ICE detainers. 

This advisory provides an overview of ICE’s new “victim-centered” approach to immigration enforcement based on an August 2021 directive, including who qualifies as a victim and which ICE actions are covered. As part of this new approach, ICE officers and agents are instructed to look out for and in various circumstances exercise prosecutorial discretion in favor of noncitizen survivors of crime as part of their decisions to arrest, detain, release, and refer noncitizens.