Results

Resources
Resources

Who Decides? Overview of Chevron, Brand X and Mead Principles
Publication Date
05/02/2011
"A brief overview of principles governing deference to an agency may be useful to practitioners new to this area. In immigration law, the immigration judge and the BIA may resolve almost all issues presented in an immigration case, and DHS and the AG will address many issues in regulation or other policy rulings." By Kathy Brady.
FAQs & Explainers
Resources

Department of Labor U Visa Process and Protocols Q&A
Publication Date
06/13/2011
What are U Visas? U Nonimmigrant Visas were created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000. Victims of qualifying criminal activities who have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse may apply for a U Visa if they are willing to assist law enforcement or other government officials in the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
Practice Advisory
Resources

Practice Advisory: Lujan & Nunez, July 14, 2011
Publication Date
07/18/2011
Warning: Immigrant Defendants with a First Minor Drug Offense: “Rehabilitative relief” will no longer eliminate a first conviction for simple possession for immigration purposes, unless the conviction occurred before 7/14/11
FAQs & Explainers
Resources

Naturalization Fee Waiver Packet
Publication Date
02/24/2020
This packet is designed to help advocates prepare naturalization fee waiver applications. The packet includes information from USCIS and ILRC on how to complete and review a fee waiver application to accompany naturalization applications, the adjudication standards for fee waiver applications, and a sample completed fee waiver form.
Practice Advisory
Resources

Conviction on Direct Appeal of Right Remains a “Conviction” for Immigration Purposes
Publication Date
08/01/2011
Planes v. Holder (9th Cir. July 5, 2011): Criminal defenders must assume that filing a timely direct appeal of right will not prevent a conviction from having immigration effect. This is a change in the law, created by Planes v. Holder, supra. Advocates will file a petition for rehearing and there is a good chance that this will be granted, and a reasonable chance, although no guarantee, that Planes may be reversed.
Resources
Resources

A Case Study of the ILRC
Publication Date
08/10/2011
Legal Services Support Centers and Rebellious Advocacy: A Case Study of the Immigrant Legal  Resource Center, by Bill Hing.
Practice Advisory
Resources

Advisory: Ninth Circuit Panel Reverses Itself in Pagayon II
Publication Date
12/13/2011
Testimony before an IJ may not be used to characterize an offense, or to link two documents from the record of conviction.  A Ninth Circuit panel has withdrawn a very bad opinion on the modified categorical approach and substituted a substantially better one.
Resources
Resources

Pro Se Manual for U Applicants in Detention (English & Spanish versions)
Publication Date
05/01/2012
This 77-page guide contains checklists, step-by-step help and sample materials for detained pro so applicants (those without lawyers) who are representing themselves in filing a U visa application. It was produced by the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic of Stanford Law School on behalf of Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California.
Practice Advisory
Resources

LPR Bars to § 212(h) – To Whom Do They Apply?
Publication Date
09/17/2012
Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012). Section 212(h) of the INA1 is an important waiver of crimes-based grounds ofinadmissibility.
Resources
Resources

Ninth Circuit Decides Key Issues about Categorical Approach; Overturns Sandoval-Lua
Publication Date
09/17/2012
The Ninth Circuit En Banc Decides Key Issues About the Categorical Approach; overturns Sandoval-Lua: Young v. Holder __F.3d__ (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2012) (en banc). This quick Advisory provides the headlines from an important Ninth Circuit case published today. Further advisories may provide a more in-depth analysis.
Toolkit & Reports
Resources

Immigration Relief Toolkit for Criminal Defenders
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

Post-Conviction Relief in California Should Be Unaffected by Chaidez v. United States
Publication Date
03/12/2013
In Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. _____, ____S.Ct.____, 2013 WL 610201, (February 20, 2013) the U.S. Supreme Court held that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) was a “new rule” that did not apply retroactively to convictions final before March 31, 2010. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise a noncitizen about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
Resources
Resources

Lessons Learned from Amnesty in 1986
Publication Date
05/03/2013
"The Immigration and Naturalization Service, Community-based Organizations, and the Legalization Experience: Lessons for the Self-Help Immigration Phenomenon,” is a law review article written by ILRC’s founder, Bill Hing, in which he discusses lessons learned from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Resources
Resources

Principles for Immigration Reform that Promote Fairness for All Immigrants
Publication Date
05/01/2013
The ILRC, along with WDA, IDP, and NIP, summarize and discuss some of our immigration system’s most egregious aspects, outline five main principles to advocate for with immigration reform, and caution against possible new harmful provisions that we would have to fight for decades to come.
Practice Advisory
Resources

Moncrieffe and Olivas-Motta: Fourteen Crim/Imm Defenses in the Ninth Circuit
Publication Date
05/29/2013
In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the full categorical approach applies in immigration proceedings. A result is that where the criminal statute defines the offense more broadly than the immigration definition at issue, the conviction will not trigger the immigration penalty.