Resources
Publication Date
11/15/2024
Under current USCIS regulations, any person under 21 years of age who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements may be granted SIJS. This practice alert addresses many of the unsuccessful arguments that USCIS has not accepted when a petition received by USCIS after the youth turns 21. In rare cases, USCIS has accepted petitions received after the petitioner’s 21st birthday when there is proof that the petition was improperly rejected or receipted by USCIS before the deadline. This practice alert primarily focuses on USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions and limited federal court cases to highlight successful and unsuccessful arguments when the SIJS petition is filed on or after the youth’s 21st birthday.
Resources
Publication Date
11/19/2010
Practice advisory by Katherine Brady on the Supreme Court case Nijhawan v. Holder, which deals with the categorical approach and aggravated felonies.
Resources
Publication Date
02/28/2011
Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011), overruling in part Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005).
Resources
Publication Date
03/17/2011
"Many Permanent Residents Are Not Subject to the § 212(h) Permanent Resident Bar; The Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms § 212(h) as a Direct Waiver of Deportability; Using § 212(h) When LPR Cancellation is Not an Option" by Kathy Brady
Resources
Publication Date
03/22/2011
Resources
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
Resources
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
Publication Date
10/26/2011
Practice Advisory: California Health and Safety Code § 11357(b) prohibits possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. After January 1, 2011 it will be treated as an infraction.
Resources
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
Publication Date
05/14/2012
Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences of Crimes in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky.
Resources
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
Publication Date
10/15/2012
Practice Advisory: The BIA held that a violation of a Kansas municipal ordinance is a conviction for immigration purposes despite the lack of appointed defense counsel or right to a jury trial in those proceedings. Matter of Cuellar, 25 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2012).
Resources
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
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.
Resources
Publication Date
07/22/2013
Resources
Publication Date
11/25/2014
Resources
Publication Date
11/26/2014
Resources
Publication Date
03/12/2015
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) cases, involving a claim of abuse, abandonment or neglect against one parent while the child resides with the non-offending parent, are commonly referred to as one-parent cases. These cases, though permissible under the plain language of the statute as well as federal agency interpretation, have proved challenging particularly at the state court phase of the application process and at times before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that adjudicates SIJS petitions. This advisory is intended to be a primer for practitioners to help them successfully advocate for SIJS where one-parent SIJS claims are involved.
Resources
Publication Date
08/06/2015
This advisory discusses how the Supreme Court's opinion in Johnson v. United States may affect selected offenses under California law, and what criminal defense and immigration advocates can do now.
Resources
Publication Date
10/12/2015
This practice advisory describes the recent increase in RFEs and NOIDs in Special Immigrant Juvenile Status cases, in which USCIS is requesting documents from the underlying state court proceedings. The advisory details arguments against disclosing state court documents and information to USCIS, and provides guidance on setting up your SIJS petitions for success from the outset.
Resources
Publication Date
02/19/2016
The BIA stated that Cal PC § 273a(b) is not a deportable crime of child abuse, in Matter of Mendoza-Osorio.
Resources
Publication Date
04/15/2016
In this practice advisory developed in consultation with the staff of the Judicial Council of California, we answer common questions about basic procedural and substantive issues that may arise in family court custody cases when SIJS findings are being requested.
Resources
Publication Date
06/24/2016
A noncitizen who is convicted of a “crime of domestic violence” is deportable. INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 USC 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). In Matter of H. Estrada the BIA reaffirmed that the categorical approach must be used to determine that the offense is a “crime of violence” under 18 USC § 16, but it held that the circumstance-specific approach can be used to determine whether the victim and defendant shared the required domestic relationship. Under that approach, the BIA found that ICE can use any reliable evidence, including evidence from outside the record of conviction, to try to meet its burden of proving the relationship.