The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) immigration attorneys’ expertise focuses on family-based immigration, humanitarian relief, naturalization and citizenship, immigration enforcement, and removal defense.
Since 1979 we have helped expand the immigration expertise of attorneys, nonprofit staff, criminal defenders, and others assisting immigrant clients.
In addition to authoring the ILRC’s practice manuals, our expert attorneys have been published by Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB), American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), ILW.com, Huffington Post, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Center for Law and Social Policy, The Hill, LexisNexis Emerging Issues, and Fox News Latino.
We have also provided training to National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), American Bar Association Commission on Immigration, Federal Bar Association, The State Bar of California, Legal Aid Association of California, Judicial Council of California and more.
Given the previous Trump administration’s use of public charge as a means to limit access to immigration benefits, many may be facing renewed anxiety about public charge. This resource aims to provide advocates and community members with an understanding of what public charge changes are—and are not—possible under a second Trump administration, including timing of any possible changes and recommendations for community members.
On November 25, 2024, the ILRC submitted a comment on the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) changes to various legal advocacy forms for children in ORR custody.
On October 15, 2024, the ILRC submitted a comment on the proposed changes to Form I-360, encouraging USCIS to increase the accessibility of the form for pro se respondents, including Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Applicants and VAWA self-petitioners.
On November, 7, 2024, the ILRC submitted a comment on the final Securing the Border rule. ILRC had submitted comments on the interim final rule in July 2024, and reiterated our strong objections raised in that comment. The ILRC further objected to the inclusion of unaccompanied children in the threshold count for lifting the border restrictions and the expanded applicability and geographic reach of the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule.
Every family should have a Family Preparedness Plan in case of an emergency. It is critical for immigrant families to think ahead and set more concrete plans for immigration emergencies that can arise. For example, this Resource Toolkit goes into detail about different childcare options available in case of an absent parent, where to find trusted immigration services in your community, and how to prepare to assert your constitutional rights in the presence of an immigration officer.
This downloadable and printable toolkit is divided into different sections that give guidance on family preparedness planning, regardless of immigration status. It gives additional advice to undocumented and/or mixed status families.
This downloadable and printable toolkit is divided into different sections that give guidance on family preparedness planning, regardless of immigration status. It gives additional advice to undocumented and/or mixed status families.
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.
While U.S. immigration laws provide certain special protections to children migrating without a parent or legal guardian on account of their vulnerabilities, these laws and policies fall short of both domestic and international child welfare principles. Those impacted by and involved with U.S. systems for responding to child migrants have known for years that they do not meet the needs of most children. This resource aims to demonstrate that a different approach to how the United States welcomes migrant children, particularly as relates to their time in government custody/detention, is not just possible but necessary.
EOIR Regulation Limits Retroactivity of Matter of Thomas & Thompson Regarding Sentence Modifications
On October 25, 2019, the Attorney General published Matter of Thomas & Thompson holding that adjudicators could only recognize a sentence modification for immigration purposes where the sentence was vacated due to procedural or substantive defect as defined in Matter of Pickering. It was not clear whether this holding was retroactive. Under new DOJ regulations it is now clear that Matter of Thomas & Thompson is not retroactive. Adjudicators will recognize a sentence modification as vacating the sentence for immigration purposes where: (1) the person filed for the sentence modification on or before October 25, 2019; (2) the person relied on the availability to seek a sentence modification where the conviction date was on or before October 25, 2019; (3) there was a clerical or typographical error in the sentence regardless of the date of entry of the sentence; or (4) where the sentence was vacated due to a procedural or substantive defect in the sentencing - regardless of when the sentence modification was filed.
Over the past few years, Texas has led the nation in cruel attempts to criminalize and punish immigrants and noncitizens. The infamous Texas state deportation law, SB 4, is an integral part of the dangerous and unconstitutional Operation Lone Star and is one of the most controversial and extreme pieces of legislation that targets immigrants and noncitizens in the United States. In 2024, state legislatures across the country have proposed bills that further expand the already vast and punishing criminal-legal system by requiring local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration enforcement and creating new crimes that punish the act of crossing into a state without legal status. Unless stopped, Texas SB 4 and its ilk could herald a regressive wave of anti-immigrant state legislation that will endanger noncitizens and U.S. citizens across the country–to a greater extent than occurred in 2010 after the passage of Arizona’s infamous racial profiling law, SB 1070. This report looks at the copycat policies being put forth across the country.
Part 2 of this 2-part advisory explores some of the unexpected consequences of PD policies adopted by the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) that can prejudice noncitizens in removal proceedings, including the practice of moving to dismiss proceedings over respondents’ objections and failing to appear at hearings.
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.
This advisory describes supporting documentation for the Parole in Place program under Keeping Families Together. The adjudications for this program are currently on pause due to litigation. Persons hoping to apply should the program resume may gather and prepare supporting documents in advance.
The “Expose and Disrupt” guide illustrates how immigrant rights advocates can use state Public Records Act (PRA) requests to fight back against immigration enforcement. Strategic PRA requests can peel back the curtain on ways state and local agencies work together with immigration authorities to reinforce the deportation machinery and traumatize our communities. The guide explains the mechanics of requesting public records, strategies on what information can be useful for campaigns to stop or limit immigration enforcement, and includes examples of what kinds of records exist.
This practice advisory describes the new “Keeping Families Together” parole in place process for certain spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens including what exactly is it and what you get if approved. It also details the eligibility requirements and application process as well as addressing some of the more “in the weeds” issues such as if the USC spouse is deceased, common law marriages, the different presumptions that apply depending on the applicant’s criminal history or if they have an unexecuted final removal order, and what happens if the applicant has already started consular processing. Additionally, attached to this advisory is an appendix of online filing tips specific to the Form I-131F.
The advisory provides information and updates on various parole programs including Uniting for Ukraine, Operation Allies Welcome, CHNV Parole, Family Reunification Parole, CAM Parole, and Parole in Place.
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.
Prop 47 (2014) reclassified six felony offenses to misdemeanors, including shoplifting and simple drug possession, and funneled costs savings into safety measures like drug and mental health treatment and victim services centers. Proposed Prop 36 (November 2024) would roll back those reforms and add new criminal penalties and sentencing enhancements. Prop 36 will also impose severe immigration consequences on immigrants and their families. It will result in more Californians being deported and more families being separated. This resource provides some of the specific examples of the ways in which Proposition 36 will harm immigrants if passed.
ILRC comments on Texas House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety Testimony on SB 602.
This toolkit is for advocates looking for guidance on how to engage in legislative advocacy, also known as lobbying. Legislative advocacy is building support for an issue or cause that you believe in through engaging legislators and advocating for or against certain legislation, or proposed laws. The aim of legislative advocacy is to influence the outcome of a legislator’s vote on a proposed legislation or a bill. This type of advocacy can also be for the purpose of building a legislative champion and public voice on the issue you care about.
On August 12, ILRC provided feedback to USCIS on recent changes made to the acquisition of citizenship portion of the USCIS policy manual. ILRC commended the agency for providing clarity in some of the sections and provided suggested language that should be incorporated into the policy manual to ensure that all eligible applicants – including those who were previously denied and are now eligible due to changes to USCIS policy – are able to access the process now and obtain proof of their acquired citizenship.