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.
Gonzalez v. ICE is an important class action lawsuit raising fundamental questions about ICE enforcement practices, in particular the use of federal databases to target people for immigration detainers and arrests. This advisory explains the latest developments in the federal courts and how advocates can use these legal theories to defend their clients and communities.
Sanchez v. Sessions was a landmark Ninth Circuit ruling on suppression of evidence and termination of removal proceedings. This advisory explains the decision, lays out the different legal standards for suppression and termination in immigration court, and highlights key holdings that practitioners can use to better defend their clients.
On August 26, 2019, the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) published an interim final rule, effective immediately, with a request for public comments by October 25, 2019. ILRC posted a templated comment urging programs to send in their own responses.
While the best-case scenario would be for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to approve a person’s naturalization application, receiving a denial after a naturalization interview is not the end of the road. If USCIS denies the naturalization application, persons can seek a USCIS hearing to appeal the denial by submitting form N-336 (informally known as an administrative appeal). Although the process is simple, many do not take advantage of this process.
This short resource explains how California laws protect noncitizen youth in the youth justice system from immigration enforcement.
The ILRC is pleased that Congress is engaging in a serious conversation about immigration policy and how to protect DACA recipients, TPS holders and those with DED - who are among the many groups of people of color and immigrants targeted by the Trump Administration's racist policies and discriminatory practices.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center created this template to help you draft your own comments in opposition to this interim rule with request for comment. The new rule can be found here. Comments are due by October 25, 2019. We are very concerned about this rule’s “reorganization” at EOIR that eliminates OLAP, the office that has operated the Recognition and Accreditation (R & A) Program and the legal orientation programs until now. The rule places the remaining functions of OLAP under an Office of Policy.
As a trusted institution in immigrant families’ lives, childcare providers can play a critical role in ensuring immigrant families have access to important information and resources during these turbulent and scary times. This resource provides ideas for how childcare providers can support immigrant families.
It is unlikely U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will carry out immigration enforcement operations at an early childhood education center, childcare facility, or First 5 site. Nonetheless, it is important for facilities to have policies that address the concerns of the parents, families, and communities they serve. Accordingly, the ILRC put together model policies for early childhood education centers, childcare facilities, or First 5 sites in California. The model policies are meant to serve as a menu of options to choose from and adopt as relevant for your specific site. These policies can be incorporated into existing policies and do not need to be adopted in their entirety.
One of the most heartbreaking and galvanizing assaults on immigrant and human rights in 2018 was the administration’s policy of separating families seeking asylum, or other relief, at our borders. Read about how the ILRC responded in our 2018 Annual Report.
In this issue: In Focus: Goals for the new Austin, Texas office; Ending 287(g) agreements: An overview of the effort to keep local law enforcement out of the federal immigration enforcement work; Congress must take down Trump administration's barriers to citizenship; 2019 Phillip Burton Immigration & Civil Rights Awards; 2018 Annual Report
Moving Texas Forward: Local Policies Towards Inclusive Justice was created for the many organizations and elected officials in Texas that are struggling to find solutions to disrupt the harmful arrest-to-deportation pipeline. Texas has helped deport more people than any other state. In fiscal year 2017, more than 395,000 people, or 17% of all deportations nationwide, were deported from Texas. Texas’ role in the detention and deportation of immigrants has increased under the Trump administration and will continue to increase because of SB 4. This guide attempts to provide a comprehensive and thorough look at some of the ways advocates, policymakers, and local law enforcement can work together to minimize the arrest-to-deportation pipeline.
This practice advisory is the second resource in a two-part series on Humanitarian Forms of Relief for noncitizen victims of violence, serious crimes and persecution. They include: T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, VAWA self-petition, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status. The first advisory focused on giving an overview of VAWA, U, and T Visas. Including, eligibility requirements and some factors to consider before applying. This practice advisory will focus on giving an overview of asylum and special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS), including their eligibility requirements and some factors to consider before applying.
In certain immigration cases, you may want to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of State (DOS), such as to try to find information about previous visa applications and passport records. This Practice Advisory will go over the DOS FOIA process in detail and provide practice tips for obtaining personal records from them, including best practices.
Immigrant children and families in the child welfare system face unique barriers to permanency and well-being. In some cases, their involvement in the child welfare system also presents distinct opportunities for seeking lawful immigration status. With half of all children in California coming from an immigrant family, child welfare agencies in California must be equipped to effectively support immigrant children and families on the pathway to permanency. The objective of this Toolkit is to provide guidance to child welfare agencies in California working with immigrant children and families.
This community resource explains Freedom City Policies in Austin, Texas, an example of organizers, advocates and community members coming together to fight for the decriminalization of immigrants and communities of color. It gives an overview of the policies, why they were enacted, their impact on the community, individuals’ rights under the policies and actions that may be taken if police officers violate those rights. This information is useful for community members and advocates in Austin, Texas.
In a flawed but significant decision, the Ninth Circuit held that California Penal Code § 243(d), battery with injury, is a crime of violence. United States v. Perez (9th Cir. July 11, 2019). Because of Perez, criminal defenders must assume that § 243(d) is a crime of violence and seek other dispositions when necessary. Immigration advocates should appeal adverse decisions and preserve the argument on appeal. See this Advisory for a discussion of the decision, alternative pleas, and suggestions for arguments.
On July 23, 2019, DHS issued a notice, expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals who have been living in the United States for two years or less, and who live anywhere in the United States. This would allow noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence or to present their case to a judge. On August 6, 2019, the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm of Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP filed suit challenging the legality of this expansion, Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, Case 1:19-cv-02369. On September 27, 2019, the court granted a preliminary injunction in this case, which blocks the expansion of expedited removal from taking effect while the court decides the case.
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, ILRC Executive Director, Eric Cohen, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship about the current dysfunctional state of our country’s naturalization program. He joined representatives from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) to shed light on how USCIS policy changes and processing delays are negatively impacting those seeking immigration benefits and our country as a whole.
It is time that we pass laws to build communities that are healthy and thriving, instead of ones torn apart by criminalization, biased policing, incarceration, and deportation. To secure the full human rights of all members of our communities, we need a new way forward for immigrant justice—one that ends senseless divisions of “good versus bad” immigrants and recognizes that all communities deserve dignity, restoration and repair, not further criminalization. This one-pager explains A New Way Forward campaign.
This community resource provides a brief explanation of the Immigration Court experience. It gives an overview of what happens in Immigration Court, how to confirm information about a case in Immigration Court, and what a person in removal proceedings should do if they do not have an attorney to represent them at an upcoming hearing. This information is useful for community members and advocates working with the immigrant community.
This practice advisory provides an overview of ways to advocate with USCIS and DHS components for solutions to individual case problems and systemic issues.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 confers initial jurisdiction over asylum claims filed by unaccompanied children (UCs) to the asylum office. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of M-A-C-O-, as well as policy changes by the Trump administration have sought to strip away this crucial protection from many child asylum seekers. Because of these changes and legal challenges by immigrant youth advocates, the current landscape of initial UC asylum jurisdiction is in flux. This practice advisory provides an overview of the current state of UC asylum jurisdiction following the Matter of M-A-C-O- decision and issuance of the Lafferty Memo. It also discusses the ongoing JOP v. DHS litigation and gives some arguments and tips for practitioners to help them advocate for their UC clients to receive the statutory protections afforded by the TVPRA.
Noncitizen victims of violence, serious crimes, and persecution may be eligible for certain forms of immigration protection and status. These options are often referred to as Humanitarian Forms of Relief. They include: T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, VAWA self-petition, asylum, and special immigrant juvenile status.
This advisory is the second in a two-part series on unlawful presence and unlawful presence waivers. This advisory covers the requirements and process for the provisional waiver, as well as updates and pitfalls to avoid in light of recent changes that have made pursuing the provisional waiver process more challenging. These include: State Department updates to public charge guidance and increased visa denials based on public charge inadmissibility at the consulate, Attorney General decisions in Matter of Castro-Tum and Matter of S-O-G & F-D-B- making it more difficult to pursue the provisional waiver in removal proceedings, heightened risk pursuing the conditional I-212 option as part of the provisional waiver expansion given updated enforcement priorities, and new considerations for preparing and filing provisional waiver cases in light of new USCIS policy memos on RFEs/NOIDs and Notices to Appear.