Areas of Expertise

A cite and release policy is a directive to law enforcement officers to issue citations, tickets, or warnings for certain low-level offenses, instead of making arrests. This resource provides a general overview of cite and release policies, including the goals and benefits of cite and release, the components of a strong policy, the eligible offenses under Texas state law, and examples of local policies across Texas. 

ICE has changed the standard language for 287(g) agreements. This resource highlights and explains the most significant changes and provides a line by line comparison of old and new contracts. 

This one-pager, a partnership between the UCLA Criminal Defense Clinic, Al Otro Lado, and the ILRC, describes the how and why of CA Penal Code s. 1473.7.

In 2020 and 2021, the ILRC generated three distinct social media pushes on public charge and four “breaking news” graphics to educate the immigrant community on policy developments and related issues. In this resource, we share information on those pushes and links to the graphics on Instagram as inspiration for social media posts other organizations or advocates may wish to share or create, depending on their audience.

This community resource is a condensed explainer for anyone with questions about DACA, with a brief overview on who can apply, who can renew, and what the recent USCIS changes to the program mean.

For many immigrants, learning what their status is does not come into full scope until they apply for driver’s licenses, financial aid, travel documents, or other benefits that are a part of adulthood’s accompanying responsibilities. Regardless of one’s age, however, it is important that everyone understand the differences between the distinct categories recognized by the federal government so as to be well informed and exercise caution throughout daily life.

On September 25, ILRC submitted comments in opposition to EOIR's proposed rule regarding court procedures. The proposed rule is an unlawful attempt to curb Immigration Judges’ authority, limit case review, and drastically restrict due process for immigrants. The rule undermines the appellate process and curtails the efficient adjudication of the courts. 

2020 has proven to be one of the most tumultuous years in recent history. We have struggled to survive a deadly global pandemic and faced a national reckoning on racial inequity and police brutality. Over the past four years, immigration enforcement tactics have continued to instill fear, and any protection policies have been decimated. Immigrant communities face the constant threat of deportation and essential immigrant workers, such as farmworkers, face inhumane and exploitative working conditions. As we think about immigration policy in the days and months ahead, we must reject the notion that certain community members can be treated as disposable. Our immigration policies must be guided by values that uphold the dignity of all immigrants and bring us closer to becoming the country we promise to be. 

In January 2020, the Committee for Review of the Penal Code began convening with the intent of putting forward wide ranging recommendations for reforms to the California criminal legal code. Understanding the significant impact of the process for California’s immigrant population, the ILRC has formally submitted recommendations, advice, and expert testimony as the committee engages in its deliberations. We will continue to update this site with our recommendations to the committee.

Across the country, states and localities are increasingly moving to end marijuana prohibition laws. For immigrant communities, despite the changing attitude toward marijuana-related conduct at the state level, an old conviction can still form the basis for immigration-related consequences at the federal level. Though federal legal reforms may be the only way to completely eradicate the immigration consequences of marijuana-related conduct and convictions, reforms at the state level can nevertheless help stop the arrest-to-deportation pipeline. Drawing from our experience with state and municipal efforts across the country, this resource, jointly produced by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Drug Policy Alliance, lists best practices for municipalities and states looking to decriminalize in a way that lessens the immigration-related harms of marijuana criminalization.

A FOIA request can be an invaluable tool in immigration law to help an immigrant and their representative gain a complete understanding of one’s immigration history. This guide details how to complete a FOIA request for USCIS, ICE, OBIM, and CBP. It provides step-by-step instructions on how to complete Form G-639 and also  includes tips about alternatives to Form G-639, such as online submission options.

California is in the midst of an historic reform of its Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Under current plans, failed DJJ facilities will close, creating an opportunity for youth to be cared for close to home through community-based programs and services. But if DJJ closes, it must close justly. Any closure must divest from carceral solutions and invest in restorative and transformative justice rooted in community wellness and safety. Any closure must take into account the needs of all impacted communities, including immigrant youth. This resource highlights the two main ways that noncitizen youth may be impacted by the DJJ closure and makes recommendations to ensure that DJJ closes justly for all.

This brief advisory written by Rose Cahn, ILRC and Anoop Prasad, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus, discusses how petitions for relief using PC 1437, the reform to the felony murder rule, can be helpful to immigrants seeking to mitigate immigration consequences.

A one-page issue spotting decision tree to help screen for potential forms of post-conviction relief.  For an in-depth discussion of any of these vehicles, see this guide, created by the ILRC and Californians for Safety and Justice.

This resource provides helpful charts of the grounds of inadmissibility as applied to special immigrant juveniles (SIJs). It also describes the waiver standard and process for SIJs.

On July 30, 2020, Attorney General Barr issued Matter of Reyes, 28 I&N Dec. 52 (A.G. 2020), a case involving a longtime lawful permanent resident with a single conviction for violating a larceny statute that criminalizes both theft and fraud, and is indivisible as between these means of commission. She had been sentenced to over one year in prison and there was an established loss amount of greater than $10,000. This practice alert provides a summary of the decision and potential practice tips for both immigration practitioners and criminal defense attorneys representing noncitizens in criminal and immigration cases. These tips focus on challenging the correctness of the AG's new theory of removability, challenging any judicial deference to the AG's opinion, fighting DHS efforts to file new NTAs or motions to reopen past proceedings, contesting retroactive application of the new decision, and criminal defense strategies for avoiding its reach in advising noncitizens on resolving open criminal matters.  

On July 28, 2020 the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum severely restricting the DACA program. Despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision fully reinstating the program, the Trump administration has issued another attack on the program. This community alert gives a brief summary of memorandum and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Implementing Guidance issued on August 21, 2020 and what it means for community members.

On August 13, 2020, ILRC submitted comments on recent changes to USCIS’s policy manual. The new chapters on discretion will radically alter adjudications of  a wide variety of applications for immigration benefits. We recommend that the changes be stricken because they are ultra vires, lack legal support, and will exacerbate USCIS’s current crisis. The policy manual changes compound agency inefficiency, waste, and mismanagement at a time when the agency has crisis-level backlogs and is seeking a bailout from Congress. Instead of looking for ways to streamline adjudications, the policy manual imposes a secondary adjudication process on dozens of application types that will require adjudicators to multiply the amount of time that they spend determining eligibility, a move that will  grind adjudications to an even slower pace  and deny applicants relief for which they would otherwise be eligible.

In October 2019, Attorney General Barr issued Matter of Thomas & Matter of Thompson, altering the standard for when immigration law will recognize a criminal sentencing modification. Since then, government attorneys from ICE and adjudicators from DHS and DOJ have misused and exploited the decision to incorrectly impose immigration consequences on vacated and modified past convictions and sentences. Immigrant rights advocates have pushed back by attacking this decision in the federal courts. In this amicus brief submitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, immigration law experts directly challenge the AG's decision, arguing it is incorrect as a matter of law, is not entitled to any level of deference, and if permitted to stand cannot be applied retroactively. These arguments build on a growing body of case law refusing to offer deference to the DOJ on interpretation of immigration provisions that have both civil and criminal application. E.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 4519085 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2020). Advocates challenging Thomas/Thompson in agency and court proceedings can use the arguments in this brief to attack the case on the merits and to resist its retroactive application.

This toolkit is designed for legal service organizations who want to engage pro bono attorneys in providing immigrant post-conviction relief screening and services. It contains tools to run a legal clinic to screen for crim/imm issues and post-conviction relief options, tools to perform case-specific legal analysis for noncitizens with prior convictions, and tools to place and supervise post-conviction relief motions with pro bono attorneys. Although this toolkit was designed with pro bono engagement in mind, many tools may also be useful to organizations expanding their own immigrant post-conviction relief practice. 

This toolkit will help reentry service providers expand services for noncitizens impacted by the criminal legal system. It offers an escalating service menu, starting with tools to provide general information about how a conviction can impact immigration status, advancing to tools to help clients gather information necessary for an individualized legal analysis, tools to perform that analysis, and last, tools to pursue immigration-related post-conviction relief. This toolkit was designed with reentry providers in mind, but may also be useful for immigration legal providers serving clients with prior records.

Alert: On September 29, 2020 the Fee Rule was enjoined nation-wide in its entirety by a District court in the Northern District of California, ILRC et al. v. Chad F. Wolf, et al. (ND California) (Case 4:20-cv-05883-JSW) (Sept. 29, 2020).   

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.

On November 15, 2019, the ILRC and Public Counsel submitted comments in response to the re-opened comment period on the proposed SIJS regulations, originally published in 2011. The ILRC and Public Counsel each submitted comments on the proposed rule during the original 2011 comment period, organizationally and as part of the Immigrant Children Lawyers Network. Accordingly, in 2019, we wrote to renew our 2011 comments and briefly supplement them due, in part, to concerns and changes in practice that had arisen in the intervening eight years.