Areas of Expertise

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.

Immigration policies put forth under President Trump have had a unique and significant impact on immigrant survivors of gender-based violence, who now face even greater barriers to access safety and justice. This report seeks to document the impact of President Trump’s administrative actions on immigrant survivors of gender-based violence and to examine how the Trump administration has empowered abusers to use institutions and systems to silence survivors.
As a local elected law enforcement official and operator of county jails, Sheriffs play a critical role in ending the arrest-to-deportation pipeline. This advisory for advocates in Texas explains the power of county sheriffs, and measures they can take to reduce the number of people being funneled into the deportation pipeline, without violating state laws like SB 4.
On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an adverse, 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020), a case regarding the “stop-time rule” and eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) stops time for purposes of cancellation, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. The Barton opinion will primarily limit eligibility for LPR cancellation, but will have some impact on non-LPR cancellation and VAWA cancellation. This Practice Alert provides a summary and some analysis of the Barton opinion, and some initial tips for practitioners.
COVID-19 has made one thing clear; when law enforcement cooperates with ICE this has dire public health implications. There have been renewed and urgent efforts to stop this cooperation, including a recently filed lawsuit California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, California Governor, et al., challenging the transfer of people from state and local custody to ICE in the midst of COVID-19. Ten current and former district attorneys and police chiefs from across California filed an amicus curiae letter brief in support of this lawsuit.  This letter brief was authored and organized by Fair and Just Prosecution, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
On April 22, 2020, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation cutting off some forms of immigration for 60 days, beginning on April 23, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the president extended this proclamation through December 31, 2020 and added restrictions to other immigrants seeking certain temporary visas. This brief guide addresses what this means, who it will most likely impact, and what it may mean in broader immigration terms. 
Increasingly prosecutors are asked to consider immigration consequences in the charging and plea-bargaining process. Some states have adopted policies requiring prosecutors to consider such consequences, see, e.g., Cal. Pen. C. § 1016.3(b), and some prosecutor offices have adopted internal guidelines mandating the consideration of immigration consequences. This advisory provides context for why such a prosecutorial policy or practice is legally necessary and permitted, if not mandated, by constitutional law and governing codes of conduct.
Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is an important relief option for individuals who are unable to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. This advisory reviews the legal standard for CAT protection. It also provides an overview of seminal Board of Immigration Appeals and federal circuit court decisions that discuss the various elements of a CAT claim. The end of the advisory contains a useful chart which compares asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT.
U nonimmigrant status and T nonimmigrant status, often called “U visas” and “T visas,” are humanitarian forms of immigration relief for crime survivors. Congress created these forms of relief with the dual purpose of aiding law enforcement, by encouraging crime victims to cooperate, and providing humanitarian relief for crime survivors. Both forms of relief have a certification process by which applicants request certification from a law enforcement agency to document their cooperation. In recent years, many states have enacted U and T visa certification legislation in order to assist eligible immigrants in obtaining law enforcement certifications. This practice advisory provides a summary of the current and pending state statutes regarding certifications as of March 2020.
The ILRC’s Immigration Preparedness Toolkit is a resource-packed informational document designed to help immigrants with no legal status or in mixed status families begin to understand the immigration legal landscape and plan for their own journey through an ever-changing, complex system in the United States. This free toolkit offers in-depth, yet easily accessible information that outlines the basics about a variety of topics including: your rights during ICE confrontations, the different types of immigration options available, ideas for building your consultation roadmap, and tips on covering your bases while waiting for relief. This 13-page resource also incorporates links to other helpful reference documents, fact sheets, and tools readers can use to construct their own personalized plan.
In 2016, California passed California Penal Code § 1473.7, a critical post-conviction relief vehicle for people no longer in criminal custody to move to eliminate prior convictions that violated constitutional and statutory rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Under decades of legal precedent, prior offenses vacated on this basis are outside the federal immigration definition of "conviction." Nevertheless, some DHS attorneys incorrectly argue that § 1473.7 vacaturs are not effective for immigration purposes. This practice advisory, a Sample Memorandum of Law and Table of BIA Cases, presents arguments and precedent for refuting DHS's arguments. 
As more and more jurisdictions are contemplating releasing people from jails and prisons, it is critical that we consider ways to ensure that people released are not immediately transferred to the harmful deportation system.  ILRC, together with our allies, Asian Prisoners Support Committee, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, and California Alliance for Youth and Criminal Justice, put together this list of recommendations that advocates can use to demand responsible releases. 
Over the years, various courts throughout the country have agreed that prolonging custody of a person solely based on an ICE detainer request is unlawful for numerous reasons. This practice advisory provides a summary of the court decisions related to ICE detainers and the arguments to challenge localities that continue to detain people for ICE. The cases discussed here illustrate some of the detailed arguments that are developing over what the Fourth Amendment requires and what is authorized or not by federal and state laws.  
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are ramping up efforts to investigate U.S. citizens and pursue denaturalization cases. This will result in many U.S. citizens being denaturalized and losing their citizenship.  These efforts will have a chilling effect on the number of legal permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship and will further burden a system that is already delayed in adjudicating and granting immigration benefits. This Practice Advisory reviews the present state of denaturalization and revocation of citizenship.  It thoroughly reviews the statutes and caselaw to date in denaturalization and revocation of citizenship. Practitioners handling these cases will find this Practice Advisory to be very useful when defending U.S. citizens who are under the threat of having their citizenship torn away from them.
These printable resources are concise handouts that serve as reminders for those in the immigrant community that are anxious about accessing healthcare or getting treatment related to the coronavirus (Covid-19) due to the potential impact on their Public Charge assessment. They are in English and in Spanish and include links to know your rights and locate legal service providers in your area.
ILRC sent a request to USCIS headquarters to provide more information and to also take certain actions to deal with the consequences of the closure of USCIS public services and the impact of COVID-19 on the immigrant public. These are  concerns raised  by the individuals and organizations with whom we partner. We have promised to raise more issues as the emergency situation continues.
The VAWA Self-Petition allows abused immigrants to petition for legal status independently of their abuser.  The process mirrors that of the family-based process but frees the victim from having to rely on the abuser’s cooperation to file a family-based petition. Under VAWA, an abused spouse or child of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or U.S. citizen (USC), or an abused parent of a USC son or daughter can submit a self-petition on their own.  Individuals who qualify for VAWA are able to include derivatives on their applications and both the principal and derivative are able to gain immigration benefits through the process. This practice advisory provides information on derivatives for the VAWA self-petition process as well as considerations to keep in mind when filing an application.  
The American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, ASISTA Immigration Assistance, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Kids in Need of Defense, and the Tahirih Justice Center submitted this comment in response to the proposed revisions to USCIS Form I-290B, which were published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2019. 
This advisory provides an overview of the most common types of motions filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. It discusses the types of motions the Board will accept while proceedings are pending before it, such as motions to remand. It also discusses motions filed with the Board after it has issued a final order of removal, which includes motions to reconsider and motions to reopen. It contains guidelines on determining what type of motion is appropriate in specific circumstances and how to prepare and file motions in a way that meets legal requirements and complies with the Board’s procedural rules.
This advisory provides an overview of the immigration consequences of delinquency and helps advocates understand the distinctions between delinquency and crime to be able to assess whether a youth has committed an act of delinquency or a crime. It arms advocates with arguments to protect their noncitizen clients who have engaged in unlawful conduct as minors.
This advisory seeks to clarify when, where, and how to file an I-212. It also discusses certain special circumstances such as conditional I-212s, nunc pro tunc I-212s, and how a grant to TPS or advance parole may affect the need for an I-212. The advisory addresses strategic concerns such as deciding when to file a motion to reopen versus a conditional I-212, and assessing the risks of triggering other inadmissibility or enforcement issues when advising clients.