Results

Since Donald Trump was re-elected, headlines on immigration have sounded the alarm about his administration’s plans to effectuate mass deportations, increased detentions, and indiscriminate raids. For the past three years, Governor Greg Abbott has used Texas as a laboratory for these types of policies through Operation Lone Star (OLS). This resource aims to parallel the national moves on enforcement to what has already taken place in Texas, in hopes to better equip community members and advocates with the framework to fight back.

Eligibility for U Nonimmigrant Status, commonly known as the “U Visa,” hinges on whether the applicant has been the “victim” of a qualifying crime. The regulations implementing the U visa statute contemplate three categories of “victims” who may qualify for the U visa: direct, bystander, and indirect victims. This practice advisory provides a basic overview of the requirements for U nonimmigrant eligibility. It then discusses the definition of “victim” and three different ways to qualify as a victim for purposes of U visa eligibility. Finally, it addresses derivative eligibility for qualifying family members.

Thanks to the years of community advocacy, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) will now accept the Harris County ELC, as a secondary identity document. This policy is effective as of August 19, 2024 and is only applicable to the HCSO. Training of HCSO officers and staff on the policy change is unclear. Other law enforcement agencies in Houston and Harris County do not currently accept the ELC as a form of identification (ID).

The ILRC encourages Members of Congress to stand against this government-sponsored violence against immigrant communities. The demonization and dehumanization of immigrants by the president are an effort to sow fear and division. Mass deportations will make it impossible for our community members to thrive and live with safety and dignity.

These forms aim to support DACA recipients living in Texas establish an LLC to continue earning a living outside of the confines of the program.

These forms aim to support DACA recipients living in New York establish an LLC to continue earning a living outside of the confines of the program.

These forms aim to support DACA recipients living in Michigan establish an LLC to continue earning a living outside of the confines of the program.

These forms aim to support DACA recipients living in Illinois establish an LLC to continue earning a living outside of the confines of the program.

These forms aim to support DACA recipients living in California establish an LLC to continue earning a living outside of the confines of the program.

When the first Trump administration took office in 2017, it immediately adopted restrictive policies on asylum, making it more difficult for asylum seekers to win their cases. Trump returning to office in January 2025 raises fears that asylum-seekers will once again be a focus of the administration’s anti-immigrant policies. Although the new administration will likely enact policies that are harmful to asylum seekers, certain changes would require Congressional action. Moreover, executive actions on asylum could be challenged in court. This alert explores what a second Trump term could mean for asylum seekers and what the administration can, and cannot, change on its own.

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.

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.

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.