Results

This advisory lays out some of the main “pros” and “cons” to applying for U nonimmigrant status for crime victims as they exist now, to help prospective applicants weigh the benefits and risks of applying. “Pros” include direct benefits of temporary lawful status, employment authorization, protection from removal, a pathway to a green card that is not barred by almost any grounds of inadmissibility, and the ability to help family members obtain immigration status. Additional “pros” include special confidentiality provisions, eligibility for public benefits, eligibility for the Central American Minors program, and special consideration by ICE, among other collateral benefits. “Cons” include very long processing times and vulnerability to divergent discretionary decisions during fluctuations in enforcement priorities and other policies in the many years it takes to get a decision.

So, you’re organizing a local town hall or candidate forum about DA and immigration; great! ILRC has developed a number of resources that can be helpful.

The domestic violence deportation ground at INA § 237(a)(2)(E) sets out four bases for deportation: conviction of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or being the subject of a judicial finding of violation of a domestic violence stay-away order. Coming within one of these grounds also can be a bar to cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents or DACA.

The ILRC and partner organizations submitted the attached letter and BIA case summary to OPLA leadership, clarifying that vacaturs issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) correct legally and procedurally defective convictions, meeting the standard set forth in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).

This page offers resources on “crim/imm,” the law governing the intersection of immigration and crimes, especially as it applies to California law.

This Chart summarizes the criminal record bars to many forms of relief, to provide a quick way to check whether your client is potentially eligible for relief. See also ILRC, Immigration Relief Toolkit (2018).

Black people and other communities of color, including immigrants, have faced decades of overpolicing, criminalization, and incarceration in Texas, often for alleged conduct that does not mandate an arrest or even carry jail time in the state. One way to effectively reduce arrests is to pass a local cite and release policy. This advocacy toolkit gives local organizers and advocates in Texas the tools they need to lead a successful cite and release campaign. We have included many helpful resources, samples, and insights for every step in a cite & release campaign – from initial education, research, and data collection through policy implementation.

On June 14, 2021, USCIS announced a new “bona fide determination” process whereby certain U petitioners and their family members with pending U petitions can receive four-year work authorization and deferred action while they wait for full adjudication. This process could be very good for many of the 270,000 folks who have filed for a U visa and are waiting – but there are many folks left out, and of course, much of this depends on how the process is implemented. ILRC and ASISTA wrote this advisory to provide updated information on the new process and discuss eligibility, decisions and renewals, and other issues.

On September 28, 2021, DHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The proposed rule seeks to codify DACA and while this presents real opportunities, there are serious problems with the rule in regard to the criminal bars to DACA, in particular the elimination of expungements for DACA purposes. See proposed rule here. 

With a few exceptions, immigration authorities must use the “categorical approach” to determine whether a criminal conviction triggers a ground of removal. Expert use of the categorical approach may be the most important defense strategy available to immigrants charged with or convicted of crimes. This Update of our long-running article includes discussion of Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (2021).

There have been many recent developments regarding the litigation challenges to the Department of Homeland Security enforcement priorities. This brief guide provides a quick summary to help you keep up. In short, the Enforcement Priorities are currently still in effect, although a change could come within the next few weeks. Below you will additionally find the Fifth Circuit’s temporary stay of the lower federal district court’s preliminary injunction order. While these issues are quickly moving, this update is current as of September 2021.

4.5 million people in America are on probation.  What is probation, and what does a probation officer do?  How are probation departments involved in immigration enforcement?  This short explainer seeks to provide basic information about probation and highlight the nefarious role that many probation agencies take in turning immigrants over to ICE for deportation.

Harris County, home to approximately 1.2 million immigrants, is one of the largest and most diverse counties in the United States. Unfortunately, it also operates an expansive jail system and is an epicenter of immigration enforcement. This report looks at criminal case outcomes before Harris County courts and highlights disparities between U.S. citizens and non-citizens in arrests, charges, bail, case disposition, and sentencing. Through this report, we seek to raise awareness about how non-citizens are unjustly treated in Harris County, and we provide key policy recommendations for stakeholders to take immediate action to address such inequities.

As groups across Texas advocate for cite and release policies in their own localities, it has become increasingly important that we utilize values-based messaging in our campaigns. This guide, available in multiple languages, provides messaging recommendations to ensure there is unity in how we talk about cite and release. It provides suggested language to ensure inclusive messaging that uplifts the dignity and humanity of all community members, regardless of criminal history.

A conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) may or may not hurt an immigrant, depending on a number of factors set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act:  the number of CIMT convictions, the potential and actual sentence, when the person committed or was convicted of the offense, and the person’s immigration situation. A single CIMT conviction might cause no damage, or it might cause a variety of penalties ranging from deportability to ineligibility for relief to mandatory detention.

On January 1, 2021, multiple California criminal reform laws took effect. These laws were passed to help all defendants regardless of immigration status, but they can be of special help to noncitizens. Advocates should understand how these laws may help a client’s immigration case. They include: 

Immigration law has its own definition of what constitutes a criminal conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and other courts have held that certain types of pretrial diversion and intervention agreements that result in dismissal under state law can still constitute a conviction for immigration purposes. Practitioners must pay close attention to the structure of such agreements, and the variety of available diversion programs, when evaluating a client’s criminal history and advising about the potential immigration consequences of criminal offenses and dispositions. This advisory discusses when such diversion agreements and programs will constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, strategies to avoid triggering an immigration conviction, and tips for advocating for “immigration-safe” agreements.

In this practice advisory co-drafted with Public Counsel, we answer common questions on how to tackle disclosure of juvenile adjudications and dissemination of court records for individuals interested in applying for DACA. It also includes a sample DACA request packet, which shows various ways to disclose juvenile adjudications and comply with state confidentiality laws.

The majority of states have legalized some use of marijuana, but marijuana remains a federal Schedule I controlled substance. Therefore, any conduct involving marijuana can be very dangerous for immigrants – including conduct that is permitted under state law. Admitting that one has “legally” used marijuana, being employed in the fast-growing cannabis industry, and any conviction can cause serious immigration problems. A prior marijuana conviction must be vacated based on some error; the fact that the state has since legalized the conduct does not erase it, and many state “mass expungement” actions also do not. Evidence that a person has sold marijuana can harm any noncitizen, in some cases including immigrant youth. Marijuana issues can cause bars to eligibility for affirmative applications such as adjustment of status and naturalization; admission at the border; and cancellation and other applications in removal proceedings. 

This page provides several tools: an updated and a comprehensive Practice Advisory on the legal issues; a Practice Alert on the Policy Manualamendment; community flyers that you can download and use to help warn clients and community; and a sample written warning about working in the industry from the California Employment Development Department.

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (March 4, 2021), the Supreme Court issued another opinion on the categorical approach, which is the analysis authorities use to decide whether a criminal conviction triggers removal grounds.  Pereida focuses on the “modified” categorical approach, which is how courts approach a conviction under a statute that sets out multiple, separate, offenses (a “divisible” statute). Pereida overruled Marinelarena v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

In the summer of 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published two regulatory rules relating to eligibility for employment authorization documents (EADs) for individuals with pending asylum applications. Both rules went into effect in August 2020. This advisory provides a summary of the rules and the preliminary injunction currently in effect for members of Casa de Maryland (CASA) and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). The end of this advisory contains a helpful chart for quick reference, outlining current eligibility requirements for an EAD based on a pending asylum application, and which provisions are temporarily enjoined by the case Casa de Maryland v. Wolf, No. 8:20-CV-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020), for certain organizational members.

This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP advises criminal defense attorneys on new immigration enforcement policies and how to use the new guidance to defend clients in criminal proceedings.

We previously circulated a sample brief,  Using and Defending PC 1473.7 Vacaturs. But, at times, DHS continues to object to 1473.7 vacaturs. Thanks to Pangea Removal Defense Attorney Luis Angel Reyes Savalza and Immigration Attorneys Merle Kahn and Daniel Shanfield for agreeing to sharing their his recent redacted responses to DHS opposition. This briefing includes a response as to why the 2019 amendments to 1473.7 do not, in fact, turn the statute into a rehabilitative mechanism.

This resource briefly reviews the February 18, 2021 interim ICE Memo issued by Acting Director Tae Johnson regarding how ICE will carry out DHS enforcement priorities. The new ICE guidance, effective immediately, will remain in effect until DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issues new DHS enforcement guidelines. This resource covers applicable enforcement actions, a review of the described enforcement priorities, and potential advocacy opportunities.

Certain criminal convictions are bars to eligibility for DACA.  However, if these convictions can be “expunged,” they will cease to be an absolute bar. Here, an “expungement” refers to any legal process where a criminal court can withdraw, erase, seal, or otherwise eliminate a conviction under a state statute, based on the fact that the person completed probation or other requirements, or for humanitarian reasons. Note that while DACA government materials call this an “expungement,” different state laws may use different terms for this kind of rehabilitative relief. An expungement is not given effect for most immigration purposes – but it does work for DACA.  For example, a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence is a bar to applying for DACA as a “significant misdemeanor.” If  the person has the conviction “expunged,” however, they are not barred from applying, and if they have enough positive equities they may well be granted DACA.

This one-pager goes over basic Know Your Rights information for immigrants incarcerated in California prisons.  It includes suggested contact information for families and community members in need of  immigration screening.

In October 2020, DHS and DOJ published a final regulation that sets out wide-ranging and draconian bars to applying for, and bases to terminate a grant of, asylum. For example, the bars include conviction of any felony, any controlled substance offense, a single DUI with injury, a DUI with a DUI prior (regardless of injury), and domestic violence bars based on the underlying conduct.

Cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) is an important defense for lawful permanent residents who have become removable, due to criminal record or other reasons. The requirements for statutory eligibility are complex, and it is critical for advocates to understand the risks and strategies that arise from the Supreme Court’s decision on the “stop-time” rule, Barton v. Barr, --U.S.--, 140 S.Ct. 1442 (2020). This Advisory is an updated step-by-step guide to eligibility, potential arguments, and defense strategies for LPR cancellation.

Noncitizens with certain criminal records are subject to mandatory immigration detention under INA § 236(c), 8 USC § 1226(c). This means that they may remain detained during the weeks, months, or years of their entire immigration case, without even the right to a bond hearing. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Jennings v. Rodriguez and Nielsen v. Preap have made the situation even worse, although litigation has produced some protections. This advisory outlines how to identify whether your client may be subject to mandatory detention, and what immigration advocates and criminal defense counsel can do to help their clients to avoid it.