Results

On September 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel held that GEO group was likely to succeed in their lawsuit to find California's private prison and dertention ba (Bonta-AB 32) unconstitutional, and could continue seeking a preliminary injunction to block the law pending further proceedings at the lower court level. This summary provides a review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ en banc decision. This legal breakdown was composed by the California Dignity Not Detention Coalition, with special thanks to NIPNLG and Pangea Legal Services.

This resource summarizes the ICE Parental Interests Directive – a critical tool to help child welfare agencies address challenges for detained or deported parents – and explains how to use the Directive to advocate with ICE. It also discusses the heightened need for advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clients with mental illness have needs and vulnerabilities that present unique challenges in immigration proceedings. This practice advisory provides an overview on advocating for clients with mental health issues, specifically focusing on representation in the detained setting. The advisory discusses legal authority that an immigration practitioner can utilize to protect a client’s due process rights and ensure their client’s agency is respected and they have a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

DHS issued new enforcement and prosecutorial discretion guidance on September 30, 2021.  This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP provides immigration practitioners with an overview of the enforcement priorities and other key policy changes described in recent DHS and ICE memos, and discusses strategies to use these priorities to advocate for prosecutorial discretion.

DHS issued new enforcement and prosecutorial discretion guidance on September 30, 2021.  This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP provides criminal defense practitioners with an overview of the enforcement priorities and other key policy changes described in recent DHS and ICE memos, and discusses strategies to use these priorities to advocate for prosecutorial discretion.

A quick digest of the new DHS immigration enforcement priorities released in September 2021.

AB 32 (People Not Profit) signed in 2019 and effective January 2020, outlaws criminal and civil private incarceration in California, with some exceptions.  Some brief months after AB 32 was signed, private prison company GEO Group Inc. and the Trump administration sued California aiming to strike down this momentous law. Federal District Court Judge Sammartino largely upheld AB 32, afterwhich GEO and the Biden administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

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.

This resource, written by Human Impact Partners in collaboration with the ILRC and others as part of the Dignity Not Detention Coalition, outlines recommendations for what healthy, just, and supportive immigration policy can look like for unaccompanied youth immigrating to the US, without relying on detention or detention-like facilities. Rooted in the stories, experiences, and recommendations of young people who arrived in the US as unaccompanied youth, this resource draws from public health evidence documenting the health harms of detention in large-scale, restrictive settings. It puts forward a vision for ending the current system of detaining unaccompanied minors in harmful settings and for shaping healthy, just, and supportive immigration policy for unaccompanied youth. You can also check this resource for more important information from Human Impact Partners.

ICE enforcement priorities have changed under the Biden administration, signaling a return to the use of prosecutorial discretion. On May 27, 2021, the ICE Principal Legal Advisor issued guidance for OPLA attorneys about how and when to exercise prosecutorial discretion during various stages of removal proceedings. EOIR subsequently issued its own memo discussing EOIR policies related to the enforcement priorities. Building upon our previous practice advisory, Advocating for Clients under the Biden Administration’s Interim Enforcement Priorities, this practice alert from ILRC and NIPNLG provides immigration practitioners with a summary of the OPLA and EOIR guidance, including key information, practice tips, and takeaways.

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.

ICE enforcement policies have changed under the Biden administration, and opened new opportunities to defend your clients from arrest, detention, and deportation.  This practice advisory from the ILRC, NIPNLG, and IDP provides immigration practitioners with an overview of the interim enforcement priorities and other key policy changes described in recent DHS and ICE memos, and discusses strategies to use these priorities to advocate for prosecutorial discretion.

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.

This resource includes an update regarding the ongoing Gonzalez v. ICE federal litigation. On September 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision which includes some important changes to the February 2020 Central District of California federal court order. We have included an update on the first page which discusses what has changed, followed by information from our April 2020 resource. Please note that some of the information in our April 2020 resource related to the previous district court order is no longer applicable.

On October 30, 2020, ILRC filed a comment opposing an EOIR proposed rule that would have a substantial negative impact on legal orientation programs operated by non-profit immigration legal services programs.

California is in the midst of an historic reform of its youth prisons, known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Failed DJJ facilities will close, creating an opportunity for youth to be cared for close to home through community-based programs and services. This short resource describes steps that community-based advocates must take to ensure that the closure addresses the needs of ALL impacted communities, including immigrant youth. 

AB 32, codified at Cal. Pen. Code §§ 5003.1, 9500 et. seq., was authored by Assembly member Bonta and passed in partnership with the California Dignity Not Detention Coalition. AB 32 stops the use of for-profit prisons by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The las also bans the operation of private detention facilities in both the civil and criminal context, aside from specific exemptions. The GEO Group and the Federal government have sued the state of California, alleging the law to be an unconstitutional attempt to regulate immigration enforcement, and requesting a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect. In October 2020, Judge Sammartino largely denied this request, largely finding the law constitutional. The ILRC, along with Human Rights Watch, and Freedom for Immigrants, submitted an amicus brief in this case. Litigation is ongoing. Select documents relevant to this suit are provided below.  

SB 29, the Dignity Not Detention Act, codified at Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.9, was authored by Senator Lara, co-sponsored by the ILRC and Freedom for Immigrants, and passed in partnership with the California Dignity not Detention Coalition.  Among other things, SB 29 was passed to ensure that the community would have a voice on an issue which so critically impacts them; immigration detention.  Prior to the approval of any permit for any immigration detention center, SB 29 requires that the public be provided with 180 days notice and two public hearings where public testimony is taken and heard. The ILRC and Freedom for Immigrants, in partnership with local community groups, have sued the City of McFarland and GEO whom we believe approved permits to convert two CDCR facilities into immigration jails in violation of SB 29. Litigation is ongoing. Select documents relevant to this suit are provided below.

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. 

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.

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.  

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.

The ILRC teamed up with community-based organizations Faith in the Valley and the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, to file an amicus brief in support of California’s defense of SB 29 in GEO v. CA.  SB 29, codified at Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.9 and co-sponsored by the ILRC and Freedom for Immigrants, was passed in order ensure that the community would have a voice on an issue which so critically impacts them; immigration detention.  Our amicus details the importance of community engagement, as detailed in recent community battles to halt three new proposed immigration detention centers. Many thanks to Sidley Austin LLP for its generous support in the amicus. 

This Practice Advisory is a detailed follow-up to our prior Practice Alert on the Supreme Court's April 23, 2020 decision in Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020). In Barton, the Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) triggers the "stop-time" rule for purposes of cancellation of removal eligibility, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. This Advisory provides an in-depth discussion of the Barton decision, focusing on legal arguments to push back against overreaching DHS efforts seeking to trigger the stop-time rule, legal arguments and trial strategies to prevent conduct that did not result in conviction from triggering the stop-time rule, and considerations for criminal defense lawyers representing immigrants in criminal proceedings.