Results

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.

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.

Penalties for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) are based on several factors, such as the number of CIMTs, date of commission, imposed and/or potential sentence, and whether there was a conviction versus admission of the conduct. The result is that determining whether a CIMT penalty actually applies can be quite complex.  This set of four flow charts can be used to answer four questions about a case: is the particular person deportable; inadmissible or barred from establishing good moral character; barred from applying for non-LPR cancelation; or subject to mandatory detention, based on CIMTs?

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.

On June 5, 2020, the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, published People v. Ruiz, holding that the defendant could vacate her conviction because she was not advised that her conviction will carry deportation consequences.  Rose Cahn, Mike Mehr, and appellant’s counsel, filed the above letter with the Court of Appeal, suggesting clarification that defense counsel bears the duty to advise about specific immigration consequences, and distinguishing from the court’s more general obligation to advise about potential immigration consequences.

This resource outlines some best practices for advocates and stakeholders working to expand access to, and automate, state record clearance. 

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. 

California law requires prosecutors to consider immigration consequences when plea bargaining.  Cal. Pen. C. 1016.3(b).  This memo describes the unique duties prosecutors have when charging and negotiating DUI-related cases with DACA recipients.

This guide provides step-by-step guidance on how to check if you have a criminal record from the FBI and state government agencies.

On October 25, 2019, Attorney General Barr issued a precedential opinion limiting when immigration authorities will give effect to a state court modification of an imposed sentence.  See  Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (AG 2019), available at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1213201/download (“Matter of Thomas/Thompson”)  While advocates plan to challenge this decision in the courts of appeals, it is now binding law. This advisory summarizes the case, provides advice to defenders, post-conviction practitioners, and immigrant advocates about its implementation, and suggests arguments to raise on appeal. 

For noncitizens, even a low level offense like a shoplifting conviction can lead to mandatory deportation. However, this can be avoided when people secure post-conviction relief to erase or modify their old convictions. If the convictions are vacated, or the sentences reduced, the grounds for removal often evaporate.

Gubernatorial pardons have become an increasingly important and accessible tool for immigrants to erase certain immigration consequences of criminal convictions. This two-page primer, written in collaboration with the UCLA School of Law Criminal Defense Clinic and available in both English and Spanish, provides an overview of the California Pardon process for potential applicants and their advocates.  

Immigration law has its own definition of what constitutes a criminal "conviction." Because most, although not all, immigration consequences require a conviction, if your client does not have a conviction the immigration case might be saved. This Advisory discusses which dispositions that come out of criminal court actually constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, and how to avoid a conviction. It has been updated to include the BIA's decision that a conviction on direct appeal of right does not have sufficient finality to be a conviction for immigration purposes.

Over the past four years, working with partner organizations throughout California and nationally, the ILRC has helped advocate and pass a series of reforms at the local and state levels that advance the rights of both citizens and noncitizens and connect the dots between the criminal and immigrant justice movements.  This graphic describes some of these campaigns.  If you would like support leading similar policy efforts of your own, please feel free to reach out to Rose Cahn, rcahn@ilrc.org.

In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion holding that methamphetamine as defined under California law is not a controlled substance for federal immigration purposes.  In January 2019, however, the court withdrew the published opinion, and issued a non-published opinion that came to the same conclusion.  See Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018), withdrawn by Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2019), and unpublished decision at Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019). The case has been remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals.  At this time, California defenders must assume that California methamphetamine is a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Immigration advocates in removal proceedings have no precedent to rely upon, but they can make the Lorenzo argument and cite to the unpublished case, while also aggressively pursuing other defense strategies.

In August 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a call for amicus briefs to respond to the question of whether an ILRC-sponsored law, California Penal Code 1203.43, effectively vacated convictions for the purposes of federal law. With gratitude for the assistance of Prof. Jennifer Lee Koh, Western State College of Law, and Michael Mehr, the ILRC coordinated 37 other legal services organizations, nonprofits, public defender offices, law school clinics, and law firms, to sign onto an amicus contending that the Board of Immigration Appeals should not treat convictions vacated under Penal Code 1203.43 as convictions for federal immigration purposes.

The BIA has held that that it will not give retroactive effect to California Penal Code § 18.5(a) on convictions from before January 1, 2015. It will consider a California misdemeanor conviction from before January 1, 2015 to have a potential sentence of up to one year, while a misdemeanor conviction on or after that date will have a potential sentence of up to 364 days. Having a potential sentence of just 364 days can help some immigrants who are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Note that this decision does not affect how immigration treats a sentence that actually was imposed. It only concerns the maximum possible sentence.) Advocates will appeal this decision.

Thanks to the advocacy of the ILRC, CPDA, CACJ, and the ACLU, on September 27, 2018, Governor Brown signed into law amendments to California Penal Code Section 1473.7. The amendments will take effect January 1, 2019. This advisory contains practice tips for advocates and a detailed discussion about the changes to section 1473.7.

On May 16, 2018, the California Supreme depublished People v. Landaverde, which had narrowly construed defense counsel’s pre-Padilla duty to advise immigrants about the consequences of a criminal conviction. The ILRC and Mike Mehr filed the request to depublish which was cosigned by 13 public defender offices, 8 immigrant rights and criminal justice groups; and 9 immigrant rights and criminal justice professors and clinics throughout the state.

The ILRC is proud to stand with 30 of our partners in the criminal justice reform movement to release this report, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California. Our report is part of a national effort, called #TimeDone, to raise awareness of how many people are affected by the barriers associated with convictions and the extent to which they undermine, economic security, family stability, and public safety.

For years, the ILRC has published a free chart detailing California crimes and their immigration consequences. Older charts are frequently used by post-conviction practitioners to establish the prevailing professional norms at the time of a conviction. These charts no longer contain accurate law and should not be relied upon for the status of the current immigration consequences of criminal convictions. For a summary of current law, please see www.ilrc.org/chart.

Upon the January 1, 2017 enactment of Penal Code 1473.7, the LA District Attorney took the position that the motions were not ripe unless a final removal order or notice to appear had issued. Thanks to advocacy of organizations and individuals, especially Harland Braun, on April 17, 2018, the LA District Attorney Office changed their policy noting that “the Office is persuaded that the Legislature intended section 1473.7 to apply regardless of whether the moving party has received notice of removal proceedings or a removal order.”

Since 1986, the Continuing Education of the Bar, in its “Crim Law Bible,” California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, has included a chapter about representing the noncitizen criminal defendant. This chapter and the advice therein is often cited as establishing the prevailing professional norms at the date of any given conviction.

In the past four years, California voters and the California Legislature have created many new mechanisms for people to reclassify, vacate, and resentence offenses to eliminate the ongoing impact of criminal convictions. This advisory discusses how these new laws can benefit immigrants and can erase or mitigate certain criminal grounds of removability.

As of January 1, 2018, California has changed its “Deferred Entry of Judgment” program to a true “pretrial diversion” program. See Penal Code § 1000, amended by AB 208. Qualifying defendants charged with minor drug offenses can participate in pretrial diversion without incurring a drug conviction for immigration purposes. This Advisory will discuss how pretrial diversion works, and how to assist immigrants who went through the old Deferred Entry of Judgment.

The Trump Administration has announced the “phase-out” of DACA, and tens of thousands of DACA recipients must decide whether to apply for a last renewal.  Other DACA recipients are wondering what may happen to them if they can’t or don’t renew.  This is an especially worrisome situation for DACA recipients who have a criminal record. Acknowledging that we don’t yet have clear answers, this advisory will provide information to help advocates address the following questions with their clients: Is it “safe” for someone with a criminal history to renew their DACA application? What kinds of legal self-defense steps can people take, whether or not they apply to renew? What are the “dangerous crimes” that are bars to DACA and/or listed in the Notice to Appear Memorandum (NTA Memo)?

Prepared by Angie Junck and Raha Jorjani, this primer is designed to educate District Attorneys interested in learning more about the immigration impact of criminal convictions.

The Judicial Council of California produces forms for pro se petitioners.  The CR-180 and CR-181 forms cover various forms of “clean slate” remedies, including reducing felonies to misdemeanors (17(b)), set asides and dismissals (1203.4), and vacaturs after successful completion of probation (1203.43).  The forms also contain a notation to 18.5 which makes clear that felonies reduced to misdemeanors carry a maximum of 364-day sentence.