Results

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.

Since November 9, 2016, the definition of cannabis under California law is different and broader than the federal definition. Therefore, a California conviction for cannabis from on or after that date is arguably not a controlled substance conviction under federal immigration law. No court has yet made a finding on this issue for California offenses, but they have done so in other states with similar cannabis definitions. This template brief can be used to file a Motion to Terminate Proceedings or to file an Opposition to a Motion to Pretermit Proceedings (where the client is applying for adjustment of status or for cancellation of removal) to argue that any California cannabis conviction entered on or after November 9, 2016, is not a federal controlled substance offense.

Thousands of noncitizens in California are at risk of removal because they have criminal convictions that were unlawfully imposed. California law provides several ways to eliminate these convictions with post-conviction relief (PCR). The challenge is that there are not enough PCR experts to meet the need, especially for low-income immigrants.

This downloadable flyer is designed to raise awareness about the misinformation that often circulates in the undocumented community about the viability of qualifying for lawful permanent resident status solely for having lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years.

This practice advisory addresses what a practitioner can and should do when DHS submits an I-213 to prove “alienage” or any other facts in a case. After a brief discussion of the purpose of an I-213 and why DHS often submits it during removal proceedings, this advisory discusses objections that practitioners should consider making in order to exclude the I-213 from the record in removal proceedings or, at a minimum, to argue that the I-213 should not be given any significant weight by the immigration judge. It discusses how to overcome the presumption that I-213s are inherently trustworthy and concludes with a synopsis of when and how to submit a motion to suppress in cases involving regulatory or constitutional violations.

This advisory analyzes and explains the particularly serious crime bar to asylum and withholding of removal. It describes the factors to consider in determining whether a crime is a "particularly serious crime" and how to challenge a particularly serious crime determination.

Immigration law demonizes people whom it labels as “drug abusers and addicts,” “habitual drunkards,” and “alcoholics.” The implication is that they are morally weak, dangerous, or evil. An immigrant who comes within such a category can be found inadmissible and ineligible to establish good moral character, and can be denied several forms of immigration relief as well as naturalization. But from a scientific perspective, these people suffer from a substance use disorder (SUD), a medical condition that frequently arises after the person has undergone severe trauma. Substance Use Disorder is a growing health crisis that currently affects over 20 million people in the United States.

This Advisory is written by immigration attorneys and medical doctors specializing in SUD, to examine the issue from both perspectives. Part I of the advisory discusses the several immigration law penalties based on substance use (even when use has not risen to a disorder) and suggests legal defense strategies. Part II of the advisory reviews current medical information about the disorders and discusses how this information can address questions that arise in immigration proceedings.

This is the second part of a two-part practice advisory on how to effectively challenge an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The two advisories should be read together, as neither part is complete on its own. This second part of the advisory discusses how to challenge adverse credibility findings based on a witness's demeanor or responsiveness; findings that are based on an immigration judge's speculation and conjecture, particularly regarding the plausibility of a claim; and determinations regarding a respondent’s corroborative evidence. It also flags special circumstances to look out for when appealing an immigration judge's adverse credibility finding.

Conviction of “obstruction of justice” is an aggravated felony if a sentence of a year or more is imposed. In Pugin v. Garland, No. 22-23 (June 22, 2023), the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s definition of obstruction, but failed to provide a clear definition of its own. Now some California offenses are likely aggravated felonies if there is a sentence of year or more, including Penal Code §§ 32, 69, 136.1, 148, Vehicle Code § 10851, and others.

This Advisory discusses California offenses under Pugin, and discusses California criminal sentencing dispositions that avoid a sentence of a year or more for immigration purposes.

This practice advisory provides an overview of the grounds of inadmissibility for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) explaining which grounds do not apply to TPS applicants, which grounds are non-waivable, and which grounds are waivable. It also offers an overview of the TPS waiver of inadmissibility.

An immigrant legal defense fund pays legal service providers to represent community members facing deportation in immigration court. This resource provides a general overview of immigrant legal defense funds (ILDFs) at the municipal level in Texas, including why they are needed, the goals and components of a strong ILDF, and examples of these funds from across the state.

This practice advisory provides an overview of the different ways crimes can impact eligibility for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and a framework for analyzing whether an applicant is subject to these bars and potential options to overcome them.

Cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) is an often overlooked form of relief for noncitizen survivors of abuse who are faced with removal proceedings. Compared with cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents (“non-LPR cancellation”), VAWA cancellation is usually a more generous, lenient option for many survivors. In addition, unlike spouse self-petitions, there is no deadline to apply for cancellation after a divorce or loss of immigration status by the abuser, and abused adult sons and daughters are eligible for cancellation without age or marital limitations. This practice advisory introduces and provides an in depth review of each eligibility requirement for VAWA cancellation, discusses the applicable evidentiary standard, and considers procedural issues and strategies useful in immigration court as well as issues arising after an immigration judge issues a decision. Included in this practice advisory is an appendix with a side-by-side comparison of three forms of immigration relief often available to survivors in removal proceedings: VAWA cancellation, VAWA self-petitioning and adjustment of status, and non-LPR cancellation.

Immigration and crimes, or “crim-imm,” can be challenging.  Both immigration and criminal law are difficult on their own. To do crim-imm work, advocates who are expert in one area must learn at least something about law and procedure in the other. It can be hard to know where to start the analysis.
 
This advisory provides a step-by-step approach to help advocates analyze a case and identify goals. It can be used by criminal defense counsel, immigration advocates, and post-conviction relief counsel. It is not a substitute for consulting with a crim/imm expert, but using it should increase your expertise and help you to better discuss the analysis with the client, argue it to the judge or official, or negotiate with the other side.

his fact sheet describes new Cal. Penal Code 372.5 (AB 2195). As of January 1, 2023, a California defendant who is charged with any of several drug offenses, from infractions to felonies, can ask for the drug charge/s to be dismissed and instead to plead guilty to being a “public nuisance” (Penal Code § 370). Section 372.5 provides that in this circumstance, the public nuisance offense is punishable as an infraction, a misdemeanor, or a “wobbler” offense, depending on the offense level of the drug charge that was dropped. The defense must decide to ask, and the prosecution must agree, to go forward with Penal Code 370/372.5.