Results

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. 

This resource provides helpful charts of the grounds of inadmissibility as applied to special immigrant juveniles (SIJs). It also describes the waiver standard and process for SIJs.

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.

This practice advisory will update applicants on the changes in interpretation of LRIF since its inception. We also discuss the administrative guidance, advocacy efforts, and hurdles to the application process to date.

A Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862, is a charging document that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues and files with the immigration court to start removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) against an individual, known in removal proceedings as the “respondent.” The NTA serves many functions in an immigration case, like explaining why the government thinks the respondent maybe deportable and gives notice to the respondent. This practice advisory will go over some of the information you should find on the NTA. This is a general introduction on issues to look out for when representing someone in immigration court.  

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.

Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal is an important deportation defense for eligible individuals in removal proceedings who have resided in the United States for many years. Proving “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to a qualifying relative can be difficult, but when medical or psychological conditions are present, they are often the strongest hardship factor. This advisory explains how to meet the requisite hardship burden in Non-LPR Cancellation cases by demonstrating medical and psychological hardship, especially in light of the BIA’s recent decision, Matter of J-J-G. The advisory discusses various ways to document medical and psychological conditions and show how those conditions would cause hardship to qualifying relatives, in the event of the applicant’s removal. 

On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an adverse, 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020), a case regarding the “stop-time rule” and eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Court held that committing an offense “listed in” the inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2) stops time for purposes of cancellation, even for an admitted LPR who cannot be charged as removable under the inadmissibility grounds. The Barton opinion will primarily limit eligibility for LPR cancellation, but will have some impact on non-LPR cancellation and VAWA cancellation. This Practice Alert provides a summary and some analysis of the Barton opinion, and some initial tips for practitioners.

Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is an important relief option for individuals who are unable to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. This advisory reviews the legal standard for CAT protection. It also provides an overview of seminal Board of Immigration Appeals and federal circuit court decisions that discuss the various elements of a CAT claim. The end of the advisory contains a useful chart which compares asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT.

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. 

ILRC sent a request to USCIS headquarters to provide more information and to also take certain actions to deal with the consequences of the closure of USCIS public services and the impact of COVID-19 on the immigrant public. These are  concerns raised  by the individuals and organizations with whom we partner. We have promised to raise more issues as the emergency situation continues.

This advisory provides an overview of the most common types of motions filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. It discusses the types of motions the Board will accept while proceedings are pending before it, such as motions to remand. It also discusses motions filed with the Board after it has issued a final order of removal, which includes motions to reconsider and motions to reopen. It contains guidelines on determining what type of motion is appropriate in specific circumstances and how to prepare and file motions in a way that meets legal requirements and complies with the Board’s procedural rules.

This advisory seeks to clarify when, where, and how to file an I-212. It also discusses certain special circumstances such as conditional I-212s, nunc pro tunc I-212s, and how a grant to TPS or advance parole may affect the need for an I-212. The advisory addresses strategic concerns such as deciding when to file a motion to reopen versus a conditional I-212, and assessing the risks of triggering other inadmissibility or enforcement issues when advising clients.

Section 212(h) of the INA provides a waiver for crimes inadmissibility grounds, which can be surprisingly useful for undocumented people, VAWA applicants, or permanent residents. It can be applied for multiple times; it has the potential to waive an aggravated felony conviction (unless it is related to drugs); it can be used both affirmatively and as a defense to removal; and it does not always require proof of "extreme hardship." Unfortunately, it can't be used to waive drug convictions or conduct, other than a single incident involving possessing a small amount of marijuana. 

Effective December 20, 2019, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) act opened a one-year window that will allow many Liberians living in the United States to apply for permanent residence. The act was buried in Section 7611 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. This practice advisory will provide a summary of the law, which went into effect immediately and will only allow applications for relief up to December 20, 2020.

Preparing a strong case for bond for detained clients has become more important than ever. This practice advisory discusses how to address evidentiary issues and challenges in bond proceedings and provides tips for proving your bond case, as well as overcoming negative factors.

People who were wrongfully admitted to the United States due to a misrepresentation—i.e., those who were in fact inadmissible at time of admission—may be eligible for a waiver of deportability under INA § 237(a)(1)(H). This lesser-known waiver is only available in removal proceedings and unlike most waiver requests, does not involve any application form or fee. This advisory explains who can request a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver and the process for applying.

Sanchez v. Sessions was a landmark Ninth Circuit ruling on suppression of evidence and termination of removal proceedings.  This advisory explains the decision, lays out the different legal standards for suppression and termination in immigration court, and highlights key holdings that practitioners can use to better defend their clients.

This resource is a comprehensive client intake form meant to assist practitioners in screening for immigration relief options.  Accompanying the intake form are notes to assist practitioners in spotting issues and relief options.

On July 23, 2019, DHS issued a notice, expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals who have been living in the United States for two years or less, and who live anywhere in the United States. This would allow noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence or to present their case to a judge. On August 6, 2019, the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm of Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP filed suit challenging the legality of this expansion, Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, Case 1:19-cv-02369. On September 27, 2019, the court granted a preliminary injunction in this case, which blocks the expansion of expedited removal from taking effect while the court decides the case.

This community resource provides a brief explanation of the Immigration Court experience. It gives an overview of what happens in Immigration Court, how to confirm information about a case in Immigration Court, and what a person in removal proceedings should do if they do not have an attorney to represent them at an upcoming hearing. This information is useful for community members and advocates working with the immigrant community.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any noncitizen who “within five years from the date of entry, has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.” In current practice, this ground of deportability rarely comes up in pending removal proceedings or as a reason for the initiation of removal proceedings.

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.

The master calendar hearing is the first hearing in removal proceedings before an immigration judge of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, during which serious substantive decisions can be made in an immigrant’s removal case. Advocates must be well prepared and have a clear case strategy in mind prior to the master calendar hearing, as well as a detailed plan for how to advocate during this hearing. This advisory and accompanying checklist are designed to provide a quick guide for advocates to flag the issues that need to be addressed when representing clients at a master calendar hearing.

This advisory gives an orientation to the deportation process for community members and new advocates. It breaks down the process into four steps that typically happen in an immigrant’s experience with the deportation system, providing a basic overview of ICE enforcement, the court system, and the effect of a removal or deportation order.

USCIS's Policy Memorandum of June 28, 2018, provides new guidance for when USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to applicants requesting immigration benefits. This practice advisory outlines the NTA Memo’s impact on naturalization cases.  Specifically, this advisory discusses the NTA Memo’s particular directives for naturalization cases; provides the legal context for when a naturalization applicant can be placed in removal proceedings; discusses best practices for preparing a naturalization application under the new NTA Memo; and offers practice tips if your naturalization client is placed in removal proceedings.

This advisory focuses on defense strategies for naturalization applicants who are in removal proceedings, especially within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 28, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a memorandum stating the expanded circumstances in which the agency will begin issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA), including upon denying most affirmative applications. This practice advisory provides an overview of the new USCIS NTA Memo and gives tools for identifying possible red flags that could trigger enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also identifies some precautions that advocates should take when preparing affirmative applications in light of this new policy.