Results

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.

In 1994, Congress established an exception to the English and civics testing requirements for applicants

Various pieces of legislation have been introduced in the US Congress in 2021 designed to provide immigration relief to certain members of the undocumented community.  In this resource, we provide a comparison of key provisions of some of these bills.  The ILRC applauds the leadership and organizing of immigrant communities who have bravely fought for years to ensure these proposals for relief are considered by Congress and that all members of our communities can live with dignity.  These bills are important steps forward in addressing the inequities in our immigration system, however the ILRC believes that legislative proposals should be fully inclusive so that individuals who have had contact with the criminal legal system are not disqualified for relief.      

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.

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: 

This first of its kind toolkit is designed for Criminal Defenders working with noncitizen clients who may be placed in removal proceedings through the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP). The Stanford Immigrants' Rights Clinic developed these materials on behalf of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC). A special thanks to clinic students Noelle Smith (’21), Claire Fieldman (’22), Raven Quesenberry (’22), and Drew Alvarez (’21) for their leadership developing these materials.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Medina Tovar expanded eligibility for U derivative status for certain after-acquired spouses of U visa petitioners. ASISTA, CLINIC & ILRC’s new Practice Alert includes the latest information on how and when to file an I-918A for a derivative spouse where the marriage to the U-1 petitioner occurred after the filing of the I-918 but before the U petition was adjudicated.

Most H-4 spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants are ineligible for employment authorization and thus are financially dependent on the principal visa holder spouse. This dependence can be used as a tool for abuse and control in relationships and exacerbate domestic violence situations. INA § 106 allows survivors of domestic violence who are spouses of certain nonimmigrant visa holders to be eligible for work authorization independent of their spouse. This advisory provides an overview of employment authorization eligibility under INA § 106 for H-4 spouses of H-1B visa holders who are survivors of domestic violence.

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.

This handout provides a list of some of the most common public benefits programs that do not count for public charge. Whether or not public charge applies to you and no matter your immigration status, the programs on this list are safe to use.

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.

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. 

In April, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) put out a request for public input regarding Identifying Barriers Across U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Benefits and Services. The ILRC has submitted these comments.

The Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) Strategy Group submitted these comments in connection with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Request for Public Input published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2021. The Strategy Group is a focused coalition of local, state, and national-level organizations that provide direct legal and other community-based services to Liberians in the United States and includes experts in USCIS operations and implementation issues and Liberian cultural competency.

Applicants must meet certain requirements to be eligible for DACA, including showing that they have been continuously residing in the United States since June 15, 2007. Acquiring documents to use as evidence to prove the continuous residence requirement can be tedious. As such, this resource focuses on the types of evidence initial DACA applicants can gather to prove continuous residence and where applicants can get this evidence.

Persons are barred from receiving or renewing DACA if they have been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. DACA applicants who have been arrested or convicted of a crime may still be eligible, but they should first obtain their criminal records and take them to an expert immigration practitioner to obtain legal advice about their eligibility and potential risks of applying. This resource provides persons applying for DACA with instructions about what criminal records they need for their application and how they can find them. 

As you explore potential immigration options for you or your family, finding trusted support from a reputable immigration attorney or other legal service provider can be difficult. Just as payday lenders often prey on under-resourced communities, or predatory scammers pose as immigration officials to demand gift cards, certain businesses can mislead the public by offering immigration legal services despite being unqualified and illegal to do so. This guide is designed to help you identify some key red flags that may indicate a business is not acting in your best interest or is otherwise not providing reliable legal advice or services.

Los recientes anuncios sobre las propuesta sobre la reforma migratoria en el Congreso han dejado a muchos miembros de la comunidad con preguntas, y aunque ninguno de estos proyectos de ley son ley, muchos se preguntan cómo pueden prepararse para un caso de inmigración en el futuro. Este recurso proporciona tres pasos que los miembros de la comunidad pueden tomar ahora para comprender sus opciones legales y lo que pueden esperar al buscar apoyo legal.

This resource, co-written with Detention Watch Network, answers common questions about the increased numbers of unaccompanied children arriving at the border and the government’s opening of “influx facilities” and “emergency intake sites” in response. It also provides guidance for responding to a new facility opening in your community.

This practice advisory reviews the general eligibility requirements for DACA, as well as issues advocates should look out for when determining eligibility.  There has been a lot of interest from community members and advocates in the DACA program since the program was reinstated by a federal court for DACA initial applications in November of 2020. This advisory offers information to guide advocates as they determine eligibility.

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).

ILRC submitted these comments on December 18, 2020 to oppose the administration's dramatic expansion of USCIS guidance on how to assess whether someone has a “lawful admission” for purposes of naturalization eligibility under INA § 318. The updated policy guidance is an unwarranted directive to officers to engage in extreme vetting and unnecessary scrutiny of all naturalization applicants.

The Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness  Act (LRIF) created a limited-term program allowing many Liberians living in the United States to apply for permanent residence. Initially, LRIF’s application period opened on December 20, 2019 and was set to expire on December 20, 2020. On January 3, 2021, however, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, extending the application period for LRIF for another year, until December 20, 2021.

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.

On March 16, 2021, ILRC and seven other coalition members of the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) Strategy Group submitted recommendations to the Administration and USCIS leadership for equitable implementation of LRIF. The group requested a meeting with the government to discuss these recommendations.

The ILRC’s DACA Team has put together a page-by-page form guide for anyone looking to apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) as an initial request. This annotated community resource provides insights into many of the questions asked of recipients when completing the forms needed to make up a complete application packet (forms I-821D, I-765, and I-765WS). As stated in the document, it is important that any individual completing their forms ensures that they are using the most up-to-date forms USCIS offers – otherwise they will reject your submission.

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.