Results

Certain criminal convictions are bars to eligibility for DACA.  However, if these convictions can be “expunged,” they will cease to be an absolute bar. Here, an “expungement” refers to any legal process where a criminal court can withdraw, erase, seal, or otherwise eliminate a conviction under a state statute, based on the fact that the person completed probation or other requirements, or for humanitarian reasons. Note that while DACA government materials call this an “expungement,” different state laws may use different terms for this kind of rehabilitative relief. An expungement is not given effect for most immigration purposes – but it does work for DACA.  For example, a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence is a bar to applying for DACA as a “significant misdemeanor.” If  the person has the conviction “expunged,” however, they are not barred from applying, and if they have enough positive equities they may well be granted DACA.

In October 2020, DHS and DOJ published a final regulation that sets out wide-ranging and draconian bars to applying for, and bases to terminate a grant of, asylum. For example, the bars include conviction of any felony, any controlled substance offense, a single DUI with injury, a DUI with a DUI prior (regardless of injury), and domestic violence bars based on the underlying conduct.

Cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a) is an important defense for lawful permanent residents who have become removable, due to criminal record or other reasons. The requirements for statutory eligibility are complex, and it is critical for advocates to understand the risks and strategies that arise from the Supreme Court’s decision on the “stop-time” rule, Barton v. Barr, --U.S.--, 140 S.Ct. 1442 (2020). This Advisory is an updated step-by-step guide to eligibility, potential arguments, and defense strategies for LPR cancellation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a myriad of challenges for immigration legal service providers. While some research and best practices for providing remote legal services have been developed, serving immigrant survivors of domestic violence requires a unique set of considerations. This advisory describes the findings of a small study exploring how service delivery models have been adapted for this vulnerable population during the pandemic. The advisory outlines the concerns, strategies, and lessons learned from the field in order to continue to serve immigrant survivors throughout the pandemic and beyond.  

Noncitizens with certain criminal records are subject to mandatory immigration detention under INA § 236(c), 8 USC § 1226(c). This means that they may remain detained during the weeks, months, or years of their entire immigration case, without even the right to a bond hearing. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Jennings v. Rodriguez and Nielsen v. Preap have made the situation even worse, although litigation has produced some protections. This advisory outlines how to identify whether your client may be subject to mandatory detention, and what immigration advocates and criminal defense counsel can do to help their clients to avoid it.

In some cases, the amount of an imposed, potential, or served criminal sentence can determine the outcome of the immigration case. The law governing how state sentencing dispositions affect immigration penalties is fast-changing. The good news is that an informed defender often can structure a sentence that gives the prosecution what they require, while avoiding immigration penalties. An informed immigration advocate wants to be able to explain this to an immigration judge or adjudicator to win the case.

T nonimmigrant status (often called a “T visa”) is a form of immigration relief for survivors of human trafficking that provides four years of lawful immigration status, employment authorization, access to certain public benefits, and the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. However, the current U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy on Notices to Appear (NTA), which has been in effect since 2018, has drastically increased the risks of applying for T nonimmigrant status. Although T visas remain a vital pathway to lawful status for trafficking survivors, there are various considerations that trafficking survivors and their advocates should keep in mind when deciding whether to submit affirmative T visa applications. Although USCIS issued its NTA Memo in June 2018, it was not officially implemented against T visa applicants until November 2018, and practitioners did not begin reporting many denials and NTAs issued until 2019. Now that advocates have experienced the NTA Memo’s implementation, this advisory reviews the policy’s impact on noncitizens applying for T nonimmigrant status as survivors of a severe form of human trafficking, with practice tips interspersed throughout.

On June 30, 2020, the Third Country Asylum Rule, or asylum transit ban, was found unlawful and struck down nationwide in CAIR Coalition v. Trump. This advisory discusses the asylum transit ban, the CAIR Coalition decision, and possible strategies for people who have been denied under the ban to reopen their cases and receive asylum.

USCIS attempted to drastically limit fee waiver availability and fee waiver standards through the 2020 fee rule. The agency also tried to limit fee waivers by changing the I-912 fee waiver form. For now, these attempted changes have been stopped by injunctions. Applicants can continue to apply for fee waivers based on the 2011 fee waiver guidance.

Alert: On September 29, 2020 the Fee Rule was enjoined nation-wide in its entirety by a District court in the Northern District of California, ILRC et al. v. Chad F. Wolf, et al. (ND California) (Case 4:20-cv-05883-JSW) (Sept. 29, 2020).   

Absences from the United States can affect an applicant’s eligibility for naturalization in numerous ways. In this practice advisory, we focus specifically on how absences of varying lengths of time affect the continuous residence requirement.

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.

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.

For an immigrant survivor of crime to qualify for U nonimmigrant status, they must obtain and submit to USCIS a certification of their helpfulness to law enforcement. A law enforcement agency (LEA) or other certifier must complete Form I-918, Supplement B, “U Nonimmigrant Status Certification,” attesting to the survivor’s assistance. In July 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued an updated guide explaining the U visa requirements and the U visa certification process and identifying best practices for certifying agencies and officials. The new guide is more anti-immigrant in tone than former guidance, but parts of it can still be a useful tool for immigrant advocates. This practice advisory describes the 2019 and previous guidance to certifiers on U visa certification, analyzes the changes in the recently issued guidance, and provides advocacy tips for practitioners involved in the U certification process who wish to utilize the guidance to encourage certifications.

USCIS Naturalization processing was already delayed as long as 3-4 years in many jurisdictions before the pandemic and ensuing USCIS closures hit. Many thousands of applicants are waiting to complete the application process.

This practice advisory discusses the confidentiality policies and practices currently in place protecting information submitted in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applications in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California that allowed the DACA program to remain open.

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.  

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.

U nonimmigrant status and T nonimmigrant status, often called “U visas” and “T visas,” are humanitarian forms of immigration relief for crime survivors. Congress created these forms of relief with the dual purpose of aiding law enforcement, by encouraging crime victims to cooperate, and providing humanitarian relief for crime survivors. Both forms of relief have a certification process by which applicants request certification from a law enforcement agency to document their cooperation. In recent years, many states have enacted U and T visa certification legislation in order to assist eligible immigrants in obtaining law enforcement certifications. This practice advisory provides a summary of the current and pending state statutes regarding certifications as of March 2020.

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.

Increasingly prosecutors are asked to consider immigration consequences in the charging and plea-bargaining process. Some states have adopted policies requiring prosecutors to consider such consequences, see, e.g., Cal. Pen. C. § 1016.3(b), and some prosecutor offices have adopted internal guidelines mandating the consideration of immigration consequences. This advisory provides context for why such a prosecutorial policy or practice is legally necessary and permitted, if not mandated, by constitutional law and governing codes of conduct.

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. 

Over the years, various courts throughout the country have agreed that prolonging custody of a person solely based on an ICE detainer request is unlawful for numerous reasons. This practice advisory provides a summary of the court decisions related to ICE detainers and the arguments to challenge localities that continue to detain people for ICE. The cases discussed here illustrate some of the detailed arguments that are developing over what the Fourth Amendment requires and what is authorized or not by federal and state laws.  

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are ramping up efforts to investigate U.S. citizens and pursue denaturalization cases. This will result in many U.S. citizens being denaturalized and losing their citizenship.  These efforts will have a chilling effect on the number of legal permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship and will further burden a system that is already delayed in adjudicating and granting immigration benefits. This Practice Advisory reviews the present state of denaturalization and revocation of citizenship.  It thoroughly reviews the statutes and caselaw to date in denaturalization and revocation of citizenship. Practitioners handling these cases will find this Practice Advisory to be very useful when defending U.S. citizens who are under the threat of having their citizenship torn away from them.

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.

The VAWA Self-Petition allows abused immigrants to petition for legal status independently of their abuser.  The process mirrors that of the family-based process but frees the victim from having to rely on the abuser’s cooperation to file a family-based petition. Under VAWA, an abused spouse or child of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or U.S. citizen (USC), or an abused parent of a USC son or daughter can submit a self-petition on their own.  Individuals who qualify for VAWA are able to include derivatives on their applications and both the principal and derivative are able to gain immigration benefits through the process. This practice advisory provides information on derivatives for the VAWA self-petition process as well as considerations to keep in mind when filing an application.