Post-Conviction Relief

Thousands of noncitizens in California are at risk of removal or cannot qualify for immigration relief because they have unlawfully imposed criminal convictions. The good news is that there are several options under California law to eliminate these convictions for immigration purposes, using post-conviction relief (PCR).  This Advisory can help advocates to identify which of these forms of California PCR may help your client, and direct you to more resources about how to obtain it.

This advisory provides detailed instruction on how and where to file a motion to reopen for attorneys who have successfully vacated a conviction for immigration purposes and their client is now eligible for termination or a form of relief. In addition, the advisory addresses the impact of the post-departure bar and reinstatement of prior removal order on post-conviction relief motions to reopen.

So, you’re organizing a local town hall or candidate forum about DA and immigration; great! ILRC has developed a number of resources that can be helpful.

The ILRC and partner organizations submitted the attached letter and BIA case summary to OPLA leadership, clarifying that vacaturs issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) correct legally and procedurally defective convictions, meeting the standard set forth in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).

This Chart summarizes the criminal record bars to many forms of relief, to provide a quick way to check whether your client is potentially eligible for relief. See also ILRC, Immigration Relief Toolkit (2018).

With a few exceptions, immigration authorities must use the “categorical approach” to determine whether a criminal conviction triggers a ground of removal. Expert use of the categorical approach may be the most important defense strategy available to immigrants charged with or convicted of crimes. This Update of our long-running article includes discussion of Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754 (2021).

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: 

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.

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 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).