Removal Defense

This webinar will provide immigration practitioners with an overview of the current prosecutorial discretion landscape after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. ___(2023). We will discuss how DHS is applying its recently reinstated enforcement priorities and strategies to continue advocating for prosecutorial discretion during various stages of a case.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions in 2018, there has been a long line of caselaw about whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) missing the time, date or location of proceedings strips the immigration court of jurisdiction to hear a case, triggers the stop-time rule in various contexts, or is sufficient for the issuance of an in absentia removal order. In this webinar, we will discuss how to challenge a NTA that is missing the time, date, or location of proceedings, and we will review the latest caselaw on this topic, including Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022). We will also discuss best practices for preserving arguments for appeal, even when BIA or circuit court caselaw is not on our side.

In this webinar, we will discuss the distinction between motions to terminate, remand, reconsider and reopen. We will discuss which motion to file depending on the posture of your case in immigration court. We will take a deep dive into motions to reopen including how to make effective equitable tolling and sua sponte arguments. In addition, we will discuss hurdles to overcome if your client has departed the United States after the vacatur. Lastly, we will learn how to successfully obtain a bond redetermination hearing in immigration court pending the motion to reopen with the BIA.

In this webinar, we will explore the various ways a criminal incident can impact an application for non-LPR cancellation. We will look at the criminal conviction bars, good moral character, the stop-time rule, and discretion. This is an opportunity for those familiar with the basics of Non-LPR Cancellation to think through how to analyze the eligibility of clients with some potential bad facts in the mix.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions in 2018, there has been a long line of caselaw about whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) missing the time, date or location of proceedings strips the immigration court of jurisdiction to hear a case, triggers the stop-time rule in various contexts, or is sufficient for the issuance of an in absentia removal order. In this webinar, we will discuss how to challenge a NTA that is missing the time, date, or location of proceedings, and we will review the latest caselaw on this topic, including Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022). We will also discuss best practices for preserving arguments for appeal, even when BIA or circuit court caselaw is not on our side.

Level: Beginner / Intermediate
This webinar will cover withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It will discuss the differences between asylum, statutory and CAT withholding of removal, and CAT deferral of removal and review the current case law and recent developments. It will also provide tips to help argue for withholding or CAT as an alternative in an asylum case as well as prepare standalone withholding or CAT claim for clients who are asylum-barred or otherwise ineligible.
Presenters
Andrew Craycroft
Andrew joined the ILRC in May 2019 as a Staff Attorney focusing on immigrant youth issues. Prior to joining the ILRC, he worked at Staten Island Legal Services representing clients in a variety of affirmative and defensive immigration matters. Previously, Andrew worked at the Unaccompanied Minors Program of Catholic Charities Community Services in New York, representing detained and released unaccompanied minors in removal defense.

Andrew received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he participated in the Center for Applied Legal Studies Clinic. Andrew earned his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he majored in Political Economy of Industrial Societies. Andrew is admitted to the bar in New Jersey and New York. He is fluent in French and Spanish with some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, and Arabic.

Priscilla Olivarez
Priscilla Olivarez is a Policy Attorney and Strategist based in San Antonio, Texas. In her role with the ILRC, Priscilla works alongside other Texas advocates to develop and promote local and state policies that protect the dignity of immigrant communities. Prior to joining the ILRC, Priscilla was a Managing Attorney at American Gateways (AG), a nonprofit organization that provides direct legal services in immigration matters. While at AG, Priscilla focused her efforts on representing and assisting individuals who were in immigration detention. She helped manage the organization's Legal Orientation Program, providing assistance to unrepresented individuals in immigration detention, as well as its National Qualified Representative Program (NQRP), which provides legal representation to individuals deemed mentally incompetent in immigration proceedings. Priscilla also provided direct representation to individuals in detention, with a focus on advocacy for individuals with mental disabilities or other heightened vulnerabilities. Priscilla has represented clients before the Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Priscilla's other advocacy experience includes working abroad, providing legal support to survivors of human trafficking in the Philippines. Priscilla has also advocated on behalf of survivors of domestic violence and volunteered near the Texas-Mexico border representing unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings. Outside of her immigration work, Priscilla has advocated for fair housing for vulnerable populations, and worked to coordinate a national research study that examined racial discrimination in the housing market.

Priscilla is a graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law and is licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, Texas, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.