En tales casos, las personas a menudo buscan “limpiar” sus antecedentes penales con el fin de calificar para los beneficios de inmigración. Esto se conoce como “alivio posterior a la condena”. Aunque la ley de California (como la mayoría de los estados) ofrece una variedad de mecanismos posteriores a la condena, no todos son válidos según la ley federal de inmigración. Por ejemplo, las supresiones otorgadas bajo los estatutos de rehabilitación del estado generalmente no están reconocidas por la ley de inmigración. [1] Las supresiones bajo la ley de California son una forma de “alivio de rehabilitación” y generalmente se otorgan a individuos una vez que satisfacen los términos de su libertad condicional. El tribunal penal del estado anula un veredicto del jurado o permite que el acusado retire su declaración de culpabilidad / no impugnación y se desestime el caso. [2] Sin embargo, (aparte de algunas excepciones muy limitadas [3]), la ofensa expurgada seguirá siendo una condena para propósitos de inmigración y el solicitante de beneficios de inmigración continuará sufriendo las consecuencias adversas de la condena, lo que a menudo puede significar la deportación.

Por el contrario, una moción para anular una condena penal que se otorga en base a motivos constitucionales generalmente se reconoce en la ley de inmigración. Esto requerirá que un acusado criminal demuestre ante el tribunal penal que sus derechos en virtud de la Constitución fueron violados durante el curso de su proceso penal. Por ejemplo, la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. Ha sostenido que un abogado de defensa penal tiene el deber en virtud de la Sexta Enmienda de la Constitución de informar a los acusados ​​del riesgo de deportación derivado de una declaración de culpabilidad o de no impugnación. [4] Por lo tanto, si el acusado puede demostrar que su abogado defensor no brindó el asesoramiento adecuado con respecto a las consecuencias de inmigración de su declaración de culpabilidad (o prestó asistencia constitucionalmente ineficaz a un abogado por cualquier otra razón) y que, como resultado, el acusado fue perjudicado, el tribunal penal debe desalojar la declaración y sentencia. En este cenario, la moción de desalojo es válida según la ley federal de inmigración y el acusado ya no debe tener una condena por propósitos de inmigración. [5] De manera similar, la mayoría de los estados (incluido California) requieren que el tribunal de primera instancia, al tomar la declaración de un acusado criminal, informe al acusado que dicha declaración puede resultar en deportación, exclusión de los EE. UU. o denegación de la ciudadanía. [6] Si un acusado criminal puede demostrar que el tribunal penal no dio las advertencias de inmigración obligatorias, el motivo debe ser anulado y la sentencia debe ser anulada. Una condena anulada por este motivo se reconoce en la ley de inmigración. [7]

Como puede ver, “limpiar” los antecedentes penales de una persona con fines de inmigración es un área de la ley muy compleja que requiere un análisis sofisticado de los antecedentes penales y el historial de inmigración de una persona. Además, hay limitaciones de tiempo estrictas que rigen el alivio posterior a la condena. Por lo tanto, si está enfrentando consecuencias de inmigración adversas derivadas de una condena penal, debe consultar con un abogado con experiencia lo antes posible para explorar sus opciones para el alivio posterior a la condena.

[1] Matter of Roldan, 22 I&N, Dec. 512 (BIA 1999) (“Acciones de rehabilitación del estado que no anulan una condena por mérito o por cualquier motivo relacionado con la violación de un derecho legal o constitucional en el proceso penal subyacente no tienen ningún efecto para determinar si un extranjero se considera condenado por motivos de inmigración “.

[2] El Código Penal de California §1203.4.

[3] En los casos que surjan dentro de la jurisdicción del Noveno Circuito (que cubre California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Hawái, Idaho, Montana y Oregón) y en lo que respecta a condenas ocurridas antes del 14 de julio de 2011, se eliminó primero la condena por el simple hecho de poseer una sustancia controlada es válida para propósitos de inmigración siempre que la persona no haya violado su libertad condicional. Ver Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). De manera similar, una condena expurgada no descalifica automáticamente a un solicitante de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (“DACA”), aunque los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los EE. UU. todavía pueden negar la solicitud como una cuestión de discreción. Vea Preguntas frecuentes, Consideración de acción diferida para el proceso de llegada de niños (sitio web de USCIS) en: http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-process/frequently-asked-questions

[4] Padilla V. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).

[5] Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N, Dec. 878 (BIA 2006).

[6] El Código Penal de California §1016.5.

[7] Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N, Dec 878 (BIA 2006).

An earlier English version of this article can be found here:  https://morrisonimmigrationlaw.com/how-can-i-clean-my-record-for-immigration-purposes/

First, although you have a right to be represented by an attorney, the government is under no obligation to provide you with one. There is no “public defender” for immigration deportation hearings. Therefore, it is up to you to hire an immigration attorney to represent you.

Second, you must attend all of your immigration hearings. Failure to appear (unless justified by extraordinary circumstances) will result in the Court issuing a deportation order against you. And at that point, ICE can arrest and ultimately remove you from the U.S. at anytime. So even if you have not retained an attorney, you must still appear for your immigration hearing.

Third, because there is so much at stake in removal proceedings, you should consult with a licensed attorney with particular experience and expertise in removal defense to explore your options and how best to avoid deportation. You want an attorney who regularly appears in immigration court and is familiar with the judges and government attorneys.

If you or a family member have been placed in removal proceedings, contact us now to schedule a consultation so we can explore all potential defenses and options for relief.

• Primero, aunque tiene el derecho de ser representado por un abogado, el gobierno no tiene la obligación de proporcionarle uno. No hay un “defensor público” para las audiencias de deportación de inmigración. Por lo tanto, depende de usted contratar a un abogado de inmigración para que lo represente.
• Segundo, debe asistir a todas sus audiencias de inmigración. Si no se presenta (a menos que esté justificado por circunstancias extraordinarias), el Tribunal emitirá una orden de deportación en su contra. Y en ese momento, ICE puede arrestarlo y, finalmente, retirarlo de los EE. UU. en cualquier momento. Entonces, incluso si no ha contratado a un abogado, debe presentarse para su audiencia de inmigración.
• Tercero, debido a que hay mucho en juego en los procedimientos de remoción, debe consultar a un abogado con licencia con experiencia particular y experto en defensa de remoción para explorar sus opciones y la mejor manera de evitar deportación. Usted quiere un abogado que aparezca regularmente en corte de inmigración y tambien que esté familiarizado con los jueces y los abogados del gobierno.

Si usted o un miembro de su familia han sido sometidos a un proceso de deportación, contáctenos ahora para programar una consulta y podamos explorar todas las defensas potenciales y las opciones de alivio.

• Proof of a stable address;
• Proof (in the form of birth certificates, U.S. Passports, Citizenship Certificates) of the existence of family members residing in the U.S. legally. If the family member is a legal permanent resident, you can submit a copy of their resident alien card (“green card”);
• Evidence of employment including tax returns and/or a letter from an employer;
• (If applicable) evidence of property ownership such as a copy of the deed to a home or copy of a mortgage statement;
• letters from friends and family members attesting to the good moral character of the detainee;
• evidence of service to the community such as Church participation or volunteer activity;

If your loved one is currently in immigration detention, it is crucial to consult with a seasoned immigration attorney with experience in immigration bond hearings and deportation defense.   Contact our office now to schedule an initial consultation and explore all options.

• Prueba de una dirección estable;
• Prueba (en forma de certificados de nacimiento, pasaportes estadounidenses, certificados de ciudadanía) de la existencia de miembros de la familia que residen en los EE.UU. legalmente. Si el miembro de la familia es un residente permanente legal, puede enviar una copia de su tarjeta de extranjero residente (“green card”);
• Evidencia de empleo, incluyendo las declaraciones de impuestos y / o una carta de un empleador;
• (Si procede) la evidencia de la propiedad como una copia de la escritura de una casa o copia de una declaración de la hipoteca;
• cartas de amigos y miembros de la familia que acredite el buen carácter moral del detenido;
• pruebas de servicio a la comunidad, tales como la participación de la Iglesia o la actividad voluntaria;

Si su ser querido se encuentra actualmente en detención de inmigrcion, es fundamental consultar con un abogado de inmigración experimentado con experiencia en audiencias de fianza de inmigración y defensa de deportación. Póngase en contacto con nuestra oficina hoy para programar una consulta inicial y explorar todas las opciones.

Now one might wonder whether an Immigration Judge has any authority to grant Francisco relief from deportation. After all, in determining whether to issue an order of removal, can’t the Judge consider Francisco’s ties to this country and the hardship that would result from his removal from the United States?  To answer that question requires a brief examination of the specific immigration consequences stemming from Francisco’s conspiracy to sell cocaine conviction. First, such conviction is most likely a “drug trafficking” aggravated felony under Immigration Law, a classification that carries the harshest consequences for non-citizens and forecloses virtually all forms of discretionary immigration relief.[iii] An aggravated felony disqualifies a lawful permanent resident such as Francisco from applying for “cancellation of removal,” an application that if granted allows an Immigration Judge discretion to waive certain grounds of deportation and in essence forgive non-citizens for their mistakes, allowing them to keep their green cards under certain circumstances.[iv] An aggravated felony also disqualifies a non-citizen from seeking asylum and in most cases a related form of relief known as withholding of removal. [v] So that basically leaves aggravated felons the option of applying for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture – a form of relief that requires applicants to demonstrate that if deported, they would face a clear probability of torture at the hands of or with the acquiescence of a public official.[vi] Needless to say, this is a very difficult form of relief to obtain.   And so given these extremely harsh legal consequences, Francisco was left with no recourse but to essentially beg a government official to exercise compassion and to please not rip his life apart (not to mention the lives of his wife and children) based on the one unfortunate mistake he made and presumably in light of the U.S. Attorney’s concession that he posed no danger to the community.   And last week, that government official, in a manner that can only be described as Kafkaesque, responded (in a one sentence email) that she would not grant such request. While underscoring the tragedy of our immigration policy towards non-violent drug offenders, this story also highlights how crucial it is for non-citizens to avoid at all costs any conviction constituting an aggravated felony, and if possible any drug conviction, as the consequences of such offenses (as this story illustrates) are extraordinarily severe.

[i] See Rene Feltz “Why US drug reform still couldn’t stop deportation of two immigrants,” The Guardian, April 1, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/01/us-immigration-deportation-drug-reform-junior-francisco

[ii] Id.

[iii] See INA §§ 237(a)(2) (A)(iii); 101(a)(43)(B).

[iv] See INA §240A(a).

[v] See INA §208(b)(2)(B)(i).

[vi] See Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912, 917 (AG 2006) (quoting Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005). See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

In the last week of July 2015, I had the privilege of volunteering with the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project at the Southwest Family Detention Center in Dilley, Texas. CARA is a highly dedicated coalition of attorneys and non-attorney volunteers dedicated to providing legal and advocacy services to the women and children detainees in Dilley and to ending family detention.   As a consequence of my participation as an attorney volunteer, I observed first hand the psychological violence that U.S. family detention policy continues to inflict on Central American refugee women and children. I also met a lot of inspiring and dedicated volunteers and the experience was one of the most meaningful ones I have had as an attorney.

In two scathing orders, a federal judge has declared the Obama administration’s policy of detaining minors to be in violation of a class action settlement agreement reached in 1997 and therefore illegal.[1] And yet, the administration continues to aggressively pursue family detention based on frivolous legal theories that barely pass the laugh test.   The administration’s family detention policy becomes even more grotesque if one considers the enormous profits Correction Corporation of America (the for-profit private prison contractor employed by the Federal government to house the women and children at Dilley) makes off of the human suffering perpetuated at the internment camp it euphemistically refers to as a “family detention center.”[2]

The overwhelming majority of the women and children I represented in bond proceedings were from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Nearly all were under 30 and some were as young as 18. All were jailed with their children. Most were fleeing unspeakable violence at the hands of gangs, drug traffickers, and in numerous instances, domestic violence, not to mention extreme poverty. And of course, all of the women endured enormous hardships in traveling from their countries through Mexico before ultimately arriving in the United States.   Many of the kids I encountered were sick with colds, earaches and coughs and their mothers frequently complained of inadequate or virtually non-existent medical care at the facility.

A palpable sense of lawlessness pervades the detention facility in Dilley. During the week I was there, ICE officers summoned women detainees (nearly all of whom had been represented by CARA attorneys) to a court room (outside the presence of counsel) in an effort to force them (through misinformation and coercion) to forgo their right to seek a monetary bond and instead agree to be released with an ankle bracelet – an embarrassing and stigmatizing apparatus that although allows a detainee to be released without putting up any money nevertheless requires periodic reporting in person to ICE for potentially the entire duration of the woman’s court proceedings, which once released from custody, could amount to as long as five years. Naturally, none of this was explained to the women.   And the use of the courtroom by ICE for this purpose (aside from violating the women’s right to counsel) caused confusion and disorientation as many detainees mistakenly believed that they were attending a court hearing, when in fact they were not.

A particularly zealous CARA attorney and colleague of mine learned that one of his clients had been summoned to one of these meetings after a Judge had ordered her released from custody subject to a monetary bond and was erroneously informed by ICE at this gathering that she must accept release with an ankle apparatus.   So the attorney raised hell with ICE and then filed a motion with the Immigration Court seeking redress for the numerous violations incurred by ICE as result of this practice. By the end of the week, he was forcibly removed from facility without explanation.

Notwithstanding the pathetic and disingenuous arguments of the Obama administration, family detention cannot be justified either morally or legally.   And it is particularly troubling that it continues despite its blatant illegality and in the absence of any mass protest in this country. Hopefully coverage of the Syrian refugee problem will spark a renewed emphasis and comparable expression of compassion for the women and children seeking refuge at our own southern border.

[1] See Cindy Carcamo, “Judge Orders Prompt Release Of Immigrant Children From Detention,” Los Angeles Times, August 22, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-family-detention-children-20150821-story.html

[2] See Betsy Woodruff, “Prison Gets Rich Locking Up Preschoolers,” The Daily Beast, September 8, 2015, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/08/america-s-most-lucrative-preschooler-prison.html; Aseem Mehta, “A Jail For Babies: Absurdity and Abuse At The American Border,” Fusion, July 22, 2015, http://fusion.net/story/170590/a-jail-for-babies-absurdity-and-abuse-at-the-american-border/

Given the definition set forth above, there are several things to keep in mind in regards to asylum claims:

1. The fact that there is a lot of violence in one’s country does not by itself qualify one for asylum. The law does not protect every type of fear that one may have of returning to one’s native country. Again, the fear of harm must be “on account of” one of the specified grounds set forth in the statute, such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.[5] Generalized conditions of violence will not suffice.
2. The harm must rise to the level of persecution. Persecution generally does not mean discrimination, economic or emotional hardship. So the fact that you have no family in your native country, would have a hard time finding a job, and would miss your family here in the U.S. if deported (while relevant for some other immigration forms of relief) will not qualify you for asylum.
3. The harm feared must be at the hands of the government or someone the government is unwilling or unable to control.   Fear of harm related to private actors is not sufficient unless you can show that the government is unwilling or unable to protect you from private individuals.
4. A showing of past persecution establishes a rebuttable presumption that an asylum applicant has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Upon a showing of past persecution, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that conditions in the applicant’s country have changed to such an extent that the fear of persecution is no longer well founded.[6] Therefore, it is crucial that applicants who have suffered harm in their countries prior to arriving in the U.S. submit as much corroborating evidence as possible.
5. Even if you do not qualify for asylum, other related forms of protection might be available depending on the facts of your case. For example, relief under the Convention Against Torture – which requires an applicant to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if deported – does not require the applicant to demonstrate that such torture is on account of a specified ground.[7] The fear of torture can be on account of any reason so long as it would be carried out by or with the acquiescence of the government.   However, protection under the Torture Convention (unlike asylum) does not lead to lawful permanent resident status; rather applicants granted this form of protection are permitted to remain in the U.S. and work, so long as the conditions in their countries giving rise to torture remain the same.
6. You should consult a licensed attorney before deciding whether or not to apply, especially if you are not in removal proceedings as the filing of an asylum application with the Department of Homeland Security always carries the risk that the application will be referred to an Immigration Judge.   An experienced immigration attorney can assess your chances of qualifying for asylum, assist you with the preparation of the application and supporting evidence, and represent you at the asylum interview (or court hearing). Further, like immigration law in general, asylum is a very intricate and constantly evolving area of practice.  Applicants who fear returning to their countries because of reasons unrelated to political opinion, race, religion or nationality often attempt to qualify by asserting that they are members of a “particular social group” as defined under immigration law. The law in regards to the definition of “particular social group” is a heavily litigated area of immigration law and a thorough discussion of this aspect of asylum is well beyond the scope of this article. But generally, to qualify for asylum based on membership in a particular social group, an applicant must demonstrate (in addition to all the other statutory requirements) that the group is (1) defined by an immutable characteristic (i.e. one a person “cannot change, or should not be required to change.[8]”); (2) is socially distinct (in that the society in question actually perceives the social group as such) and (3) sufficiently particular (in that the group’s boundaries can be delimited and verified by the society in question).[9]  As you can imagine, crafting a successful asylum claim requires a substantial amount of research and preparation.   If you fear returning to your country because you might be subjected to persecution or torture, call our office now and so we can educate you about this process and help you make an informed decision as to how to proceed with your claim.

PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is general and should not be relied on for any specific case. In order to obtain advice concerning your specific situation, contact an experienced immigration attorney for a personal consultation.

[1] INA §§101(a)(42)(A).  Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506-07 (9th Cir. 2013).

[2] See id.  

[3] INA §208(a)(2)(B), (D).

[4] INA §209.

[5] See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992).

[6] 8 C.F.R. §208.13(b)(1)(i)(A).

[7] See 8 C.F.R. §§208.16 to 208.18.

[8] Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985).

[9] See Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014).

1. A drug conviction need not be a felony to trigger deportation. Indeed, a misdemeanor conviction for mere simple possession or being under the influence of a controlled substance is potentially enough to permanently banish one from the United States. Under U.S. immigration law, any conviction related to controlled substance as defined under Federal law is a potentially deportable offense.[1]
2. A drug conviction involving the sale of a controlled substance is likely an “aggravated felony” under immigration law, the most serious crime classification with the most severe immigration penalties. Essentially, any drug crime with a “trafficking element” is an aggravated felony.[2] Individuals convicted of drug trafficking aggravated felonies are ineligible for all forms of discretionary immigration relief from deportation including cancellation of removal, asylum, adjustment of status and voluntary departure. To understand what that means, consider the case of a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) who is convicted of a non-aggravated felony drug crime, say for example, simple possession of cocaine.   Although a deportable offense, it is not an aggravated felony and the individual could still potentially keep his or her green card by applying for cancellation of removal – a form of relief available to lawful permanent residents who have had their green cards for at least five years, resided in the U.S. continuously for at least 7 years after having been admitted in any status and whom have not been convicted of an aggravated felony.[3] In such cases, an Immigration Judge has discretion to “cancel” deportation and allow the applicant to keep his or her green card. The applicant can submit evidence and testimony regarding family ties to the United States, work history, service to the community, rehabilitation and hardship in the event of deportation. By contrast, no such relief is available to a person convicted of drug trafficking aggravated felony. Often, the only form of relief available to individuals convicted of a drug trafficking crime is protection under the Convention Against Torture – a very difficult application to get approved since it requires proof that the applicant would more likely than not suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of the government if removed.[4]
3. Non-citizens placed into immigration custody as a result of non-violent drug convictions are subject to mandatory detention and must remain detained for the duration of their removal proceedings. [5] The drug conviction does not have to be one involving the sale of a controlled substance.  A misdemeanor conviction for simple possession or being under the influence of a controlled substance is enough to trigger the mandatory detention provisions.   Conversely, a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence or theft (where the sentence is under 180 days) does not disqualify an immigrant detainee from getting bond.[6] Nor does a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.[7]
4. Individuals convicted of theft or domestic violence have a better chance at qualifying for a green card than people who have been convicted of non-violent drug offenses.   Undocumented individuals applying for a green card based on a family or employment based petition must demonstrate that they are admissible to the U.S. A simple non-violent drug possession crime renders a non-citizen inadmissible to the United States.[8] Similarly, a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (which typically includes theft, domestic violence, aggravated assault and fraud crimes) also makes a non-citizen inadmissible.[9] However, inadmissibility stemming from crimes involving moral turpitude can be waived if the applicant demonstrates either that (1) the conviction occurred more than 15 years ago and the applicant is rehabilitated and not a danger to the national welfare, safety or security of the U.S.; or (2) deportation or exclusion would result in extreme hardship to a spouse, parent or child of the applicant who is U.S. Citizen or lawful permanent resident.[10] Conversely, drug crimes cannot be waived except in the case of a single conviction for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.[11] In effect, U.S. immigration law is more forgiving in the case of domestic violence than it is with respect to non-violent drug offenses.
5. The government is aggressively pursuing deportation cases against individuals with drug offenses. In the last five years alone, 260,000 people have been deported from the United States for drug offenses.[12]  A recent report by Human Rights Watch, “A Price Too High: U.S. Families Torn Apart by Deportations for Drug Offenses,” reveals that “[d]eportations after convictions for drug possession in particular have spiked, increasing 43 percent from 2007 to 2012” and that “[f]or more than 34,000 deported non-citizens [removed during this time period], the most serious conviction was for marijuana possession.”[13] Grace Meng, the author of the report states that “[t]he Obama administration has explicitly recognized the many failures of the US criminal justice system, and particularly its disproportionate impact on minority and poor communities.   But by designating all immigrants convicted in that system as dangerous criminals, the administration is perpetuating these failures and devastating many of the same communities.”[14]
6. The government has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has been convicted of a deportable crime.[15]  Not every drug conviction is a deportable offense.   The conviction must constitute an offense punishable under Federal law. In regards to drug crimes, most people are prosecuted under state criminal law, which often regulates a broader array of controlled substances than that punished under Federal law.[16]  If you have been convicted of a drug offense and are now facing deportation charges as a result, it is the government’s burden to prove to the Immigration Judge that you have been convicted of a drug crime punishable under Federal law. In making this determination, an Immigration Judge can only consult the language of the statute under which you were convicted and a very limited and specific set of court records in your criminal case file.[17] This generally does not include police or probation reports. Again, ICE must establish that you are removable by clear and convincing evidence. Where the record is vague and inconclusive, the government fails to meet its burden and removal proceedings must be terminated.[18] If you are facing deportation as a result of a drug conviction, call our office today for an initial consultation to protect your rights and begin exploring your options.

[1] See INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i).

[2] See INA §§ 237(a)(2) (A)(iii); 101(a)(43)(B).

[3] See INA §240A(a).

[4] See Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912, 917 (AG 2006) (quoting Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005). See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

[5] See INA §236(c).

[6] See id; INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II).

[7] See Matter of Lopez-Meza, 22 I&N Dec. 1188, 1194 (BIA 1999) (holding that simple DUI is not a crime involving moral turpitude).

[8] See INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).

[9] See INA §212(a)(2) (A) (i)(i).

[10] See INA §212(h)(1)(A)-(B).

[11] Id.

[12] See Ed Pilkington “260,000 deported from U.S. over five years for drug offenses, says report,” The Guardian, June 16, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/16/260000-deported-from-us-over-five-years-for-drug-offences-says-report

[13] See “US: Drug Deportations Tearing Families Apart, Spike in Cases, Many for Minor Offenses,” Human Rights Watch, June 16, 2015, http://www.hrw.org/print/news/2015/06/16/us-drug-deportations-tearing-families-apart

[14] Id.

[15] See INA §240(c)(3)(A). See also Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966) (holding that the government must establish deportability by “clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.”).

[16] California is one such state. See Coronado v. Holder, No. 11-72121, 2014 WL 983621 (9th Cir. March 14, 2014); see also Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007).

[17] See Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2281 (2013); United States v. Leal, 680 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012).

[18] See Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007).

Receiving prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings can be a great benefit to the person who receives it. First, since the case is no longer on the court’s calendar, the person does not have to come back to court for the time being. This will save the person the time and hassle of having to come to court every several months. Of course, the person will also save money by not having to pay an attorney to represent them in court.   Second, the government, by agreeing to exercise discretion essentially agrees (at least for the time being) not to pursue a deportation case against the individual.  This can relieve a great deal of stress and anxiety, especially where the person has only a slim chance of qualifying for long term immigration relief before the immigration court.  Third, if the person has work authorization at the time the case is administratively closed, that individual should be able to continue to renew his or her work permit even though the case has been administratively closed with the court. Finally, either side has the right to ask the court to put the case back on the calendar at some point in the future. That means, if in the future, the law or the individual’s factual circumstances change such that their chances of obtaining long-term immigration relief are stronger than before, the individual can simply file a motion to re-calendar their case and pursue that application.

As noted above, there are undoubtedly advantages to pursuing prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings and having your case administratively closed. However, there are also some disadvantages. First, it is important to keep in mind that prosecutorial discretion does not by itself confer lawful permanent residency. In other words, this does not get you a green card and all of the privileges that come with having one. For example, administrative closure (by itself) does not allow you leave the country. Many people in removal proceedings have been separated from family members in their native countries for years and so this can be a tremendous disadvantage.   Second, remember that either side has the right to ask the court to place the case back on the calendar. This means the government can, at any time, ask the court to re-calendar the case and resume removal proceedings against the person. This will likely happen if the person is arrested and convicted of a crime, say for example driving under the influence. But it can happen for any reason and at any time. This uncertainty – or legal limbo — can be unsettling.   The bottom line is that each individual’s case is different and a decision as to how to proceed should only be made after thoroughly analyzing the pros and cons of each option. Certainly, this is a conversation all people in removal proceedings should be having with their attorneys.

[1] Memo, Morton, Director ICE, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion,” Policy No. 10075.1, FEA No. 306-112-0026 (June 17, 2011) available online at: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

[2] Id.

[3] See Memo, Johnson, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, “Polices for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal Of Undocumented Immigrants,” (November 21, 2014) available online at: http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf

According to the recent Johnson memo, enforcement priority will be given to those individuals who pose a threat to national security, border security and public safety (“Priority 1”), certain misdemeanants and “new immigration violators” (“Priority 2”), and “other immigration violators” (“Priority 3”), which includes individuals who have received final orders of removal after January 1, 2014.