Background
IDP, represented by Stanford Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, is engaged in litigation before the federal courts of appeals and BIA to ensure that noncitizens are not barred from establishing eligibility for relief from removal or eligibility for lawful status solely because a “record of conviction” is merely ambiguous as to whether the conviction is for a disqualifying offense under immigration law. Under the government’s view, noncitizens could be barred from eligibility for relief or lawful status based on an ambiguous record of conviction–one that fails to conclusively establish a disqualifying conviction–even when relevant conviction documents either do not exist, do not contain necessary information, or simply cannot be accessed. IDP has appeared as amicus curiae and has coordinated litigation on this issue before the BIA and nearly every federal court of appeals. IDP is committed to pursuing fair rulings from the BIA and the courts of appeals on this issue that directly affects many immigrants’ ability to remain in the United States.
Practice Advisories
- Criminal Bars to Relief and Burden of Proof Considerations: Model Briefing for Defending Eligibility for LPR Cancellation of Removal Where the Record of Conviction Is Inconclusive (May 4, 2012, by IDP and Jayashri Srikantiah of Stanford Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder: Implications for Drug Charges and Other Issues Involving the Categorical Approach (May 2, 2013, by IDP, AIC, and NIP-NLG)
Amicus Briefs
- Marinelarena v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019): Brief of IDP and 13 immigration and criminal defense organizations in Support of Petitioner upon Grant of Rehearing En Banc (Amicus counsel Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2017): Brief of IDP, other immigration and criminal defense organizations, and law professors in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Gutierrez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2018): Brief of IDP and 6 immigration and criminal defense organizations in support of Petition for Rehearing (Amicus counsel Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Syblis v. Att’y General of the U.S, 763 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2014): Brief of IDP in Support of Petition for Rehearing (Amicus counsel Nancy Morawetz of NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic and Jayashri Srikantiah of Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Syblis v. Att’y General of the U.S, 763 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2014): Brief of IDP in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Nancy Morawetz of NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic and Jayashri Srikantiah of Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Mondragon v. Holder, 706 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2013): Brief of IDP, Maryland Office of the Public Defender, NIJC, NIP-NLG, and Deborah M. Weissman of UNC Chapel Hill School of Law in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Amicus counsel Jayashri Srikantiah of Stanford Immigrants’ Rights Clinic and IDP).
- Carrasco-Chavez v. Holder, 529 Fed. Appx. 373 (4th Cir. June 20, 2013): Brief of IDP, Maryland Office of the Public Defender, NIJC, NIP-NLG, North Carolina Advocates for Justice, the Immigrant and Refugee Appellate Center, LLC, Deborah M. Weissman of University of North Carolina School of Law, and Maureen Sweeney of University of Maryland Law School in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Amicus counsel Jayashri Srikantiah of Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic and IDP).
- Sanchez v. Holder, 757 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2014): Brief of IDP in Support of Petition for Rehearing (Amicus counsel Jayashri Srikantiah of Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic)
- Almanza-Arenas v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014) (vacated): Brief of Amici Curiae IDP, NIP-NLG, ILRC, and Federal Defenders of San Diego in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic and IDP)