Almost any drug offense - including marijuana possession - can lead to deportation. A drug offense can prevent an undocumented immigrant from getting status or result in deportation for a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. for decades. This webinar will help defense counsel meet their duty under Padilla by providing an overview of the immigration consequences of drug offenses and offer strategies to avoid or minimize those consequences.

Domestic violence and related offenses including child abuse, neglect, and abandonment and violation of a protective order can carry immigration consequences for both undocumented persons and persons with lawful immigration status. This webinar covers the immigration consequences that domestic violence and related offenses have upon different immigrants and discuss how to avoid or minimize such consequences. The webinar also covers a related topic—the immigration consequences of violent offenses, including in non-DV cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky that criminal defense attorneys have a Sixth Amendment duty to advise clients about immigration consequences of their criminal cases, and that failure to do so is ineffective assistance of counsel. With record numbers of immigrants being deported for relatively minor criminal offenses, it is imperative that anyone representing noncitizens understand basic concepts regarding the interplay between immigration and criminal law and be aware of emerging issues.

The S Visa is a special program designed to allow law enforcement to provide legal status to remain in the U.S. to non-citizens cooperating with investigations and prosecutions, in exchange for that cooperation. This report and its recommendations shine the light on the failure of government to properly administer the S Visa Program. Currently, eligible individuals who might provide information and cooperation are discouraged, and their attorneys find themselves unable to assure clients of the government’s ability to timely follow through on the exchange. [Released June 2021]

A drug conviction can banish a noncitizen from the United States without regard to any rehabilitation or family ties. In addition, drug violations may torpedo a person’s chances of obtaining a visa, a green card, or citizenship. When should a criminal defense attorney get an immigration attorney involved?

Letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding former Attorney General William Barr's ruling in Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, 27 I. & N. Dec. 674 (AG 2019) changing DOJ and DHS policy so state courts can only affect immigration sentencing if related to underlying criminal proceedings and not the immigration case.

Statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to sentencing guidelines.

Comments to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding a proposed amendment to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Coalition letter to members of the House regarding legislation that would redefine "criminal gang" to include people not involved in those activities yet in danger of deportation and other immigration penalties (see Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act (H.R. 3697, 2017)).

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise non-citizen clients of the risk of deportation from a guilty plea. Denaturalization is just as closely tied to the criminal process and at least as severe a punishment as deportation—indeed, the end goal of denaturalization is typically deportation. Counsel therefore also has a Sixth Amendment duty to advise naturalized citizens of the risk of denaturalization and, ultimately, deportation from a guilty plea. Adopting such a rule would be consistent with prevailing norms of professional practice and impose little burden on defense counsel.

Second Circuit Decision to Vacate and Remand Based on Sentence Higher than Guidelines for Illegal Reentry into the United States.

President Barbara Bergman's letter to House members regarding the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437).

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association for Public Defense, Immigrant Defense Project, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: The lower court erred in holding that defense counsel need only advise noncitizen clients of possible deportation when deportation is in fact virtually certain. The lower court disregarded the holding of Padilla v. Kentucky. Counsel must give a strong warning of virtual certain deportation even if relief in immigration court is potentially available. Ample attorney resources make it easy to provide accurate advice of clear immigration consequences. Noncitizen defendants who fail to receive clear and accurate advice about the true likelihood of deportation can establish prejudice, notwithstanding notice of possible deportation. Because judicial warnings about immigration consequences of a plea differ categorically from advisals by defense counsel, they do not purge prejudice. Equivocal information about the risk of deportation does not cure prejudice when deportation is practically inevitable.

Brief for Amici Curiae the New York State Defenders Association, Inc., New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., including Immigrant Defense Project (complete list of amici is available in appendix to brief linked above).

Argument: The advice regarding deportation is critical to an immigrant defendant. The professional standards supporting this duty in New York pre-date the 1996 immigration laws. The rule articulated in Padilla v. Kentucky applies under New York law to remedy Padilla violations pertaining to uninformed pleas entered in New York at least from the passage of AEDPA and IIRIRA in 1996 onward. Fundamental fairness demands that the courthouse doors remain open, at least, to Padilla claims arising from pleas entered after AEDPA and IIRIRA, not merely for those cases that were pending when Padilla was decided or came after Padilla.

Amicus Curiae Brief of the Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders, The California Public Defenders Association and individual California Public Defender offices, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner-Appellant During Pendency of Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: Rendon faithfully applied Descamps's "Elements-Based" approach and correctly held that state law determines a statute's elements. The government and Judge Graber's approach is inconsistent with Descamps, resurrects Aguila-Montes, and creates tension with a century of state law. State law – not Shepard documents – determines a statute's elements. In California, the Shepard-approved documents will not necessarily reflect a crime's elements. Courts must look to state law—rather than the Shepard documents—to identify an offense's elements. At a minimum, this Court should apply the rule of lenity. Applying these principles reveals that California vehicle theft contains a single, indivisible set of elements. The Almanza approach permits defense attorneys to accurately advise their clients of immigration consequences.