CLINIC recently posted a Prosecutorial Discretion Toolkit on its website that contains the government documents, articles, sample letters and motions, practice advisories and other materials to help nonprofit attorneys, accredited representatives and advocates understand DHS prosecutorial discretion enforcement policies and practices.
What is prosecutorial discretion and how can it benefit my client? Over the past year, DHS and Whitehouse statements and memos have announced new immigration enforcement policies and priorities. This effort to implement new enforcement standards through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion includes the review of 300,000 cases at all stages of the removal process. While this review commenced in late 2011, it remains on-going.
The purpose of this Toolkit is to help advocates understand various components of prosecutorial discretion —- who can benefit, what is the process, and what advocates can do to assist clients both before and after the issuance of the Notice to Appear. While the answers to some of these questions are still unclear, the government documents, articles, sample letters and motions, and other materials contained in this Toolkit will help advocates understand DHS prosecutorial discretion enforcement policies and practices.
ARTICLES AND REPORTS:
14. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Share of Immigration Cases Ending in Deportation Orders Hits Record Low (February 7, 2012)
15. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Agencies: A Year in Review (January 6, 2012)
16. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Reading the Morton Memo: Federal Priorities and Prosecutorial Discretion (December 2010)
17. Legal Action Center and Alexsa Alonzo, DHS Review of Low Priority Cases for Prosecutorial Discretion (February 13, 2012)
18. AILA DC Chapter, Practice Advisory Prosecutorial Discretion in Baltimore District Practice (December 22, 2011)
19. AILA Colorado Chapter, Implementation of the Prosecutorial Discretion Review Pilot Program in Denver, Colorado (December 13, 2011)
20. Legal Action Center and Alexsa Alonzo, DHS Review of Low Priority Cases for Prosecutorial Discretion (December 12, 2011)
21. AILA DC Chapter, ICE Baltimore Pilot Program: What You Need to Know in Order to Advise Clients (December 4, 2011)
22. Mary Kenney, Legal Action Center, Prosecutorial Discretion: How to Advocate for Your Client (June 24, 2011)
SAMPLE REQUESTS AND MOTIONS:
23. Catholic Charities, Request to Baltimore OCC to Exercise Prosecutorial Discretion and Join in Motion to Terminate (2012)
24. Catholic Charities, Request to Fairfax ICE ERO to Withdraw Detainer Against U Visa Applicant (February 1, 2012)
25. Joint Motion to Administratively Close Proceedings
26. Catholic Charities, Request to Baltimore OCC to Exercise Prosecutorial Discretion and Join in Motion to Reopen (April 6, 2011)
27. Sample Request for Release and Prosecutorial Discretion
28. How to Obtain a Refund of a U.S. Immigration Bond
29. Intake Sheet for Prosecutorial Discretion Morton Memo Factors
30. The Life Of An Immigration Case And What Form Of PD To Request At Each Stage
BIA DECISION AND CIRCUIT COURT ORDERS:
31. Matter of Bavakan AVETISYAN, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012).
BIA decision held IJ and BIA authorized to administratively close proceedings even if a party opposes the administrative closure. The BIA articulated standards for administrative closure.
32. Agustin v. Holder, No. 09-72910, Order (9th Cir. February 6, 2012);
Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 06-74444, Order (9th Cir. February 6, 2012);
Mata-Fasardo v. Holder, No. 10-71869, Order (9th Cir. February 6, 2012);
Pocasangre v. Holder, No. 10-70629, Order (9th Cir. February 6, 2012);
Middleton v. Holder, No. 09-74038, Order (9th Cir. February 6, 2012).
These cases involve petitions for panel rehearing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to advise the court whether in light of the June 17, 2011 and November 17, 2011 ICE memos on prosecutorial discretion whether the government intends to exercise prosecutorial discretion in these cases and, if so, the effect of such discretion on the cases before the court.