On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Representing Unaccompanied Children in California – Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, T Visas, and Confidentiality

Released on: Dec. 31, 2016
Running Time: 06:41:30

Unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America have continued to come to California in large numbers over the past few years.  Some of these children have experienced trafficking on their journey to the United States or upon their arrival in California, and others have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by their parents. Many of these children are placed in adversarial removal proceedings. But whether in removal proceedings or not, they cannot navigate the confusing and complex immigration system alone.  Attorneys who work with immigrant youth, or pro bono attorneys interested in working on these issues, can learn critical updates about Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, identifying and advocating for youth who have been trafficked, and a new California confidentiality law and what impact it may have on these cases. This training is designed to complement our December 2014 two-day session on representing unaccompanied children in California, providing updates as well as new topics.

You will learn:
  • Important updates on Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), including limits on the number of available SIJS visas
  • Nuts and bolts of SIJS cases in California probate court proceedings (seeking guardianship)
  • Nuts and bolts of SIJS cases in California family court proceedings (seeking custody)
  • How to identify children who have survived trafficking and may be eligible for T visas
  • How to comply with California confidentiality laws when submitting immigration applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Attorneys interested in assisting or representing immigrant youth, firm pro bono coordinators and partners, law clinic students and faculty, public interest and non-profit organization attorneys and staff, immigration advocates, and other providers working with immigrant youth should view this program —particularly those who have already viewed our December 2014 training,  Representing Unaccompanied Children in California – Best Practices & Key Avenues for Relief from Deportation: Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and Asylum.  For those who need a refresher or are new to this area of law, the 2014 program is available to view for free on the PLI website and will provide a foundation before attending the new updated program for 2016.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:41:30]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:08:23]
    Hayley Upshaw, Kristen M. Jackson
  • Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Updates [01:00:17]
    Hayley Upshaw, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Nuts and Bolts of SIJS in California Probate Courts [01:30:25]
    Hayley Upshaw, Helen Beasley, Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Nuts and Bolts of SIJS in California Family Courts [01:30:45]
    Katie Annand, Nickole Miller, Jennifer Horne
  • T Visas and Best Practices for Identifying and Representing Youth Survivors of Trafficking [01:30:50]
    Sara Van Hofwegen, Cindy C. Liou, Lynette Parker
  • How to Represent Immigrant Youth While Complying with California State Law Confidentiality Provisions [01:00:50]
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini

Presentation Material

  • Representing Unaccompanied Children in California – Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, T Visas, and Confidentiality Complete Course Handbook
  • Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) Updates PowerPoint Slides
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini, Hayley Upshaw
  • California Appellate Law on Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (October 2016)
    Rachel Prandini
  • Recommendations for SIJS State Court Predicate Orders in California (October 2015)
    Rachel Prandini, Hayley Upshaw
  • Sample I-360 Only Packet for Filing with USCIS (October 2016)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Sample I-485 Only Packet for Filing with USCIS (October 2016)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Sample Combined I-360 and I-485 Packet for Filing with USCIS (October 2016)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Stipulation Settling Motion for Class-wide Enforcement of Settlement in Perez-Olano v. Holder (March 2015)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini, Hayley Upshaw
  • Annotated U.S. Department of State December 2016 Visa Bulletin (November 2016)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini, Hayley Upshaw
  • USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part J (Special Immigrant Juveniles) (October 2016)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini, Hayley Upshaw
  • USCIS Policy Manual Volume 7, Part F, Chapter 7 (Special Immigrant Juvenile Adjustment of Status) (October 2016)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini, Hayley Upshaw
  • Nuts and Bolts of SIJS in California Probate Courts PowerPoint Slides
    Helen Beasley, Hayley Upshaw, Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Bet Tzedek Legal Services’ Pro Bono SIJS Manual (July 2016)
    Erikson Albrecht
  • B. F., et al., Minors v. Superior Court, 207 Cal. App. 4th 621 (2012)
    Erikson Albrecht, Helen Beasley, Hayley Upshaw
  • How California’s New Law SB 873 Benefits Unaccompanied Minors
    Erikson Albrecht, Helen Beasley, Hayley Upshaw
  • State of California Assembly Bill 900 (October 2015)
    Erikson Albrecht, Helen Beasley, Hayley Upshaw
  • Assembly Bill 900 Fact Sheet: Guardianships/SIJS for 18-20 Year Olds in California
    Erikson Albrecht, Rachel Prandini
  • Cuestionario para el Ejercicio de la Tutela Legal
    Helen Beasley
  • GC-211 Consent of Proposed Guardian – Spanish
    Erikson Albrecht, Helen Beasley, Hayley Upshaw
  • Nuts and Bolts: SIJS Findings in Family Court PowerPoint Slides
    Katie Annand, Jennifer Horne, Nickole Miller
  • Resource List: Special Immigrant Juvenile Status in Family Court
    Katie Annand, Jennifer Horne, Nickole Miller
  • Sample Los Angeles County Parentage Filing (Child v. Parent)
    Nickole Miller
  • Process of Filing a 1P SIJS Parentage Case at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Los Angeles
    Nickole Miller
  • Sample Points and Authorities Re SIJS in Family Court (One Parent Deceased)
    Jennifer Horne
  • Sample Points and Authorities Re SIJS in Family Court (One Parent Abandoned)
    Jennifer Horne
  • Sample Summons and Petition for Custody and Support (Select Forms)
    Katie Annand
  • Sample Due Diligence Packet for Dispensing with Notice in Parentage Actions
    Katie Annand
  • T Visas and Best Practices for Identifying and Representing Immigrant Youth Survivors of Trafficking PowerPoint Slides
    Cindy C. Liou, Lynette Parker, Sara Van Hofwegen
  • T visa Cover Letter for Minor
    Lynette Parker
  • T visa Declaration for Minor UAC Drug Mule Case
    Sara Van Hofwegen
  • T visa Cover Letter for UAC Drug Mule Case
    Sara Van Hofwegen
  • T visa Declaration for Minor Sex Trafficking Case
    Sara Van Hofwegen
  • T visa Declaration Skeletal Sample
    Sara Van Hofwegen
  • T visa Request for Evidence Response
    Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Request for Evidence Response, Inconsistent Statements at the Border
    Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Department of Health and Human Services Eligibility Letter
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Department of Health and Human Services Interim Assistance Letter
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Department of Health and Human Services Request for Assistance for Child Victims of Human Trafficking Form
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Department of Health and Human Services Certification for Adult Victims of Human Trafficking Fact Sheet
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Department of Health and Human Services Assistance for Child Victims of Human Trafficking Fact Sheet
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Department of Health and Human Services Program Instruction Issuance of Child Eligibility Letters on or After Applicant’s 18th Birthday if Application Received Prior to 18th Birthday
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Unopposed Motion to Terminate Post T visa Approval
    Cindy C. Liou
  • Form I-914 Instructions
    Cindy C. Liou
  • 22 USC §7102
    Cindy C. Liou
  • 8 CFR § 214.11 T visa Regulations
    Cindy C. Liou
  • How to Represent Immigrant Youth While Complying with California State Law Confidentiality Provisions PowerPoint Slides
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • AB 899 Confidentiality of Juvenile Records
    Rachel Prandini
  • New California Law AB 899 Strengthens Confidentiality Protections for Juvenile Court-Involved Youth, Protects Immigrant Youth from ICE Detection and Deportation (January 2016)
    Rachel Prandini
  • Confidentiality of Juvenile Records in California: Guidance for Immigration Practitioners in Light of California’s New Confidentiality Law (April 2016)
    Rachel Prandini
  • Strategies for Suppressing Evidence and Terminating Removal Proceedings for Child Clients (March 2015)
    Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Statewide List of Pro Bono Opportunities to Represent Unaccompanied Children in California
Co-Chair(s)
Kristen M. Jackson ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Public Counsel
Hayley Upshaw ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Legal Services For Children
Speaker(s)
Katie Annand ~ Supervising Attorney, Kids in Need of Defense
Helen Beasley ~ Senior Immigration Attorney, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
Jennifer Horne ~ Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Cindy C. Liou ~ Deputy Director of Legal Services, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
Nickole Miller ~ Managing Attorney, Immigrant Defenders Law Center
Lynette Parker ~ Associate Clinical Professor, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center, Santa Clara University School of Law
Rachel Prandini ~ Immigrant Youth Project Attorney, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Sara Van Hofwegen ~ Supervising Staff Attorney, Public Counsel
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.