On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Representing Unaccompanied Children in California: Legal Updates, Practice Considerations & Strategies for Pursuing Relief (Free)

Released on: Nov. 6, 2018
Running Time: 06:34:25
Unaccompanied immigrant children (UCs) from Central America, Mexico and many other countries continue to seek protection in the United States, and many live in California as they go through immigration removal (deportation) proceedings and defend against deportation. Once apprehended by immigration authorities, UCs are placed in removal proceedings without government appointed counsel. Many children are eligible for relief, but attacks from the Administration on these protections make cases more challenging and the need for pro bono counsel even greater. Without an attorney to represent them, children face deportation to dangerous situations in their home countries. This one-day training builds upon prior PLI courses regarding the representation of UCs in California and incorporates legal updates, practice considerations, and strategies for representing UCs. Attorneys who work with immigrant youth, or pro bono attorneys interested in working on these issues, can learn about the most recent updates to Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), UC asylum claims, T visas, as well as strategies for pursuing Motions to Terminate and Suppress.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:34:25]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:03:16]
    Katie Annand
  • Motions to Terminate and Suppress in Unaccompanied Children Cases [01:00:39]
    Lucero Chávez, Helen Lawrence
  • Overview of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status [00:59:45]
    Milli E. Atkinson, Marion ("Mickey") Donovan-Kaloust, Rachel Prandini
  • Responding to SIJS Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) [00:59:25]
    Lucero Chávez, Rachel Prandini, Kristen M. Jackson
  • Strategies for Pursuing SIJS Predicate Orders in California [01:00:25]
    Erikson Albrecht, Jenny Horne, Katie Annand
  • Introduction to Children’s Asylum: Jurisdiction, Procedural, and Substantive Law [01:30:00]
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • T Visa Updates and Emerging Trends Affecting Youth Survivors of Trafficking [01:00:55]
    Cindy C. Liou, Lynette M. Parker, Sara Van Hofwegen

Presentation Material

  • Representing Unaccompanied Children in California: Legal Updates, Practice Considerations & Strategies for Pursuing Relief Complete Course Handbook
  • Motions to Terminate and Suppress in Unaccompanied Children Cases (PowerPoint slides)
    Lucero Chavez, Helen Lawrence
  • Strategies for Suppressing Evidence and Terminating Removal Proceedings for Child Clients, March 2015
    Lucero Chavez, Helen Lawrence
  • Practice Advisory: Rescind In Absentia Removal Orders Based on NTA Service Rules for Children, November 10, 2016
    Lucero Chavez, Helen Lawrence
  • Sample Respondent’s Motion to Terminate Proceedings
    Lucero Chavez
  • Overview of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (PowerPoint slides)
    Milli E. Atkinson, Marion ("Mickey") Donovan-Kaloust, Rachel Prandini
  • Risks of Applying for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) in Affirmative Cases, Practice Advisory, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, September 2018
    Rachel Prandini
  • Sample I-360 Filing
    Marion ("Mickey") Donovan-Kaloust
  • Sample I-485 Filing
    Milli E. Atkinson
  • Spanish Language Handouts Explaining SIJS Process in Family Court
    Milli E. Atkinson, Marion ("Mickey") Donovan-Kaloust, Rachel Prandini
  • Sample SIJS Probate Court Intake Form
    Milli E. Atkinson
  • Sample SIJS Family Court Intake Form
    Milli E. Atkinson
  • SIJS: Responding to RFEs & NOIDs (PowerPoint slides)
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Sample Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) Materials
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Issuance of Certain RFEs and NOIDs; Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 10.5(a), Chapter 10.5(b), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0163, July 13, 2018
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Policy Memorandum PM-602-0085, June 3, 2013
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Regulation 8 CFR 103.2 Submission and Adjudication of Benefit Requests (2018)
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Administrative Decisions
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • USCIS Policy Manual Adjudication - Chapter 4, Part J, Volume 6
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Ombudsman Case Assistance Information, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • National Benefits Center Centralization Email, November 2016
    Lucero Chavez, Kristen M. Jackson, Rachel Prandini
  • Strategies for Pursuing SIJS Predicate Orders in California (PowerPoint slides)
    Erikson Albrecht, Katie Annand, Jenny Horne
  • Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) Table of Support for Predicate Orders (KIND), Updated March 27, 2018
    Katie Annand
  • Sample GC 224 Special Immigrant Juvenile Findings (Bet Tzedek)
    Erikson Albrecht
  • Sample FL 357 Special Immigrant Juvenile Findings (KIND)
    Katie Annand
  • Sample Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date Prior to 18th Birthday in Probate Court (Developed by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP pro bono attorney Nancy Villarreal, Esq. and KIND)
    Katie Annand
  • Sample Order on Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date Prior to 18th Birthday in Probate Court (Developed by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP pro bono attorney Nancy Villarreal, Esq. and KIND)
    Katie Annand
  • Sample Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date in Family Court Prior to 18th Birthday (Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County; note San Mateo County specific form)
    Jenny Horne
  • Bianka M. v. Superior Court, S233757 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 8/16/2018)
    Erikson Albrecht, Katie Annand, Jenny Horne
  • California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients (Effective November 1, 2018)
    Erikson Albrecht, Katie Annand, Jenny Horne
  • Introduction to Unaccompanied Children’s Fear-of-Return Claims (PowerPoint slides)
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Guidelines for Children’s Asylum Claims, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, December 10, 1998
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Guidelines for Children’s Asylum Claims, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course, March 21, 2009
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Guidelines on International Protection: Child Asylum Claims under Articles 1(A)2 and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, The UN Refugee Agency, December 22, 2009
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Updated Procedures for Determination of Initial Jurisdiction over Asylum Applications Filed by Unaccompanied Alien Children, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, May 28, 2013
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-03: Guidelines for Immigration Court Cases Involving Juveniles, Including Unaccompanied Alien Children, December 20, 2017
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Office of the Director, January 17, 2018
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Instruction Sheet for an Unaccompanied Alien Child in Immigration Court to Submit a Form I-589 Asylum Application to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Homeland Security, July 2014
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Asylum Elements Chart
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • Olga Byrne and Elise Miller, The Flow of Unaccompanied Children Through the Immigration System: A Resource for Practitioners, Policy Makers, and Researchers. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012.
    Cecilia Candia, Christine Lin, Ana Moraga Archila
  • T Visa Regulations and Policies Update and Emerging Trends Affecting Youth Survivors of Trafficking (PowerPoint slides)
    Cindy C. Liou, Lynette M. Parker, Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for ‘‘T’’ Nonimmigrant Status, Federal Register, Rules and Regulations, Vol. 81, No. 243, Monday, December 19, 2016
    Cindy C. Liou, Lynette M. Parker, Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Practicing Pointers: USCIS Issues New NTA Guidance Memo, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Updated July 31, 2018
    Cindy C. Liou, Lynette M. Parker, Sara Van Hofwegen
  • Practice Advisory: Fee Waivers for VAWA Self-Petitions, U and T Visa Applications, ASISTA, August 2018
    Cindy C. Liou, Lynette M. Parker, Sara Van Hofwegen
Co-Chair(s)
Katie Annand ~ Managing Attorney, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
Lucero Chávez ~ Senior Staff Attorney - Immigrants' Rights Project, Public Counsel
Rachel Prandini ~ Staff Attorney, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Speaker(s)
Erikson Albrecht ~ Directing Attorney, Bet Tzedek Legal Services
Milli E. Atkinson ~ Supervising Attorney, Immigration Center for Women and Children
Cecilia Candia ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Legal Services For Children Inc
Marion ("Mickey") Donovan-Kaloust ~ Managing Attorney, Immigrant Defenders Law Center
Jenny Horne ~ Senior Attorney, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Kristen M. Jackson ~ Senior Staff Attorney, Immigrants’ Rights Project, Public Counsel
Helen Lawrence ~ Law Office of Helen Lawrence
Christine Lin ~ Directing Attorney, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies – California
Cindy C. Liou ~ Deputy Director of Legal Services, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
Ana Moraga Archila ~ Direct Representation Attorney, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
Lynette M. Parker ~ Associate Clinical Professor, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center, Santa Clara University School of Law
Sara Van Hofwegen ~ Supervising Senior Staff Attorney – Immigrants’ Rights Project, 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. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay 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:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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 15 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.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. 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.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.