|
Please note that this virtual event, including attendees' Zoom video, audio and screen name, and questions or chats, may be recorded. All or portions of the event recording may be shared after the event. Individuals who do not want their identities to be captured are solely responsible for turning off their camera, muting their microphone and/or adjusting their screen name accordingly. By attending this event, you consent to your name, voice, and/or image being recorded and to LACBA immigration section reproducing, distributing and otherwise displaying the recording, within its sole discretion.
|
Andres Ortiz is a graduate of Loyola Law School. He was named a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers 2017-2021 and was Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy’s pro bono attorney of the year for 2016. Andres handles cases in immigration court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), superior and appellate courts of California, the U.S. District Court for the Central, Eastern, and Southern Districts of California, District Court of Arizona, District Court of Nevada, and the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Andres' federal litigation experience consists of federal criminal defense, post-conviction, and prolonged detainee litigation. Andres also handles state post-conviction cases in numerous California counties.
Topics:
- For PCR- while Sanchez v. Mayorkas may have been devastating to many noncitizens looking to adjust status through a US Citizen spouse, it creates a procedural avenue to argue the standard immigration warnings fail to put noncitizen defendants on notice that they may lose TPS due to a plea that would ordinarily have no immigration consequences
- For PCR- while DACA may offer fewer immigration protections and no direct path to permanent residency, the nature of deferred action is not defined by the admissibility/removability; consequently, the normal immigration investigation/advisements are of little use.
- For the categorical approach- California criminalizes conduct that is not nearly as serious-sounding as the charges. Learn how to use these decisions to argue that your client is not removable/inadmissible despite having some serious-sounding convictions.
|