Free and Low-Cost Immigration Legal Assistance

Why free and low-cost immigration legal services?

Unlike U.S. citizens involved in criminal trials, immigrants facing cases in immigration court do not have a legal right to a public defender if they cannot afford counsel. In the absence of this protection, many defendants in immigration court proceed without lawyers, especially those who are being detained and those living on low incomes. During 2023, 70 percent of people facing deportation cases did so without legal counsel. This amounts to approximately 2.2 million people in immigration court without the legal support they likely needed. 

Immigration law is very complex, making immigration court cases particularly challenging to win without legal support. One issue, for example, is that legal documents related to immigration cases, as well as related non-legal documents, are written in English, while many immigrants facing deportation are not fluent in English. 

The lack of legal representation affects immigrants who have lived in the U.S. legally over an extended period or are married to, or parents of, U.S. citizens, as well as children and people who are seeking asylum. Immigrants of color, especially Black immigrants, are particularly impacted, given racial and systemic bias in the U.S. criminal justice system. For undocumented immigrants, an arrest or other interaction with the criminal justice system can trigger deportation proceedings in immigration court. 

Deportation and the threat of deportation have significant negative impacts on wellbeing, including being separated from their homes and families in the U.S. and returning to their country of citizenship, which may pose safety risks. There can be lifelong, negative ramifications for children of people in detention and/or facing deportation, including limited lifetime earning potential and increased healthcare needs.

What are the potential benefits?

Providing free or low-cost legal services to people facing deportation can have a significant impact on the outcome of their cases. In a national study of 1.2 million immigration cases between 2007 and 2012, just five percent of individuals won their cases without representation. Immigrants with access to counsel are up to 10 times more likely to gain the right to remain in the U.S. than those without. For those in detention centers, it is even more challenging to develop a case without the support of counsel, given that access to wifi or telephones are needed to produce the records that are critical for proving a case. 

Beyond court representation, legal counsel also supports individuals with sorting through the options available to them and understanding their rights. In practice, legal service providers support individuals with the information they need to understand their rights and determine how to address their cases. Ana, a client of the Long Beach Justice Fund whose name has been changed to preserve anonymity, shared, “If I hadn’t had a lawyer, I would have felt totally alone and without support. I would probably have given up and agreed to be deported.” Carlos, a client of the same program, has a cognitive injury that impacts his short-term memory. As a result, Carlos should have been eligible for government-funded legal representation, yet, the government ordered him to be deported without the required medical evaluation. As of 2021, the Long Beach Justice Fund was supporting Carlos with navigating the process of securing a government-funded attorney and evaluating the option to appeal his case.

Successful cases have positive ripple effects because people who win their immigration cases can provide public benefits to the local economy and community. When immigrants are able to remain in the United States, they can participate in the local workforce and contribute to the larger community. For example, a 2017 study of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project found that the program’s more than 400 successful immigration cases would yield an estimated $2.7 million in annual tax revenue by allowing its clients to remain in the local workforce. Further, businesses benefit from the workforce and customer base that immigrants provide, and businesses suffer when anti-immigration policies prevent immigrants from remaining in the U.S. As a result of these benefits, business owners from both major political parties have come out against anti-immigration legislation. Two out of every three people nationally support equipping individuals facing immigration cases with publicly funded legal representation.

How do you design and implement an equitable program?

Local and state governments across the country have partnered with communities and legal services providers to implement free and low-cost immigration legal services programs. Through its Safety & Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Network, the Vera Institute (Vera) has partnered directly with 25 of these local legal services programs nationally, and developed comprehensive recommendations for structuring these programs, which are summarized in the organization’s toolkit, “Advancing Universal Representation.” The summary below builds on many of the recommendations from Vera and its partner programs.

• Convene a community advisory committee responsible for guiding program implementation: An advisory committee can help ensure that the program leads to its intended outcomes. Responsibilities may include selecting a legal services provider or program administrator and checking in on program progress at key intervals. In addition to representatives from the administering agencies and organizations, Vera recommends that an advisory committee also include impacted individuals and representatives of organizations with experience with the community or expertise in immigration law. For example, the Long Beach Justice Fund has a dedicated Oversight Committee made up of a combination of city and community stakeholders who are responsible for providing guidance for the program. In practice, this group helped identify a need for community support to generate more referrals.
• Develop and market a Request for Proposals (RFP) for legal services contractors: Government agencies often select a contractor or group of contractors to provide publicly funded legal services for a specified period. Jurisdictions that require a competitive process for selecting contractors will need to develop a streamlined Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Vera suggests that the RFP for a legal services program include: (1) proposer’s relevant experience; (2) a staffing plan; (3) a plan for client selection; (4) key assessment metrics; and (5) a budget. Given the number of existing programs, evaluation of each of these elements can be based on best practices from existing efforts. For example, a program in New York City found that support staff, in addition to attorneys, are critical to program success. These staff may include “social workers, translators, administrators, interpreters, and mental health providers.” This finding may be an important metric for selecting legal services providers.
  
  In addition, the RFP’s scope should allow legal services providers to support clients with all of their interactions in immigration court. Rather than limiting legal support to deportation defense cases, the program should also allow providers to support their clients with their affirmative cases (i.e. asylum applications) to create more continuity. For example, the Long Beach Justice Fund recently added affirmative relief support to the legal services available to better support its clients. The program should also allow providers to support all individuals with immigration cases, regardless of their previous interactions with the criminal justice system, as Vera recommends. 
• Select a legal services provider or team of providers that are experienced with offering successful legal representation to immigrant communities: Vera recommends that these contractors have a strong track record of success with relevant immigration and deportation cases and have strong relationships with immigrant communities. These relationships may be direct or indirect through community based organizations. 
• Integrate wraparound services into legal service provision: Wherever possible, support for immigrants should extend beyond legal representation to include case management services, financial assistance, public benefits enrollment, job training and employment opportunities, and even social and emotional development resources. This could include partnering with mutual aid networks focused on emergency response efforts, community-building, and advocacy. With the lack of touchpoints throughout the new-arrival process, such services provide trusting relationships that help people remain connected and engaged.
• Set expectations for anticipated outcomes among decision-makers, funders, and the public: Immigration cases often take years to resolve due to court backlogs and the significant processing time required for each proceeding. The high volume of unresolved court cases, which was three times larger at the end of 2023 than it was just four years prior, has been extending wait times for immigration cases. During 2023, open cases in immigration court had been pending an average of two years. This figure only accounts for the amount of time that cases are waiting to be considered in court. Factoring in the time for the case proceedings themselves, the average processing time for open immigration cases in 2023 was nearly three years. As a result, immigration legal services providers often have to take on fewer cases at a time due to the longer time horizons for their cases. New programs should develop realistic caseload metrics and communicate the reasoning for these metrics to decision-makers, funders, and the public.

Where is it happening?

Several cities across the U.S. have implemented programs to provide legal and support services to immigrants using ARPA funds. Long Beach, California, launched the Long Beach Justice Fund to offer free legal representation for deportation defense and expanded it to include asylum assistance. In Lee County, Florida, the Legal Aid Immigrant Advocacy project helps immigrant youth secure citizenship, while San Antonio, Texas, allocated $1.5 million to support immigrants in their journey to citizenship, offering a range of services from legal aid to job training.

Long Beach, California

In 2018, the City of Long Beach announced the creation of the Long Beach Justice Fund, which provides free legal representation to low-income individuals who are facing deportation and live or work in the city. The program is part of the Vera Institute of Justice’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Network focused on providing legal representation to individuals facing deportation. Following a competitive RFP process, the City and its partners selected Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) as legal service provider for the initial two-year pilot. The program launched with a $250,000 grant from the City of Long Beach and a $100,000 grant from Vera’s SAFE Network. In March 2021, the City Council allocated $300,000 in ARPA funding to the Justice Fund to help it expand beyond deportation defense to provide representation for affirmative relief such as assistance with asylum applications, as well as funding to support outreach to potential clients. As of November 2023, the Justice Fund had supported more than 70 cases since its launch.

A core component of the program is the Justice Fund Oversight Committee, which is responsible for advising on fund implementation. Committee members represent the City’s Office of Equity; Orale (Organizing Rooted in Abolition, Liberation, and Empowerment, formerly Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition); local advocacy groups; and impacted individuals who live or work in Long Beach. 

Lee County, Florida

In 2022, Lee County allocated $490,000 in ARPA funding over three years to the Lee County Legal Aid Immigrant Advocacy project. This project provides free legal services to “abused, neglected, or abandoned” youth who are under 18-years-old and are immigrants to help them secure a path to citizenship and legal employment. Services include, but are not limited to, legal representation and support with petitioning for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Funding is administered by United Way of Lee, Hendry, and Glades Counties, and the program is run through the Lee County Legal Aid Society. As of July 2023, the program has supported more than 100 youth in the Lee County area.

San Antonio, Texas

In 2022, San Antonio City Council voted to approve $1.5 million in ARPA funds to provide support services for immigrants who are aiming to become citizens. Eligible applicants include “permanent U.S. residents, undocumented, asylum seekers, and refugees.” Support for immigrants extends beyond legal representation to include case management services, financial assistance, public benefits enrollment, job training and employment opportunities, and outreach on the program. Through a competitive process, the City selected four local immigrant-serving organizations for the program. From November 2022 through May 2023, the program connected 228 clients with services and supported 59 percent of these clients with submitting their USCIS I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, which is required to work in the United States.

What are complementary policies?

The following is a non-exhaustive set of complementary policies that can help to advance goals similar to that of an investment in low and reduced cost legal services.

• Local sanctuary city policies that dictate how local authorities work with federal immigration enforcement – Similar to state governments, local jurisdictions can implement policies that help immigrants remain in their communities. An example of this is a sanctuary city policy. At their core, sanctuary city policies limit the ways that local resources can be used to support federal immigration enforcement. Sanctuary city policies can differ between cities and do not have one single definition. Examples may include policies that limit the ability of local authorities to enforce immigration policies, detain immigrants on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and share specific information with the federal government. 
• Creating and funding Pro Se Clinics – Pro Se Clinics do not offer direct legal representation to migrants, but instead provide legal assistance for a variety of things such as filing asylum applications, claiming Temporary Protected Status (TPS), submitting critical paperwork for case continuation such as Change of Address forms, appeals, and more. For example, the Pro Se Plus Project (PSPP) is a collaboration of several immigration legal services providers and community based organizations addressing some of these needs for newly arrived immigrants to New York City. PSPP does not think there are enough immigration legal providers to meet the need for representation or even for legal immigration. Full representation remains a priority for most advocates, but pro se assistance may be able to fill some gaps in services.
• State policies that support immigrants with accessing resources – While the federal government has authority over immigration law, state governments can implement policies that make it easier for immigrants, especially those who are undocumented, to access key resources. For example, numerous states allow undocumented immigrants to earn a driver’s license, which provides a legal means to drive as well as access to resources such as healthcare and housing. This driver’s license further prevents individuals from being arrested for driving without a license, which can trigger deportation proceedings. Additionally, direct and accessible healthcare programs like NYC Care, which offers healthcare to New Yorkers who do not qualify for health insurance based on federal guidelines, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Many states also allow undocumented students who reside in their state to apply for financial aid for in-state colleges and universities. This is significant for students who are undocumented because they are barred from accessing federal student aid.
• Universal representation for immigrants facing deportation proceedings – Currently, immigrants to the United States who are facing deportation do not have a legal right to representation at government expense if they cannot afford counsel. Establishing universal representation for individuals in deportation proceedings would require the government to supply a public defender for those who cannot pay. As a result, this policy would ensure that immigrants have access to due process and reduce the need for free and reduced cost legal services funded by state and local jurisdictions.
• Federal immigration policies that protect undocumented immigrants – Providing opportunities for undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States can lift the burden of potential deportation on immigrant communities. For example, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)–a 2012 executive order–allowed some young people who arrived when they were 16 years old or younger to be protected from deportation and authorized to work for a two-year period, with eligibility for renewal. Despite the benefits of the policy, DACA only defers action for two years, is not protected in perpetuity, has been paused in recent years due to federal action and legal proceedings, and does not apply to many undocumented immigrants. Similarly, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), and Humanitarian or Significant Public Benefit Parole can authorize individuals to live and work in the U.S. based on their country of citizenship and the federal government’s discretion. While these protected status categories can enable eligible individuals to enter the U.S. or prevent them from facing deportation, they are temporary and do not provide individuals with a path to permanent citizenship. Therefore, even with policies like these in place, there is still an ongoing need for free and reduced cost legal representation.

Acknowledgements

This brief was initially researched and drafted by Charlotte Will and Tulsi Patel of Estolano Advisors, with contributions to the final draft by Maritza Rico and Ashley Thomas of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy. We thank Michael Corradini and Elizabeth Kenney of the Vera Institute for Justice for their thoughtful review and feedback.