Disclaimer: This information is general in nature and does not replace consultation with a specialist. ## Why immigrants in the USA need a specialized attorney? When a non-citizen in the United States faces a legal issue—whether a car accident, workplace injury, or criminal charge—the stakes extend far beyond the immediate case. Unlike U.S. citizens, immigrants confront a dual risk: resolving the legal matter itself and protecting their immigration status from collateral consequences that could lead to deportation, visa denial, or permanent inadmissibility. Standard criminal defense attorneys often lack the expertise to navigate this intersection of civil, criminal, and immigration law. A seemingly routine plea bargain in a shoplifting case might trigger mandatory removal proceedings for a green card holder if the offense qualifies as a "crime involving moral turpitude" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)). Similarly, accepting a settlement in a car accident claim without proper legal guidance could inadvertently expose an undocumented worker to immigration enforcement if the process requires disclosure of status. This dual-risk framework demands specialized legal representation that integrates knowledge of tort law, criminal procedure, and immigration consequences. The value of this approach lies in proactive risk management: identifying immigration triggers before they materialize, structuring settlements to avoid status complications, and coordinating defense strategies across multiple legal systems. > "For a non-citizen, any interaction with the legal system—whether filing an injury lawsuit or facing arrest—is always an immigration case. Our job is to win your primary case while safeguarding your future in America." — Markus Pritzker

Dual Risk for Immigrants

Standard legal outcomes for U.S. citizens vs. potential immigration consequences for non-citizens.

Scenario: Car Accident

U.S. Citizen

• Civil Lawsuit

• Seek Compensation

Non-Citizen

• Civil Lawsuit

+ Immigration Risk

+ Fear of Deportation

+ Status Disclosure

Scenario: Minor Offense

U.S. Citizen

• Fine

• Probation

Non-Citizen

+ "CIMT" Classification

+ Mandatory Removal

+ Permanent Inadmissibility

The 2025 immigration enforcement landscape has intensified these risks. Expanded expedited removal authority allows immigration officers to deport individuals without hearings if they cannot prove continuous U.S. presence for two years. This policy shift increases vulnerability for immigrants involved in civil litigation or criminal proceedings, as court appearances and police reports may inadvertently trigger immigration scrutiny. Federal law guarantees non-citizens the right to pursue personal injury cases regardless of status, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in California, Florida, and Texas have consistently ruled that immigration status cannot bar access to civil remedies or reduce compensation amounts. However, fear of deportation—amplified by expanded enforcement zones—deters many immigrants from exercising these rights. The crimmigration framework, a term coined by legal scholar Juliet Stumpf in 2006, describes how criminal and immigration enforcement have merged into a single system where minor offenses carry disproportionate consequences for non-citizens. A DUI conviction that results in probation for a U.S. citizen can trigger automatic deportation for a lawful permanent resident. This convergence requires attorneys to analyze every legal decision through both criminal and immigration lenses simultaneously. Effective representation in this context means more than winning the immediate case. It requires understanding how a settlement structure, plea agreement, or court testimony might affect future visa applications, green card renewals, or naturalization eligibility. It demands knowledge of which criminal dispositions qualify as "aggravated felonies" under immigration law (8 USC §1101(a)(43)), which civil proceedings might expose clients to public charge scrutiny, and how to invoke attorney-client privilege protections when immigration authorities seek case-related information. {{cta:cta-1}} ## Protecting immigrant rights in personal injury cases Non-citizens in the United States retain full legal rights to pursue compensation for injuries caused by another party's negligence, regardless of immigration status. This principle derives from the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees all persons—not just citizens—equal access to civil courts and legal remedies. State courts have reinforced this standard through consistent rulings. California Civil Code § 3339 expressly bars consideration of immigration status in personal injury cases. Florida courts have held that immigration status is inadmissible as evidence in tort claims. Texas courts have awarded full compensation to undocumented workers injured on the job, recognizing that employers' duty of care extends to all employees regardless of legal status. The right to compensation encompasses both economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include medical expenses (past and future), lost wages, property damage, and costs of ongoing care or rehabilitation. Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent disability. Immigration status does not limit the scope or amount of these recoverable damages under federal or state law. However, practical barriers often prevent immigrants from exercising these rights. Fear of deportation remains the primary deterrent, particularly for undocumented individuals. Insurance companies and defense attorneys sometimes exploit this fear by threatening to report claimants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite such threats being legally improper and potentially sanctionable. ### What personal injury cases do we handle? We represent immigrants across the full spectrum of personal injury claims, ensuring that legal remedies remain accessible regardless of immigration status. Our practice focuses on cases where negligence, defective products, or unsafe conditions cause physical harm, and where clients face unique risks due to their non-citizen status. - Car and truck accident claims - Workplace injuries - Slips, trips, and falls - Defective product and manufacturer liability - Aviation and cruise injury lawsuits #### Car and truck accident claims Motor vehicle accidents represent the most common personal injury cases for immigrant clients. These claims arise when another driver's negligence—speeding, distracted driving, failure to yield, or driving under the influence—causes collision-related injuries. Truck accidents involving commercial vehicles present additional complexity due to federal regulations governing driver qualifications, hours of service, and vehicle maintenance under 49 CFR Part 383. Establishing negligence in these cases requires proving four elements: the defendant owed a duty of care (following traffic laws), breached that duty (ran a red light), directly caused the accident (causation), and the plaintiff suffered quantifiable harm (medical bills, lost income). Evidence includes police reports, witness statements, traffic camera footage, vehicle black box data, and expert accident reconstruction testimony. For immigrant clients, we implement additional safeguards to prevent immigration consequences. We structure settlement agreements to avoid language that could be misconstrued as admission of unlawful presence. We coordinate with medical providers to ensure treatment records do not inadvertently disclose immigration status. When insurance companies threaten ICE reporting, we invoke legal protections and, if necessary, seek court sanctions for improper intimidation tactics. Truck accident claims often involve vicarious liability, where the trucking company bears responsibility for driver negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Companies can also face direct liability for negligent hiring, inadequate training, or failure to enforce safety regulations. These corporate defendants typically carry substantial insurance coverage, making full compensation more achievable even in catastrophic injury cases. #### Workplace injuries Workers' compensation laws in most U.S. states extend coverage to all employees, including undocumented immigrants. This principle was affirmed by courts in Arizona, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Indiana, which ruled that immigration status cannot bar access to workers' compensation benefits. These benefits include medical treatment, temporary disability payments during recovery, permanent disability compensation for lasting impairments, and wage replacement for lost earning capacity. Employers are legally required to carry workers' compensation insurance for all workers. Failure to provide coverage can result in criminal charges and civil penalties. Despite these protections, undocumented workers face significant barriers: fear of deportation, employer retaliation threats, and lack of awareness about legal rights. Some employers exploit this vulnerability by refusing to report injuries, pressuring workers to accept cash settlements, or threatening ICE contact if claims are filed. In cases where workers' compensation does not apply—such as injuries caused by third parties (equipment manufacturers, subcontractors) or employer intentional misconduct—we pursue personal injury lawsuits outside the workers' compensation system. These claims allow recovery of full damages, including pain and suffering, which workers' compensation typically excludes. #### Slips, trips, and falls Premises liability cases arise when property owners fail to maintain safe conditions, leading to injuries from hazards like wet floors, uneven surfaces, inadequate lighting, or structural defects. Proving negligence requires establishing that the owner owed a duty to maintain safe premises, breached that duty by allowing a dangerous condition to persist, and that breach directly caused the plaintiff's injury. Evidence in these cases includes photographs of the hazard, surveillance footage showing how long the condition existed, maintenance records indicating neglect or delayed repairs, witness statements confirming the owner's knowledge of the risk, and medical documentation linking the injury to the fall. Weather reports may be relevant in outdoor slip-and-fall cases involving ice or snow. Property owners often defend by claiming the hazard was "open and obvious" or that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. We counter these defenses by demonstrating that the danger was not readily apparent, that the owner had superior knowledge of the risk, or that the plaintiff exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. For immigrant clients, we ensure that litigation does not expose them to immigration enforcement. We file cases under pseudonyms when permitted by court rules, limit discovery requests that might reveal status, and invoke protective orders to prevent disclosure of sensitive information to third parties. #### Defective product and manufacturer liability Product liability law holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products, even without proof of negligence. Three types of defects trigger liability: manufacturing defects (product deviates from intended design during production), design defects (inherent unsafe design despite proper manufacturing), and marketing defects (failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions). A manufacturing defect example: a meat slicer missing a safety guard due to assembly error, causing amputation injury. A design defect example: a car model with a flawed airbag system that deploys improperly, causing injuries in low-speed collisions. A marketing defect example: a pharmaceutical product lacking warnings about severe side effects, leading to preventable harm. To establish strict liability, plaintiffs must prove the product was defective when it left the defendant's control and that the defect directly caused injury. This standard eliminates the need to prove the manufacturer's negligence, focusing instead on the product's condition and its causal role in the harm. Product liability cases often involve complex technical evidence, including engineering analyses, industry safety standards, and regulatory compliance records. We work with expert witnesses to demonstrate how the defect occurred, why it was unreasonably dangerous, and what safer alternatives existed at the time of manufacture. For immigrant clients, these cases present minimal immigration risk because they are purely civil matters with no criminal component. However, we remain vigilant about discovery requests that might seek irrelevant personal information and invoke privacy protections when necessary. #### Aviation and cruise injury lawsuits Aviation accident claims are governed by international treaties, primarily the Montreal Convention, which establishes liability rules for injuries or deaths occurring during international air travel. The Convention creates a two-tier liability system: strict liability up to a specified threshold per passenger (no proof of negligence required), and unlimited liability above that threshold if the airline cannot prove it took all necessary measures to prevent the harm. Cruise ship injury cases fall under maritime law, a specialized area governed by federal statutes and international conventions. The Athens Convention regulates carrier liability for passenger injuries on international voyages, while U.S. maritime law applies to domestic cruises. These cases often involve complex jurisdictional issues, as incidents may occur in international waters, foreign ports, or U.S. territorial seas. Common cruise ship injuries include slip-and-fall accidents on wet decks, food poisoning outbreaks, medical malpractice in onboard clinics, and injuries from defective equipment or inadequate safety measures. Cruise lines frequently include forum selection clauses in ticket contracts, requiring lawsuits to be filed in specific jurisdictions (often Florida) and limiting the time to file claims to one year. We have extensive experience navigating these jurisdictional complexities and challenging unfair contract terms. In aviation cases, we coordinate with international investigators and aviation safety experts to establish liability. In maritime cases, we analyze ship maintenance records, crew training protocols, and incident reports to prove negligence or unseaworthiness. For immigrant clients, these cases require careful attention to visa status and travel documentation, as international incidents may involve foreign government investigations or require testimony in multiple jurisdictions. We coordinate with immigration counsel to ensure that litigation activities do not jeopardize pending visa applications or green card renewals. ### How we protect your immigration status in injury cases #### Public charge rule concerns The public charge rule, codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows immigration officials to deny green cards or visa extensions to individuals deemed likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance. As of December 2022, the rule defines "public charge" as persons primarily dependent on cash assistance for income maintenance (SSI, TANF) or long-term government-funded institutionalization. Critically, compensation received through personal injury settlements or court judgments does not qualify as government assistance under this definition. These payments are private legal remedies, not public benefits. They do not count toward public charge determinations and cannot be used as grounds to deny immigration benefits. On November 19, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security proposed expanding the public charge rule to include any means-tested benefits in the "totality of circumstances" analysis, eliminating the "primarily dependent" standard. This proposed rule is subject to public comment until December 19, 2025, and may take effect in early 2026. However, even under the proposed expansion, private injury compensation would remain excluded because it is not a government benefit.

Public Charge Rule: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH

"If I receive injury compensation, I will be considered a 'public charge'."

LEGAL FACT

Compensation for damages is not government assistance and does not fall under the public charge rule.

MYTH

"Filing a lawsuit will trigger an ICE investigation."

LEGAL FACT

Civil lawsuits are confidential legal proceedings; ICE does not have automatic access to civil case filings.

MYTH

"Accepting a settlement will affect my green card application."

LEGAL FACT

Private settlements are not public benefits and do not impact immigration status determinations.

Certain immigrant categories are exempt from public charge scrutiny entirely: refugees, asylees, trafficking victims (T visa holders), crime victims (U visa holders), and VAWA self-petitioners. These individuals can pursue injury claims without any public charge concerns. #### Confidentiality and protection from immigration authorities Attorney-client privilege protects all communications between a client and attorney made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. This privilege applies regardless of immigration status and extends to both oral and written communications, including emails, text messages, and in-person consultations. The privilege covers information disclosed by the client to the attorney and legal advice provided by the attorney to the client. It does not protect information about ongoing or future crimes (crime-fraud exception), but it fully protects discussions about past events, legal strategy, and case-related facts. When immigration authorities seek information about a client's case, we invoke attorney-client privilege to prevent disclosure. If ICE issues a subpoena for case files, we file motions to quash based on privilege protections. Courts may appoint a Special Master—an independent attorney—to review documents and separate privileged materials from non-privileged information. We implement additional safeguards to minimize immigration exposure during litigation: - Filing cases under pseudonyms when court rules permit, protecting client identity from public records - Limiting discovery responses to information directly relevant to the legal claim, objecting to requests for immigration status - Seeking protective orders to prevent opposing parties from sharing case information with immigration authorities - Structuring settlements to avoid language that could be misconstrued as admission of unlawful presence - Coordinating with immigration counsel before any court appearances or depositions that might expose status ICE's enforcement priorities focus on individuals with criminal convictions, national security threats, and recent border crossers. Civil personal injury lawsuits do not fall within these priorities. However, the 2025 expansion of enforcement zones means that court appearances carry increased risk, particularly in federal buildings where ICE maintains a presence. We mitigate this risk by conducting depositions at our offices rather than courthouses, appearing remotely for hearings when possible, and coordinating with court security to ensure safe entry and exit from proceedings. In high-risk cases, we explore settlement negotiations to avoid court appearances entirely. The key principle: pursuing a legitimate legal claim does not waive immigration protections. Non-citizens have the same constitutional rights to access courts and seek legal remedies as U.S. citizens. We ensure that exercising these rights does not inadvertently compromise immigration status. {{cta:cta-1}} ## Crimmigration: criminal defense for non-citizens The term "crimmigration" describes the convergence of criminal and immigration law, where criminal justice outcomes directly determine immigration consequences. Professor Juliet Stumpf introduced this concept in her 2006 article "The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign Power" (American Criminal Law Review), analyzing how immigration violations are increasingly treated as criminal offenses and immigrants as presumptive criminals. This merger creates a parallel legal system where non-citizens face harsher penalties than U.S. citizens for identical conduct. A shoplifting conviction that results in probation for a citizen can trigger mandatory deportation for a green card holder if the offense qualifies as a "crime involving moral turpitude." A DUI that leads to a fine for a citizen can bar a visa applicant from ever entering the United States if classified as a crime of violence. The stakes extend beyond deportation. Criminal convictions can render non-citizens permanently inadmissible, meaning they cannot return to the U.S. even with family ties, employment, or humanitarian grounds. Aggravated felony convictions eliminate nearly all forms of immigration relief, including asylum, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status. Even minor offenses can derail naturalization applications, as good moral character is a prerequisite for citizenship. The 2025 immigration enforcement landscape has intensified these risks. Expanded expedited removal authority allows immigration officers to deport individuals without hearings if they cannot prove continuous U.S. presence for two years. This policy disproportionately affects non-citizens with criminal records, as arrests and convictions create documentation gaps that undermine continuity claims. ### Crimes with serious immigration consequences #### Crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) Crimes involving moral turpitude are offenses that involve conduct contrary to accepted moral standards, typically requiring intent to defraud, deceive, or act with base motives. Examples include theft, fraud, assault with intent to harm, and certain sex offenses. A single CIMT conviction can render a non-citizen inadmissible or deportable, depending on the sentence imposed and time since conviction. The immigration consequences vary based on timing and severity. A CIMT committed within five years of admission with a potential sentence of one year or more triggers inadmissibility. Two or more CIMT convictions at any time, regardless of sentence, also cause inadmissibility. For deportability, a single CIMT conviction within five years of admission with a sentence of one year or more is sufficient. The "petty offense exception" (INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) provides limited relief: a single CIMT with a maximum possible sentence of one year or less and an actual sentence of six months or less does not trigger inadmissibility. However, this exception does not apply to deportability grounds or to individuals with multiple CIMT convictions. Determining whether an offense qualifies as a CIMT requires analyzing the statute of conviction under the categorical approach: examining the elements of the crime as defined by law, not the specific facts of the case. If the statute criminalizes both CIMT and non-CIMT conduct, courts apply the modified categorical approach, reviewing charging documents and plea agreements to determine which conduct formed the basis of conviction. #### Aggravated felonies Aggravated felonies, defined in 8 USC § 1101(a)(43), encompass a broad range of offenses that trigger the most severe immigration consequences: mandatory deportation, permanent inadmissibility, and ineligibility for nearly all forms of relief. The list includes murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, money laundering, fraud or tax evasion with loss exceeding $10,000, theft or burglary with a sentence of at least one year, and crimes of violence with a sentence of at least one year. The term "aggravated felony" is a misnomer—many qualifying offenses are misdemeanors under state law. A shoplifting conviction with a one-year suspended sentence can qualify as an aggravated felony if the statute of conviction includes theft as an element. The immigration consequences attach regardless of whether the sentence was actually served. Aggravated felony convictions eliminate eligibility for cancellation of removal, asylum, and voluntary departure. They create a presumption of dangerousness in bond hearings, making pretrial release nearly impossible. They subject individuals to expedited removal proceedings with limited judicial review. And they impose harsh penalties for illegal reentry: up to 20 years imprisonment for individuals previously deported after an aggravated felony conviction. The retroactive application of aggravated felony provisions means that offenses committed before 1996—when Congress expanded the definition—can still trigger deportation if the individual is later placed in removal proceedings. This retroactivity has separated families and deported long-term residents for decades-old convictions that did not carry immigration consequences at the time. #### Domestic violence crimes Domestic violence offenses include assault, battery, stalking, violation of protective orders, and any crime of violence committed against a current or former spouse, cohabitant, or person with whom the offender shares a child. These crimes trigger deportability under 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(E) and can qualify as aggravated felonies if they involve a crime of violence with a sentence of at least one year. The immigration consequences extend beyond deportation. Domestic violence convictions bar eligibility for cancellation of removal, VAWA self-petitions, and certain waivers of inadmissibility. They create a presumption against bond in removal proceedings. And they can affect child custody determinations in immigration cases, as courts consider the best interests of U.S. citizen children when evaluating relief applications. The definition of domestic violence for immigration purposes is broader than many state criminal statutes. It includes emotional abuse, coercive control, and economic abuse if these behaviors are criminalized under state law. It applies to same-sex relationships and non-marital cohabitants. And it can be established through civil protective orders, even without criminal convictions, if the order was issued after a hearing and finding of domestic violence. Defending against domestic violence charges requires careful attention to immigration consequences. Plea agreements must avoid language that admits to domestic violence elements, as such admissions can be used in removal proceedings even if the conviction is later expunged or set aside. Alternative dispositions—such as deferred adjudication or pre-trial diversion—may avoid immigration consequences if structured properly. ### Our dual-defense strategy #### Immigration consequence analysis before plea agreements The Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), established that defense attorneys have a constitutional duty under the Sixth Amendment to advise non-citizen clients about the immigration consequences of plea agreements. Failure to provide accurate advice constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, potentially allowing defendants to withdraw guilty pleas. This duty requires more than general warnings. Attorneys must research the specific immigration consequences of the charged offense and proposed plea, analyze whether the conviction would trigger deportation or inadmissibility, and advise clients about available alternatives that might avoid these consequences. When immigration consequences are unclear, attorneys must advise clients of the uncertainty and recommend consultation with immigration counsel. We implement this duty through a systematic immigration consequence analysis before any plea negotiations: 1. Identify all charged offenses and their statutory elements 2. Determine whether each offense qualifies as a CIMT, aggravated felony, or other deportable offense 3. Analyze the client's current immigration status and eligibility for relief 4. Evaluate whether alternative dispositions (reduced charges, deferred adjudication, pre-trial diversion) would avoid immigration consequences 5. Consult with immigration counsel to confirm the analysis and explore relief options 6. Advise the client in writing about the immigration consequences of each option 7. Document the advice in case files to establish compliance with Padilla This process often reveals "immigration-safe" plea options that prosecutors may accept. For example, reducing a theft charge from a felony to a misdemeanor with a sentence of less than one year can avoid aggravated felony classification. Amending a domestic violence charge to a non-domestic offense can preserve eligibility for cancellation of removal. Structuring a plea to avoid admission of specific elements can prevent CIMT classification under the categorical approach. When no immigration-safe option exists, we advise clients about the risks of proceeding to trial versus accepting a plea with known consequences. This counseling must be individualized, considering the client's immigration history, family ties, length of U.S. residence, and likelihood of success at trial. #### Representation in criminal and immigration courts Coordinated representation across criminal and immigration proceedings provides strategic advantages that separate legal teams cannot achieve. A single firm with expertise in both areas can: - Develop a unified defense strategy that addresses criminal charges while preserving immigration options - Avoid contradictory positions that could undermine credibility in either proceeding - Leverage evidence and testimony across both cases without duplication - Anticipate how criminal case outcomes will affect immigration proceedings and plan accordingly - Streamline communication and reduce costs by eliminating coordination overhead between separate attorneys In practice, this coordination manifests in several ways. During criminal proceedings, we structure plea agreements to preserve immigration relief options, such as ensuring sentences remain below aggravated felony thresholds or avoiding admissions that would bar asylum eligibility. We negotiate bond conditions that do not conflict with immigration reporting requirements. And we time criminal case resolution to align with immigration court deadlines or visa application windows. During immigration proceedings, we use favorable criminal case outcomes—such as dismissals, acquittals, or reduced charges—to demonstrate rehabilitation and good moral character. We present evidence of the client's ties to the United States, including family relationships, employment history, and community involvement, to support relief applications. And we challenge removal orders based on constitutional violations or procedural errors in the criminal case. The coordination extends to evidence gathering. Criminal defense investigations often uncover facts relevant to immigration relief, such as evidence of persecution in the home country (supporting asylum claims) or proof of continuous U.S. residence (supporting cancellation of removal). Immigration case preparation may reveal witnesses or documents that strengthen criminal defenses, such as alibi evidence or character references. This integrated approach is particularly valuable in cases involving mandatory detention, where immigration authorities hold individuals without bond pending removal proceedings. We can challenge detention through habeas corpus petitions in federal court, arguing that prolonged detention without bond hearings violates due process. We can also seek prosecutorial discretion or deferred action to temporarily halt removal while criminal appeals are pending. The result is a comprehensive defense that addresses both the immediate criminal charges and the long-term immigration consequences, maximizing the client's chances of remaining in the United States with their family and community. {{cta:cta-1}} ## What is negligence liability? Negligence liability is a legal doctrine that holds individuals or entities responsible for harm caused by their failure to exercise reasonable care. To establish negligence in U.S. law, plaintiffs must prove four elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Duty of care means the defendant had a legal obligation to act reasonably to avoid causing harm to others. This duty arises from the relationship between the parties or the defendant's conduct. For example, drivers owe a duty to other road users to follow traffic laws and operate vehicles safely. Property owners owe a duty to visitors to maintain safe premises. Manufacturers owe a duty to consumers to produce safe products. Breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to meet the required standard of care. Courts evaluate breach using the "reasonable person" standard: would a reasonable person in the defendant's position have acted differently? Running a red light breaches the duty to follow traffic signals. Failing to repair a broken staircase breaches the duty to maintain safe premises. Selling a product with a known defect breaches the duty to ensure product safety. Causation requires proving that the defendant's breach directly caused the plaintiff's injury. This element has two components: cause-in-fact (but-for causation) and proximate cause (legal causation). Cause-in-fact asks: but for the defendant's breach, would the injury have occurred? If the answer is no, causation is established. Proximate cause asks: was the injury a foreseeable result of the breach? If the harm was too remote or unforeseeable, proximate cause may not exist even if cause-in-fact does. Damages are the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff, which must be quantifiable and compensable. Economic damages include medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and future care costs. Non-economic damages include pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. Without provable damages, a negligence claim fails even if duty, breach, and causation are established. Example: A grocery store owner fails to clean up a spill in the produce aisle. A customer slips on the wet floor, falls, and breaks her wrist. The owner owed a duty to maintain safe premises for customers. The failure to clean the spill breached that duty. The breach directly caused the fall and injury (causation). The customer incurred medical bills, lost wages during recovery, and experienced pain (damages). All four elements are satisfied, establishing negligence liability.

The 4 Elements of Negligence Liability

1. Duty of Care

A legal obligation to act reasonably to avoid harming others.

→

↓

2. Breach of Duty

Failure to meet the required standard of care.

→

↓

3. Causation

The breach must have directly caused the plaintiff's injury.

→

↓

4. Damages

The plaintiff suffered actual, quantifiable harm.

This framework applies across all personal injury contexts—car accidents, workplace injuries, medical malpractice, and product defects. The specific duties and standards of care vary by context, but the four-element structure remains constant. For immigrant clients, negligence claims proceed identically to those filed by U.S. citizens. Immigration status does not affect the duty owed, the standard of care, or the availability of damages. Courts cannot reduce compensation based on immigration status or future earning capacity in the home country. The legal analysis focuses solely on the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm. ## Why choose our firm? ### Our crimmigration legal team Our firm brings together attorneys with specialized expertise in immigration law, criminal defense, and personal injury litigation—a rare combination that allows us to provide comprehensive representation for non-citizen clients facing legal challenges. Markus Pritzker, partner-founder, leads our immigration and criminal defense practice. With over 20 years of experience in Swiss and U.S. corporate law, Markus has developed deep expertise in the intersection of criminal and immigration proceedings. He has successfully defended clients in removal proceedings following criminal convictions, secured waivers of inadmissibility for aggravated felony convictions, and obtained asylum for individuals fleeing persecution. Markus is a frequent speaker at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) conferences and has published extensively on crimmigration issues in legal journals. Martin Luter, of-counsel attorney, specializes in personal injury litigation and product liability cases. Martin has recovered over $50 million in compensation for injured clients, including significant settlements in truck accident cases, workplace injury claims, and defective product lawsuits. He has particular expertise in representing immigrant workers injured on the job, navigating the complex interplay between workers' compensation systems and immigration status. Martin is admitted to practice in federal and state courts across the United States. Our team also includes immigration paralegals fluent in Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian, ensuring effective communication with clients from diverse backgrounds. We maintain relationships with expert witnesses in accident reconstruction, medical causation, and country conditions for asylum cases, allowing us to build compelling evidence for both civil and immigration proceedings. ### Examples of successful cases Case 1: delivery driver car accident with ICE threat A client working as a delivery driver was rear-ended at a stoplight, suffering whiplash and back injuries that prevented him from working for three months. The at-fault driver's insurance company discovered the client's undocumented status during the claims process and threatened to report him to ICE if he did not accept a lowball settlement of $15,000. We immediately invoked attorney-client privilege protections and filed a complaint with the state insurance commissioner for improper intimidation tactics. We documented the client's medical treatment, lost wages, and ongoing pain through expert testimony. We negotiated a pre-litigation settlement of $150,000, structured to avoid any language that could be used in immigration proceedings. The client received full compensation and maintained confidentiality throughout the process. Case 2: green card holder facing deportation for old fraud conviction A lawful permanent resident with a 15-year-old fraud conviction was placed in removal proceedings after applying for naturalization. Immigration authorities classified the conviction as an aggravated felony, making the client deportable and ineligible for relief. We challenged the aggravated felony classification through a federal court appeal, arguing that the statute of conviction did not meet the categorical definition of fraud under immigration law. We obtained a favorable ruling that the conviction was not an aggravated felony, allowing the client to apply for cancellation of removal. We then presented evidence of the client's rehabilitation, family ties, and community involvement to the immigration judge, who granted relief and terminated removal proceedings. The client retained permanent resident status and later became a U.S. citizen. Case 3: workplace injury with employer retaliation An undocumented construction worker suffered a severe hand injury when a defective power tool malfunctioned. The employer refused to report the injury to workers' compensation and threatened to call ICE if the worker filed a claim. We filed a workers' compensation claim and simultaneously pursued a product liability lawsuit against the tool manufacturer. We obtained a protective order preventing the employer from disclosing the client's immigration status to third parties. The workers' compensation claim resulted in full medical coverage and temporary disability payments. The product liability case settled for $200,000 based on the manufacturer's failure to include adequate safety guards. The client received comprehensive compensation and the employer faced state penalties for workers' compensation violations. ### What our clients say > "I was terrified to file a claim after my accident because I didn't have papers. The team explained my rights and protected me throughout the process. I received fair compensation and never had any immigration problems." — Carlos M., construction worker > "When I was arrested, I thought my life in America was over. The attorneys fought for me in both criminal and immigration court. They got my charges reduced and saved me from deportation. I'm still here with my family." — Dmitri K., green card holder > "After my workplace injury, my employer threatened to report me if I filed for workers' comp. The lawyers stood up to them and got me the benefits I deserved. They even helped me apply for a U visa." — Maria S., restaurant worker > "The team's knowledge of both criminal and immigration law made all the difference. They saw consequences my first attorney missed and restructured my plea to protect my status. I'm grateful every day." — Ahmed R., visa holder

"I was terrified to file a claim after my accident because I didn't have papers. The team explained my rights and protected me throughout the process. I received fair compensation and never had any immigration problems."

Carlos M.

Construction Worker

{{cta:cta-1}} ## Request a free and confidential consultation If you or a family member has been injured or faces criminal charges, contact us for a free case evaluation. Our consultations are completely confidential and available in English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian. We will assess your legal options, explain potential immigration consequences, and develop a strategy to protect both your case and your status. Time is critical in both personal injury and criminal cases. Statutes of limitations, evidence preservation, and immigration deadlines require prompt action. Contact us today to ensure your rights are protected.

Legal protection for immigrants in the USA: injury attorneys and criminal defense