Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights: services, advocacy and grants

Organization and services

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, abbreviated CHIRLA, describes itself as a nonprofit working with immigrant communities. Its legal-services page identifies low-cost representation, removal-defense work, family-related cases and naturalization assistance, with licensed attorneys supervising legal staff. It also explains that representation begins through a formal agreement, not merely an inquiry. These service functions are different from public demonstrations, lobbying or general statements about immigration policy. [1]

Verified and dated leadership

At the October 17, 2026 research cutoff, the official donation page names Angelica Salas as executive director, and the contact page identifies Jorge-Mario Cabrera as communications director. A published tax-return compilation for the fiscal year ended June 2024 lists Zerihoun Yilma as managing director and Karla Elizabeth Aguayo as director of legal services. Those latter entries are explicitly historical filing roles, not an independently verified current staff roster. [2][3][4]

A documented government award

A United States Department of Homeland Security award letter dated September 29, 2022 approved US$250,000 for an innovations-in-citizenship-education program covering October 2022 through September 2024. The letter supplies a named recipient, amount, purpose and period. It is not proof of a continuing 2026 award, money from another country or payment for a street protest. Describing the grant’s actual restriction is more informative than calling every government-supported service political organizing. [5]

Financial accountability and useful effects

The fiscal-year-2024 filing compilation reports US$31,031,530 in revenue and US$23,696,747 in expenditure. Those are organization-wide historical totals; they are not an event budget or a measure of how much a particular donor financed advocacy. Legal assistance can help people understand procedures and obtain representation, but a client-service description does not establish every case’s outcome. Readers should compare program claims with dated financial statements, grant terms and case results. [1][4]

Appropriate scrutiny

Useful questions include whether restricted service grants were used for their stated purpose, which legal entity undertook advocacy and how management reports spending. A grant award alone proves neither misuse nor universal compliance. Leadership titles identify responsibilities, while ethnicity, client immigration status and political criticism do not establish foreign control. Where a claim concerns an individual demonstration, evidence must connect that activity to a specific decision, expense or instruction.

People, institutions and evidence

Related learning

Governments and cross-border funding

Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation: authority and financial accountability

View the twenty-topic guide

External Resources