NIWAP participated in an amicus brief on writ of certiorari to the US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit to ensure that courts review BIA hardship determinations for immigrant victims of domestic violence seeking cancellation of removal under VAWA. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Wilkinson, holding that the application of the exceptional and extremely […]
Topic: Amicus Briefs
[pdf] Velasquez v. Miranda Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (February 1 2024) (+)
Velasquez v. Miranda Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (February 1 2024). NIWAP, represented by K & L Gates, filed an amicus brief on appeal from the judgement of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania dated June 20, 2023. The amicus brief argues that any confusion regarding the role of Pennsylvania courts in the process of obtaining SIJ […]
[pdf] Wilkinson v. Garland Opinion US Court of Appeals Third Circuit (March 19 2024) (+)
[pdf] Vallabhaneni (September 27 2001) Board of Immigration Appeals (+)
NOW Legal Defense Fund and others filed this amicus in support of the appeal by Aruna C. Vallabhaneni
of the decision of the Immigration Judge denying her application for political asylum despite an
undisputed record of years of severe domestic violence and her inability to obtain protection
from the government of India. The record before the judge established that Ms. Vallabhaneni
was persecuted in the past and that she has a well-founded fear that she will continue to be
persecuted in the future by her husband if she is forced to return to India, that the persecution she
experienced and which she fears was inflicted because of her membership in a particular social
group defined in whole or in part by her gender, and that she is not able to obtain protection from
her government. The Immigration Judge’s decision should be reversed and Ms. Vallabhaneni’s
application for asylum should be granted.
[pdf] Senjab v. Alhulaibi (September 25 2020) Supreme Court of Nevada (+)
NIWAP filed an amicus brief confirming that for purposes of jurisdiction in divorce cases residence can be established without regard to the immigration status of the party seeking divorce. This is a case in which an abusive spouse argued successfully to the trial court below that a visa holder spouse (in this case a student visa holder) could not file for divorce (custody and child support) in Nevada because her visa is only temporary, and she could never obtain a divorce in NV despite the state being the victim and her abusive spouse’s state of residence. The victim otherwise met the residency requirements. This could have had broad implications for all visa holders in the U.S. if the trial court’s ruling was not overturned. Instead, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that residence in the state is all that is needed for divorce jurisdiction. This ruling ensures that courts retain the ability to grant divorces to all persons who meet the state residency requirements without regard to any party’s immigration status. K &L Gates represented NIWAP in the amicus brief.”]
[pdf] Idinyan (August 9 2005) Board of Immigration Appeals (+)
Nvart Idinyan (formerly Nvart Huckfeldt) (August 9 2005) Board of Immigration Appeals. The National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, represented by Crowell and Moring, filed this amicus in support of the immigration judge’s finding that plaintiff qualified for cancellation of removal under VAWA and refuting DHS assertion that once a victim reached a “safe house” she should no longer have access to VAWA provisions. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono)
[pdf] Perales v. Ashcroft (2003) US Court of Appeals 10th Circuit (+)
Perales v. Ashcroft, U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit (2003). Legal Momentum, represented by National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, BIA, Arnold and Porter, submitted this amicus brief discussing the any credible evidence standard and the definition of battery or extreme cruelty in an immigrant victim’s Violence Against Women Act suspension of deportation case.
[pdf] Rosario v. Holder (May 10 2010) US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit (+)
Rosario v. Holder (May 10 2010) US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit. National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women respectfully moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure for 29 for leave to file an amicus brief in support of Appellant Josefa Rosario. Client placed in removal proceedings, concedes removability and applies for VAWA Cancellation of Removal. IJ denies cancellation based on finding that there is not substantial evidence of battery to the extent envisioned by the statute and not substantial evidence of extreme hardship. BIA affirms IJ. The decision was wrong because the IJ ignored an analysis of extreme cruelty completely and even though Ms. Rosario and her witness were found to be credible – focused on the lack of police reports and medical records – thereby holding her to a standard higher than the any credible evidence standard. Battery and extreme cruelty are non-discretionary determinations that can be reviewed by that court. Ms. Rosario has now filed brief with 2nd Circuit.
[pdf] Arguijo v. USCIS (July 24 2020) US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit (+)
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) represents Jennifer Arguijo, who was 11 years old when her mother married her stepfather, who turned out to be abusive. Applying BIA case law from other contexts, VSC held that a stepchild-stepfather relationship ends after the biological parent divorces the stepparent, unless there is a “continuing relationship” between the stepchild and stepfather. NIJC sought reconsideration, and appealed to the AAO. The AAO affirmed the VSC’s decision to deny the VAWA self-petition unless the abused step-child had a continuing relationship with the abusive step-father. NIJC filed a challenge to the AAO denial under the Administrative Procedure Act in Federal District Court in 2013. Unfortunately, the case moved slowly but Jennifer eventually lost on Summary Judgment in 2020, and NIJC appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project filed an Amicus brief in the 7th Circuit in support of NIJC’s appeal represented by K&L Gates LLP. The Seventh Circuit overturned the District Court and The Court handed down its decision on March 12, 2021 confirming that in the context of the Violence Against Women Act “stepchild” status survives divorce. Divorce between the natural parent and the abusive stepparent does not cut a stepchild victim off from VAWA immigration relief, including self-petitioning.
[pdf] United States v. Dixon (December 2 1992-June 28 1993) (+)
United States v. Dixon (December 2 1992-June 28 1993) U.S. Supreme Court. United States V. Michael Foster (United States v. Dixon, 598 A.2d 724, 725 (D.C. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1759 (1992), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993). Amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States as the organization that serves as counsel for the domestic violence victim in the underlying protection order contempt proceeding that resulted in an over 600 day sentence for multiple counts of contempt of a civil protection order. The Brief argued that victims could constitutionally enforce their protection orders without undermining the ability of the state (in this case the United States) to bring criminal charges against the domestic violence perpetrator that included numerous assaults and assault with a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court upheld the right of a victim to enforce her protection order without barring criminal prosecution by double jeopardy as long as the contempt proceeding and the criminal prosecution each require proof of additional elements under the Blockburger “same elements” test.
[pdf] In The Matter of: Suyi Varquero-Cubias (April 5 2016) Board of Immigration Appeals) (+)
In The Matter of: Suyi Varquero-Cubias (April 5 2016) Board of Immigration Appeals. NIWAP, represented by Tahirih Justice Center and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, participated filed this brief in a case of a battered immigrant from El Salvador who separated from her abusive boyfriend and her abuser continued to stalk, sexually assault, and threaten her for the next two years until she fled in fear of her life for the United States. The
Immigration Judge denied her asylum case based on the fact that she was not married to the abuser and that she had physically separated from her abuser. This amicus brief asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to clarify that divorce or a woman’s other attempts to separate are not dispositive of a woman’s
ability to leave the abusive relationship where she lacks the power to end the domestic relationship.
NIWAP provided social science research on separation violence and abusers power and control to
continue to perpetrate the post-separation coercive control, abuse and sexual violence supporting the victim’s
claim for gender based asylum.
[pdf] Vigil v. Lynch (February 29 2016) US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit (+)
Maria Esterlina Perez Vigil v. U.S. (February 29 2016) 5 th Circuit Court of Appeals. NIWAP, and various Immmigration Law Professors from Texas, filed an
amicus curiae brief on behalf of Maria Esterlina Perez Vigil a victim of domestic violence, who had
denied her request for asylum because she was able to move out the residence that she shared with the
abuser. The brief discussed the dynamics of abusive relationships and explained that physical separation
from an abuser rarely means that an abused woman has successfully left the relationship or marriage and
stopped the cycle of violence. Indeed, the abuser’s control of the victim can often continue well after the
victim moves out, particularly where children are involved. This amicus was filed in the 5th Circuit
Federal Court of Appeals in a case in which Perez Vigil is seeking to overturn the Immigration Judge and
the Board of Immigration`s ruling that denied her request seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT.
[pdf] Rosen v. Ming Dai and Rosen v. Alcaraz (January 11 2021) Supreme Court of the United States (+)
Rosen v. Ming Dai and Rosen v. Alcaraz (January 11 2021) Supreme Court of the United States. NIWAP assisted Jenner &
Block LLP in developing and securing social science support in a brief filed to the Supreme Court of the
United States on the question of credible testimony. The brief explained the impact of trauma on memory
and ability to testify, other mental health conditions’ impact on memory and credibility, and credibility
compared to truth.
[pdf] Geidy Mavely Soto Alvarado And Mauricio Antonio Garcia Soto v. Merrick Garland (June 13 2023) US District Court Rhode Island (+)
Geidy Mavely Soto Alvarado And Mauricio Antonio Garcia Soto v. Merrick Garland (June 13 2023) US District Court of Rhode Island. NIWAP, represented by Crowell and Moring, led an amicus brief that was joined by Harvard Law School professors and clinics, the ACLU, the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and all of the major women shelters in Rhode Island. This brief argued that USCIS had misinterpreted VAWA 2000 amendments that were designed to allow VAWA self petitioners to divorce, file their self petitions, and after filing remarry with no impact that would lead to denial of the application. In this case an immigrant for self petitioner remarried year and ½ after filing but before her self-petition case was approved and USCIS revoked or approved self petition. Amici won a motion to reopen the District Court’s denial of the self petitioner’s case and the trial will proceed on the merits. Map is being represented in this case by Crowell and Moring.
[pdf] Guimares v. Brann (May 8 2019) Supreme Court of Texas (+)
Marcelle Guimaraes v. Christopher Scott Brann (Texas Supreme Court). NIWAP, represented by KL Gates, served
as lead amicus on a brief before the Texas Supreme Court. The amicus curiae brief is filed on behalf of a woman who is fighting for complete custody and the ability to keep her child in Brazil away from the child’s father, who had abused the mother. The mother won a contested Hague
Convention Case in which both parties participated and the mother was granted the right to keep the child
in Brazil and was awarded full custody. The Texas trial court ignored the Brazilian order and in a divorce proceeding awarded custody to the father.
[pdf] Souratgar v. Fair (February 18 2013) 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (+)
Souratgar v. Fair (February 18 2013) 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. NIWAP and others, represented by Greenberg and Trauri, participated in an amicus in a Hague Convention international custody case with Sanctuary for Families in New York. The amicus address domestic violence and immigration related abuse and provided social science research and legislative history documenting the dynamics of domestic violence experienced by immigrant victims, particularly immigration related abuse as well as research and Congressional Resolutions on the effect that witnessing a domestic violence has on children.
[pdf] Romain v. Napolitano (March 16 2012) United States District Court (+)
Romain v Napolitano (March 16 2012), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. NIWAP, represented by Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, served as lead amicus in the first VAWA Confidentiality appeal of denial of a criminal court discovery order. This was a case in which a domestic violence perpetrator who was being prosecuted for domestic violence sought discovery under Brady and W.M.V.Crio of the VAWA confidentiality protected VAWA self-petition immigration case filed by his battered immigrant spouse. The perpetrator of spousal rape subpoenaed the
victims VAWA self-petition case from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Federal District Court ultimately denied the subpoena and discovery of the self-petition file by the criminal defendant
spouse.
[pdf] Cazorla and EEOC v. Koch Foods of Mississippi US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit (October 22 2015) (+)
Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, (October 22 2015) United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit. NIWAP, represented by Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, Arnold and Porter, Latino Justice PRLDEF, was the lead Amicus in the first case to reach the U.S. Courts of Appeals on the (VAWA) immigration confidentiality protections. In this workplace sexual assault case brought by the EEOC the employer is attempting to obtain through civil court discovery receive copies of and/or information contained in victim workers’ U visa cases filed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that under federal law are to receive VAWA confidentiality protection.
[pdf] Traore v. Mukasey US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit (April 15 2008) (+)
Amicus brief compiled by International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic and Legal Momentum among others which seeks to reverse BIA denial of gender-based asylum for appellant Alima Traore. The case argues that Traore has established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture because she has endured past persecution in the form of female genital mutilation (“FGM”), has a well-founded fear of future persecution, and likely faces torture and a threat to life or freedom because she is a female member of the Bambara tribe in Mali.
[pdf] Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. United States of America Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (December 5 2007) (+)
Amicus brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights after Castle Rock police department failed to enforce an order of protection against Ms. Gonzales’s husband. This brief argues that there is an international consensus recognizing states’ obligation to protect against domestic violence and provide effective remedies for its victims. Even if laws and orders are issued, they must be enforced. The police failure to enforce the protective order in this case, together with the United States’ failure to provide a judicial remedy for this lack of enforcement, violate established international human rights treaties and standards, under which states are required to respect, protect, and fulfil women and girls’ rights to be free from gender-based violence, including domestic violence.
[pdf] Nicholson v. Williams NY State Court of Appeals (May 2004) (+)
Amicus submitted to the New York State Court of Appeals in support of battered women and their children in Nicholson v. Scoppetta. The Nicholson case is a class action suit against the Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) of New York City based on their policy and practice of presumptively removing children from battered mothers and charging them with neglect for “engaging in domestic violence.” Under the ACS policy, children are removed and women charged simply because the mothers are victims of domestic violence. The Nicholson case, comprised of over 20 class members, challenges the ACS policy on constitutional grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified questions to the New York State Court of Appeals to assist in determining whether the policy is unconstitutional.
[pdf] Jane Doe v. Claire McIntire (August 10, 2001) Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (+)
Jane Doe v. Claire McIntire, App. No. 01-P-1013 (Mass.) (August 10, 2001) Amicus brief appealing a denial of
TANF benefits to two immigrant women lawfully residing in Massachusetts, the denial was based on six month
residence requirement before receiving benefits. One woman was fleeing domestic violence and the other residing
with family during pregnancy. (Foley, Hoag & Eliot, Pro Bono)
[pdf] Hoffman Plastic Compound Inc v. National Labor Relations Board (December 10 2001) Supreme Court of Appeals (+)
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Supreme Court Of The United States (2001) filed an amicus brief supporting the importance of back pay remedies when labor laws are violated including relief for undocumented workers. Filed a second amicus brief regarding a Government of Mexico requested advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2002) concerning when a member nation of the Organization of American States (USA) limits labor law remedies available to migrants who have “irregular” immigration status.
[pdf] United States v. Dixon U.S. Supreme Court (December 2 1992-June 28 1993) (+)
United States V. Michael Foster (United States v. Dixon, 598 A.2d 724, 725 (D.C. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1759 (1992), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993) Filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States as the organization that serves as counsel for the domestic violence victim in the underlying protection order contempt proceeding that resulted in an over 600 day sentence for multiple counts of contempt of a civil protection order. The Brief argued that victims could constitutionally enforce their protection orders without undermining the ability of the state (in this case the United States) to bring criminal charges against the domestic violence perpetrator that included numerous assaults and assault with a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court upheld the right of a victim to enforce her protection order without barring criminal prosecution by double jeopardy as long as the contempt proceeding and the criminal prosecution each require proof of additional elements under the Blockburger “same elements” test.
[pdf] Blondin v. Dubois (2000) U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit (+)
Blondin v. Dubois, U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit (2000). NOW LDEF represented by Crowell & Moring filed an amicus brief in support of a mother’s child custody against a challenge under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction U.S.C. section 11601 by the father, a resident of France.
[pdf] Harrison v. Harrison, Kentucky, Fayette Circuit Court 3rd Division (February 11 2002) (+)
Harrison v. Harrison, Kentucky, Fayette Circuit Court 3rd Division (2002) Amicus Brief explaining misuse of protection orders to penalize victims and discourage them from seeking legal relief, “mutual” protection orders as contrary to public policy, and the safety of DV victims as directly related to batterer responsibility enforced in the legal system. (Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Pro Bono)
[pdf] Marriage of David M. Salcido and Irina N. Salcido Arizona State Court of Appeals (August 24 2004) (+)
In Re the Marriage of David M. Salcido and Irina N. Salcido, Case No. 20023590 before the Arizona Court of Appeals. (2004) Filed an amicus brief in support of overturning a grant of annulment in favor of an abusive spouse who sought an annulment after a five year marriage in order to deny the victim-wife VAWA immigration status. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono).
[pdf] Meredith v. Muriel Crowell and Moring Supreme Court of the State of Washington (July 17 2009) (+)
Meredith v. Muriel second brief (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono) argued that Abusive speech is not protected by the First Amendment because it is essentially conduct not expression and that a restriction in the protection order ordering an abuser not to contact DHS or interfere with his wife’s immigration case is not overbroad when weighed against the significant State interest in protecting abuse victims and does not impermissibly infringe on the abuser’s right to petition the government
[pdf] Meredith v. Muriel K&L Gates Supreme Court of the State of Washington (July 17 2009) (+)
Meredith v. Muriel, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, (2009). Submitted two amicus briefs one on behalf of Legal Momentum and a second on behalf of the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women in a case in which an abuser appealed the issuance of a protection order containing a prohibition against the abuser communicating with the Department of Homeland Security regarding his wife. One brief (K & L Gates, Pro Bono) provided social science documentation of the harm to victims and the lethality of immigration related abuse and discussed the history and purpose of VAWA confidentiality protections.
[pdf] State v. Maria L. The Nebraska Supreme Court (April 8 2009) (+)
State v. Maria L., (2009) filed an amicus brief in a case before The Nebraska Supreme Court in a termination of parental rights case in which an undocumented immigrant mother was denied language access to child protective services, the courts and the hospital. In a unanimous decision that Nebraska Supreme Court returned two children to their Guatemalan mother who had been deported and her parental rights were terminated by the state ruling that undocumented, detained and deported immigrant parents have the constitutional right to care for, have custody of, and control over their children.
[pdf] Adoption C.M.B.R. Minor. S.M. and M.M. Respondents vs. E.M.B.R. Appellant Missouri Court of Appeals (July 21 2010) (+)
In Re Adoption of C.M.B.R. Minor. S.M. and M.M. Respondents vs. E.M.B.R. Appellant, Amicus brief was filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals (2010) and a second in the Missouri Supreme Court (2010) in support of reversing a court decision to terminate the parental rights of an immigrant mother Encarnacion Bail and finalize the adoption of her children as a result of Encarnacion’s immigration detention. Encarnacion Bail had been subject to an immigration raid at her workplace and was coerced into taking a plea to aggravated identity theft. While Encarnacion served her jail sentence, the State of Missouri terminated her parental rights and finalized the adoption of her children. After she finished serving her sentence the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that convictions like hers for use of false documents was unconstitutional. Won favorable decisions from in both cases confirming that limiting who may place a child for adoption and confirming that immigration status should “never” be a factor “when determining whether to terminate parental rights. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono)
[pdf] In Re Adoption of C.M.B.R. Minor. S.M. and M.M. Respondents vs. E.M.B.R. Appellant, Missouri Supreme Court (January 11 2010) (+)
In Re Adoption of C.M.B.R. Minor. S.M. and M.M. Respondents vs. E.M.B.R. Appellant, Amicus brief was filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals (2010) and a second in the Missouri Supreme Court (2010) in support of reversing a court decision to terminate the parental rights of an immigrant mother Encarnacion Bail and finalize the adoption of her children as a result of Encarnacion’s immigration detention. Encarnacion Bail had been subject to an immigration raid at her workplace and was coerced into taking a plea to aggravated identity theft. While Encarnacion served her jail sentence, the State of Missouri terminated her parental rights and finalized the adoption of her children. After she finished serving her sentence the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that convictions like hers for use of false documents was unconstitutional. Won favorable decisions from in both cases confirming that limiting who may place a child for adoption and confirming that immigration status should “never” be a factor “when determining whether to terminate parental rights. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono)
[pdf] Kumar v. Kumar California Court of Appeals (September 26 2016) (+)
Kumar v. Kumar (California Court of Appeals) NIWAP served as sole amicus in a case in which a California state family court judge imposed the duty to mitigate that applies in contract cases and alimony cases to an immigrant spouse, in this case a battered immigrant spouse, seeking to enforce the Affidavit of Support her husband signed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security when he sponsored her to attain legal permanent residency status. The brief cited case law from other states and law review articles discussing current state family court practice allowing immigrant spouses to enforce affidavits of support in family court cases. The brief provided legislative history and social science data supporting the position imposing a duty to mitigate undermines the legislative purpose of the Affidavit of Support and in the case of battered immigrant spouses the Violence Against Women Act. (Crowell and Moring: September 26, 2016)
[pdf] S.E.R.L v. U.S. Federal Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit (September 25 2017) (+)
Amicus Brief in S.E.R.L v. U.S. NIWAP filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of a Honduran woman who had helped her daughter escape from a domestic violence perpetrator who had trafficked the daughter to Mexico. The brief discussed the extent to which those who intervene to protect their family from perpetrators of domestic violence are at risk of violent retaliation by the perpetrator, up to and including death. She fled Honduras seeking asylum in the U.S. out of fear of more retaliation. This amicus was filed in the 3rd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in a case in which S.E.R.L is seeking gender based asylum as a Honduran woman who intervened in a domestic violence relationship who are left completely vulnerable to violent retaliation. Crowell and Moring (September 25, 2017)
[pdf] Rosa Marisol Avelar Oliva Board of Immigration Appeals (February 16 2018) (+)
Amicus Brief in Matter of Rosa Marisol Avelar Oliva, NIWAP filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of an El Salvadorian woman who suffered child abuse and was held in isolation for years. The Immigration Judge found that she was not credible. The brief discussed the psychological and developmental effects of trauma and how childhood rape and sexual abuse can significantly impact witness’s demeanor and ability to testify and report the abuse. The brief addressed how childhood trauma impairs brain development in key regions responsible for memory, reasoning, and planning. The amicus was filed in the Board of Immigration Appeals in a case in which Rosa Marisol is seeking gender-based asylum and withholding of removal. Crowell and Moring (February 16, 2018)
[pdf] W.M.V.C.; A.P.V. v. U.S 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (February 28 2018) (+)
Amicus Brief in W.M.V.C.; A.P.V. v. U.S. NIWAP filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of W.M.V.C. and her son A.P.V DV who suffered domestic violence and life-threats in a non-consensual relationship. The amicus brief discussed that the same power dynamics that precipitate domestic violence in heterosexual marital relationships apply and are present in same-sex and non-extramarital relationships. It also discussed the that the same factors that make a woman unable to leave an abusive opposite-sex relationship also make a woman unable to leave an abusive same-sex relationship, especially when the abuser is connected with law enforcement. This amicus was filed in the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in a case in which W.M.V.C. and A.P.V are seeking to overturn BIA’s decision that denied Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Baker & McKenzie LLP (February 28, 2018)
[pdf] N.Y.C.C. v. Whitaker Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (November 26 2018) (+)
Amicus Brief in N.Y.C.C. v. Whitaker, NIWAP filed an Amicus Brief in N.Y.C.C. v. Whitaker in the Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. This brief explained that coercive control is one of the defining characteristics of domestic violence relationship as a result leaving a shared residence with an abuser does not bring an end to the abuse. Additionally, the brief discusses the particular dangers when the perpetrator engages in stalking his victim. Winston & Strawn LLP (November 26, 2018)
[pdf] In Re D.T. –O Maryland Court of Special Appeals (May 20 2021) (+)
“In Re D.T. –O” (Maryland Court of Special Appeals) NIWAP filed an amicus brief in a case before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals represented by K & L Gates LLP in a case in which Maryland State Child Protective Services used a parent’s immigration status and issues related to immigration status to terminate a parent’s parental rights. This amicus brief argues that federal preemption precludes Maryland from imposing penalties against undocumented immigrant parents fin custody and termination of parental rights cases. This together with failures to provide language access in this case violated the immigrant mother’s due process rights (May 20, 2021).
[pdf] Nguyen v. INS, 2000 (June 16 2000) U.S. App. LEXIS 6860 5th Circuit (+)
Nguyen v. INS, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6860 (5th Cir. June 16 2000) Filed an brief in support of a
Petition of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (2000) in an equal protection clause challenge to a federal immigration law that treats foreign born out-of-wedlock children of citizen mothers differently from similarly situated children of citizen fathers for purposes of obtaining citizenship. (Legal Momentum)
[pdf] O.M.G. et al v. Wolf et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (March 30 2020) (+)
O.M.G. v. Wolf (2020) U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. David Thronson, “Declaration filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in O.M.G. vs Wolf.” NIWAP coordinated a national team of law professors and recruited the law firm of Winston Strum to help draft and develop this declaration that discusses the dangers for children in DHS family detention centers, the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and provides an excellent overview with social science research data support of the impact of trauma for immigrant children in their neurobiological, cognitive, and psychological development and children’s health and well-being. Leslye E. Orloff assisted in drafting and editing the brief. (March 30, 2020)
[pdf] Gabriel Perez Cruz v. Barr, U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (July 2 2020) (+)
Gabriel Perez Cruz v. Barr (2020) U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit. NIWAP assisted the Family Violence Appellate Project in California in developing, securing social science support for and national sign ons from 16 organizations nationally for this 9th Circuit Amicus Brief in which we were represented by Haney and Boone LLP. The brief discussed the mental health impact of domestic violence and coercive control in abusive relationships and perpetrators who coerce their victims into committing crimes, and the need for courts to consider these factors when adjudicating a domestic violence victim’s withholding of removal claims and particularly whether they crime they committed was a “particularly serious crime.” (July 2 2020).
[pdf] Chrismy Sagaille v. Christina Carrega, Supreme Court of New York (August 10 2020) (+)
Chrismy Sagaille v. Christina Carrega (2020) Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. NIWAP assisted the National Women’s Law Center providing expertise on immigrant survivors’ experiences with sexual assault and signed on to an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. This amicus was filed on behalf of a number of women’s groups protecting sexual assault survivors from retaliatory defamation suits by their named assailants. (August 10, 2020).
[pdf] Friendly House Et Al., V. Michael B. Whiting Et Al., United States District Court Arizona (June 11 2010) (+)
Friendly House Et Al., V. Michael B. Whiting Et Al., United States District Court Arizona, (2010) Recruited by the ACLU, MALDEF, The National Immigration Law Center and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center to organize a women’s perspective amicus in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop implementation of key portions of Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation SB 1070. Legal Momentum also assisted in identifying immigrant victim plaintiff’s for this lawsuit. 83 women’s, violence against women’s and allied organizations joined the brief which demonstrated how SB 1070 interferes with federal protections for immigrant crime victims; cuts immigrant women and their children off from federally provided services necessary to protect life, health and safety, and harms children by depriving them of the care and nurturing of their mothers through detention leading to family separations. The Mexican Consulate translated this brief and is distributing it in Spanish. (Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, Pro Bono)
[pdf] United States v. State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer Governor, (September 30 2010) United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (+)
United States v. State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer Governor, United States Court of Appeals for the 9trh Circuit. (2010) Submitted an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit case in support of the United States position that Arizona law SB 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with federal immigration laws designed to help immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes. It undermines federal laws guaranteeing that all persons in the United States have access to programs and services necessary to protect life and safety and public health and will be extremely harmful to immigrant families from family separations forced by local law enforcement mandates to enforce federal immigration laws. This amicus brief was joined by 90 organizations working to help immigrant women and immigrant victims of violence against women. (Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, Pro Bono)
[pdf] European Connections & Tours, Inc. v. Gonzales (April 24 2006) (+)
European Connections & Tours, Inc. v. Gonzales, (2006) Developed amicus brief and assisted the U.S. Attorney General in a motion to dismiss a 1st Amendment challenge to the collection of data on male clients for prospective brides and 5th Amendment Equal Protection challenge to regulation of for-profit or majority for-profit but not cultural or religious International Marriage Brokers. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono).
[pdf] In the Matter of RA (February 13 2004) (+)
In the Matter of RA (February 13 2004) Board of Immigration Appeals. Domestic violence as a basis for Gender Based Asylum. Filed Briefs and coordinated amici for amicus briefs filed before the Board of Immigration Appeals (1999) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (1999). Provided editing and amici sign on assistance to Amicus brief filed with Attorney General Ashcroft (2004).
[pdf] Yessica Alvarado Euceda vs. Loretta Lynch US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit (February 25 2016) (+)
Yessica Alvarado Euceda vs. Loretta Lynch. NIWAP Inc. served as the lead amicus in an appeal of a denial of gender based asylum to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of a Honduran battered immigrant who unsuccessfully attempted to end her relationship with her abusive boyfriend who was the father of her two children. The immigration judge and a single Board of Immigration Appeals judge denied gender based asylum to a battered mother who fled Honduras when she could find no protection from being subjected to ongoing abuse from the father of her children. The law firm of Winston and Strawn represented NIWAP in the amicus brief. (February 26, 2016)
[pdf] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Koch Foods 5th Circuit (October 22 2015) (+)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Koch Foods. NIWAP Inc. collaborated with Latino Justice, the law firms of Arnold and Porter and Procopio, and Legal Momentum to submit an amicus brief to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in an interlocutory appeal of a Federal District Court decision to allow an employer who employed supervisors who perpetrated rape, sexual assault, felonious assault, extortion, sexual harassment and other discrimination against workers to use civil court discovery in an EEOC enforcement action to obtain copies of the victim’s VAWA confidentiality protected U visa case files. The brief provided legislative history of the VAWA confidentiality provisions and the U visa and discussed the public policy effects on victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes if discovery of VAWA confidentiality protected information is allowed in civil cases. (October 22, 2015)
[pdf] BIA Amicus Invitation and Amicus 2016-0609 (September 1 2016) (+)
BIA Amicus Invitation 2016-0609 Amicus Curiae Brief of National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project and The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service submitted this amicus brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals discussing the brain development and neuroscience of how having experienced or witnessed trauma impacts the brain development of children and adolescents. The brief argues that in cases of child asylum applicants’ waivers of the one-year deadline based on extraordinary circumstances must be presumed for children under the age of 21. The brain science also supports waivers of the deadline for older youth in their 20s who can demonstrate based on the totality of the circumstances of their case and the impact of the trauma they suffered on their lives that they meet the extraordinarily circumstances test. (Crowell and Moring: September 1 2016)
[pdf] Nelsa Rosa Hernandez Cabrera; A.J.E.H. v. U.S. US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit (February 14 2019) (+)
Nelsa Rosa Hernandez Cabrera; A.J.E.H. v. U.S., NIWAP filed an amicus curiae on behalf of Nelsa Rosa Hernandez Cabrera; A.J.E.H., the petitioner is a domestic violence victim, from Honduras, who suffered physical abuse and enormous amount of control from her husband. The amicus will be filed in the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in a case that Hernandez Cabrera is seeking to overturn a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied her request seeking asylum. Winston & Strawn LLP. (February 22, 2019)
[pdf] S.K.E.R v. Barr (April 8 2019) Court of Appeals 5th Circuit (+)
S.K.E.R. v. William P. Barr. NIWAP filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of a Honduran woman who was a victim of domestic violence. The brief discusses the complexity of domestic violence and how the victim was unable to physically remove herself from her abuser due to fear of his retaliation. This amicus was filed in the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Winston and Strawn LLP (April 8, 2019).
[pdf] Reina Victoria Rodriguez-Ramirez v. William P. Barr Motion and Amicus US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit (August 16 2019) (+)
Reina Victoria Rodriguez-Ramirez v. William P. Barr. NIWAP filed an amicus curiae brief in the 5th Circuit Court in Texas. The brief discusses how incest relationships qualify as a domestic relationship and how laws of domestic violence should apply. Baker and McKenzie LLP. (August 16, 2019)
[pdf] Maria Luisa Rodriguez Tornes v. William P. Barr US. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (October 18 2019) (+)
Maria Luisa Rodriguez Tornes vs. William P. Barr (2019) US. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit. NIWAP led an amicus brief with DLA Piper for a case filed in the 9th Circuit discussing how domestic violence victims are able to receive gender-based asylum because they domestic violence they experience is based on their social group membership. NIWAP’s brief documented the cultural, religious and social conditions that domestic violence victims suffer that serves as a valid basis for domestic violence related gender based asylum. This brief provided the social science support for a Tahirih Justice Center case challenging the Attorney General Sessions Justice Department position on domestic violence related gender based asylum cases. (October 19, 2019)
[pdf] Ada Merary Rivas-Ramos v Merrick Garland Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit (June 2 2023) (+)
“Ada Merary Rivas-Ramos v Merrick Garland”. NIWAP represented by Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, LLP filed an
amicus brief in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of Ada Rivas-Ramos faced abuse at the hands of her
former partner with whom she had been in a relationship with since she was 14 years old and shared children.
Rivas-Ramos testified as to the sustained abuse she suffered throughout their relationship, including that the abuser
hit her in the face with a bottle, threatened her and their children’s lives, and order men whom he sent after her to
sexually assault her. The brief, examined the social science research around intimate partner violence that explains
physically leaving a residence shared with an abusive partner does not mean the survivor has successfully ended the relationship. This is particularly true where there are children in common, when there is economic abuse, and when the abuser was coercively controlling the victim. The Board’s denial of her asylum rested on the premise she would be able to leave the relationship again, which is inapposite to the research. The brief also explained many indicators present in both the case history and in peer-reviewed research that showed Rivas-Ramos was likely to face increased violence or even death should she be forced to return to Honduras. Many risk factors – including stalking,
which has the highest indication of an abuser killing their victim – were present in Rivas-Ramos’ case. (June 2,
2023)
[pdf] Rivas et al., Amicus Supreme Court of California (March 21 2022) (+)
“Guardianship of S.H.R. v. Jesus Rivas” (Supreme Court of California). NIWAP filed an amicus brief in the
Supreme Court of California in a case in which the Court of Appeals wrongly denied an SIJS eligible child SIJS
predicate findings. The amicus brief developed by Manatt, Phelps and Phillips for NIWAP detailed the legislative
and regulatory history of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and discussed how the approach taken by the Court of
Appeals directly contradicts this legislative and regulatory history and the 2022 SIJS regulations issued by DHS.
The brief discussed how the courts below incorrectly applies laws of a foreign country when application of
California law is required by SIJS regulations, statutes and policies. The brief also discusses how it is
impermissible for court to fail to issue SIJS findings when there is uncontroverted credible evidence to support the
findings. The California Supreme Court in a unanimous decision with one concurrence adopted the approach
advocates by NIWAP’s amicus brief and the 2022 SIJS regulations relied up in the brief. (March 21, 2022; August
15, 2022)
[pdf] United States V. Luciana Moreno-Lopez; (June 7 2010) United States District Court, Eastern District of Chattanooga (+)
Amicus brief in a case in which undocumented workers had been victims of extortion, when the workers complained to EEOC and the Department of Labor the employer retaliated by triggering the employees detention by the Department of Homeland Security.
The workers filed and received U-visas as victims of extortion despite this fact, the U.S. attorney brought charges
against the workers for document fraud. This amicus brief, filed in the employees’ criminal case, described the
history and purpose of the U-visa as humanitarian relief and a tool for law enforcement.
[pdf] Agriprocessors Postville, Iowa, (December 8 2008) Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit (+)
Amicus brief filed for the reversal of the decision by the Court of Appeals from the Eighth Circuit in the case of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s workplace raid at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa. ICE demonstrated the practical effects of failing to require knowledge of the defining element of 18 US.C. § 1028A—whether the identification at issue is “of another person.” In Postville, the crime of aggravated identity theft, which carries a two-year mandatory sentence enhancement, was stretched to reach immigrant workers with low levels of culpability. The Eighth Circuit’s reading produced arbitrary results. These arbitrary results were not necessary, as Congress’s false document scheme provides for independent and flexible punishment when immigrants knowingly use false documents. By extending the charge of aggravated identity theft beyond its intended bounds, the Eighth Circuit’s reading of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A contravened the bedrock criminal law principle that punishment should be calibrated to culpability. This brief argues that the Court should therefore limit its interpretation of the knowledge requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A to reinforce the link between culpability and punishment and avoid undermining Congress’s immigration law.
[pdf] Hawke v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States District Court for the District of Northern California (May 23 2008) (+)
Hawke v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States District Court for the District of Northern California (September 29, 2008). Filed an amicus brief discussing the history and purpose of VAWA Confidentiality created in 1996 (expanded in 2000 and 2005) as Section 384 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). In this case of first impression, the Court clarified that VAWA confidentiality provisions protect victims filing for VAWA immigration relief even if the case is ultimately denied when such denials were not based on the merits. Procedural denials or withdrawals of applications continue to receive the full scope of VAWA Confidentiality eligible protection. (Morgan, Lewis, Pro Bono)
[pdf] In the Matter of M.A. (March 23 2020) Board of Immigration Appeals (+)
In the Matter of M-A. (2020) Brief filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. NIWAP was lead amicus in an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeal in a case of first impression challenging an Immigration Judge’s denial of VAWA cancellation of removal to an LGBTQ+ immigrant victim of spouse abuse who suffered multiple VAWA confidentiality violations including Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement informing the court they planned to call the perpetrator as a witness, submitting an affidavit by the perpetrator that the immigration judge relied upon to deny the victim VAWA cancellation of removal, the immigration court failing to remove the victim’s case from the publicly available computer system and numerous other VAWA confidentiality violations. The brief provided detailed legislative, regulatory and policy history on VAWA confidentiality and discussed each of the numerous VAWA confidentiality violations occurring in this case by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the immigration judge and the immigration courts. (March 24, 2020)
[msword] Perales-Cumpean, Amicus Brief Board of Immigration Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit (October 16 2003) (+)
Perales-Cumpean, A76 386 969, Board of Immigration Appeals (2001), U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit (2003). Amicus brief discussing the any credible evidence standard and the definition of battery or extreme cruelty in an immigrant victim’s Violence Against Women Act suspension of deportation case (National immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, BIA, Arnold and Porter, Pro Bono 10th Circuit)
[pdf] Aguilar-Jimenez Board of Immigration Appeals (2002) (+)
Aguilar-Jimenez, Board of Immigration Appeals (2002). Amicus brief discussing the “extreme cruelty” and “extreme hardship” standards in the context of requests for suspension of deportation under VAWA, specifically that extreme cruelty includes the psychological and emotional abuse imposed on a child who is forced to watch as a parent is battered by another parent. (Crowell and Moring Pro Bono)
[pdf] Rosalina Lopez-Umanzor Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.C. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (2004) (+)
Rosalina Lopez-Umanzor, Board of Immigration Appeals (2004) and the U.C. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (2004). Amicus briefs discussing violations of a victim’s due process rights when an immigration judge denies the victim the opportunity to present expert testimony on domestic violence in a cancellation of removal case and presenting social science data that influences how judges should make credibility determinations in VAWA cancellation of removal cases (Kirkpatrick and Lockhart, Pro Bono 9th Circuit, O’Melveny and Myers, Pro Bono BIA).
[pdf] Obiaga and Berrocal v. Ashcroft, (2005) U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (+)
Obiaga and Berrocal v. Ashcroft, U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (2005). Amicus brief discussing any credible evidence rules and extreme cruelty in VAWA Cancellation of Removal cases. (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild).
[pdf] Nvart-BIA-Appeal-Brief-1 (+)
Nvart Idinyan (formerly Nvart Huckfeldt), Board of Immigration Appeals (2005). Amicus was filed in support of immigration judges finding that plaintiff qualified for cancellation of removal under VAWA and refuting DHS assertion that once a victim reached a “safe house” she should no longer have access to VAWA provisions. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono)
[pdf] Kewan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (2005) (+)
Kewan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (2005). Amicus brief discussing research data and the dynamics of domestic violence against male victims and VAWA’s gender neutrality offering protection to both male and female victims. (Northwest Immigrant Rights Project)
[pdf] Sanchez v. Gonzalez, Amicus Brief U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (November 8 2006) (+)
Sanchez v. Gonzalez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (2006). Amicus brief discussing the Violence Against Women Act’s legislative history and purpose and the special motion to reopen provisions designed for immigrant victims filing VAWA cancellation of removal cases. The trial court and BIA failed to offer Sanchez access to VAWA’s motion to reopen provisions. Additionally, Sanchez’ trial counsel was unfamiliar with VAWA’s special rules and provided Ms. Sanchez with ineffective assistance of counsel. (K&L Gates, Pro Bono).
[pdf] Ramirez Amicus Brief in Support of Appeal, Board of Immigration Appeals (January 26 2007) (+)
Ramirez-Avila, Board of Immigration Appeals (2007). Amicus brief discussing the Violence Against Women Act’s lesser extreme hardship standard and the approach to be taken in VAWA cancellation of removal cases with regard to good moral character. (Arnold and Porter, Pro Bono).
[pdf] Cabezas (2010) US Citizenship and Immigration Service Administrative Appeals Office (+)
Esteban Cabezas is an appeal to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (2010) of a denial of a VAWA self-petition by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Vermont Service Center. This case raises important issues about the any credible evidence standard to be applied in VAWA self-petitioning cases and on immigration related abuse and the role this abuse plays as part of a pattern of extreme cruelty. (Andrew Taylor, Pro Bono)
[pdf] Leiva-Mendoza v. Holder (April 22 2011) United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th Circuit (+)
Leiva-Mendoza v. Holder, United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th Circuit (April 2 2011) discusses how a child’s witnessing of serious domestic violence perpetrated against their parent is a basis for granting VAWA cancellation of removal to children who witness domestic violence perpetrated against their parent even in cases in which the children have not themselves been abused. This amicus brief provided the court with the relevant research data on harm to children of witnessing abuse in the home and argued that requiring proof of “actual harm” to the child is not required to prove “extreme cruelty.”
[pdf] Amicus Brief Matter of MA (March 23, 2020) Board of Immigration Appeals (+)
The amici submit this brief in support of Respondent (“Mr. M.A.”) seeking reversal of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) immigration judge’s October 17, 2019 decision denying Mr. M.A’s petition for (a) Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) cancellation of removal pursuant to Section 240A(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); (b) asylum pursuant to Section 208 of the INA; (c) withholding of removal pursuant to Section 241(b)(3) of the INA; and (d) protection under the Convention Against Torture, pursuant to 8C.F.R.§1208.16. Amici specifically submit this brief requesting the Board of Immigration Appeal (“Board”) to remedy the flagrant and egregious violations of VAWA’s confidentiality provisions that occurred in Mr. M.A.’s detention and removal proceedings. The Board should remedy these violations by terminating the present removal proceedings— a measure envisioned by Congress when it renewed the VAWA legislation in 2005 (see infra Sections III, IV), or, in the alternative, by reversing and remanding this matter to a different immigration judge.
[pdf] Birru v. Wilkinson 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (January 22, 2021) (+)
Aylaliya Assefa Birru v. Barr (January 11 2021) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. NIWAP, represented by
Baker McKenzie, is lead amicus in a brief on behalf of an immigrant domestic
violence victim who is seeking relief under the Violence Against Women Act’s domestic violence victim
waiver in her VAWA cancellation of removal case. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the
immigration judge denied her the ability to present evidence of waiver eligibility.
[pdf] Laura Luis-Hernandez v Ashcroft 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Amicus Brief (Extreme Cruelty) (October 14, 2002) (+)
Amicus Brief on Extreme Cruelty filed in the 9th Circuit on a VAWA suspension of deportation case.
[pdf] Brief of Amicus Curiae NIWAP Rodrigues Tornes 9th Circuit (October 18, 2019) (+)
“Amicus Curiae Brief in Maria Luisa Rodriguez Tornes vs. William P. Barr” NIWAP led an amicus brief with DLA Piper for a case filed in the 9th Circuit discussing how domestic violence victims are able to receive gender-based asylum because they domestic violence they experience is based on their social group membership. NIWAP’s brief documented the cultural, religious and social conditions that domestic violence victims suffer that serves as a valid basis for domestic violence related gender based asylum. This brief provided the social science support for a Tahirih Justice Center case challenging the Attorney General Sessions Justice Department position on domestic violence related gender based asylum cases. October 19, 2019)
[pdf] J.A. v Wolf – NIWAP Amicus Step-Child Case (July 24, 2000) (+)
“Amicus on in Jennifer Arguijo v. Wolf” NIWAP represented by K & L Gates LLP, filed an amicus brief in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals at the request of the National Immigrant Justice Center in a case of a battered immigrant step-child whose self-petition was denied by USCIS. Both the appellant step-child and her mother were abused by the victim’s citizen step-father including sexual abuse of his step-daughter. The step-child’s mother died related to the abuse she had suffered. USCIS and the BIA claimed that the victim’s step-parent/step-child relationship ends with divorce or death. NIWAP’s amicus brief describes how the Immigration and Nationality Act statutory text does not provide an end date for the step-child step-parent relationship and that imposing one is contrary to the legislative history and purpose of the Violence Against Women Act and VAWA self-petitioning. (July 29, 2020).