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 […]
Dynamics, Culture, & Safety > Migration, Acculturation, Integration Immigrant Women
Topic: Migration, Acculturation, Integration Immigrant Women
Research discussing women immigrants experiences
Narrow your search:
[pdf] Training Materials for Victim Advocates and Attorneys (11.28.23) (+)
Training materials for family lawyers, prosecutors, and state family, civil and criminal court judges assisting immigrant crime victims Topics include: U visas, T visas, Family Law cases, VAWA Self-Petitions, VAWA Confidentiality, Public Benefits, Best Practices, Language Access, Webinars, Podcasts and more.
[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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Immigrant Crime Victims Social Science Bibliography (+)
Bibliography of social science research relating to immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking through 2013.
[pdf] Dreams Lost, Dreams Found: Undocumented Women in the Land of Opportunity (+)
This study was designed to identify problems and social service needs of undocumented Filipina, Latina, and Chinese women in the Bay Area. Undocumented women in the Bay Area are a growing and neglected population in need of services. This study examines the factors causing increased migration by women to the U.S., and how these factors influence women’s lives once they are here. Findings of this study reveal the economic hardship of undocumented women and their families and provide insight into immigrant women’s experiences with domestic violence. This survey was the precursor to the survey conducted in the early 1990s by Ayuda.