[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

[pdf] How to Argue or Rule on VAWA Confidentiality Protections in Discovery Involving Immigrant Survivors (November 18, 2022) (+)

Step-by-step guide for attorneys and judges on VAWA confidentiality and discovery with links to resources, tools, case law, Amicus Briefs, and sample bench briefs and motions.

[pdf] EEOC v. Dimare Ruskin Inc. (February 15, 2012) (+)

Entering a protective order on discovery into the claimants’ immigration status because “[t]he EEOC’s mission of protecting victims of employment discrimination would be hampered if potential victims are unwilling to come forward and cooperate because of fear of removal or other immigration consequences.”

[pdf] EEOC v. Bice of Chicago (July 18, 2005) (+)

Entering a protective order prohibiting discovery into immigration status because “questions about immigration status are oppressive, they constitute a substantial burden on the parties and on the public interest and they would have a chilling effect on victims of employment discrimination from coming forward to assert discrimination claims.”

[pdf] Molnar v. Margaret W. Wong Assocs. Co. L.P.A. (April 22, 2021) (+)

The Court of Appeals found that in cases where the victim obtained the U visa and permanent resident status because of egregious legal malpractice committed by the victims’ former attorneys, defendants were entitled to obtain that information in order to prepare a defense. The Court observed that at the time the trial court ruled on […]

[pdf] Guillen v. B.J.C.R. LLC (March 31, 2022) (+)

In a motion to compel production of plaintiff’s immigration records, the Court found the U Visa information was relevant to plaintiff’s motive and potentially probative of fraud because plaintiff appeared to acknowledge the relevance of the documents as she agreed to request them from USCIS and produce them subject to a tailored protective order; Defendant's […]

[pdf] Washington v. Horning Bros. LLC (May 14, 2018) (+)

The Court granted the Plaintiffs- Intervenors’ request for a protective order prohibiting discovery of their U visa immigration status. The Court weighed Plaintiffs-Intervenor’s fears for themselves and others of possible detention, removal, criminal prosecution, and job loss if forced to disclose U visa information. The Court held that the “[…] chilling effect, public policy concerns, […]

[pdf] Walsh v. Unforgettable Coatings, Inc. (August 23, 2022) (+)

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)action where the Court found that although Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to limit the deposition of the Department of Labor’s Regional Coordinator for Workplace Crimes, defendants have the right to explore inconsistencies with plaintiff’s statements in regard to immigration applications on a limited basis. The Court found that the deposition […]

[pdf] Memorandum on People v. Alvarez (March 15, 2019) (+)

This document is for educational use only. The decision did not discuss or pointed out how the defendant knew the victim had applied for a U visa. The decision held that the exclusion of u visa evidence was constitutional and within the court’s discretion. However, VAWA confidentiality is not discussed or presented as an argument before the court.

[pdf] US v. Brown (October 28, 2003) (+)

The court found that the defendant’s right to confront witnesses was not violated when he was denied access to the witness’s immigration file and was not allowed to call an expert witness regarding the unusual immigration circumstances of the witness. The court found that the cross-examination of the witness sufficiently addressed bias/motive.

[pdf] Hawke vs. U.S. (U.S. District Ct. 2008) (+)

This case concluded that VAWA Confidentiality protects all cases unless it’s denied on the merits. The 6th Amendment right to compulsory process does not permit access to absolutely privileged information, and judicial exception applies to appeal victim’s immigration case, not state family, civil, or criminal cases.

[pdf] Demaj v. Sakaj (March 18, 2013) (+)

The case found that seeking VAWA confidentiality protected information through custody case discovery is barred by federal statute, and VAWA confidentiality applies even when the victim disclosed that their crime victim related immigration case was approved.

[pdf] Utilizing VAWA Confidentiality Protections in Family and Criminal Court Cases (February 17, 2017) (+)

Chapter of a publication on issues that arise in family court cases involving immigrant crime victims pending publication. This chapter discusses VAWA confidentiality protections and their impact in state court proceedings. While the emphasis of the article is on family court cases, the discussion is also useful in criminal court cases. This article discusses the Hawke, Demaj and Koch cases on VAWA confidentiality.

[pdf] Court Rulings Confirm Federal VAWA Confidentiality Protections Bar Discovery of VAWA Confidentiality Protected Information in State Family Court Proceedings (+)

This factsheet provides an introduction to VAWA confidentiality, an overview of the decisions in Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security and Demaj v. Sakaj, and implications of the Hawke and Demaj decisions in state family court cases.