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)
Esteban Cabezas, 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)
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)
Laura Luis Hernandez v. Ashcroft, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (2002). Amicus brief describing the dynamics of domestic violence and extreme cruelty experienced by immigrant victims and the legislative history and purpose of the Violence Against Women Act’s immigration provisions offering suspension of deportation for immigrant victims of battering or extreme cruelty. The 9th Circuit sited the material contained in the brief in its opinion. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono)
Leiva-Mendoza v. Holder, United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th Circuit (August 9 2010) 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.”
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)
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).
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)
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).
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).
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).