|The Colorado Lawyer|
Vol. 32, No. 3 [Page 43]
© 2003 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved.
All material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is copyrighted by the Colorado Bar Association. Before accessing any specific article, click here for disclaimer information.
CBA Family Violence Program
Applications for Immigration Status Under the Violence Against Women Act
by Gail Pendleton, Ann Block
This department is published quarterly to provide information about domestic violence and CBA Family Violence Program activities.
Gail Pendleton is Associate Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (“NIPNLG”), co-chair of the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, and recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s 2001 Human Rights Award. Ann Block teaches the Immigrant Legal Resource Center immigration law curriculum for paralegals, community advocates, and new practitioners in Sacramento and is a solo practitioner in Davis and Sacramento, California, focusing on family immigration, criminal issues in deportation/removal defense, asylum, and naturalization. The authors thank Emily Curray, a partner with the firm of Stern and Elkind, LLP, Denver—(303) 692-0111, and Kathleen Schoen, Director of the CBA Family Violence Program, Colorado Bar Association, Denver—(303) 824-5305, for editing this article for publication in The Colorado Lawyer.
A version of this article appeared in the Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook (American Immigration Lawyers Association, 2001-02) and excerpts are reprinted with permission. © 2001 American Immigration Lawyer Association.
At the end of 2000, Congress passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (hereafter, "Trafficking Act"),1 which contained significant amendments to the immigration provisions of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA")2 and created two new nonimmigrant visas for noncitizen crime victims. This article3 describes existing law and practice under VAWA, and suggests winning strategies ("practice pointers") to provide some assistance to practitioners when working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to administratively resolve individual and systemic problems.
Although women file the vast majority of VAWA applications, reflecting the well-documented gender power differential underlying much domestic violence, many male self-petitioners also apply for VAWA status (perhaps because the power differential created by lack of immigration status creates conditions conducive to abuse). However, where gender neutrality conflicts with stylistic simplicity, this article employs the generic female.
The recently enacted Trafficking Act marks the fourth time Congress has expanded immigration relief for noncitizen domestic violence survivors, revealing its profound and ongoing commitment to helping this class of noncitizens. INS personnel responsible for implementing the VAWA self-petitioning provisions honor this manifest intent. Convincing the rest of INS, INS trial attorneys, and the immigration judges in the Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR") to match this commitment remains a major task for immigration attorneys and service providers, as well as for advocates for noncitizen domestic violence survivors.
In the traditional family-based petition process, noncitizens must rely on their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relatives to file applications, rendering them particularly vulnerable to abusive sponsors. Congress first addressed this problem in 1990 with the battered spouse waiver to the joint petition requirement for "conditional permanent residence."4 It soon became evident that this remedied only part of the problem; many spouses and parents failed to file petitions for their noncitizen relatives, using their control of the immigration process as a weapon of abuse. In the VAWA of 1994, Congress added two new forms of immigration relief to help this latter population: "VAWA self-petitioning" and "VAWA suspension of deportation."5
In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRAIRA") reframed VAWA suspension of deportation as VAWA cancellation of removal and included several exemptions to new grounds of inadmissibility for noncitizen victims of domestic violence.6 Finally, in October 2000, President Clinton signed the Trafficking Act, which removed many of the problems noncitizens encounter in pursuing VAWA status.7 The Act also included new nonimmigrant visas leading to adjustment of status for other victims of crimes, including domestic violence survivors who do not qualify for VAWA relief.
The statutes assisting noncitizen domestic violence survivors appear below in the order in which Congress created them. Practitioners should familiarize themselves with these laws to represent noncitizen clients most effectively.
Immigration and Nationality Act
The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")8 has been modified several times. The 1990 amendments to the INA9 included a "battered spouse waiver" for the joint petition requirement for conditional residents. The waiver requires that a battered spouse demonstrate that she entered into the marriage in good faith, and that either she or her child has been the victim of battering or extreme cruelty by her spouse. Congress further modified this section of the INA in 1994 to require the INS to accept "any credible evidence" for this waiver. Although INS has acknowledged that this changed the standard applied by INS,10 as of the date of this article, it has not modified its regulations to conform to Congressional intent.
Violence Against Women Act
The VAWA created a new "self-petitioning" process allowing the abused spouse or child of a lawful permanent resident or a U.S. citizen, or the parent of an abused child, to file a family preference visa petition on his or her own behalf without the participation of the abusive spouse or parent.11 Under these provisions, a self-petitioner had to show that he or she had "good moral character"; entered into the marriage in good faith (if the petitioner is the spouse of a citizen or lawful permanent resident); was the victim of abuse or the parent of a victim of abuse; and would suffer extreme hardship if deported. In 2000, the Trafficking Act eliminated the extreme hardship requirement for self-petitioners and expanded the class of those eligible. Those classes are
12 and lawful permanent residents13
• spouses and children of U.S. citizens
• spouses and children of lawful permanent residents who lost their status within the past two years "due to an incident of domestic violence"14
• applicants who were spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents within two years of filing, who demonstrate "a connection between the legal termination of the marriage . . . and battering or extreme cruelty" by the qualifying abuser15
• spouses of deceased U.S. citizens who file their applications within two years of the citizen’s death16
• spouses of U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident bigamists who show they "believed" they had married a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident "with whom a marriage ceremony was actually performed."17
To accommodate this last category, the Trafficking Act also added a definition of "intended spouse"18 and qualified the good-faith marriage requirement, as noted below.19 Spouses and children of undocumented abusers are not covered by the VAWA expansion, but may benefit from the new "U" visa, also discussed below. Once an individual has a self-petition approved, she is eligible to apply to adjust her status to "lawful permanent resident" (apply for a green card).20
The VAWA also created a new three-year suspension of deportation provision for abused spouses and children of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens, and for parents of abused children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.21 The IIRAIRA transformed this special suspension into three-year cancellation of removal.22 Applicants must show three years of continuous physical presence in the United States, good moral character, and extreme hardship if deported. The Trafficking Act did not remove extreme hardship in cancellation of removal as it did for self-petitioning. It did expand the class of those eligible to include domestic violence survivors whose abusers have lost status or are bigamists.23
The IIRAIRA exempted battered immigrants from part of the ground of inadmissibility based on unlawful presence in the United States24 and from the requirement that family-based petitioners file enforceable affidavits of support to overcome the public charge ground of inadmissibility.25 In 2000, the Trafficking Act expanded these exceptions and created several new waivers to other grounds of inadmissibility.26
In an extremely important provision, IIRAIRA § 384 prohibits any employee of the Department of Justice (which includes INS and EOIR) from making adverse determinations on admissibility or deportability using information furnished solely by the applicant’s abuser, an abusive member of the applicant’s household, or someone who has abused the applicant’s child.27 It also prohibits the "use by or disclosure to anyone," except to other INS officers "for legitimate . . . agency purposes," of information relating to self-petitioners, conditional residents requesting battered spouse waivers, and applicants for cancellation of removal.28
Moreover, any INS officer, INS attorney, or immigration judge who "willfully uses, publishes, or permits information to be disclosed in violation of this section shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action and subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation."29 (Emphasis added.) These prohibitions and penalties apply to any act by an INS officer, INS trial attorney, or immigration judge that took place on or after September 30, 1996.30
The Trafficking Act
Many noncitizens abused by U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses or parents found they were ineligible to file self-petitions or VAWA cancellation applications for a variety of reasons beyond their control. The Trafficking Act makes both forms of relief available to many of these noncitizens. It expands waivers and exceptions for good moral character problems, creates and expands waivers for inadmissibility and deportability grounds affecting VAWA applicants, and eliminates the extreme hardship requirement for self-petitioners. It also allows all approved self-petitioners to adjust their status under INA § 245(a) and exempts them from the bars under § 245(c).31
Moreover, the Trafficking Act establishes liberal motions to reopen for VAWA suspension and cancellation applicants, exempts them from the "stop-time" provisions cutting off accrual of the required three-years’ continuous presence with the hearing notice, and mandates parole for their derivatives32 until they can adjust on their own. It excepts approved VAWA applicants from the "living in marital union" requirement for three-year naturalization and allows abused spouses and children of beneficiaries of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act,33 Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998,34 and Cuban Adjustment Act35 to file independently under these acts. Last, but not least, the Trafficking Act creates the new "U" and "T" nonimmigrant visas for victims of crime and of trafficking, respectively (see discussion below). Both of these visas may lead to lawful permanent residence.
A few practical suggestions may help practitioners to resolve individual and systemic problems when advising clients who face INS status concerns. The following practice pointers are not inclusive, but highlight some significant issues.
Any Credible Evidence Standard
Congress dictated that both the INS36 and EOIR37 apply a liberal "any credible evidence" standard to all VAWA applications and to battered spouse waivers.38 While attorneys should strive to find traditional primary and secondary evidence, it is appropriate for them to be creative if such efforts are fruitless. The INS recognizes that evidence normally available to family-based petitioners may not be readily accessible because of the dynamics of domestic violence. A particularly helpful memorandum by then-General-Counsel Paul Virtue explains this approach to the Administrative Appeals Unit (charged with handling self-petition appeals).39
Battering or Extreme Cruelty
A self-petitioner must be "battered" or "the subject of extreme cruelty."40 These terms include, but are not limited to, "being the victim of any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention, which results or threatens to result in physical or mental injury."41 Acts of violence include "[p]sychological or sexual abuse or exploitation, including rape, molestation, incest (if the victim is a minor), or forced prostitution," as well as "other abusive actions . . . that, in and of themselves, may not initially appear violent but that are a part of an overall pattern of violence."42
It is important that immigration attorneys collaborate with domestic violence counselors on VAWA cases. Advocates are often in the best position to elicit information on proof sources and to help their clients obtain the documentation they will need to win their self-petitions.
Battering and Cruelty to Children
Battering or extreme cruelty to children may support both a self-petition by the child and a self-petition by the child’s parent. It often is abuse to the child that ultimately leads the mother to seek help. Discovering and assisting abused children requires special care for both psychological and legal reasons. Children who have lived in abusive households probably would benefit from counseling, regardless of whether it provides evidence for an immigration application. Some state departments of social services, however, will attempt to remove abused children from the mother’s care, even if the father is the perpetrator. This may result not only in harm to the child and mother, but may implicate "good moral character" issues for the mother’s self-petition.
Teachers are one good source of leads to the child’s experience. If the child has not suffered physical abuse at the hands of the parent, the practitioners may persuasively argue that witnessing abuse to a parent constitutes extreme cruelty. Children who witness abuse often experience severe psychological trauma, behavioral disorders, age regression, loss of sense of safety, and violent behavior. Moreover, practitioners may advise children who do not have parents in the United States, who have been abandoned by their parents, or who are abused by both parents to consider applying for "special immigrant juvenile" status.43
Divorce and Remarriage
Self-petitioners may divorce before filing self-petitions, as long as they file within two years of the divorce and show a connection between the divorce and domestic violence.44 In addition, the Trafficking Act explicitly states that remarriage by self-petitioners "shall not be the basis for revocation of a petition approval."45 The statute provides the same protection against revocation for child self-petitioners who marry,46 although it is not clear how married child self-petitioners whose abusers were lawful permanent residents can adjust status.
The Dangers of Travel
Many approved self-petitioners assume they are authorized to travel with approved self-petitions. This is inaccurate. If they leave the United States without "advance parole,"47 they may be unable to return. They may have triggered unlawful presence bars48 that they must overcome at adjustment, even if they return on advance parole. If they reenter without permission, they could be permanently barred from becoming a permanent resident unless they can show a connection between the abuse and their departure/reentry into the United States.49 Practitioners should thoroughly brief their clients about the risks of traveling and of making false claims to U.S. citizenship at any time, including upon re-entry into the United States.50 Explaining the consequences of unauthorized travel and the expedited removal process to clients should instill a healthy fear in them of the risks of leaving the United States.
The IIRAIRA gave low-level INS officers at the border and at international airports the power to expel noncitizens because they lack entry documents or use fraudulent documents.51 This new form of deportation, called summary (or expedited) removal, has the same extremely serious consequences for a noncitizen as being deported after a full-fledged immigration hearing.52 As expected, the new power is proving a serious problem and, as of the date of this writing, the federal courts have not stepped in to fix it.
Although all VAWA self-petitioners file their applications with the specially trained adjudicators at the INS Vermont Service Center, they must apply for lawful permanent residence at their local INS district office. The Denver District INS Office is amenable to holding pending adjustment of status applications for VAWA applicants.53 If a VAWA client’s spouse has petitioned on her behalf, based on the marriage, and the application is still pending, practitioners should notify the Denver INS Office as soon as they know they will be filing a self-petition on behalf of a client. If the interview notice has not yet been sent, they should ask that the adjustment application be held in abeyance until the VAWA petition can be adjudicated and substituted for the marriage petition.
Practitioners also should interfile a notice of counsel with the appropriate INS Service Center and request that they be notified of the interview (sadly, the success rate of such a request is low because interfiled documents often are not filed). If they do receive the interview notice, they can then follow up with the Denver INS Office.
If the interview date has passed, practitioners should inquire as to the status of the case and the possibility of not placing the client into removal proceedings until the self-petition and concomitant application for deferred action can be adjudicated. Depending on circumstances, it may be wise to quickly file a self-petition with basic evidence, which will suffice for a prima facie determination, and then gather additional evidence that can be submitted if the INS requests more evidence.
Many VAWA applicants are from countries where their spouses must agree to or grant permission for a divorce. Therefore, it is important to make sure clients understand that Colorado law does not require the abusive spouse’s permission for divorce. However, assuming the client is safely away from the abuser, it may be in her best interest to delay filing for divorce until after the VAWA self-petition is filed.
If the abusive spouse responds to divorce proceedings by contacting the INS and alleging that the VAWA applicant married him only to obtain permanent residence, the practitioner at least can point to the fact that the VAWA self-petition has been filed and, therefore, the allegations of the spouse cannot be the sole basis of INS action.54 In contrast, if the VAWA self-petition has not yet been filed, the VAWA client is in a defensive posture with the INS. Many clients may want to file for divorce as soon as possible regardless, and the law no longer precludes them from waiting until after the application is filed.
New U and T Visas
The Trafficking Act created two new nonimmigrant visas for noncitizen victims of crimes. Both visas are designed to provide immigration status for noncitizens who are assisting or willing to assist authorities investigating crimes.55 After three years, both U and T visa-holders may apply for lawful permanent residence. On January 31, 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice issued interim regulations governing non-immigrant T visas.56 The INS has not yet issued regulations governing U visas, but will grant other temporary status to those who are eligible until there is a process for applying.57 In the meantime, those who qualify should be advised to start collecting the documentation they will need.
U Visa Eligibility
The U visa is designed for noncitizen crime victims who have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse flowing from criminal activity and who have mustered the courage to cooperate with government officials investigating or prosecuting such criminal activity. Victims of a broad range of criminal activity listed in the legislation may qualify for U visas. Many of these victims will be women and children and include, but are not limited to, victims of domestic violence, nannies subjected to abuse from their employers, human trafficking victims, and victims of rape in the workplace. To qualify for a U visa, a noncitizen must
58 as the result of one of the following forms of criminal activity (or "similar" activity): rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sexual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution; sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation; being held hostage; peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment; blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; murder; felonious assault; witness tampering; obstruction of justice; perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above mentioned crimes;59
1) show that she has suffered "substantial physical or mental abuse"
2) show that she possesses information concerning the criminal activity;60 and
3) provide a certification from a federal, state, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or authority investigating criminal activity designated in the statute that states that the U visa applicant is being, has been, or is likely to be helpful to the investigation or prosecution of designated criminal activity.61
T Visa Eligibility
The T visa is similar to the U visa, but designed specifically for those who have been subjected to trafficking for sex or labor.62 Only victims of "severe forms of trafficking" are eligible for relief under the Trafficking Act.63 Severe forms of trafficking are
1) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or
2) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or service, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
Noncitizen victims of trafficking may file applications for T visas with the INS unit that adjudicates VAWA self-petitions.
Congress and the INS have demonstrated a strong commitment to helping battered immigrants flee abusive citizens and lawful permanent residents. However, practitioners should not expect the statute and regulations to provide adequate guidance. Studying internal INS memoranda and following practice pointers suggested by the INS and advocates for battered immigrants are essential to winning VAWA cases. Also, practitioners should work with local advocates for victims of domestic violence to enhance case preparation and presentation. For further training materials, information on organizing a training, and technical assistance in individual cases, counsel may contact the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.65
1. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 114 Stat. 1464, Pub.L. No. 106–386 (Oct. 28, 2000) (hereafter, "Trafficking Act").
2. Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1902–55, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1154, 1186a, 1254, and 2245 (1994) (hereafter, "VAWA").
3. The original article and other information on the subject can be accessed on the website of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild: http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org, then click on "domestic violence, U visas, and Trafficking."
4. "Conditional permanent residence" is the status granted a noncitizen who has been approved for permanent residence based on marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, but who has been married less than two years (after two years as a conditional permanent resident, such a noncitizen can apply to remove the condition and thereby obtain full lawful permanent residence status).
5. VAWA, supra, note 2, amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, infra, note 8, at §§ 204 and 244.
6. Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996 (H.R. 3610), Pub.L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009 (hereafter, "IIRAIRA").
7. Supra, note 1.
8. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub.L. No. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1110 et seq.) (hereafter, "INA").
9. Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101–649, 104 Stat. 4978.
10. See Aleinikoff, Exec. Assoc. Comm’r, Office of Programs, INS Mem. HQ 204-P at ii (April 16, 1996) (available from the National Immigration Project, supra, note 3) ("This change in the statute prohibits the INS from requiring the recommendation of a mental health professional or any other specific form of evidence to support a Form I-751 waiver based on abuse or extreme cruelty.").
11. Supra, note 2.
12. INA § 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(AA) and (A)(iv).
13. INA § 204(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(AA) and (B)(iii).
14. INA § 204(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(CC)(aaa) and (B)(iii).
15. INA § 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(CC)(ccc) and (B)(ii)(II)(aa)(CC)(bbb).
16. INA § 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(CC)(aaa).
17. INA § 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(BB) and (B)(ii)(II)(aa)(BB).
18. INA § 101(a)(50).
19. See, e.g., INA § 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I).
20. INA § 245(a) and (c).
21. See former INA § 244(a)(3).
22. INA § 240A(b)(2). Those who received charging documents (Orders to Show Cause) before April 1, 1997, may pursue VAWA suspension of deportation; those who received charging documents (Notices to Appear) after that date may pursue VAWA cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 240.40 (Orders to Show Cause). This rule is important for clients now eligible to file the new VAWA motions to reopen.
23. See INA § 240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(III).
24. INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(ii) and (a)(9)(B).
25. INA § 212(a)(4)(C)(i).
26. See, e.g., INA § 212(a)(9)(C), (i), and (h).
27. IIRAIRA § 384(a)(1).
28. IIRAIRA § 384(a)(2).
29. IIRAIRA § 384(c).
30. IIRAIRA § 384(d)(2).
31. See generally note 1, supra. "Adjustment of status" is the application for permanent residence made by individuals who are physically present in the United States. The first line of INA § 245(a) specifically states that such application is available for individuals who were "inspected and admitted or paroled" into the United States. This means adjustment under § 245(a) is available only for those who legally entered the United States and were inspected by an immigration officer. The Trafficking Act added a specific section that allows for any alien who is eligible as a VAWA applicant to apply for adjustment. This means that a self-petitioning abused spouse can apply to adjust to permanent residence even if she entered the United States illegally or worked without authorization, both of which are normally barred under INA § 245(c).
32. A "derivative" is a spouse or child (less than 21 years of age) of a principal applicant who gets the same benefit as the principal applicant simply based on the relationship and by applying for the benefit. For example, when a woman applies for permanent residence based on her employment, her spouse and children can apply for permanent residence as her dependents. Similarly, the children of a VAWA applicant can apply for permanent residence as the applicant’s dependents. Allowing derivatives to be paroled into the U.S. until they are eligible to adjust provides them a way to join their mothers before they can apply for legal status.
33. Pub.L. No. 105–139, 111 Stat. 2644.
34. Pub.L. No. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (Div. A, Title IX).
35. Pub.L. No. 89–732, 80 Stat. 1161.
36. INA § 204(a)(1)(H).
37. INA § 240A(b)(2)(D).
38. INA § 216(c)(4)(C).
39. See Virtue, Office of the General Counsel, "‘Extreme Hardship’ and Documentary Requirements Involving Battered Spouses and Children," Mem. to Terrance O’Reilly, Dir., Admin. Appeals Office, INS Mem. HQ 90/15-P, HQ 70/8-P at 7 (Oct. 16, 1998), reprinted in 76(4) Interpreter Releases 162 (Jan. 25, 1999), available on National Immigration Project website; see note 3, supra.
40. INA §§ 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I)(bb) and (iv) and 204(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(bb) and (iii).
41. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(1)(vi) and (e)(1)(vi).
43. INA § 101(a)(27)(J). The Immigrant Legal Resource Center provides technical assistance and coordinates policy work on special immigrant juveniles. Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103; phone: (415) 255-9499; fax: (415) 255-9792.
44. INA § 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(CC)(ccc) and (B)(ii)(II)(aa)(CC)(bbb).
45. INA § 204(h).
47. "Advance parole" is permission to travel for certain aliens and manifests in travel documents. Under INA § 212(d)(5), the Attorney General can parole someone into the United States, but such parole is not considered an admission; thus, individuals who enter this way remain "parolees."
48. Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B), individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days, and then depart, cannot return for three years; individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States for one year, and then depart, cannot return for ten years, unless they first obtain a waiver based on extreme hardship to a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
49. INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(ii).
50. See INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
51. INA § 235(b)(1)(a)(i).
52. See, e.g., INA § 212(a)(9)(A).
53. Policy of Denver District Office of the INS as communicated to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Colorado Chapter, by INS Assistant District Director for Exams (Jan. 2003).
54. See IIRAIRA § 384.
55. See generally Trafficking Act, supra, note 1.
56. 67 Fed. Reg. 4784 (Jan. 31, 2002).
57. See the National Immigration Project website, supra, note 3, for INS memoranda on interim relief for U visa-eligible noncitizens, strategy suggestions developed with INS personnel, and sample forms for law enforcement personnel to use in the U visa process.
58. INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(i)(I).
59. INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(iii).
60. INA § 101(a)(15)(U)(i)(II).
61. INA §§ 101(a)(15)(U)(i)(III) and 214(o)(1).
62. For more information and practice pointers on filing for T visas, see the "Trafficking" section of the National Immigration Project website, supra, note 3.
63. INA § 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(1).
64. Trafficking Act at § 103(8) (the trafficking provisions are in the "Trafficking" section of the National Immigration Project website, supra, note 3).
65. For information on trainings, the National Network to End Violence Against Women, or for technical assistance with individual cases, contact Gail Pendleton at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2003 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. Material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and may not be reproduced in any way or medium without permission. This material also is subject to the disclaimers at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/disclaimer.cfm?year=2003.