Gender Violence Survivors Seeking Asylum Need Our Protection

Hon. Judy H. Kluger
Hon. Judy H. Kluger

Last week, President Trump addressed the nation to warn of “a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.” His administration’s rhetoric and immigration policies are endangering the lives of survivors of gender violence. Read our statement.

On Tuesday night, President Trump used his address to the nation to argue for a border wall that he says will make our nation safer. Sanctuary for Families believes that the President’s statement failed to address the deep-rooted issues in our immigration system and instead, focused on policies that would further harm and endanger refugees and other vulnerable immigrants, including survivors of gender-based violence.

At Sanctuary, we work with gender violence survivors, 70% of whom are immigrants. Many are seeking asylum due to extreme intimate partner violence, female genital mutilation (FGM), and/or death threats they experienced in their home countries. Some have been tricked or forced into the U.S. by traffickers. Some come directly to New York. Others have been detained at the U.S.-Mexico border, itself dangerous and re-traumatizing, and eventually, make it to New York where organizations like Sanctuary can help.

For those currently stuck on the Mexican side of the border, however, the consequences can be deadly. Due to the Administration’s new metering system, thousands of adults and children, most of whom are seeking asylum, will have to wait weeks, even months, before making their plea for protection in the U.S. Sleeping on streets or in over-crowded migrant shelters, their desperation and fear only increase, and they become more vulnerable to the kind of violence they fled in the first place.

To be clear, seeking asylum at any of our borders is not illegal. Turning asylum seekers away, however, is a cruel violation of international law. We need policies that protect survivors of gender violence seeking refuge within our borders and provide clear pathways to legal status, not ones that scapegoat immigrant communities and use their lives as political tools. To these ends, Sanctuary is taking action.

Every day, Sanctuary provides free high-quality legal representation to ensure that immigrant gender violence survivors receive the committed advocacy they need to present their best case for immigration status. Here in New York, we advocate for State legislation to better protect our immigrant communities and deepen our partnerships with fellow immigration agencies. Across the country, we partner with advocates to push for a functional immigration system and rational border policy.

For over 30 years, Sanctuary has served survivors of gender violence regardless of immigration status. As we enter the New Year, we reaffirm our long-held commitment to our immigrant communities both here in New York and across the border. Thank you for standing with us.

Warmly,

Hon. Judy H. Kluger
Executive Director, Sanctuary for Families

 

A Call to Reject the Proposed Public Charge Rule

Sonia Mansoor and Nabah Ikram

As the end of the public comment period approaches, we invite you to learn about the severity of the changes to the Public Charge rule and urge you to submit comments to DHS by December 10, 2018.

Sonia Mansoor is Manager of Public Benefits Legal Advocacy and Nabah Ikram is the Immigration Specialist at Sanctuary’s Immigration Intervention Project. They are co-chairs of Sanctuary’s Public Charge Advocacy Subcommittee. 

—

Sanctuary for Families stands with immigrant survivors of violence in condemning the proposed changes to the “Public Charge” doctrine that will detrimentally impact the well-being and health of vulnerable communities including children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

As the public comment period ends tonight, we invite you to learn about the severity of these changes and urge you to join us in preventing the implementation of this heartless rule by submitting comments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today.

WHAT IS PUBLIC CHARGE?

To enter the United States or to obtain lawful permanent residence, certain noncitizens have to demonstrate that they are unlikely to become a “public charge,” which currently refers to someone who is “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.” On October 10, 2018, however, DHS published new provisions that broaden this definition to “someone who receives one or more public benefits.”

Currently, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can deny adjustment to Legal Permanent Resident Status or admission to the United States to individuals who have received public cash assistance or institutionalization for long term care. Under these proposed changes, USCIS will also consider participation in the following programs in a public charge determination:

  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Non-emergency Medicaid
  • Low-income subsidies under Medicare Part D
  • Housing choice vouchers, project-based subsidies, and public housing ­­­­

The proposed regulation also adds criteria to the “totality of circumstances” evaluated in each determination and changes the weights attributed to certain “positive” and “negative” factors. Among the heavily-weighted negative factors are current or recent unemployment, current receipt of public benefits, and a lack of unsubsidized health insurance.

HOW DO THESE CHANGES IN THE PUBLIC CHARGE RULE RELATE TO ISSUES OF GENDER VIOLENCE?

While there are important exceptions to the proposed rule – including refugees, asylum applicants, victims of domestic violence and other serious crimes, VAWA self-petitioners, special immigrant juveniles –  there is no guarantee that such exceptions will provide sufficient protection to vulnerable communities. At Sanctuary, we are seeing that a significant number of survivors of domestic violence and sex trafficking, confused by the new rule’s language and its arbitrary standards, are already cancelling critical public assistance benefits to which they may be legally entitled.

Lori Adams, Director of Sanctuary’s Immigration Intervention Project (IIP), explained the risks that this new regulation poses to immigrant survivors and their families:

Poverty and homelessness are the high prices that many immigrant survivors of gender-based violence pay to escape abuse. At Sanctuary for Families, we see this firsthand with our clients, over 75% of whom are immigrants. Many survivors, often with small children, are afraid of being forced to return to dangerous and abusive situations due to lack of resources. The fear is that the Administration’s proposed “public charge” rule will discourage them from applying for public benefits and housing assistance.  They may, consequently, be faced with an impossible choice, between feeding their children or pursuing immigration status that could save their lives.

JOIN US IN TAKING ACTION NOW!

Sanctuary is committed to pushing back against the incremental erosion of the rights of immigrant survivors seeking protection in this country. Our Public Charge Advocacy Committee has been working with Cohen & Gresser LLP in developing desk aids and flyers for our clients and staff members that clarify whether someone of a particular immigration status would be deemed a public charge. Furthermore, the firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP drafted Sanctuary’s official comments on the Public Charge Rule for submission to the DHS.

Finally, our Survivor Leaders and staff members drafted and submitted individual and department-specific comments after being trained by members of Sanctuary’s Public Charge Advocacy Committee. Below are some of the comments our Survivor Leaders submitted to the DHS:

Submitter: Anonymous

I am a legal resident alien originally from the Dominican Republic. I am currently on disability benefits because of bipolar disorder. Previous to my status of disability I have worked since I was in Junior High School. Also, though I am not working at the moment, I am an active member of my church where I volunteer many hours. Also, I volunteer in my community helping fellow tenants understand their rights to prevent homelessness. Lastly, I am a mentor at Sanctuary for Families, a non-profit organization, and educate the community on domestic violence.

To assume that because a person has a need today that they will be forever a charge on the system is short sighted. Although I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1992 and am a survivor of domestic violence I have managed to raise two independent women. My oldest daughter graduated from George School and Haverford College; she also has a Master’s Degree from Middlebury College. My youngest daughter, who quit college (she was working on a Bachelors in Engineering at Syracuse University) has a good job in the retail industry.

I suspect that there are many people who are applying for entry to this country that fit this profile. I urge you to reconsider this decision especially in this country made by immigrants. Ultimately, the United States is the one that’s going to suffer as immigrants bring fresh ideas. Einstein was an immigrant! Remember him? Please remove this regulation.

Submitter: Guadalupe

I recommend the department security please take a moment and thinking about these families who receive some public assistance.

I am a mother of 3 children and work every day to clean houses and the food stamps help to have food on my table. My 2 older children was in the college and that benefit help me for they went to the college. If I did not take the benefit my children did not got the education because they needs to work and help me to pay the bills for my house.

This is not only my history. We are many families and work every day but the bills are so expensive in New York.

Please thinking about this families, Medicaid help to families for health care, and the other benefits is for food of the children.

Submitter: Deyanira

In my opinion the proposed regulation will hurt a lot of families because the people who apply for public assistance are low income and are in poverty. I work with the community and I know them. There are so many people who are immigrants and they didn’t apply for public benefits for themselves, but for their children. I work with Mixteca community, Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB), Parent Teacher Association (PTA) President, Community Education Council (CEC) of District 14, and also I am a Survivor Leader for Sanctuary for Families. I will be affected because I do not have any immigration status.

The public comment period is about to end, but you can still take action and help protect the rights of survivors of gender violence and their families. Submit a comment requesting the DHS to withdraw the proposed “Inadmissibility on public charge grounds” rule here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2010-0012-0001

Davis Polk Attorneys Help Trafficking Victim Tell Her Story, Secure T-Visa, and Aid in the Successful Prosecution of Her Traffickers

Sam Zeidman
Sam Zeidman

At this year’s Above & Beyond Awards, we’re honoring a team of attorneys from Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP for their dedicated advocacy on behalf of their client, “Jie,” in her successful T-Visa application. Read to learn more.

Sam Zeidman is a Software Developer at Red Rabbit, LLC in New York. From 2012 through 2017 he was an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell in the Litigation Department.

—

At this year’s Above & Beyond Pro Bono Achievement Awards and Benefit, Sanctuary for Families is honoring a team of attorneys from Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP for their dedicated and powerful advocacy on behalf of their client, “Jie,” in her successful T-Visa application. The team consisted of former associate Lisa Doolittle, Associates Hanbing Zhang and Iris Hsiao, Partner Po Sit, and Special Counsel for Pro Bono Sharon Katz.

A Nexus of Vulnerability: From Domestic Abuse to Trafficking

Jie was living in China, married with children to an abusive husband. After their divorce her ex-husband took custody of their children because Jie lacked the financial resources to raise them. Jie sought employment so that she could earn money to win back custody of her children. She found what she thought was a promising job cleaning houses in the U.S. Despite not speaking English and having no connections in the U.S., she took the job.

Upon arrival in the U.S., it immediately became clear to Jie that the job she was promised was a sham. Instead, she was expected to engage in sexual acts in hotels and massage parlors. From the moment of entry to the U.S., every aspect of Jie’s life was controlled by her traffickers; unable to speak the language and with no one to reach out to, she felt helpless.

Despite the painful and frightening circumstances, Jie persisted in seeking a way out and never gave up hope that she would one day escape her traffickers.

After an Arrest, Another Legal Avenue

Jie was arrested on vice charges and was referred to New York’s Human Trafficking Intervention Court, where she was referred to Sanctuary’s Queens Trafficking Intervention Pro Bono Project (QTIPP) that, among other things, allowed her to meet with lawyers to discuss possible legal and immigration options.

Lisa Doolittle and Hanbing Zhang were the QTIPP volunteer attorneys for Jie’s legal consultation. Doolittle credits Zhang, a native Mandarin speaker, for forging a strong connection in a short time, which helped them gather enough information to determine that Jie was a good candidate for a T-Visa and quickly volunteered to represent her.  Lori L. Cohen, the Director of the Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Sanctuary for Families, supervised the team and agreed Jie had a compelling case:

“This is a woman who was clearly trafficked, promised a job that didn’t exist, charged fictitious fees, kidnapped, held in a hotel, and raped by men paying to have sex when she did not agree.”

After an extensive series of meetings with Jie to establish their relationship, the DPW team began to advocate on her behalf as she cooperated with law enforcement into the investigation, arrest and prosecution of her traffickers, an emotionally challenging process. Sharon Katz noted that Jie “was initially very wary, even distrustful” of her new attorneys, understandable given her situation.

In addition to participating as a victim-witness in the criminal case, she was skeptical about the US immigration system, particularly the T-Visa process; like many other victims, she already had engaged an attorney who had filed an asylum application and said it was making progress. As Doolittle put it, “In her mind, why would attorneys who worked for free be high quality attorneys, especially compared to her paid attorney who repeatedly assured her he was making advancements in her asylum case?” (The team did not believe the asylum claim would prevail. Cohen said it was common for unscrupulous attorneys to charge women like Jie exorbitant fees up front but deliver very little. Because of the fees, women are drawn deeper in debt and may feel they need to continue working at massage parlors in order to pay it off.)

Meanwhile, the T-Visa process took time and required Jie to share information about some of the worst experiences of her life in great detail and to overcome cultural norms against speaking out about one’s bosses and revealing shameful events.  Moreover, she worried about retribution.

Patience and Persistence from Attorneys and Client

Over the course of a year, with great perseverance, the DPW team gradually gained Jie’s trust. Cohen said the team’s approach was key to making her comfortable with the process.

“They treated her with dignity, respect, patience, and compassion. Their humanity for this woman really came through as they quickly put together a strong, moving, powerful application.”

For their part, the attorneys believe Jie herself deserves most of the credit. Zhang stated,

“She was hesitant to share her story but also believed it was wrong for women to be treated as she was. She had a strong sense of justice and felt that the situation could not go on forever.”

Jie’s T-Visa application was eventually granted and her traffickers convicted.  The effect on Jie was noticeable. Katz said,

“A different part of her came through. She was smiling and outgoing, a change from the initial meetings.”

Iris Hsiao, who is working on the derivative visas for Jie’s children, noted that,

“[Jie] seems extremely hopeful and has more confidence in the process. Before she thought the application was pointless and would take forever, but she saw that waiting paid off in the end.”

As Doolittle put it,

“A burden was lifted. She has T-visa status and no longer has to live every day with the fear over her head that she will be sent back to China.”

—

Join us at our Above & Beyond celebration on November 13, 2018, at the RUMI Event Space, 229 W 28th St, New York, New York as we honor this Davis Polk team’s outstanding pro bono work.  You can buy tickets here. 

If you can’t join us, but would like to support Sanctuary for Family’s work, please consider making an Above & Beyond donation here.

Cahill Partner and Associates Fight for Mother and Her Special-Needs Child

Jamie Stinson
Jamie Stinson

At this year’s Above & Beyond Awards, we’re honoring a powerful and dedicated team from Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, for their successful representation over two years in Manhattan Family Court of an immigrant victim of domestic violence who was the sole caretaker of her a disabled daughter. Read to learn more.

Jamie Stinson is an associate in the Special Matters and Investigations practice in the New York office of King & Spalding. She is also a member of Sanctuary’s Pro Bono Council and Co-Chair of this year’s Above & Beyond Pro Bono Achievement Awards and Benefit.

—

At this year’s Above & Beyond Pro Bono Achievement Awards and Benefit, Sanctuary for Families is honoring a powerful and dedicated team from Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, including Partner Joel Kurtzberg and Associates Kerry Burns and Kathleen Farley, for their successful representation over two years in Manhattan Family Court of an immigrant victim of domestic violence, a hardworking young woman from the Caribbean, who was the sole caretaker of her a disabled daughter. 

The team tirelessly worked to take both an order of protection and a visitation case to trial, obtain an order of protection and extremely limited visitation, and ultimately win an appeal that not only provided maximum protection for both mother and daughter but set important precedent.  

Protecting Mother and Daughter

The case began when Helen’s abusive ex-partner filed for custody of their five-year-old daughter, Anabel.  The little girl had been diagnosed with autism, asthma, sleep apnea, and cerebral palsy and needed round-the-clock, intensive care, which Helen uncomplainingly provided. Thanks to Helen (a pseudonym), Anabel was attending a wonderful school with expertise in her disabilities. After surviving a pattern of violent acts at the hands of Anabel’s father, which resulted in two hospitalizations and put Anabel, who was present, at physical and psychological risk, Helen entered a confidential domestic violence shelter and later found permanent housing. 

In 2012, Anabel needed surgery, and Helen contacted the child’s father to tell him about it.  Subsequently Helen permitted limited visitation, wanting her little girl to have her father in her life.  Unfortunately, Anabel’s father resumed his abusive behavior, demonstrated that he was unable to provide the safe and structured environment Anabel needed, and began putting pressure on Helen to move back in with him. Helen explained to Anabel’s father that their relationship was over.

In 2014 in retaliation, Anabel’s father filed a custody petition, falsely alleging that he had been denied visits with the child.  Cahill Associate Kerry Burns volunteered to take the case, with Partner Joel Kurtzberg supervising, and Associate Kathleen Farley later joining the team.

Fighting for Helen and Anabel

When Kerry took the case, she recognized that the abuse Helen suffered at the hands of her ex-partner was severe and escalating, put Anabel in harm’s way, and warranted a five-year Order of Protection that included the child.  This would require proving at trial that the violence committed against Helen in Anabel’s presence constituted “aggravating circumstances,” which is necessary for obtaining a five-year (as opposed to a two-year) Order of Protection.

In September 2016, the Cahill team represented Helen in a highly contested trial in Manhattan Family Court, which included discovery, the introduction into evidence of exhibits, and a cross-examination of Helen’s abuser, who was represented by a skilled, aggressive attorney.  Following the trial, the judge issued a disappointing decision that failed to protect Helen to the full extent possible.  While the judge found Helen to be a credible witness and found that her ex-partner had been violent to her in Anabel’s presence, he declined to find aggravating circumstances and issued an Order of Protection only two years, in part due to the amount of time that had passed since the specific instances of abuse (occurring in 2009-2010).

Believing that they could achieve a better result for Helen , the Cahill team appealed the decision, arguing that the severe abuse she suffered did in fact constitute aggravating circumstances.  On January 16, 2018, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court issued its decision, finding that the abuser had assaulted Helen so severely that she suffered physical injury, had assaulted her in the presence of Anabel, and that these factors, as well as the ongoing risk to Helen’s safety, constituted aggravating circumstances, entitling Helen and Anabel to a five-year order of protection, the longest possible.  About this sweeping appellate victory, Kerry stated,

“The judge credited everything our client said, and the [Appellate] decision was essentially 100% the brief that we filed on appeal.”

A New Trial and Another Victory

After prevailing in the Order of Protection case, the Visitation case went to trial. Although Helen’s abuser consented to Helen having full custody since it was apparent to all concerned that she was doing an extraordinary job caring for Anabel and he was not prepared or interested in taking on that level of responsibility, he petitioned for expansive, unsupervised visitation with the little girl. Helen was alarmed and the Cahill team agreed to fight for supervised visitation.

In preparation for the trial they obtained and studied Anabel’s extensive medical records and met with her school psychologist to understand more about Anabel’s medical and educational needs. Joel, Kerry, and Kathleen quickly realized that the psychologist would make a strong expert witness about the magnitude of Anabel’s needs and began to prepare her to testify. They also worked for hours with Helen to prepare her to testify about the vigilant, knowledgeable level of care that she provided Anabel on a 24-hour basis.

At trial, Helen covered the intensive caretaking that Anabel required and the school psychologist educated the court about the nature of Anabel’s disabilities and the techniques the father would need to but hadn’t learned in order to care for her.  Although the judge has a reputation for granting noncustodial parents generous, unsupervised visitation schedules, this time he did not. After a highly contested trial superbly litigated by Kerry and Kathleen, the court ordered that the father’s visitation be supervised and limited to a few hours each week.

A Victory for the Client and for Other Survivors

As a result of the Cahill team’s extraordinary efforts, not only was Helen awarded a five-year Order of Protection against her abuser, but the Appellate decision established important precedent for other domestic violence cases. Kerry noted,

“For the client, the decision was significant because it was such a great outcome for her. From a broader standpoint, the holding and reasoning in the Appellate decision can be used as precedent for many other cases.  This decision can be used to support the argument that the passage of time after incidents of domestic violence should not reduce the likelihood of a finding of aggravating circumstances when there has been physical injury.”

Reflecting on her work on this case, Kathleen appreciated her first drafting experience:

“It was great to get my first drafting experience, and to do it on a case where we could set significant precedent and clarify the law.”

Kerry was thrilled to be able to assist such a courageous, devoted mother:

“This experience was very rewarding. For me, the driving motivation was always the client.  I became close to her and really care about her.  She is a wonderful, positive person who is raising her special-needs daughter on her own.  It was very rewarding to be able to achieve a positive result for her.  In addition, it was definitely an eye-opening experience to see the family law system, and it was great to have a hand in creating precedent that will help other women and children.”

—

Join us at our Above & Beyond celebration on November 13, 2018, at the RUMI Event Space, 229 W 28th St, New York, New York as we honor this Cahill team’s outstanding pro bono work.  You can buy tickets here. 

If you can’t join us, but would like to support Sanctuary for Family’s work, please consider making an Above & Beyond donation here.