Paul Hastings and Goldman Sachs Come Together to Help Sanctuary’s Clients

At this year’s Above & Beyond Awards, Sanctuary is honoring a team of attorneys from Paul Hastings LLP and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. for their compassionate pro bono assistance on behalf of twelve Sanctuary clients and their families.

Tushna Gamadia is a member of Sanctuary for Families Pro Bono Council and an Of Counsel in the Real Estate Group at Morrison & Foerster LLP. She works on a number of family law and immigration cases pro bono, including for Sanctuary for Families clients who have inspired her with their courage, determination and hope.

At this year’s Above & Beyond Awards, Sanctuary is honoring a team of attorneys from Paul Hastings LLP and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. for their compassionate pro bono assistance on behalf of twelve Sanctuary clients and their families. The team consisted of Susan Wade, Of Counsel at Paul Hastings; Justin Capozzi, Associate at Paul Hastings; Colleen M. O’Brien, Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Goldman Sachs; and Juan Castano, Legal Analyst at Goldman Sachs.  

A group of dedicated volunteers from Paul Hastings LLP and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. teamed up in April 2019 at a clinic at Paul Hastings LLP to help 12 Sanctuary for Families’ clients and their family members adjust their status from U Nonimmigrant Status to permanent resident status before their U-visas expired.

This day was a significant milestone in our clients’ journeys toward a safe, secure and hopeful future. Each of them and their families had survived domestic violence and trauma and with great strength and courage came forward to cooperate with law enforcement to seek justice against their abusers. As a result of this cooperation, they had been granted U-Visa status by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a status that allows survivors to live and work in the United States and makes them eligible for permanent resident status after four years.  The goal of this clinic was to help the clients complete and submit their permanent residency applications to USCIS before their U-visas expired in October 2019, thus allowing them and their families to continue to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis.  Securing permanent resident status also puts them on the path to one day obtaining U.S. citizenship.

The success of the clinic in helping so many clients so efficiently and skillfully would not have been possible without the extraordinary leadership of Susan Wade, Of Counsel at Paul Hastings; Justin Capozzi, Associate at Paul Hastings; Colleen M. O’Brien, Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Goldman Sachs; and Juan Castano, Legal Analyst at Goldman Sachs.

Susan, Justin, Colleen, and Juan recruited a large number of volunteers to represent clients, interpret for clients, and make sure the clinic day ran smoothly.  Colleen and Juan organized a training session at Goldman Sachs in advance of the clinic so that volunteers were prepared and knew what to expect, especially in terms of understanding the trauma their clients have experienced and had to relive during the process of obtaining their U-Visa.

After the training, Paul Hastings and Goldman Sachs volunteers formed teams and reviewed the clients’ files in advance of the meeting so that they were fully prepared to assist each client with completing the bulk of their application at the clinic.  Paul Hastings’ attorneys completed any necessary follow up and finalized the applications for submission to USCIS.

“Paul Hastings and Goldman Sachs really mobilized a tremendous amount of resources, pro bono attorneys and volunteers, conference rooms, and positive energy to make this happen,” said Sanctuary Immigration Intervention Project (IIP) attorney Anne-Cecile Raphael.

The Sanctuary IIP attorneys who assisted with the clinic were impressed and excited by the level of energy and enthusiasm from the volunteers, who refused to allow the current anti-immigrant climate to have a chilling effect on their clients’ ability to apply for immigration benefits.

“The level of professionalism and care they displayed really impressed us all. Susan, Justin, Colleen, and Juan really created a unique opportunity for Sanctuary clients to spend time together and interact with each other, as well as with the volunteers. Having the support of others who have gone through similar experiences as well as knowing that they each had a team of 3 or 4 committed and compassionate volunteers to help them submit their application for a green card really helped the clients feel comfortable and confident in taking this step forward,” said Raphael.

“Susan and Justin are incredibly knowledgeable, organized, and trauma-informed. Their commitment to Sanctuary’s immigration clients is inspiring, and we were so happy that they were leading the charge to ensure so many clients got help with applications that, given the current anti-immigration climate, were really causing our clients a lot of anxiety,” said Sanctuary Pro Bono Director Nicole Fidler.

The volunteers, like the clients, were a diverse group in terms of background, ages and experience levels, but they were all committed to helping their clients achieve an important step towards their American dream of safety, opportunity, dignity and a chance at happiness for their families. For many of the volunteers, assisting in the clinic felt close to home because they came from immigrant families. For others, it was a great introduction to pro bono work or a way to dedicate a finite amount of time from their hectic work schedules to make a big and significant impact in the life of a brave survivor. For others, it was an extension of their commitment to pro bono work, including years of on-going commitment to Sanctuary’s clients or an extension of their work on Sanctuary’s Pro Bono Council. The diligent team work of these volunteers is an inspiration to other law firms and companies as a great way to come together to help make a positive impact in the lives of courageous and inspiring people and learn a great deal in return.

Join us at our Above & Beyond celebration on November 12, 2019, at the RUMI Event Space, 229 W 28th St, New York, NY as we honor Paul Hastings’ and Goldman Sachs’ 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.

We Are Suing ICE

Today, Sanctuary for Families and fellow advocates announced the filing of a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Today, Sanctuary for Families and fellow advocates announced the filing of a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), challenging the legality of the ICE’s practice of making civil immigration arrests without a judicial warrant or court order in and around New York State courthouses.

The lawsuit, filed by The Legal Aid Society and Cleary Gottlieb, seeks a permanent injunction ordering the halt of ICE courthouse enforcement on behalf of an individual plaintiff, a noncitizen domestic violence survivor who needed to appear in court for an order of protection, but feared the risk of an ICE arrest coming to a courthouse. Fellow plaintiffs include Make the Road New York, Urban Justice Center, Sanctuary for Families, The Door and the New York Immigration Coalition.


Since President Trump’s inauguration, ICE courthouse arrests have skyrocketed by over 1700% in New York, leading to a widespread chilling effect on noncitizens’ willingness to initiate and participate in the judicial system. Nearly 400 immigrants—both undocumented and those with legal status—have been arrested while appearing in and around State courts since January 2017, including those accused of a crime; parents appearing in child support matters; survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other crimes; people who are mentally ill or homeless; and LGBTQ+ individuals; among others.

Moreover, ICE courthouse arrests disrupt court functions, trample the due process rights of the accused, imperil public safety, and deter immigrants from reporting crimes. By using the court system to trap immigrants for detention and deportation, ICE is effectively keeping immigrants from ever accessing State courts in the first place and actively interfering with and violating the rights of individuals, associations, and organizations across the State.


At today’s joint press conference, Sanctuary ED Hon. Judy H. Kluger said:

“There is no question that the presence of ICE in our courthouses is subverting justice and putting lives at risk.

At Sanctuary for Families, 70% of the clients we serve are immigrants who rely on the courts for orders of protection against their abusers, child custody and support determinations and the remedies of our criminal courts, all crucial to their and their children’s safety.

As word of ICE’s courthouse arrests spread, our non-citizen clients grew increasingly fearful of getting help from the courts.

In fact, between 2017 and 2018, Sanctuary had fewer clients who were willing to seek orders of protection, and our clients repeatedly express concerns about accessing the courts.
The threat of arrest forces immigrant victims of gender violence to make the impossible choice between their safety and the risk of deportation.

We cannot and must not stand by and allow this miscarriage of justice to continue any longer.

As a former judge, I know the importance of courts as safe havens for all who seek its remedies. The fair administration of justice depends on it. And the threat of ICE interference undermines it.

Sanctuary for Families stands proudly in solidarity with The Legal Aid Society, Cleary Gottlieb, our fellow plaintiffs, and thousands of innocent victims, as we seek a permanent injunction against ICE’s unconstitutional courthouse arrests.

Our courts must remain places where all people have equal access to justice regardless of their immigration status. The lawsuit we are filing today is a necessary step toward reaching this goal.

Thank you.”

Learn more about the impact of ICE courthouse arrests on immigrant survivors:

NY Must Do More for People in Prostitution, but Full Decriminalization Is Not The Answer

Our statement regarding the recently-introduced bill aimed at fully decriminalizing the sex industry in New York.

As service providers, advocates, and survivor leaders, we believe that people bought and sold in the sex trade should not be arrested, prosecuted, or criminalized. Though Senator Salazar’s and Assembly Member Gottfried’s bill (S.6419/A.8230) does decriminalize prostitution for victims of the sex trade, it also decriminalizes the most heinous and exploitative elements of this industry: sex buying and pimping. For this reason, Sanctuary for Families strongly opposes this bill. We urge legislators and advocates to dig deeper before supporting legislation that will promote pimping, sex buying, and the expansion of the sex industry.

Prostitution causes severe long term psychological and physical harm. An estimated 90% of people in prostitution in the United States are trafficked. Decriminalizing the system of prostitution would, in effect, sanction human trafficking because it would decriminalize all components of the sex trade. It would render illegal businesses, currently run by organized crime, legal. Brothel and illicit massage parlor owners would be deemed bonafide business owners or managers, and the profits they make off the sale of the bodies of women, children, the LGBTQ+ community and other marginalized groups would be legitimized.

We are better than this. We must ensure victims are protected, but cannot do so while extending the same protections to sex traffickers. Unfortunately, this bill does not take this nuanced approach, and it, therefore, should not become law in New York.


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

Sanctuary’s Comments on the Proposed Title IX Rule

The Proposed Rule makes survivors of sexual misconduct even more disadvantaged in seeking relief for the harm they have suffered than any other category of complainants in school disciplinary proceedings. Sanctuary urges the Department to withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety.

On November 16, 2018, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed several changes to Title IX regulations introduced under the Obama administration. The proposal has been open for public comment over a 60-day period that ends on January 30, 2019.

Sanctuary for Families appreciates this opportunity to submit comments to the Department of Education. We thank Gibson Dunn for drafting Sanctuary’s official comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding sexual misconduct in educational programs. 


During the past decade, rates of sexual violence have skyrocketed on college campuses across the country. More than one in five women undergraduates experience an attempted or completed sexual assault during college. The epidemic of sexual violence against women on campus led to widespread calls for more robust and fair procedures to govern how schools address complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus.  In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance, known as the “Dear Colleague Letter,” that required schools to address sexual violence on campus and to implement procedures that would place the complainant and the accused on equal footing in Title IX proceedings.  The Dear Colleague Letter, which was implemented by colleges and universities across the country, was widely praised as striking the right balance between protecting the accused and facilitating the reporting and fair evaluation of complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus.

The Department rescinded the Dear Colleague Letter on September 22, 2017 and announced that it would engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to draft new Title IX regulations.  On November 29, 2018, the Department issued the Proposed Rule[1], which sets forth an extensive set of restrictions and requirements for schools in responding to complaints of sexual misconduct. The Department says that the Proposed Rule is intended to “promote the purpose of Title IX” by requiring schools to address sexual misconduct and to ensure that investigations of sexual misconduct are “fair and impartial” and that “due process protections are in place for individuals accused of sexual harassment.”

Our Comments on the Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule is nothing short of a wholesale effort to eviscerate Title IX as a mechanism to address sexual misconduct on campus. The Department’s arguments to the contrary are not credible.  The Proposed Rule singles out sexual misconduct—the one type of misconduct on campus that disproportionately impacts females students—and rigs Title IX proceedings in favor of the accused by creating barriers to reporting, limiting what sexual misconduct schools can address, and requiring schools to adopt procedures that put complainants at a significant disadvantage and all but guarantee that the accused prevail. The Proposed Rule would also conflict with and consequently preempt existing state laws that seek to do the opposite: require schools to address sexual misconduct on campus and protect survivors. In short, the Proposed Rule makes survivors of sexual misconduct even more disadvantaged in seeking relief for the harm they have suffered than any other category of complainants in school disciplinary proceedings.

First, the Proposed Rule represents a dramatic departure from prior guidance and existing civil rights laws by limiting the circumstances under which schools may address complaints of sexual misconduct.  Under the Proposed Rule, a school may only address sexual misconduct under Title IX if it meets a narrow definition of “sexual harassment,” occurs within defined geographic areas, and is reported to the correct school employee.  If all of these conditions are not met, then schools are allowed—and in many cases, required—to ignore the report, no matter how serious the sexual misconduct.  By narrowing the definition of “sexual harassment” and limiting the circumstances in which a school may respond to complaints of sexual misconduct pursuant to Title IX, the Proposed Rule enables perpetrators to engage in sexual assault and sexual harassment with impunity.

Second, for the narrow range of sexual misconduct that schools can address, the Proposed Rule mandates that schools implement procedures that favor the accused and that will discourage reporting of sexual misconduct on campus.  This is particularly troubling, given that sexual misconduct on campus is already widely under-reported.  The Proposed Rule requires survivors to satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden while providing significant advantages to the accused—most notably, a presumption of no misconduct, the ability to subject the complainant to cross-examination by an advisor of his choice, and more expansive appeal rights than those provided to the complainant.  Although the Proposed Rule states that such procedures are necessary to ensure that Title IX proceedings are “fair and impartial,” these procedures, in fact, only rig the proceedings in favor of the accused and subject survivors to re-traumatizing investigatory processes and heightened and unnecessary procedural hurdles.

Third, the Proposed Rule would preempt state laws that provide greater protections for survivors.  The Proposed Rule’s broad restrictions on the types of sexual misconduct complaints that schools may address and requirement that schools implement procedures that favor the accused would preempt state laws that currently mandate schools to address a wider range of sexual misconduct on campus and to implement procedures in disciplinary proceedings that place the complainant and accused on equal footing.  As a result, the Proposed Rule serves to not only prohibit schools from using Title IX to address many complaints of sexual misconduct but also guarantees that state laws protecting students from campus sexual violence cannot be enforced.

Taken together, these provisions, if enacted, will fundamentally impair the rights of survivors in favor of protecting the accused.  On its face, the Proposal seeks primarily to protect the reputation and interests of the accused—by shielding a broad range of sexual misconduct from the reach of Title IX, all but guaranteeing that the accused prevail in Title IX proceedings, and preempting state laws that provide protections to survivors.  What is clearly not of concern in the Proposal is the growing epidemic of sexual violence on campus.  The Proposed Rule also ignores the long-lasting, pernicious effects of sexual violence on student survivors:  survivors commonly struggle with depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and anxiety attacks, and frequently face trauma-induced educational problems, such as declines in academic performance, loss of scholarship funds, delayed degree completion, and transferring schools.

The Proposed Rule—and its slavish protection of the interests of the accused—is premised on a myth that men on campus are the victims of a wave of false reports filed by women.  The data disproves this myth.  Studies of false reporting of sexual assault cases generally place the rate between 2% and 10%. The reality is that there is an epidemic of sexual violence on campus and incidents of sexual misconduct in schools are widely under-reported.  If enacted, the Proposed Rule would allow this very real epidemic to worsen, putting even more women on campus at risk of being sexually assaulted, and would undermine the abilities of schools to take effective action to address sexual violence on campus and hold perpetrators accountable. Sanctuary urges the Department to withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety.


   [1]   The Proposed Rule refers to “sexual harassment,” which it defines as “an employee of the [school] conditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the [school’s] education program or activity; or sexual assault.”  Because the Proposed Rule’s definition of “sexual harassment” also includes sexual assault, Sanctuary will use the term “sexual misconduct” in these comments to encompass both sexual harassment and sexual assault.