Archive for February 2020

By Ahlam Moussa February 28, 2020
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Hernandez v. Mesa this week is inhumane and unjust. The decision insulates a border guard who shot and killed a child on Mexican soil. With numerous other groups advancing the rights of survivors, ASISTA filed an amicus brief highlighting the problem of sexual assaults committed by federal officers and the need to have recourse against such devastating violence. To see the amicus brief, click here and for the decision click here .
By Admin February 27, 2020
ASISTA has updated its practice advisory regarding U visa application rejections due to blank spaces on the Form I-918 and I-918A. This updated advisory has filing practice pointers, as well as suggestions for re-filing rejected forms.
By Maria Lazzarino February 25, 2020
(New York, February 25, 2020) – Safe Horizon and ASISTA have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for immigration policy data on the adjudication of U-visa petitions and adjustment of status (permanent residence) applications for those granted U visa status.
By Admin February 14, 2020
On February 6, 2020, ASISTA sent a letter to USCIS and to the CIS Ombudsman’s office regarding the December 30, 2019 announcement that USCIS may reject Form I-918 U visa forms if there is a blank field. This significant shift in policy and practice creates enormous hardship for survivors and their families, and strains valuable resources for service providers and U visa certifying agencies. We call on USCIS to immediately withdraw the announcement and to accept and receipt in all I-918 applications that were rejected pursuant to the I-918 Alert and restore their initial filing date nunc pro tunc .
By Maria Lazzarino February 12, 2020
Yesterday, ASISTA, along with our partners, submitted an amicus brief challenging EOIR’s erosion of docketing tools like continuances and administrative closures. This errosion results in limiting access to critical immigration relief for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other serious crimes.
By Maria Lazzarino February 4, 2020
ASISTA has developed this Practice Advisory: The Impact of Matter of L-N-Y- , 27 I&N 755 (BIA 2020) , which provides a detailed overview of provisions in this precedential decision, discusses its intersection with other BIA decisions on continuances, and provides best practices for requesting continuances for U visa applicants in removal proceedings. We’ve also summarized our key practice pointers in this Practice FAQ . Click here to download the practice advisory in Word version and here for the FAQ in Word version.

Recent Posts

By Maria Lazzarino December 12, 2025
This Practice Alert summarizes USCIS’s new extreme vetting policies, including broad adjudication holds, re-review of previously approved cases, and heightened discretionary scrutiny, and explains their serious implications for immigrant survivors seeking safety and stability. It also provides practical guidance for practitioners on preparing clients for the impact of these measures and on developing case strategies and potential legal challenges.
By Maria Lazzarino December 12, 2025
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed HR-1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), which significantly impacts immigrant survivors of human trafficking. The law imposes new filing fees for immigration benefits, motions, and appeals before USCIS and EOIR, establishes additional financial penalties for certain immigration violations, and eliminates eligibility for a range of federal public benefits for many immigrants who were previously considered “qualified,” including trafficking survivors. This Practice Alert reviews these fee and penalty changes, explains the new restrictions on public benefits, and outlines the impact on trafficking survivors seeking T visas and other forms of humanitarian relief, offering guidance for practitioners on how to mitigate the law’s potential harms.
By Maria Lazzarino June 11, 2025
In May and June 2025, ASISTA joined partners at Boston College School of Law, Harbor COV, and Tahirih to submit an amicus briefs to the First and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals in cases challenging the executive order on birthright citizenship. ASISTA and partners highlighted the importance of maintaining a preliminary injunction against implementing the order. If the order were implemented, many immigrant mothers of U.S.-born children would only be able to prove their child’s citizenship by submitting documentation about the child’s father’s immigration status. For survivors of intimate partner violence, just knowing the need for this documentation could make it difficult or impossible to leave the abusive relationship. For survivors of sexual assault or trafficking, contacting the perpetrator for the paperwork could put them and their families in immediate physical danger. Using real-life examples, the brief illustrates the stakes if immigrant parents were forced to choose between maintaining their safety and establishing their children’s rights. It urges the court not let this become reality. Read the First Circuit Brief, Doe v. Trump , here ; read the Fourth Circuit Brief, Casa, Inc., et al. v. Trump , here .
By Maria Lazzarino May 30, 2025
On March 14, 2025, President Trump attempted to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify carrying out deportations without the due process of immigration proceedings. Since then, multiple federal courts have ruled the invocation was unlawful, but the government continues to fight for its usage, including before the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court maintained a temporary prohibition on the deportations planned in Texas and sent the issue back to the lower courts. ASISTA celebrates the positive rulings but notes with condemnation that the push against them is ongoing. Check ASISTA’s alert: The Fight to Protect Survivors from the Alien Enemies Act Continue.
By Maria Lazzarino April 28, 2025
Practitioners have reported receiving RFEs and NOIDs in cases submitted with electronically reproduced signatures for original, wet ink signatures where USCIS has requested the original, wet ink signatures. This Practice Alert describes what USCIS’ current signature policy is and what options practitioners have in these cases.