This Practice Manual will be updated periodically. The tables below detail the changes made to this Practice Manual since its initial publication on January 14, 2015.

This checklist gives your client information on what forms, records, and important documentation your client might need for his/her U visa application.

This decision clarifies VAWA requirement that the abuse be "at least one central reason for the filing delay" in cases where the children filed after they turned 21 (but before the age of 25).

In this decision, the AAO determined that being under an abusive parent's control qualified as "one central reason for the filing delay" under INA 204(a)(1)(D)(v) and therefore excuses the failure to file and I-360 self-petition before the applicant's 21st birthday.

This decision clarifies VAWA requirement that the abuse be "at least one central reason for the filing delay" in cases where the children filed after they turned 21 (but before the age of 25).

The AAO seems to have paid attention to our amicus arguments on U visa crimes as "categories" in their decision in the case in the case underlying our amicus, see attached redacted decision and the amicus. We will beed to keep pushing this is framework, however, so please continue using the arguments in the amicus when arguing crime categories. We do not, for instance, agree that the DV category contemplates only the facts involving decision relationships; many crimes are DV depending on the facts of the crimes, not just the relationships. One step at a time, thought! Note that the amicus strategy seems to work (gets their attention), so if you have a case that is likely to go up to the AAO on that issue that seems intractable at VSC, please let us know early in the process so we can round up a firm and organize the arguments we should all be using. Congratulations and thanks to Yasmine Farhang (and Deisy) who worked on the brief in chief, to ICWC for joining and helping us craft the arguments, and to Jennifer Colyer & Daniel Fishbein at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shover & Jacobson for their excellent work on the amicus brief!

Many thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford for pursuing this case to AAO, vindicating our long-posited argument that a 212(a)(9)(C) waiver eliminates the underlying predicate for 241(a)(5)

Many thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford for pursuing this case to AAO, vindicating our long-posited argument that a 212(a)(9)(C) waiver eliminates the underlying predicate for 241(a)(5)