ASISTA Press Release: ASISTA Files FOIA Lawsuit Demanding Information about USCIS’s Use of Discretion in Green Card Applications for Crime Victims

By Ahlam Moussa

|

May 18, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 19 2020

Contact: Ahlam Moussa

On Thursday, April 30, ASISTA and the Immigration Center for Women and Children (ICWC) filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California demanding that USCIS and DHS disclose information requested related to their exercise of discretion in adjudicating adjustment of status (green card) applications by crime victims who have been granted a U visa.

The bipartisan U visa program was created by Congress in 2000 to provide a path to legal immigration status for noncitizen survivors of crimes who are helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the crimes against them. A key component of the U visa program is that if USCIS approves the U visa, the crime survivor can eventually apply for permanent residence (green card).  

Over the past two years, immigration lawyers have noticed an alarming increase in USCIS’s requests for documents related to crime victims’ criminal history even where they had never been charged or convicted of any crime or where the underlying conduct had already been disclosed and waived during the U visa filing process. In some cases, USCIS has used these documents to deny the adjustment application. This new practice, coupled with USCIS’s refusal to publicly share the agency’s adjudications guidance and criteria, has left crime victims and their families, along with their representatives, uncertain about how USCIS is deciding these applications. 

ASISTA and ICWC, which are represented pro bono in this suit by Van Der Hout LLP, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information on USCIS’s policies on these practices on November 22, 2019, which USCIS has failed to answer. We have now filed suit to force USCIS to comply with its obligation to respond to our FOIA request.

Gail Pendleton, Executive Director of ASISTA states: “Survivors of crime deserve transparency and accountability from USCIS. This new policy is one more strategy in this Administration’s ongoing war against immigrants and is a blatant attempt to undercut Congress’s bipartisan efforts to protect crime victims.”

A copy of the filing is available here.

Leave a Comment

Recent Posts

ASISTA Practice Alert: USCIS Extreme Vetting Policies and Their Implication for Immigrant Survivors (Dec. 12, 2025)

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.

ASISTA Practice Alert: Impact of HR-1 on Trafficking Survivors (Oct. 1, 2025)

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.

Amicus Briefs on Birthright Citizenship Executive Order (Spring 2025)

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 .

Alien Enemies Act Alert (May 29, 2025)

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.

ASISTA Practice Alert: USCIS Wet Ink Signature RFEs & NOIDs (April 24, 2025)

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.