ASISTA Press Release: ASISTA Files Lawsuit Challenging Harmful ICE Policies Which Put Victims of Crime at Higher Risk of Removal

By Ahlam Moussa

|

February 13, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 13, 2020

Contact: Ahlam Moussa, ahlam@asistahelp.org

Changes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy were announced August 2, 2019 that create significant additional barriers for victims of crime who cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of their crimes. ASISTA, represented by Protect Democracy and the Constitutional Accountability Center, filed suit today in Connecticut to challenge the legality of this policy and to show the harm it presents to victims who are U visa petitioners nationwide.

ASISTA challenges this policy based on the fact that Acting ICE Director Matthew Albence, who signed off on this new ICE Directive, was serving illegally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and federal statutes.  The law requires that the Director of ICE be confirmed by the Senate; however, there has not been a Senate-confirmed ICE Director for more than three years now. ICE must be held accountable for violating the law, and for creating barriers for immigrant survivors of violence seeking protection and relief.

Gail Pendleton, Executive Director of ASISTA states, “This new policy is an egregious attack on due process. It serves as another example of this Administration’s attempt to erode, through policy changes, the bipartisan protections Congress created and expanded for immigrant survivors over the past 25 years. Deporting survivors of rape, kidnapping, domestic violence and other serious crimes who help law enforcement makes our communities much less safe.”

Cecelia Friedman Levin, ASISTA’s Policy Director states, “This new ICE policy exposes immigrant survivors of crime who come forward to help law enforcement to precisely the risk they sought to avoid and from which a bipartisan majority in Congress sought to protect them.”

BACKGROUND

The new ICE policy changed the process and criteria by which ICE would consider a “stay of removal” for victims of crime who are eligible for U visas. 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. 

The new ICE guidance eliminates important procedural safeguards, which will lead to an increased risk that survivors will be deported before their cases are decided. Unlike the prior policy which encouraged stays of deportation for U visa applicants for meritorious applications, this new guidance leaves decisions up to individual ICE officers to consider the “totality of the circumstances” including evaluating “any federal interests implicated” in deciding whether halting deportation is appropriate. This new vague standard creates inconsistent and arbitrary results for survivors with pending U visa matters.

A copy of the filing is available here.

See Latest Filings: Memo in Support of Summary Judgment here, and Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts here, filed on 5/26/2020

________________________________________________________________________________

ASISTA, PO Box 12, Suffield, CT, 06078        www.asistahelp.org

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.