Policy Update: DHS Publishes Harmful New U Visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide

By Admin

|

August 5, 2019

It is beyond overwhelming to track the myriad ways, large and small, in which DHS’ policy is eroding access to critical immigration protections, including those designed to protect immigrant crime survivors. Sometimes these policy changes don’t grab headlines, but they all contribute to DHS’ calculated and callous plan to weaken existing paths to immigration benefits. Given our mission and expertise, ASISTA is deeply concerned about these policy changes as they often diminish access to immigration protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking.

One recent example of these changes is the publication of DHS’ updated U visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide (Updated Guide) released last week. The Updated Guide provides guidance to law enforcement agencies (LEAs) regarding the U visa requirements and the law enforcement certification process.[i] In the past, the resource guide had been a useful tool for advocates to engage LEAs about the U visa program so that they could learn more about its requirements and procedures.  However, the new Updated Guide reflects DHS’ blatant effort to encourage LEAs to limit their issuance of U visa certifications for eligible victims.

Several of DHS’ new recommendations to LEAs in the Updated Guide create unnecessary barriers for survivors to access U visa certifications, conflict with existing authority and contravene bipartisan Congressional intent in establishing this critical protection. Here are just a few examples of these barriers:

  • Encouraging LEAs to conduct background checks on those seeking U visacertifications: Previous versions of the DHS Certification Guide indicatethat USCIS’ would be the agency responsible for conducting background checks onU visa applicants; however, the updated guide repeatedly[ii] recommendsLEAs conduct their own “discretionary background checks” on those seeking Uvisa certifications, and that they should share their findings with USCIS. At best, this suggestion is duplicative ofUSCIS’ own procedures, but at worst, it needlessly suggests that LEAs limit their issuance of U visacertifications.
  • Encouraging time limits on certifications. DHSsuggests that LEAs consider “whether the agency will establish specificparameters related to certifying cases where a significant amount of time haspassed since commission of the crimes” when in fact the statute and theregulations establish no statute of limitations on signing U visacertifications.[iii] Oftentimes, survivors may not know that U visa protections exist, or else may beimpacted by the trauma following their victimization to learn more about theprogram. This suggestion is ultra vires to the U visa statute and regulations and counter to DHS purported dedicationto “promoting a Victim-Centered Approach.”[iv]
  • Encouraging Withdrawals. The Updated Guide alsoemphasizes that LEAs may withdraw or disavow certifications at any time if “they later discover information regardingthe victim, crime, or certification that your agency believes USCIS should beaware of.”[v] This overbroad and vague recommendation isdeeply irresponsible, and serves to undermine access to U visa relief.

Overall, the updated guide advances DHS’s efforts to eviscerate the U visa program and is part and parcel of DHS’ overall mission to reduce legal immigration to the United States. It is hard enough for immigrant survivors to come forward to seek assistance from law enforcement, given that abusers often threaten that reaching out for help will result in their deportation. Instead of undermining access to critical victim protections, DHS should focus on ways to actually promote a victim-centered approach

[i] U visas were created by a bipartisan majorityin Congress in 2000 as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA)with the dual purpose of strengthening public safety efforts by encouragingimmigrant victims to come forward to report crimes to law enforcement, and toprovide protection to those who come forward. Applicants applying for U visarelief must submit a certification from an agency or judge that demonstratesthey were a victim of a crime and that they were, are or will be helpful in theinvestigation or prosecution of a qualifying criminal activity.

[ii] See e.g. U visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide at pages 2, 3, 4, 11,12, and 14.

[iii] Id. at 11.

[iv] Id at i.

[v] See e.g. U visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide at 3, 4, 9, 14.

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.