Implementation of the Crime Bill Self-Petitioning for Abused or Battered Spouses or Children of U.S. Citizen or Lawful Permanent Residents.

See third column, paragraph that begins "sixth" this is very helpful language and practitioners should cite what congress said about extraordinary circumstances for showing for VAWA motions.

This ICE memo provides interim guidance concerning the expanded confidentiality protections of the VAWA 2005 and the legislation's requirements that ICE issue a certificate of compliance in certain circumstances.

VAWA Cancellation Statutes

ICE memo on cancellation cap.

ICE memo focusing on confidentiality, determining admissibility or deportability solely by information from people involved in the battery or extreme cruelty, etc.

This is one of the several memoranda discussing CIS discretion to not place non-citizens in removal proceedings in certain circumstances, including VAWA (p. 2) (but read the whole memo). Read along with other documents in this section.

This memo lists out instances in which CBP, CIS, and ICE should not issue Notices to Appear, as well as other options after filing the Notices to Appear.

General memo on when ICE may join or move to dismiss proceedings when adjustment of status applications are pending; may be helpful to those who prefer to adjust outside of proceedings.

This policy memorandum (PM) supersedes and rescinds entirely the March 31, 2006 memorandum entitled, "Effect of Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft on adjudication of Form I-212 application filed by aliens who are subject to reinstated removal orders under INA 241(a)(5)' (the "Perez-Gonzalez" memorandum).

This old memo has excellent language near the end on the "any credible evidence" standard -- "documentary requirements"-- and why it exists. The discussion of "extreme hardship" is no longer relevant to VAWA self-petitions but may be helpful to those seeking VAWA cancellation, where that requirement still exists. Click here to access the Paul Virtue Memo on Any Credible Evidence Standard and Extreme Hardship Factors in word version.

Effectively representing a survivor of domestic violence requires understanding ALL immigration options they may be able to pursue. This chart provides an at-a-glance review of the requirements for VAWA Self-Petitions and VAWA Cancellation of Removal. It also highlights situations where one may be better than the other for certain survivors, though some survivors may be eligible for both.

This project was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-23-GK-05161-MUMU awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. 

Motion to Reopen chart

Handout Service Center Hotlines.

This project was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-21-GK-02240-MUMU awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 2006, the Attorney General instructed the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, in consultation with the Immigration Judges, to issue a practice manual for the parties who appear before the Immigration Courts. This directive arose out of the public's desire for greater uniformity in Immigration Court procedures and a call for the Immigration Courts to implement their "best practices" nationwide.

This Practice Manual has been assembled as a public service to parties before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

This manual is strictly informational in nature. This manual is not intended, in any way, to substitute for a careful study of the pertinent laws and regulations. Readers are advised to review Chapter 1.1 before consulting any information contained herein.

The Practice Manual is updated periodically. To assist readers, tables showing the update history of the Practice Manual are available in the section titled Table of Changes.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, sub-part F for suspension of deportation and voluntary departure on extreme hardship factors.

Guide on VAWA Cancellation Step-by Step

Sample VAWA Cancellation brief

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, finding that although the petitioner's VAWA self-petition was granted, she was not eligible to adjust status under INA 245(d) because she did not fulfill the conditions of the K-1 visa from a prior relationship.

VAWA Cancellation Matter of LLP

BIA disagreed with the IJ's determination that respondent is statutorily ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal (although respondent was divorced from her abusive husband and subsequently had a long-term relationship with another man, she had not previously been granted cancellation of removal based on her abusive marriage and had significant equities that merited a favorable exercise of discretion).

VAWA Cancellation Granted Extreme Cruelty

BIA overturned IJ decision finding on good moral character (IJ should look to past 3 years, not much older asylum fraud, and old fraud is not sufficient to find GMC lack under "catchall" GMC provision), and overturned IJ exercise of discretion. Distinguished from A-M (end of relationship with abuser does not preclude VAWA).

BIA reopened proceedings to allow respondent (subject to final order of deportation, due to VD entered by IJ more than 5 years ago) to apply for suspension of deportation as the parent of a child who has been subjected to extreme cruelty by his LPR parent. Acknowledged motion time and number limitations do not apply to VAWA motions.

BIA finds that death of child does not terminate eligibility for relief based on abuse in child in common (no marriage) and discusses extreme cruelty to child.

BIA concedes approved VAWAs who entered on fiancee visas may adjust if abuser was sponsor.

BIA disagreed with the IJ's determination that respondent is statutorily ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal (although respondent was divorced from her abusive husband and subsequently had a long-term relationship with another man, she had not previously been granted cancellation of removal based on her abusive marriage and had significant equities that merited a favorable exercise of discretion).

Decision Arellano-Hernandez V Holder.

VAWA Cancellation Abuser Status

VAWA Cancellation BIA Decision (3/13/2008)

VAWA Cancellation Credible Evidence

BIA overturned IJ decision, finding good faith marriage, extreme cruelty (close review of facts), and a connection between good moral character and being subjected to abuse.

Unpublished decision approving special VAWA motion to reopen for VAWA suspension of deportation.

BIA affirms IJ finding of extreme cruelty, extreme hardship, and qualifying for VAWA cancellation after divorce from abuser.

BIA overturns IJ, discussing credibility and extreme hardship.

BIA affirms IJ finding that witnessing abuse is extreme cruelty to child and discusses hardship factors.

BIA overturns IJ denial finding good moral character despite crimes and other violation and discusses special VAWA factors on extreme hardship in EOIR regulations.

Where evidence of fraud of marriage to a U.S. citizen was found insufficient to support respondent's deportation under section 241(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, deportation on invalid visa charge under section 241(a)(1) is also precluded when predicated upon the same evidence of fraudulent marriage. Act of 1952- Section 241(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. 1251 (a)]-Inadmissible at time of entry, not nonquota immigrant.

This BIA decision states that a conviction for domestic battery in violations of section 242 and 243(e)(1) of the California Penal Code does not qualify categorically as a conviction for a "crime involving moral turpitude" within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the INA, nor does it qualify as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. section 16 (2000) of the act.

Click here to download the Amicus Brief in Word version.

Amicus brief of the NNEVAIW, Legal Momentum, FVPV, and ASISTA Immigration Assistance in support of respondent's appeal on remand from the United States Court of Appeal for the Eight Circuit.

Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief and Appendix of Authorities in Support of Petitioner and Reversal in Leiva-Mendoza vs. Holder, an Appeal in the 8th Circuit, by the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, Legal Momentum, the Family Violence Prevention Fund and ASISTA Immigration Assistance Project.

7th Circuit ruling that VAWA permits the filing of a motion to reopen and the Board has the independent power to accept such a motion, whether or not an attorney mentioned this law before the Immigration Judge.

Amicus brief submitted by the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, written by David R. Fine, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson, Graham LLP, Harrisburg, PA.

ICE headquarters email to chief counsel posted on VAWA experts on 8//1/2006.

Amicus brief for the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, Legal Momentum, the Family Violence Prevention Fund and ASISTA Immigration Assistance Project, discusses extreme cruelty in the form of children witnessing abuse in the home, providing the history and purpose of VAWA as context and social science background.

The seminal VAWA case in the 9th circuit, articulating the broad definition of extreme cruelty and the ameliorative purpose of the law.

The seminal VAWA case in the 9th circuit, articulating the broad definition of extreme cruelty and the ameliorative purpose of the law, written by Thomas C. Means and Valerie Hinko, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C.

The seminal VAWA case in the 9th circuit, articulating the broad definition of extreme cruelty and the ameliorative purpose of the law.

The seminal VAWA case in the 9th circuit, articulating the broad definition of extreme cruelty and the ameliorative purpose of the law, written by Associate Director Gail Pendleton and submitted by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Boston, MA.

Amicus brief submitted by Peter B. Work, Jessica R. Herrera and Jeffrey A. Spector, Crowell & Morning LLP, Washington, D.C.

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.