Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
3rd Circuit PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Cardenas v Attorney General (March 31, 2026) [pdf] Published March 31, 2026 Topics: Amicus Briefs , VAWA Self-Petition
NIWAP was lead amicus joined by Legal Momentum and the Tahirih Justice Center on a brief submitted to the Third Circuit prepared by the law firm Haynes and Boone. Under VAWA and U.S.C. § 1367, the amici argued that abused immigrant children and stepchildren are entitled to protections regardless of when their abuser obtained lawful permanent residency status. The Amicus Brief urged the 3rd Circuit to reject the Board of Immigration Appeals’ reliance on the Matter of L-L-P, which imposed a timing
This supplemental letter requested by the 3rd Circuit from the parties addressed the following issues: 1) An applicant for cancellation of removal need not show continuing abuse at the time of the application under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) and (2) The Court can, but should not, consider this issue without remand.
This Amicus Brief was filed by Crowell and Moring on behalf of the NIWAP, Inc and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence in the 3rd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The brief was filed in support for a mother of a domestic violence victim from Honduras who interceded to protect her daughter who was experiencing domestic violence and was stalked and threatened by her daughter’s abuser. The Honduran mother had helped her daughter escape from a domestic violence perpetrator who had t
Arkansas 2015 U and T visa certification law requiring that each law enforcement agency in the state adopt a policy for the completion and signing of T and U certifications within 30 days of receiving the request.
Nvart Idinyan (formerly Nvart Huckfeldt) (August 9 2005) Board of Immigration Appeals. The National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women, represented by Crowell and Moring, filed this amicus in support of the immigration judge’s finding that plaintiff qualified for cancellation of removal under VAWA and refuting DHS assertion that once a victim reached a “safe house” she should no longer have access to VAWA provisions. (Crowell and Moring, Pro Bono)
Perales-Cumpean, A76 386 969, Board of Immigration Appeals (2001), U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit (2003). Amicus brief discussing the any credible evidence standard and the definition of battery or extreme cruelty in an immigrant rape and domestic violence victim’s Violence Against Women Act suspension of deportation case (National immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, BIA, Arnold and Porter, Pro Bono 10th Circuit)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Koch Foods. NIWAP Inc. collaborated with Latino Justice, the law firms of Arnold and Porter and Procopio, and Legal Momentum to submit an amicus brief to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in an interlocutory appeal of a Federal District Court decision to allow an employer who employed supervisors who perpetrated rape, sexual assault, felonious assault, extortion, sexual harassment and other discrimination against workers to use civil court discovery in a
Aylaliya Assefa Birru v. Barr (January 11 2021) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. NIWAP, represented by Baker McKenzie, is lead amicus in a brief on behalf of an immigrant domestic violence victim who is seeking relief under the Violence Against Women Act’s domestic violence victim waiver in her VAWA cancellation of removal case. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the immigration judge denied her the ability to present evidence of waiver eligibility.
Jane Doe v. Claire McIntire, App. No. 01-P-1013 (Mass.) (August 10, 2001) Amicus brief appealing a denial of TANF benefits to two immigrant women lawfully residing in Massachusetts, the denial was based on six month residence requirement before receiving benefits. One woman was fleeing domestic violence and the other residing with family during pregnancy. (Foley, Hoag & Eliot, Pro Bono)
Amicus brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights after Castle Rock police department failed to enforce an order of protection against Ms. Gonzales’s husband. This brief argues that there is an international consensus recognizing states’ obligation to protect against domestic violence and provide effective remedies for its victims. Even if laws and orders are issued, they must be enforced. The police failure to enforce the protective order in this case, together with the Un
United States v. Dixon (December 2 1992-June 28 1993) U.S. Supreme Court. United States V. Michael Foster (United States v. Dixon, 598 A.2d 724, 725 (D.C. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1759 (1992), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993). Amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States as the organization that serves as counsel for the domestic violence victim in the underlying protection order contempt proceeding that resulted in an over 600 day sentence for multi