Advisories, Newsletters, Q&A
ASISTA and its partners create extensive practice advisories about policies and procedures related to VAWAs, U and T visas and more. Please see below.
Practice resources
Search immigration practice advisories, sample filings, manuals, brief banks, and government guidance from trusted practitioner sources.
ASISTA and its partners create extensive practice advisories about policies and procedures related to VAWAs, U and T visas and more. Please see below.
ASISTA Practice Pointer Hot Tips for Contacting USCIS About Pending Survivor-Based Cases (March 24, 2026).docx.pdf - Google Drive Loading… Sign in
Reviews USCIS policy-manual updates issued on December 22, 2025 affecting VAWA adjudication and flags the practical consequences for current filings.
Explains the statutory age-in rule for VAWA derivatives and offers practical guidance on preserving derivative eligibility as children age out.
On August 26, 2025, the Tenth Circuit issued a published decision, O.C.V. v. Bondi , vacating the Board of Immigration Appeals presidential decision Matter of M-R-M-S- , which had wrongfully held that if a persecutor had any motivation other than animus toward the family group, an asylum seeker could not prevail on a family-based asylum claim. The Tenth Circuit rejected this narrowed definition of nexus. The case was litigated in federal court by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and the
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
%PDF-1.4 %���� 1 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <> endobj 4 0 obj <> endobj 9 0 obj <> stream x�}��J�`� kA�A� \��h���X\[�V�4M�؟�������&.ހ�e(��%���o$����{x�/�@$�*�N�s˥�Q� S�L��eZ}����K�}^�'7��v���!y�.�'��V��>�����s<���^�(���F�>���7�V�=���f���WtV�%J��-�جS�#LQ�"��'IB� EN��Py�zfISP�Y��H)����� ���@� &/C�~�{ �e�6�����1]shE�H� ��0W��'�9�]�Y�?����bM��4 �?��K� endstream endobj 8 0 obj <> stream �����JFIF���������C� $.' ",# (7),01444 '9=82<.342���C 2! !2
%PDF-1.6 %���� 255 0 obj <> endobj 280 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[ ]/Index[255 63]/Info 254 0 R/Length 116/Prev 247387/Root 256 0 R/Size 318/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream h�bbd```b``N��}`r"�d� "���$;�d�������v����� �����I9�D2���C^�H�:��"���6 �Ԩ*��o�� ;201B�� V�F����3�� endstream endobj startxref 0 %%EOF 317 0 obj <>stream h�b```�� � � �@��(�����I�e�8�� 6�P�T�k ���vKr�~��t�_����>Kf��?|���n��o;;�;:]2:�L!���:P�[�̱H��X$�A�і͓I�q3� � �X��d��� L���*q �Π��
%PDF-1.7 %���� 1 0 obj <>/Metadata 141 0 R/ViewerPreferences 142 0 R>> endobj 2 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 16 0 R 22 0 R 28 0 R 29 0 R 30 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> endobj 4 0 obj <> stream x��]K������=|70h4;A�H�rX���x�=��l&������*[-�2⃥�����z~,R�÷���yx�����> ��� >�|���/���p �Nÿ^�b#��f.6��4�ᗏ�_�����ׯ ߿~������ _���"6�Aj3����4���]�o��ӿ��O�/�����W߽~����w�_}��
Chart-based comparison of VAWA self-petitions and VAWA special-rule cancellation of removal, with eligibility and strategy differences called out side by side.
In Department of State v. Muñoz , 602 U.S. 899 (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a U.S. citizen and her noncitizen spouse had no access to judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of an immigrant visa. The Court held that a U.S. citizen has no “fundamental liberty interest” i n her spouse’s admission to the United States. This practice advisory, by the American Immigration Council, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and the Consular Accountability Project, is intende