Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Statement on Nomination of Marty Walsh as Secretary of Labor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 8, 2021

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

NILC and NILC Immigrant Justice Fund Statement on Nomination of Marty Walsh as Secretary of Labor

WASHINGTON — Upon the announcement that President-elect Joe Biden will be nominating Marty Walsh to lead the U.S. Department of Labor, Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund, issued the following statement:

“President-elect Biden has decided that Marty Walsh is the best choice to lead the Department of Labor, and we at NILC applaud his choice. As the current mayor of Boston and someone with roots in the labor movement and, in particular, the building trades, Walsh has the trusted relationship with the labor movement and experience to lead the department during these unprecedented times.

“The COVID-19 pandemic, increasing economic inequality, and the needs of essential workers, 70 percent of whom are immigrants, must be priorities for the next secretary of Labor, and we at NILC look forward to working with incoming Secretary Walsh to address these needs as we work to ‘build back better’ and to ensure that we have robust enforcement of all workers’ rights, including the rights of immigrant workers.”

# # #

Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Immigration Courts Fee Increases and Access to Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 24, 2020

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Maria Frausto, American Immigration Council, [email protected], 202-507-7526

Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Immigration Courts Fee Increases and Access to Justice

WASHINGTON — The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher filed a federal lawsuit late yesterday challenging the Trump administration’s new rule that drastically increases fees across the board in immigration proceedings in which the government seeks to deport long-term residents of the U.S., and others. The new rule would immediately deny access to justice for economically disadvantaged individuals seeking a fair day in court.

The fee increase rule, scheduled to take effect January 18, 2021, would apply when certain applications, appeals, and motions are submitted to immigration courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) — both of which are overseen by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Under the new fee schedule, the cost to apply for cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation will more than triple, and fees for appeals and a number of motions to the BIA — the highest administrative body that interprets and applies immigration laws — will be nearly nine times higher than their present level. In a departure from decades of law and policy, the new rule also seeks to require asylum-seekers to pay an application fee that many will not be able to afford.

“These exorbitant fees are another ‘wealth test’ for immigrants that would further cut off avenues to justice for those seeking safety in the United States and long-term residents who are essential members of their communities,” said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director, litigation, at the American Immigration Council. “The fee increases are staggering. They will have an immediate, devastating impact on access to justice for individuals with few or no economic resources fighting to stay in their communities and out of harm’s way.”

Despite the impact the fee increases would have, EOIR gave the public only 30 days to provide comments on the proposed rule during the COVID-19 pandemic. If the fees go into effect as scheduled, they will come two days before the new administration takes office.

“The fee increases are part of a hurried last-ditch effort by the Trump administration to solidify its extreme anti-immigrant agenda through regulations being finalized during its last days in office,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “With our courageous plaintiffs and legal partners, we’re taking the government to court to stop this cruel fee increase aimed at redefining who is worthy of being an American to only those with wealth. We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that this new policy is overturned and never gets implemented.”

The case was filed on behalf of immigrant community organizations Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA), and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).

“These new fees will have a devastating impact on our most vulnerable clients and community members. The government failed to take into account the ripple effects for those unable to afford the fees,” said Michelle Mendez, director of Defending Vulnerable Populations at Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. “The net effect will be less access to justice, with thousands of low-income immigrant families at risk of being ripped apart when all they seek is a fair and just review of their legal claims.”

The lawsuit, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, et al., was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is pro bono co-counsel.

“The public must have a fair opportunity to comment on a proposed rule,” said Joseph Evall of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro bono counsel to the plaintiffs. “The government sped this one through, withholding information about the rule’s impact and limiting the comment period, all in violation of the law.” Richard Mark, also of Gibson Dunn, added that the complaint shows that the rule should also be set aside because “the government lacks evidence or facts or analysis to support its exorbitant fee hike.” Katherine Marquart, Gibson Dunn’s pro bono partner, added, “The changes this rule makes and the defects in rulemaking were so apparent that we were able to assemble a team in short order to bring this challenge.”

The complaint is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CLINIC-v-EOIR-Complaint-2020-12-23.pdf.

###

Statement on Nomination of Miguel Cardona for Secretary of Education

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2020

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected]
Tenoch Flores, [email protected]

NILC and NILC Immigrant Justice Fund Statement on the Nomination of Miguel Cardona for Secretary of Education

WASHINGTON — Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund (IJF), issued the following statement following reports on the nomination of Miguel Cardona for U.S. secretary of Education:

“Miguel Cardona is the right person at the right time to lead the Department of Education. As a Latino who grew up in public housing and attended Connecticut public schools, eventually becoming a teacher and then a principal in the same district in which he grew up, he knows from experience how critical it is for the United States to reclaim its place in the world as a beacon of hope for those seeking a better education, including immigrants.

“As the next Education secretary, Cardona will face the considerable task of undoing the damage left behind by Trump’s policies, which have played out across our country’s schools and education system at all levels, especially in light of the educational gap the pandemic will leave in its wake. We look forward to working closely with Cardona to enhance access to education and focus on student wellness, while restoring the promise of our nation’s education system.”

# # #

USCIS Publishes Notice Confirming Restoration of DACA, Following Class-Action Lawsuit Victory

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2020

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Yatziri Tovar, [email protected], 917-771-2818
Ramis Wadood, [email protected], 203-432-4800

USCIS Publishes Notice Confirming Restoration of DACA, Following Class-Action Lawsuit Victory

NEW YORK — Following Friday’s federal court decision in the Batalla Vidal v. Wolf lawsuit, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated its website with a notice confirming that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has been restored in full to its pre-2017 form. Now, for the first time since the Trump administration tried to end DACA in 2017, USCIS is again accepting applications from first-time applicants and applications for advance parole (permission to leave the country and reenter) for humanitarian, educational, and employment purposes. As a result of Friday’s decision, work authorization will again be issued in two-year intervals.

This action follows the court’s finding that Chad Wolf, who claimed to be the acting secretary of Homeland Security, did not have the legal authority to issue the July 2020 memorandum dismantling DACA, because he was unlawfully appointed.

After the Supreme Court in June struck down the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to terminate DACA, Wolf issued a memorandum blocking first-time DACA applications, cutting renewals from two years to one, and drastically reducing the ability of DACA recipients to travel abroad on advance parole. In August, DACA-eligible youth, first-time applicants, and DACA recipients filed a legal challenge against the memo, arguing that it unlawfully and drastically altered the program and that it was issued without legal authority. On November 14, the court sided with the plaintiffs.

In addition, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request to be certified as the representatives of a nationwide class of approximately one million DACA-eligible individuals across the country. Class members can sign up to receive informative updates at dacaclassaction.org.

“Today, after waiting nearly three years, I will finally be able to apply for DACA,” said Ximena Zamora, member of Make the Road New York and plaintiff in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf lawsuit. “In 2017, I was robbed of the opportunity to be able to apply because DACA was wrongly terminated and, then again, in July when the Trump administration issued a memo blocking first time applicants like me. As a recent high school graduate, I want to be able to continue my studies, work to help support my family, and live without fear of being separated from my loved ones. I am excited to submit my DACA application as soon as possible.”

The Trump administration’s onslaught on immigrants and immigrant youth has put us at risk. Since their first attempt to end DACA, we have fought in the streets and in the courts, and we have proven once again that DACA should continue as it was before Trump tried to terminate it,” said Sonia Molina, member of Make the Road New York and plaintiff in the Batalla Vidal v. Wolf lawsuit whose DACA renewal application is pending. “As I now wait for my two-year DACA renewal, I know our fight is not over. We must continue to fight and organize to ensure permanent protections for all DACA recipients, temporary protected status (TPS) holders, and all undocumented people across the country.”

“For the first time in over three years, the government has finally confirmed what the law has always required: that it will accept first-time applications for DACA,” said Ramis Wadood, a law student intern with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, “Our plaintiffs have fought to keep DACA open since the beginning of the Trump presidency, and they will continue fighting for their community to be safe from deportation.”

“Our victories against the Trump administration are a testament to the courage, resilience and power of immigrant communities and the movement for immigrant justice — especially our brave and indefatigable plaintiffs who have remained steadfast in securing justice for themselves and others. Their home is here,” said Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a supervising attorney with the National Immigration Law Center.

While the government may appeal the decision and another federal judge in Texas may rule in a separate DACA case in the coming month, all eligible individuals are encouraged to consult with an immigration attorney about applying. For further information on the case and for forthcoming resources for class members, visit dacaclassaction.org.

The named plaintiffs in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf are Martín Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcón, Eliana Fernandez, Carolina Fung Feng, Carlos Vargas, Johana Larios, M.B.F., Ximena Zamora, Sonia Molina, and Make the Road New York. The class is represented by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, Make the Road New York, and the National Immigration Law Center.

NILC Statement on President-elect Biden’s Selection of Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2020

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Tenoch Flores, [email protected]

NILC Statement on President-elect Biden’s Selection of Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services

WASHINGTON, DC — Upon the announcement that President-elect Joe Biden will be nominating California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund, issued the following statement:

“We at the National Immigration Law Center applaud President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris’s stellar selection of California Attorney General (AG) Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). With a global pandemic raging through our communities and hampering our economy, the importance of an experienced leader at the helm of HHS cannot be overstated. By selecting AG Becerra, the Biden-Harris team has chosen a smart, compassionate, and talented leader with federal and state experience who will step into the role ready to serve.

“I have worked closely with Xavier over the years, most recently as he led the national litigation charge to defend against Trump’s incessant attacks on immigrant and LGBTQ communities. There has been no greater defender of the Affordable Care Act than AG Becerra; and on the public charge and DACA, he has been a strong advocate for immigrants and their loved ones.

“AG Becerra is a committed and experienced public servant, a meticulous lawyer, and a strong advocate for the expansion of health care access to all who need it, including to immigrants who continue to perform essential work during the COVID pandemic. As the son of immigrants who grew up in a low-income household, he represents another example of the Biden-Harris team’s commitment to ensuring that their administration not only represents the best our nation has to offer but is also a reflection of the country itself.

“We at NILC look forward to partnering with incoming HHS Secretary Becerra in ensuring that we have inclusive COVID relief that provides everyone, regardless of immigration status or how much money we have, with access to COVID testing and necessary medical care, including the forthcoming vaccine. We stand ready to partner with him and applaud the Biden-Harris team for their wise selection of Xavier Becerra to lead HHS.”

# # #

Federal Court Orders DACA Program Restored

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 4, 2020

CONTACT
Victoria Ballesteros, [email protected]
Medha Swaminathan, [email protected]
Yatziri Tovar, [email protected]
Daniel Altschuler, [email protected]

Federal Court Orders DACA Program Restored

Immigrant youth in class-action lawsuit celebrate victory

NEW YORK — Today, in the Batalla Vidal v. Wolf lawsuit, a federal court ordered the Trump administration to restore Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to its 2012 original form — reopening DACA to first-time applicants, restoring work authorization and renewals to two years, and making travel on advance parole more widely available to DACA recipients.

This decision follows the court’s finding that the July memo issued by Chad Wolf, who claimed to be the acting secretary of Homeland Security, was issued without legal authority because he was unlawfully appointed. In addition, the court had also granted the plaintiffs’ request to be certified as the representatives of a nationwide class of approximately one million DACA-eligible individuals across the country.

“Immigrant youth have resisted this cruel administration’s continuous attacks, and once more we have won,” said Johana Larios, plaintiff in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf and member of Make the Road New York. “Now, first-time applicants like me will be able to have access to the DACA program, and current recipients will be able to breathe a little easier as DACA is restored to its original form. I am now able to look forward to returning to school and feel safe that I won’t be separated from my community.”

“Today’s ruling culminates years of organizing by immigrant youth and marks an enormous victory in the battle to protect DACA,” said Armando Ghinaglia, a law student intern with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School. “For the first time since the Trump administration’s attempts to end DACA in 2017, the government must accept new first-time applications for DACA.”

Kamal Essaheb, deputy director of the National Immigration Law Center and former DACA recipient, stated: “More than a million DACA-eligible youth have just been granted the opportunity and freedom to thrive in this country that is their home. We celebrate this latest victory with our courageous plaintiffs, and look ahead to a new pro-immigrant administration under President-elect Biden and a permanent fix for DACA youth on day one of his administration.”

Javier. H. Valdés, co-executive director of Make the Road New York, organizational plaintiff in the case, said: “The court’s decision marks another victory for undocumented youth. Since its inception, the Trump administration has tried to terminate DACA and has left hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and DACA-eligible youth in limbo. We have now defeated them again. As we celebrate this victory, we look forward to ensuring that the incoming Biden administration provides not only permanent protection for DACA recipients, but an overhaul of out-of-control enforcement and a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented people in this country.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to terminate DACA, another federal court in Maryland ordered the government to restore DACA to its original terms. Instead, Chad Wolf, purportedly serving as the acting secretary of Homeland Security, issued a memorandum in July prohibiting first-time DACA applications, cutting renewals from two years to one, and drastically curtailing the ability of DACA recipients to travel abroad on advance parole.

In August, DACA-eligible youth, first-time applicants, and DACA recipients filed a legal challenge against the July 2020 memo, arguing that it unlawfully and drastically altered the program and that it was issued without legal authority. Following today’s decision, all eligible individuals are encouraged to consult with an immigration attorney to apply or renew their DACA immediately.

The named plaintiffs are Martín Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcón, Eliana Fernandez, Carolina Fung Feng, Carlos Vargas, Johana Larios, M.B.F., Ximena Zamora, Sonia Molina, and Make the Road New York. The class is represented by Make the Road New York, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School. For further information on the case and for forthcoming resources for class members, visit dacaclassaction.org.

Today’s order is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Batalla-Order-re-MSJ-2020-12-04.pdf.

# # #

Immigrant Youth Hail Court Decision Rejecting Trump Administration’s Assault on DACA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 14, 2020

CONTACT
NILC: Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149
MRNY: Yatziri Tovar, [email protected], 917-771-2818

Immigrant Youth Hail Court Decision Rejecting Trump Administration’s Assault on DACA

In August, New York immigrant youth amended their lawsuit to challenge Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf’s entire DACA memo

NEW YORK — Today, in the Batalla Vidal v. Wolf lawsuit, a federal court rejected the Trump administration’s latest attack on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The court found that the July 2020 memo issued by Chad Wolf, who claimed to be the acting secretary of Homeland Security, was invalid because he was unlawfully appointed. As a result of the decision, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should return the DACA program to its initial form — reopening DACA to first-time applicants, restoring work authorization and renewals to two years, and making travel on advance parole available to DACA recipients without restrictions.

The court also granted the plaintiffs’ request to be certified as the representatives of a nationwide class of approximately one million DACA-eligible individuals across the country. The court directed the parties to contact the court “immediately” to schedule a conference regarding next steps and any relief stemming from the legal opinion.

In August, DACA-eligible youth, first-time applicants, and DACA recipients filed a legal challenge against the Wolf memo, arguing that it unlawfully and drastically diminished the program, and that it was issued without legal authority. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in June striking down the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate DACA, the government should have restored DACA to its original terms. Instead, it issued the Wolf memorandum, which prohibited first-time DACA applications, cut renewals from two years to one, and drastically curtailed the ability of DACA recipients to travel abroad on advance parole. The plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate this latest attack on DACA so that the government would be required to process first-time DACA applications, two-year renewals, and advance parole requests. The court’s ruling today now makes that relief likely.

“This is an incredible victory for DACA recipients and first-time applicants like me,” said Johana Larios, plaintiff in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf and member of Make the Road New York. “DACA has opened so many opportunities for hundreds of thousands of youth, and now I hope to be able to go through with my application. With DACA, I hope to be able to return to school and feel safe from being separated from my young children.”

Javier. H. Valdés, co-executive director of Make the Road New York, organizational plaintiff in the case, said, “As we look forward to a Biden administration, we know this victory is just the beginning. Not only must the new administration immediately protect DACA and TPS [temporary protected status] holders and reverse all of Trump’s nativist polices, but also provide swift relief and a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented families across this country.”

“The court’s ruling today is a victory for the individual plaintiffs in this case and for Make the Road New York as well as for over one million DACA recipients and applicants,” said Medha Swaminathan, a law student intern with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School. “The Batalla-Vidal plaintiffs are fighting for all Dreamers, their families, and their communities. The court’s decision today reflects the tenacity, strength, and determination of the DACA movement in ensuring that the government respects the law.”

“The court has reaffirmed what we always knew: Chad Wolf was not authorized to perform the functions of an acting secretary when he issued the July 28 DACA memo,” said Trudy S. Rebert, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “This is a victory for our courageous plaintiffs, DACA-eligible youth across the country, and all of our communities. We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure that the Trump administration is accountable to the law and that immigrant youth remain safe and have the freedom to thrive here at home.”

The plaintiffs — Martín Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcón, Eliana Fernandez, Carolina Fung Feng, Carlos Vargas, Johana Larios, Ximena Zamora, Sonia Molina, M.B.F., and Make the Road New York — are represented by Make the Road New York, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, a part of the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School.

The court’s memorandum and order is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Batalla-order-class-cert-Wolf-memo-2020-11-14.pdf.

###

♦♦ More information about DACA and the Wolf memorandum’s restrictions is available from www.nilc.org/daca/

♦♦ Information for class members: nilc.org/dacaclassaction or www.nilc.org/daca-class-action-lawsuit

Civil Rights Advocates Win Reversal of Discriminatory City Utility Policies in Court Settlement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2020

CONTACT
NILC: Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149
SCHR: Hannah Riley, [email protected], 470-867-7530


For more details about the settlement agreement, contact Mayra Joachin, NILC staff attorney, [email protected], 213-674-2830.


Civil Rights Advocates Win Reversal of Discriminatory City Utility Policies in Court Settlement

City of LaGrange, GA, ends local policies that had unlawful discriminatory impact on Black and Latinx residents

ATLANTA — Civil rights groups reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit against the city of LaGrange, Georgia, that eliminates discriminatory local policies that for years prevented many residents from being able to access basic utility services. The policies, which disproportionately harmed Black and Latinx residents, imposed burdensome identification requirements for utilities applicants and threatened residents with utility shutoffs if they owed unrelated court debt to the city.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Southern Center for Human Rights, and Relman Colfax PLLC filed the lawsuit against the city of LaGrange in May 2017, alleging that the city’s discriminatory utility policies violate the Fair Housing Act and Georgia law. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Troup County Chapter of the NAACP, Project South, and seven impacted city residents.

“The discriminatory utilities policies adopted by LaGrange severely limited where Latinx immigrants and Black residents could live in the city and deprived them of access to critical services. Today’s victory is a great step toward ensuring that all residents of LaGrange have equal and fair access to essential utilities like gas, water, and electricity, and can live in housing of their choice,” said Mayra Joachin, staff attorney at NILC. “We are proud to stand with our plaintiffs, who boldly fought back against the city’s discriminatory policies and achieved justice for themselves and their neighbors. This outcome shows us that when communities come together, we can achieve victories that are good for all our communities.”

The city of LaGrange is the sole provider of electricity, gas, and water utility services to its residents. Unlike most municipalities in the country, the city does not levy property taxes — instead, municipal operations are largely funded through the city’s sale of basic utilities. Before the lawsuit was filed, the city required people applying for utilities to comply with two policies.

The first policy, which disproportionately affected Latinx immigrants, required applicants for utility services to provide certain identification documents issued in the United States to open an account. This policy barred many Latinx immigrant families in LaGrange from accessing essential utilities in their name.

“Access to water and sanitation services is a human right,” said Azadeh N. Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director at Project South. “No city should deny this essential service to its residents based on their immigrant status. We hope that this victory will lead other cities in the U.S. South that are currently engaging in human rights violations against their immigrant residents to change course.”

“This is a great victory for our community in LaGrange, and especially for the Latinx community, who for many years has been battling this very frustrating situation. After all this time in the dark, we finally see a light. I feel very happy to be part of this fight and this victory, which will help not only my family and my neighbors, but all the residents of our city,” said one of the John Doe plaintiffs, a resident of LaGrange who was directly affected by this policy.

The second city policy required that LaGrange residents pay any debts they owed to the city, including unrelated municipal court fees and fines, in order to initiate and/or maintain basic utility services. Residents with court debt were vulnerable to having their utilities turned off, sometimes with little advance notice. This policy disproportionately impacted Black residents: 90 percent of the residents subjected to the court debt policy were Black. (LaGrange’s population is only 48 percent Black.)

“This settlement is transformational,” said Ernest Ward, former president of the Troup County NAACP. “It brings much needed changes to LaGrange’s Black and Brown communities, while shining a light on the systemic problems in the city. It reinforces the racial justice work we’ve been doing for years, and the work that remains to be done.”

“An unpaid court fine should never endanger someone’s housing — but that’s exactly what was happening in the city of LaGrange before the community took action against these regressive, discriminatory policies,” said Atteeyah Hollie, managing attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights. “The use of court debt to determine one’s access to lights, heat, and water is both unjust and inhumane, and we are glad to see the city recognize that.”

The case went all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. That Court’s decision — recognizing that having utilities is a critical part of what makes a home livable — was a major victory for the plaintiffs, but it also stands as a warning to other utilities providers that seek to limit access to their residents.

“We’re very pleased with the results of the settlement for our clients and all residents of LaGrange,” said Reed Colfax, partner at Relman Colfax PLLC. “The courage and persistence of the plaintiffs in this case will have wide-reaching effects around the country because of the Eleventh Circuit’s important decision confirming the broad application of the Fair Housing Act to all types of conduct that affect the ability to use and enjoy one’s home. This case will continue to improve the ability of community members to enforce their fair housing rights for years to come.”

“This is a monumental victory for residents of LaGrange and the civil rights advocates who have been fighting alongside them for the past few years to achieve justice,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director at NILC. “This ruling sends a clear message that these kinds of discriminatory and harmful policies will not stand — not just in LaGrange, but in any city across the country. We can no longer accept the criminalization of poverty. We are grateful for our courageous plaintiffs who have fought long and hard for this victory for themselves and their community. We know that when we join together to fight back, we win.”

The members of the litigation team include Reed Colfax, Alexa Milton, Atteeyah Hollie, Cody Cutting, Nick Barber, Mayra Joachin, Meredith Cabell, Kevin Herrera, Robin Goldfaden, Isabel Tessier, and Isabelle Charo. Former litigation team members include Jamie Crook, Maya Chaudhuri, Justin Cox, Karen Tumlin, Melissa Keaney, Sheila Miller, Joseph Wardenski, Abigail Moats, Francesca Simon, and Nowmee Shehab.

###

Migrant Justice Settles Federal Lawsuit on ICE Retaliation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 28, 2020

CONTACT
– Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, (213) 375-3149, [email protected]
– Will Lambek, Migrant Justice, (802) 321-8393, [email protected]
– Leah Lotto, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, (212) 633-6967, [email protected]
– Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, [email protected]
– Liz Valsamis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, (213) 229-7115, [email protected]
– S. Beth Nolan, ACLU of Vermont, (802) 279-0747, [email protected]

Migrant Justice Settles Federal Lawsuit on ICE Retaliation

Trump administration agrees to terms in First Amendment lawsuit days before election

BURLINGTON, VT — In the settlement of a major federal lawsuit, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has agreed not to deport the immigrant activists who sued the agency after suffering retaliatory arrests, and to instruct officers not to target people “for exercising First Amendment rights.” Immigrant farmworkers with Vermont-based human rights organization Migrant Justice led a march today to Burlington’s federal courthouse to claim victory and file the settlement in Migrant Justice v. Wolf.

“With this settlement, we have shown that we won’t back down in the face of ICE’s abuses. They have tried to silence us by terrorizing our community and targeting our leaders, but we are here today to say that we will not be silenced,” said Victor Diaz, a Migrant Justice leader and plaintiff.

Today’s march mirrors a similar rally nearly two years ago when farmworkers marched on the courthouse to open the First Amendment claim. The 2018 suit alleged that ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted an unlawful, multi-year operation to surveil, harass, arrest, and detain the organization’s members and leaders. Migrant Justice contended that those activities were undertaken in retaliation against the plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights to speech and assembly and in order to destabilize Migrant Justice.

The lawsuit claimed federal immigration authorities had targeted Migrant Justice leaders and members since at least 2014, as the organization was engaged in high-profile human rights organizing across Vermont and nationally. As part of a larger pattern of suppressing immigrant activism nationwide, federal immigration authorities infiltrated the meetings and private associations of Migrant Justice by using a civilian informant, invasively surveilled its members, and mined their social media pages for information. In an attempt to undermine the organization, ICE spread false information about it, including that staff were collaborating with the agency to locate and detain immigrant community members.

Plaintiffs were represented in the lawsuit by the ACLU of Vermont, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, the National Immigration Law Center, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

“The Constitution protects our freedom to defend human rights and that includes protecting the farmworkers in Vermont who organized and won driver’s licenses and created their landmark Milk with Dignity Program,” said National Center for Law and Economic Justice Senior Attorney Leah Lotto. “Today’s settlement and victory for Migrant Justice shows how important it is to stand up against ICE’s wrongful actions targeting and detaining these and other activists fighting for equity in their communities.”

When the suit was filed in November 2018, ICE had detained more than 20 people actively involved in Migrant Justice, including the organization’s most prominent leadership. The lawsuit pointed to evidence of direct retaliation in nine of those cases. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit documented how, during the course of the arrests, ICE agents harassed and intimidated community leaders, referring to one as a “famous person” because of his activism, and named an additional member who would be “next.” ICE compiled dossiers on Migrant Justice leaders, including their social media pages and media appearances.

Three community leaders who have suffered from ICE’s targeted retaliation — Enrique Balcazar, Zully Palacios, and Victor Diaz — joined Migrant Justice as plaintiffs in the suit. All are in deportation proceedings after having been detained by ICE. Under the terms of the settlement, the federal government has agreed not to deport the three plaintiffs, by granting them deferred action, which will allow them to remain in the United States and obtain work permits. ICE will also pay damages of $100,000, to be divided among the plaintiffs.

“More than three years ago, ICE targeted me for my political activism and held me in detention for 11 days. They have been trying to deport me ever since,” said plaintiff Enrique Balcazar. “With this agreement, ICE is admitting defeat, allowing myself and others to remain in the country and accepting that they cannot target people for speaking out and organizing. We want this to become a precedent so that other groups and community leaders can organize without fear of retaliation. Because fear is not an option for our communities.”

Through the agreement, ICE must also tell its agents that immigrants, regardless of immigration status, are protected by the First Amendment and have the right to freedom of speech and assembly. The agency must send a memorandum to all employees in Vermont explaining “the obligations of this Office to act in accordance with the First Amendment, including its commitment to not profile, target on account of, or discriminate against any individual or group for exercising First Amendment rights.”

“The First Amendment enshrines the right of all individuals to speak and assemble peaceably without fear of retaliation or discrimination by the government on account of race or immigration status,” said Joel Cohen, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. “This settlement underscores that the government will be held to affirm its commitment to upholding these fundamental rights for all.”

“Zully, Enrique, Victor, and Migrant Justice members have been at the forefront of the fight for immigrant rights in Vermont. Their willingness to raise their voices, share their stories to advocate for change, and organize to ensure immigrants can live with dignity and thrive strengthens our communities and is fundamental to our democracy,” said Trudy S. Rebert, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “Today’s settlement agreement sends the message that all of us have First Amendment rights and no one should be retaliated against for exercising those rights — our democracy depends upon it.”

“The actions of ICE against Migrant Justice and its members cannot be divorced from the federal government’s, including ICE’s and other enforcement agencies’, disgraceful history of unlawfully targeting, surveilling, and disrupting grassroots movements for racial justice and civil and human rights. From COINTELPRO and the government’s actions against leaders in the movement for Black liberation in the 60s and 70s, to its current attacks on Black Lives Matter advocates, immigrant leaders in the Sanctuary Movement, and advocates at the southern border, the federal government has demonstrated a pattern of retaliation against dissenters across movements. It is up to us to hold our government to account for this unlawful conduct. This lawsuit and settlement is one tool to do just that, and ICE is on notice that we will continue to fight for the rights of Migrant Justice, its members, and other civil and human rights defenders,” said Lupe Aguirre, a Bertha Justice Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The 2018 lawsuit had also named the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles as a defendant due to the state agency’s discriminatory practices of sharing immigrants’ information with ICE. In January, plaintiffs reached a separate settlement with the DMV, formalizing new regulations to restrict communication and information-sharing between the state agency and federal immigration agencies. The settlement also prohibits the DMV from retaining copies of birth certificates, passports, and other sensitive information of applicants for Driver’s Privilege Cards and requires the agency to retrain staff and hire an external auditor to monitor compliance with the agreement.

Today’s settlement brings the federal lawsuit to a close, just days before the presidential election. Said Migrant Justice spokesperson Thelma Gómez, “ICE’s abuses did not start under this administration and they won’t end next week, whoever wins the election. We have achieved something great today, and we must keep organizing to confront these abuses. Because it is only when we unite to defend our rights that we win justice.”

The settlement agreement is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Migrant-Justice-v-Wolf-Settlement-Agreement-redacted-2020-10-28.pdf.

###

Public Charge: Five Things to Know Now (The Torch)

UPDATE – SEP. 22, 2020
On September 22, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services updated its website to state that it would apply the 2019 public charge regulations and related guidance to all applications and petitions postmarked (or submitted electronically) on or after February 24, 2020. It also reposted Form I-944. This announcement follows the Second Circuit’s stay of a U.S. district court injunction that had prevented the regulations from going into effect. Litigation challenging the regulations continues in multiple federal courts.

Public Charge: Five Things to Know Now

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Gabrielle Lessard
AUGUST 31, 2020

Recent decisions by federal courts have significantly altered the “public charge” landscape, creating uncertainty about the extent to which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) public charge regulations are in effect, but certain issues and facts remain clear.

Legal challenges to the regulations continue in multiple courts. While those cases proceed, plaintiffs in New York asked a federal court to put the regulations on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic. A U.S. district court there granted that request on July 29, 2020. (The district court also issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. State Department’s public charge regulations. That injunction remains in effect nationwide and is not tied to the pandemic.)

On August 12, 2020, one Second Circuit judge affirmed but narrowed the district court’s order by indicating that the injunction will apply only within the states in the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont). The federal government is seeking a complete stay of the district court’s order. The government’s motion for a stay will soon be reviewed by a panel of three Second Circuit judges.[*]

 

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website currently refers to the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the district court in New York on July 29, 2020, which prevents USCIS from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating as effective” its public charge regulations. The form that applicants would use to provide the information contemplated by the regulations, Form I-944, “Declaration of Self-Sufficiency,” is no longer available on the website. Given the recent order narrowing the injunction, the website message is puzzling

A spokesperson for USCIS told a reporter that the agency was reviewing the order to “determine the administrative viability of reimplementing” the policy in the 47 remaining states. USCIS’s public charge policy is evolving and may change again. But some things remain certain, whether or not the new regulations are in effect.

1. Many categories of immigrants are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, including refugees; people granted asylum; survivors of trafficking, domestic violence, or other serious crimes (VAWA, T or U visa applicants/holders); and applicants for temporary protected status (TPS). These exemptions are in the immigration statute and cannot be changed by regulations.

2. Inadmissibility to the U.S. based on public charge is assessed when non–U.S. citizens seek permission to enter the U.S. or to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR), i.e., to get a “green card.” There is no public charge assessment when an LPR applies to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.

3. Once the regulations go into effect, only the specific programs they list as public benefits can be considered in a public charge determination. Many public programs will not be considered, including health services for children and pregnant women, unemployment insurance, and disaster relief.

4. Most people who face a public charge assessment are not eligible for the benefits that may be considered in this assessment.

5. A public charge assessment looks at a balance of positive and negative factors that make a person likely to depend on the government in the future. People can take action to improve their balance of factors by, for example, pursuing education, job training, or employment. Many community colleges and workforce investment boards offer free or low-cost options.

If you have questions about your situation, consult an immigration lawyer. Organizations that provide free or low-cost legal help can be found at https://www.immigrationadvocates.org/legaldirectory/.


Gabrielle Lessard is a NILC senior policy attorney.


[*] UPDATE (Sep. 15, 2020): On September 11, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a lower court’s nationwide injunction of the DHS public charge rule. This means that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is now free to implement the DHS public charge regulations in all jurisdictions. Litigation on the Trump administration’s public charge rules and policies is ongoing in  multiple federal circuits.