VAWA and U Visa
Inadmissibility Ground Waivers Fail Many Battered Immigrants
Christina Pollard, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Robert A. Leflar
Law Center
Battered immigrants face a choice of
immigration relief: a self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act or a
petition for U Nonimmigrant Status as a victim of crime. Both avenues require similar evidence, but
requirements significantly differ enough that petitioners often are eligible
for one but not the other. An
inadmissible U Petitioner may request a generous waiver. Most inadmissibility grounds can be waived if
USCIS finds that it is “in the public or national interest” to exercise
discretion. With some exceptions,
immigration law takes a softer approach to inadmissible U petitioners than to
inadmissible VAWA self-petitioners, who must navigate more complicated
statutory waiver possibilities pursuant to INA 212. VAWA self-petitioners often are barred from
obtaining lawful immigration status due to insurmountable grounds of
inadmissibility, while a U petitioner would not be. Because of the difference in waiver treatment
combined with contrasting eligibility requirements for the avenues of relief,
many battered immigrants “fall through the cracks” and cannot obtain
immigration relief through either a VAWA self-petition or a U petition. If U Visa waivers were available to VAWA
self-petitioners, more battered immigrants would have access to lawful permanent
status.
The Transition to
Domestic Asylum Adjudication: A Comparative Analysis of Emerging Refugee Law
and Policy in Morocco and Turkey
Sabi Ardelan, Harvard Law School
This article
will explore the transition from UNHCR-controlled refugee regulation to asylum
systems under domestic control in Morocco and Turkey, and the
opportunities and challenges presented by the two countries’ incorporation of
asylum adjudication into domestic law. Over the past five years, Morocco and
Turkey have, respectively, begun the process of shifting responsibility for
refugee status determinations from UNHCR to national government authorities.
Although adoption of these domestic asylum laws and policies comes with some
net positives, including with respect to sustainability and efficiency, it also
carries with it some potential adverse effects, including with respect to
treatment of LGBTQ refugees and gender-based refugee claims. This article will
address these tensions and will highlight the impact of EU investment in
preventing the flow of refugees to Europe on the development of domestic asylum
procedures in these two countries.