Category Archives: News Releases

National Survey Results Find Executive Action Is Beneficial for Economy and Society

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 18, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, NILC, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Tanya Arditi, CAP, 202-741-6277, [email protected]

National Survey Results Find Executive Action Is Beneficial for Economy and Society

WASHINGTON — Those who received work authorization through the Obama administration’s executive actions have improved their economic situation, stimulated the economy, and become breadwinners for their families, according to a new survey released today. The Center for American Progress, the National Immigration Law Center, and United We Dream worked with University of California, San Diego, professor Tom Wong to conduct a national survey of more than 1,000 beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. This program provides certain immigrants who came to the United States as children with protection from deportation and work authorization for a two-year period, which can be renewed.

“As we continue to reach out and survey DACA recipients, it is increasingly clear that DACA is having significant and positive effects that extend beyond the individual recipients,” said Wong. “Yes, DACA is improving the lives of recipients by opening up new employment and educational opportunities. We also see in this latest study that DACA recipients are creating larger footprints in the broader economy. DACA recipients are starting their own businesses, earning higher wages, buying their first cars, and some are even buying their first homes. Importantly, we also see that DACA recipients are poised to contribute across many sectors in the economy. The majors, specializations, and training that DACA recipients are pursuing include early childhood education, biochemistry, computer science, creative writing, graphic design, neuroscience, nursing, social work, and urban planning, among many others.”

This year’s survey shows that communities and state economies have benefited from DACA as well. More than half of the survey respondents have purchased their first car since receiving DACA. These purchases provide a substantial tax boon for individual states and signal increased economic mobility.

“In my family, some of us qualify for DACA, like my sister and I. Some of us are still undocumented, like my mom. And some of us are U.S. citizens like my two sisters who are planning to vote this year. In fact, this survey shows that fully 41 percent of DACA recipients like me have a U.S. citizen family member, like my sisters, who are over the age of 18 and 80 percent of them are registered to vote. When politicians talk about ‘executive action’ I want them to know that DACA is what Executive Action looks like,” added Greisa Martinez Rosas, advocacy director for United We Dream.

“The political, economic, and moral case for DACA is win-win-win,” said Ignacia Rodriguez, co-author of the survey and immigration policy advocate with the National Immigration Law Center. “Whether you know someone with DACA or not, we all benefit from their increased tax dollars, civic participation, and economic mobility. We hope that politicians—and the courts—pay attention to this important data.”

Survey responses were collected from September 8 to September 26, 2016. This research builds upon an initial survey of DACA recipients conducted in June 2015.

“Since our last survey in 2015, unauthorized young people with DACA are taking advantage of even more opportunities and are financially contributing to the well-being of their families,” said Tom Jawetz, co-author of the survey and Vice President for Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress. “Because of DACA, these young people are earning higher wages, purchasing cars and homes, and starting businesses—all of which translate into greater federal, state, and local tax revenues.”

Read the full survey results here.

# # #

Established in 1979, the National Immigration Law Center is the only advocacy organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their families. NILC advances its mission through policy analysis, litigation, education, and advocacy. Over the past three decades, NILC has won landmark legal decisions protecting fundamental rights, thwarted policies that would have devastated the lives of low-income immigrants and their family members, and advanced major policies that reinforce our nation’s values of equality, opportunity, and justice for all.

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values. We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

United We Dream is the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the nation, a powerful nonpartisan network made up of 55 affiliate organizations in 26 states. UWD organizes and advocates for the dignity and fair treatment of immigrant youth and families, regardless of immigration status. We seek to address the inequities and obstacles faced by immigrant youth and believe that by empowering immigrant youth, we can advance the cause of the entire community—justice for all immigrants. You can find more about UWD online at www.unitedwedream.org.

Chicago Dreamer Challenges Nationwide Immigration Injunction

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 12, 2016

CONTACT
• Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
• Tara Tidwell Cullen, National Immigrant Justice Center, 312-660-1337, [email protected]

COMPLAINT (PDF)

Chicago Dreamer Challenges Nationwide Immigration Injunction

New lawsuit advances efforts started in New York, alleges Texas order not binding in Illinois

CHICAGO — A new federal lawsuit today advanced efforts to reinstate the Obama administration’s immigration relief initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (expanded DACA), in some parts of the country.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by José Lopez, a DACA recipient, is the second to challenge the reach of an unlawfully broad injunction in United States v. Texas. It follows a similar lawsuit filed in August by Martín Batalla Vidal in the Eastern District of New York.

Both lawsuits seek to fix a wrongdoing suffered by thousands of DACA recipients who are not party to the Texas case, and could open up a new pathway for the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA outside of Texas, providing relief for millions of families.

“I applied for DACA because I knew it would open up better opportunities, and I had understood I wouldn’t have to reapply to renew my work permit for three years—a big relief,” Lopez said. “This relief was taken away from me and from thousands of others because of one judge in Texas. That’s not fair. We contribute to our communities, and we should be allowed to plan our lives more than two years at a time.”

Lopez, 24, is a longtime resident of Chicago who came to the U.S. from Mexico when he was four years old. He is represented by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and the Rockford, Illinois, law firm Dady & Hoffmann.

In February 2015, Lopez received a three-year work permit from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under newly issued rules for DACA. That same month, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the federal district court in South Texas, issued an injunction in United States v. Texas that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA nationwide, based solely on claims of alleged costs to Texas. The federal government relied on that injunction to wrongfully revoke three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of DACA recipients across the country, including to Lopez and Batalla Vidal.

Like Batalla Vidal, Lopez seeks reinstatement of his three-year work permit because its revocation on the basis of the overbroad injunction was unlawful. Furthermore, by challenging the scope of the Texas injunction, the lawsuit could lead to the reinstatement of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of families in states that are not part of the Texas lawsuit.

“We are proud to stand with José, as we are with Martín, because Illinois is not Texas,” said Justin Cox, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “And New York is not Texas. We are fighting back against an erroneous injunction that has hurt people like José and Martín as well as millions of other immigrants across the country—and, indeed, all of us.”

“It’s deeply troubling that a district court judge’s decision in Texas is reaching to cause harm to longtime Illinois residents, when our city and state officials have repeatedly expressed support for President Obama’s expansion of deferred action,” said Mark Fleming, national litigation coordinator at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Increasing access to DACA and implementing DAPA would bring tremendous economic and social benefits to Illinois.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants such as Lopez, who came to the U.S. as children, to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to include more immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three- rather than two-year periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expansion of DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both programs. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which this month refused to rehear the case after deadlocking and issuing no decision in June.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Lopez-v-Richardson-et-al-complaint-2016-10-12.pdf.

# # #

NILC to Honor 2016 Courageous Luminaries Awards Recipients at Annual Dinner

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2016

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

NILC to Honor 2016 Courageous Luminaries Awards Recipients at Annual Dinner

LOS ANGELES — The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is proud to announce this year’s recipients of its Courageous Luminaries Awards: longtime community advocate Reshma Shamasunder, the global law firm Morrison and Foerster LLP, and advocacy group FWD.us. In recognition of their roles in and ongoing commitment to advancing the interests of immigrant communities, NILC will honor them at its annual awards dinner to be held October 13, 2016, at The Center at Cathedral Plaza in Los Angeles.

“The visionary leadership of this year’s Luminaries has had far-reaching impact, improving the lives of millions in immigrant communities across the U.S., and helping to inform and shape our national conversations,” said Sara Gould, chair of the NILC Board of Directors.

“Sustained commitment, innovation, and generosity: This year’s Courageous Luminaries showcase some of the best attributes that have helped strengthen the immigrants’ rights field and its ability to achieve concrete results,” said Marielena Hincapié, NILC’s executive director. “It’s an honor to have worked closely with each of our honorees and to pay tribute to their tremendous contributions.”

Reshma Shamasunder has played an instrumental role in improving the lives and health of immigrants in California. As the former director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, and in her current role as a policy consultant, Shamasunder’s work over the past 12 years to increase immigrants’ access to critical services, education, professional licenses, driver’s licenses, and, most recently, health coverage for children regardless of their immigration status has helped transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of Californians and their families.

Founded in 2013, FWD.us has demonstrated unwavering leadership in the national campaign to defend and advance the Obama administration’s immigration relief initiatives. It played a pivotal role in convening dozens of business leaders to sign on to an amicus brief that was filed with the Supreme Court in United States, et al. v. State of Texas, et al. in support of the deferred action programs known as DAPA and the expansion of DACA. But perhaps more importantly, FWD.us has devoted unprecedented resources and energy to lift up the voices of people who will be directly affected by the High Court’s decision, in order to compellingly illustrate the needless devastation that our country’s current immigration policies are having on families, communities, and the nation’s economy.

Morrison and Foerster LLP, a law firm with 16 offices around the world, has demonstrated a deep commitment to pro bono work in support of immigrants’ rights. The firm has played a critical role in Jane Doe #1, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al., a class action lawsuit challenging horrific and unconstitutional detention conditions in Border Patrol holding facilities in that agency’s Tucson Sector. Morrison and Foerster assembled a large pro bono team to provide critical support and recommended bold and creative litigation strategies in the case. The discovery strategy the firm recommended was instrumental in gathering critical evidence showing the extent of the human rights and due process violations in the holding cells. The resources and attorney time Morrison and Foerster has devoted to analyzing this evidence may help propel detention-condition reform that reaches beyond the holding facilities in Arizona that prompted the lawsuit.

More information about NILC’s 2016 Courageous Luminaries Awards dinner is available at www.nilc.org/2016-awards-dinner/.

# # #

NY Dreamer Suing Government to Implement Obama Immigration Relief Heads to Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Daniel Altschuler, Make the Road New York, [email protected], 917-494-5922
Susanna Evarts, Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, Yale Law School, [email protected], 207-653-9499

NY Dreamer Suing Government to Implement Obama Immigration Relief Heads to Court

First federal court hearing held in lawsuit seeking order that Obama administration’s immigration program should proceed

NEW YORK, NY — Today, Martín Batalla Vidal, an immigrant New Yorker and Make the Road New York member who filed suit against the federal government to challenge a Texas federal court’s nationwide injunction stopping President Obama’s 2014 immigration relief initiatives, had his first appearance in court. Before the pre-motion conference began, immigrant New Yorkers, elected officials, and allies rallied outside of Brooklyn Borough Hall to show support for Mr. Batalla Vidal’s case and applaud his courage in coming forward to stand up for his community.

Batalla Vidal, a 26-year-old New York City resident who initially obtained a three-year work permit under the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration relief initiatives, later had his permit limited by one year when a federal judge in Texas, Andrew Hanen, issued a sweeping, nationwide preliminary injunction in Texas v. United States. Batalla Vidal’s case argues that Judge Hanen’s injunction should not apply in states like New York, as they were not party to the suit blocking the immigration initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). New York, along with fifteen other states and the District of Columbia, filed a joint brief in Texas v. U.S. that argued against the injunction and emphasized the benefits that DAPA and expanded DACA would have for their states.

Immigrant New Yorkers, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and New York City Councilmembers Carlos Menchaca and Antonio Reynoso rallied together outside Brooklyn’s Borough Hall before the hearing Thursday to show solidarity with Batalla Vidal and to express support for this case, which would create a path for the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of immigrants in New York and across the nation.

Batalla Vidal is represented by Make the Road New York (MRNY), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic (WIRAC) at Yale Law School.

“We stand proudly with Martín as he proceeds with this case, which is a light in the darkness for millions of immigrants like me,” said Magdalena Brito, a Make the Road New York member with two U.S.-citizen children, who would benefit from DAPA. “We hope the judge will rule correctly and permit expanded DACA and DAPA to move forward, which will help keep my family, and millions of families like mine, together and bring economic improvement to New York and dozens of other states.”

In 2015, the federal government relied on Judge Hanen’s injunction to wrongfully revoke or limit three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of expanded-DACA recipients across the country, including Batalla Vidal. This case challenges the scope of Judge Hanen’s injunction, arguing that it should not apply to states like New York, which had not filed suit against the programs in the first place.

“Judge Hanen denied security and stability to thousands of New Yorkers without even hearing from them,” said Amit Jain, a law student intern in the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School. “Martín is standing up to ensure that his voice is heard. We are thrilled to stand with him today.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants, such as Batalla Vidal, who came to the U.S. as children, to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to additional immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S.-citizen and lawful-permanent-resident children to live and work in the country temporarily. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three-year, rather than two-year, periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both programs. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June of 2016 deadlocked 4-4, with no decision issued.

“An overly broad injunction has unjustly denied millions of immigrant families an opportunity to leave fear and uncertainty behind and move on with their lives,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director at the National Immigration Law Center. “Thanks to our inspiring plaintiff, Martín, there’s now a chance that at least some of them will be able to get relief. We are grateful for his willingness to speak out for himself and others.”

Batalla Vidal’s home state of New York, and many others, have attested to the benefits of DACA and DAPA, including before the U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 60 percent of individuals eligible for DAPA and expanded DACA live outside of states involved in the Texas case.

# # #

NILC Responds to Obama Administration’s Policy Shift on Haitian Refugees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2016

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

NILC Responds to Obama Administration’s Policy Shift on Haitian Refugees

LOS ANGELES — In a sudden policy shift, the Obama administration announced today that it will move to swiftly deport survivors of Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake who have sought refuge at the U.S.-Mexico border in recent months.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Haiti’s massive earthquake in 2010 created one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history, and its impacts are still being felt today. With their country still reeling from the aftermath, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would move to deport refugees who were displaced by this devastating natural disaster. Just days ago, President Obama was on the world stage talking about our moral obligation to help people around the world who have been displaced by unlivable conditions. These people don’t just come from oceans away—they also live here in our hemisphere.

It’s troubling that the administration has not learned from the criticism for how it has treated Central American families. Rather than continuing with its failed deterrence approach of detaining and deporting those seeking refuge in our country, the administration should consider granting these families humanitarian relief. The Obama administration should not turn its back on these families who have fought so hard to seek safety here. “

# # #

Immigrant and Civil Rights Groups Challenge Arizona Policy Denying Driver’s Licenses to Survivors of Domestic Violence and Other Immigrants

FOR IMMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 13, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, NILC, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Sandra Hernandez, MALDEF, 213-629-2512, ext. 129, [email protected]

Immigrant and Civil Rights Groups Challenge Arizona Policy Denying Driver’s Licenses to Survivors of Domestic Violence and Other Immigrants

Class-action lawsuit filed in federal court on behalf of five immigrants who received deferred action and work permits

PHOENIX — Immigrant and civil rights groups have filed a legal challenge to Arizona’s policy of denying certain lawfully present immigrants access to driver’s licenses.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the Ortega Law Firm filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Phoenix on behalf of five individuals, including a mother of two who is currently battling cancer. All five individuals received deferred action and have work permits. Four await processing of visas for survivors of domestic violence and other serious crimes. Another has deferred action to care for her child with spina bifida.

The lawsuit alleges that Arizona’s policy, which fails to provide driver’s licenses to all deferred action recipients, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Federal law prohibits arbitrary and unsupported discrimination against groups of people; there is no basis for denying licenses to recipients of deferred action.

“Arizona is unjustly preventing some of its most vulnerable residents from driving lawfully, impeding their ability to live safely apart from their abusers and hindering their prospects for a better life,” said Nicholas Espíritu, a staff attorney at NILC. “As we’ve seen, these discriminatory policies not only run afoul of the law, they’re also bad for public safety and well-being.”

“Arizona continues to double down on its anti-immigrant campaigns that directly harm Latinos in all walks of life,” stated Victor Viramontes, MALDEF’s National Senior Counsel. “Like before, a federal court will have to tell Arizona that it cannot discriminate against its own residents.”

Before 2012, all individuals with federal work authorization were able to obtain a driver’s license in Arizona. However, after President Obama’s announcement of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, then-Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order mandating that DACA recipients be denied driver’s licenses. Brewer’s policy was eventually struck down by a federal judge.

Arizona officials, however, are now denying driver’s licenses to other immigrants who, like DACA recipients, are federally authorized to be present in the United States, according to the lawsuit.

Among the women challenging the state’s policy is Maria del Carmen Cruz Hernandez, a single mother of two who is battling cancer. Hernandez received deferred action and a work permit last year but was denied a driver’s license this year. Without a license, Cruz has found it hard to attend necessary medical treatment. Moreover, she has struggled economically. Cruz has also lost out on several employment opportunities that would pay more than her current job cleaning houses, because they would require her to drive.

“I need a driver’s license primarily for work and to live my daily life,” said Cruz. “Even regular errands take a significant amount of time when you’re limited to commuting by bus. That’s time I could be spending with my family.”

Another plaintiff, Guadalupe Nava, attempted to get a driver’s license three times using a work permit she received after applying for a visa for domestic abuse survivors. Each time she was turned away. As a single mother of two small girls, Nava has had to drive without a license on occasion to keep up with her job and family responsibilities.

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in this case, Osaria, et al. v. Ducey, et al., is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Osoria-v-Ducey-complaint-2016-09-12.pdf.

# # #

New York Dreamer Challenges Nationwide Immigration Injunction

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 25, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Daniel Altschuler, Make the Road New York, [email protected], 917-494-5922
Will Bloom, Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, Yale Law School, [email protected], 610-570-0806

COMPLAINT (PDF)

New York Dreamer Challenges Nationwide Immigration Injunction

Suit alleges order by Texas judge not binding in NY, president’s program should proceed

NEW YORK — A first-of-its-kind lawsuit today opened up a new front in the defense of the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration relief initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (expanded DACA).

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Martín Batalla Vidal, a DACA recipient, challenges the reach of the unlawfully broad injunction in United States v. Texas, the case brought by Texas and 25 other states challenging DAPA and expanded DACA. If successful, the new lawsuit would fix a wrongdoing suffered by thousands of DACA recipients who are not party to the Texas case and could reinstate both initiatives in some parts of the country, providing relief for millions of families.

“When I first filed for DACA, I was excited to get a three-year work permit and move forward with my life,” said Batalla Vidal, a member of Make the Road New York who is studying to be a medical assistant and also works to help support his family. “That was taken away by one judge in Texas, and it’s not fair for me and for thousands of others affected. I’m filing this lawsuit for myself and the thousands of others like me who have been wronged by this judge’s decision.”

Batalla Vidal, 25, is a longtime resident of New York who came to the U.S. from Mexico when he was seven years old. He is represented by Make the Road New York (MRNY), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic (WIRAC) at Yale Law School.

In February 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Batalla Vidal for a three-year work permit under newly issued rules for DACA. That same month, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the federal district court in Southern Texas, issued an injunction that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA nationwide based on claims of incurred costs by Texas. The federal government relied on that injunction to wrongfully revoke three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of DACA recipients across the country, including to Batalla Vidal.

“Martín and many others like him are being hurt by a lawsuit in which Texas is the only state that any court has said could stand to lose as a result of the DAPA program,” said Melissa Keaney, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “But, the burden of this injunction is painfully real for Martín and the many others impacted. Filing for a renewal of DACA every two years is costly and time-intensive, and it can prevent people from fulfilling academic and professional goals or taking on other major life steps that require advance planning.”

Through this lawsuit, Batalla Vidal seeks reinstatement of his three-year work permit because its revocation on the basis of the overbroad injunction was unlawful. Furthermore, by challenging the scope of the Texas injunction, the lawsuit could lead to the reinstatement of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of families in states that are not part of the Texas lawsuit.

“The government itself has said the judge in Texas lacked jurisdiction to apply his injunction here in New York,” said Will Bloom, a law student intern in the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School. “Judge Hanen has confused Brownsville, Texas, with Brownsville, Brooklyn.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants such as Batalla Vidal who came to the U.S. as children to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to more immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children to live and work in the country temporarily. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three- rather than two-year periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expansion of DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both programs. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June of this year deadlocked 4-4 on the case, issuing no decision.

Batalla Vidal’s own home state of New York has attested to the benefits of DACA and DAPA, including before the Supreme Court.

“New York and its leaders have embraced immigrant communities and President Obama’s immigration relief,” said Javier H. Valdes, co-executive director of Make the Road New York. “There’s no reason the injunction from Texas should block progress in New York and similar states. It’s time to right the wrong done to these families by Judge Hanen and take long-overdue steps to keep families together.”

Approximately 60 percent of individuals eligible for DAPA and expanded DACA live outside of states involved in the Texas case.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Batalla-Vidal-v-Baren-et-al-complaint-2016-08-25.pdf.

# # #

Court Orders Release of Graphic Photos of Arizona Border Patrol Detention Facilities and Damning Expert Witness Testimony

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 18, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Wendy Feliz, American Immigration Council, 202-507-7524, [email protected]
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-773-6007, [email protected]
Travis Silva, LCCR, 415-543-9444×207, [email protected]
Hayley Home, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 415-268-6021, [email protected]

Court Orders Release of Graphic Photos of Arizona Border Patrol Detention Facilities and Damning Expert Witness Testimony

Order follows attempts by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to keep evidence of unconstitutional detention conditions from the public

LOS ANGELES — Today, groups made public damning evidence, including expert testimony and video stills illustrating the deplorable and unconstitutional conditions detained individuals are subjected to in Border Patrol custody in the agency’s Tucson Sector.

The court rejected the Border Patrol’s effort to conceal evidence of inhumane and abusive detention practices from the public. Accepting the position of the plaintiffs and the Arizona Republic, which intervened to argue for the release of the materials, the court recognized that access to court proceedings and to basic information about governmental practices are fundamental First Amendment rights.

The video stills and expert testimony released today reveal that the Border Patrol holds individuals—among them traumatized asylum-seekers and mothers with infants and small children—for days at a time in cold, overcrowded, and dirty cells that are designed to detain people for only a few hours. Graphic photographs show detainees packed head-to-foot in filthy, overcrowded rooms. One image captures a mother changing an infant’s diaper on a trash-strewn concrete floor.

Also among the unsealed documents is testimony from an expert for the plaintiffs who wrote that, in his 35 years of experience working in correctional facilities, he had “never been in one that treats those confined in a manner that the CBP treats detainees.”

Among other conclusions about the poor treatment of individuals detained in Border Patrol facilities, he said that “[t]he absence of medical screening upon arrival is unthinkable,” and that he had never before witnessed an attempt to “cram” so many people into so little space, without beds and bedding. He concluded, “The CBP [is] housing people in conditions that are unnecessarily harsh, dangerous and contrary to accepted industry practices and standards.”

“Every step the government has taken in response to this lawsuit has been designed to delay this suit and hide the conditions present at these facilities,” said Louise Stoupe of Morrison & Foerster. “The government should be using the resources they are wasting in court to provide basic human necessities to those in its custody.”

“Migrants detained in the Tucson sector have long suffered horrific conditions,” said Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the ACLU of Arizona. “It is unconscionable that the federal government continues to detain people, including infants, in this manner. The Border Patrol continues to operate in violation of U.S. and international law as well as its own standards without being held accountable for these egregious abuses.”

“These photos show the harm people suffer in these facilities, from having to sleep on the floor for days to needing to huddle together just to stay warm,” said Travis Silva, attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “These conditions should not exist in a facility operated by the United States government.”

“The images unsealed by the court leave no room to debate the fact that thousands of immigrants are subjected to inhumane and unconstitutional conditions by the Border Patrol,” said Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “We urgently need meaningful and lasting reforms that put an end to these abuses, hold the agency accountable, and ensure that people are treated with dignity.”

“Mothers should not be forced to change their babies’ diapers on cold concrete floors or warm them with flimsy aluminum sheets. Border Patrol’s treatment of men, women and children in its custody is simply inexcusable,” said Mary Kenney, senior staff attorney for the American Immigration Council. “We are seeking immediate relief from the deplorable detention conditions in CBP holding facilities for the thousands of individuals who are or will be held there while this case progresses.”

In December, attorneys representing the plaintiff class of detained immigrants sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Border Patrol’s unconstitutional detention practices while the case is being litigated. The injunction is based on compelling evidence of inhumane conditions in Tucson facilities—much of which was disclosed after the court sanctioned the Border Patrol for destroying video recordings from these facilities and failing to turn over other relevant documentation.

Jane Doe, et al. v. Johnson, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Attorneys on the case include Harold J. McElhinny, Colette Reiner Mayer, Louise C. Stoupe, Kevin M. Coles, Pieter S. de Ganon, and Elizabeth Balassone of Morrison & Foerster LLP; Nora Preciado, Linton Joaquin, and Karen C. Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center; Mary Kenney and Melissa Crow of the American Immigration Council; Travis Silva of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; and Katie Brody, Brenda Muñoz Furnish, and Dan Pochoda of ACLU of Arizona.

The images and expert testimony are available at www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/hieleras/.

More information about this case is available at www.nilc.org/jdoe1vjohnson/.

# # #

Dreamers Defend Themselves in Judge Hanen’s Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Anna Núñez, ACLU of Texas, [email protected], 713-325-7010

Dreamers Defend Themselves in Judge Hanen’s Court

“Fearless Four” respond to judge’s demand for their personal data with amicus brief

LOS ANGELES — Four young immigrants whose private information was ordered disclosed by a federal judge in U.S. v. Texas filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case today, arguing that the judge’s order violates their constitutional right to privacy, runs contrary to precedent, and is unjustified.

The group, known as the Fearless Four, includes Juan Escalante of Florida, Angelica Villalobos of Oklahoma, and two others who filed anonymously. They are just a few in a group of about 50,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients who would be impacted by an outlandish order by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in the case challenging the Obama administration’s immigration executive actions.

“I applied to DACA in 2012 with the understanding that my private information would be kept confidential, and in good faith provided every detail about my life the federal government requested,” said Escalante, whose DACA renewal was approved in December 2014. “Judge Hanen’s order seeks to undermine my constitutional right to privacy and could potentially expose personal information to individuals who may wish to retaliate against my family and me. Private means private.”

In addition to constitutional rights violations, the brief points to relevant case law that requires the courts to exercise discretion and restraint when it comes to forced disclosure of an individual’s highly sensitive information, even in cases of alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the brief argues that even if Hanen’s order was not precluded by precedent, it is not justified since it punishes individuals who are not party to the case, not those who committed the perceived misconduct, and would therefore not deter future misconduct.

“There’s no question Judge Hanen exceeded his authority with this order,” said Justin Cox, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “But most importantly, he has not given sufficient weight to the privacy concerns of tens of thousands of individuals who have no connection to this case. Courts are allowed to sanction attorneys for misconduct, but this order is not aimed at the attorneys Judge Hanen said misbehaved—it’s aimed at DACA recipients.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements. In November 2014, the Obama administration announced that new and renewing applicants could get DACA for three rather than two years, and that the Department of Homeland Security would modify eligibility requirements to expand the applicant pool. At the same time, the administration announced another initiative, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of American children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily.

Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government to block the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA shortly after they were announced. That case, now known as U.S. v. Texas, was first heard in Hanen’s court in Brownsville, Texas, and eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In February 2015, before DAPA and the expansion of DACA went into effect, Hanen issued a nationwide injunction that blocked both initiatives. However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had begun issuing three-year work permits to people whose DACA applications were approved as of November 24, 2014, in accordance with the policies laid out in the Dept. of Homeland Security memo accompanying the announcement.

In May 2016, Hanen issued an order in which he claimed the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers representing the federal government had misled him and the suing states by not disclosing that the government was issuing three-year work permits. As punishment, he demanded that the federal government turn over the names, locations, and other private identifying information of about 50,000 individuals who live in the 26 states involved in the lawsuit and who had received three-year work permits between November 2014 and March 2015. He also ordered all Justice Department lawyers who appear in court in any of the 26 states to attend a yearly ethics course for five years.

“It is shameful and sad that Judge Hanen would even try to abuse his power to violate my constitutional rights and the rights of 50,000 other DACAmented youth, with no real justification,” said Villalobos, a mother of four whose DACA renewal was approved in November 2014. “Our privacy should not be sacrificed for one judge’s political crusade against those in power.”

The Justice Department asked Hanen to stay his order while the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating in U.S. v Texas. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas also filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Fearless Four. A writ of mandamus allows impacted individuals to initiate a new action in the court of appeals to seek redress for a lower court order.

“Common sense and the Constitution lead to one conclusion: nothing that has happened in this case could possibly justify the massive invasion of DACA recipients’ privacy that the order would cause,” said Omar Jadwat, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

On June 7, Hanen granted the Justice Department’s motion to stay his order, and he set a hearing to reconsider the sanctions for Aug. 22. Last week, he rescheduled that hearing for Aug. 31.

The amicus brief filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Villalobos-Amicus-Brief-2016-08-12.pdf.

# # #

NILC Applauds Justice Department Request for Rehearing in U.S. v. Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 18, 2016

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

NILC Applauds Justice Department Request for Rehearing in U.S. v. Texas

LOS ANGELES — Following a Supreme Court deadlock in June that left millions of immigrant families across the country in limbo, the U.S. Department of Justice today filed a motion for rehearing in United States v. Texas, the case involving the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration executive actions.

If granted, a rehearing would allow both sides to reargue the case before the nation’s highest court after a ninth justice is confirmed, making it much less likely that the result would remain a stalemate. A favorable decision in the case would provide much-needed clarity for the country and finally free up for implementation the administration’s deferred action initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Marielena Hincapié, executive director at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court failed millions of immigrant families, and our country as a whole, when it deadlocked in U.S. v. Texas. Now, the justices have an opportunity to right this wrong and fulfill their duty to the American people.

“U.S. v. Texas is without a doubt one of the most consequential immigration cases in recent history. It is appropriate and, in fact, necessary for the Court to rehear the case with a full bench and deliver a decisive ruling. We commend the Justice Department for taking a necessary first step toward ensuring that those whose lives are hanging in the balance get a fair day in court. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize that the millions of families living in limbo—and our country as a whole—deserve better than a nondecision. We beseech the justices to grant a rehearing.”

Announced by the Department of Homeland Security in November 2014, DAPA and the expansion of DACA are programs intended to build off the success of the administration’s 2012 DACA initiative, which allows eligible undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as children to live and work here temporarily without fear of deportation. DAPA would extend similar benefits to certain undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, while the expansion of DACA would broaden eligibility for DACA, making the program available to a larger range of people.

The original (2012) DACA initiative was not challenged in U.S. v Texas and remains open to eligible applicants.

# # #

111