Immigration Provisions of the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA)

William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy
June 7, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42477
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Summary
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) includes provisions to assist foreign nationals who
have been victims of domestic abuse. These provisions, initially enacted by Congress with the
Immigration Act of 1990 and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, afford benefits
to abused foreign nationals and allow them to self-petition for lawful permanent resident (LPR)
status independently of the U.S. citizen or LPR relatives who originally sponsored them.
Congress reauthorized VAWA with the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, which
also created the U visa for foreign national victims of a range of crimes—including domestic
abuse—who assisted law enforcement. A second reauthorization in 2005 added protections and
expanded eligibility for abused foreign nationals.
VAWA expired in 2011. On November 30, 2011, Senator Leahy introduced S. 1925, the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
and reported favorably on February 7, 2012. On April 26, 2012, the Senate passed it by a vote of
68 to 31. In the House, Representative Adams introduced H.R. 4970 (To reauthorize the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994) on April 27, 2012. It was referred to the House Judiciary
Committee where it was reported favorably on May 8, 2012. The House passed the bill in the
nature of a substitute on May 16, 2012, by a vote of 222 to 205.
H.R. 4970 and S. 1925 both include provisions that would mandate background information on
restraining and protective orders issued against the sponsoring U.S. based petitioners and prohibit
marriage brokers from marketing information about foreign nationals under age 18. Both bills
would allow children to continue to apply for protections and legal status under VAWA in the case
of the death of their self-petitioner parent, a protection currently afforded only to child applicants
for lawful permanent status under family-based immigration provisions of the INA. Both bills
would extend VAWA coverage to derivative children of deceased petitioners as well as protect U
visa petitioners under age 21 and derivative children of adult U visa petitioners from “aging out”
of eligibility after filing a U visa petition. They would exempt VAWA self-petitioners, U visa
petitioners, and battered foreign nationals from removal proceedings if their financial
circumstances classified them as inadmissible on “public charge grounds.” Finally, both bills
would allow U visa petitioners with conditional LPR status to obtain hardship waivers removing
their conditional status in cases of bigamy.
S. 1925 contains provisions that would expand protections and eligibility to foreign national
victims of domestic abuse. Among other provisions, the bill would expand the definition of abuse
under the U visa provisions to include “stalking.” It would also expand the annual number of U
visas issued from 10,000 to 15,000 for a limited number of years. It would require more extensive
background checks on each U.S. citizen who petitions on behalf of an alien fiancé or fiancée
using the National Crime Information Center’s Protection Order Database. Inconsistencies
regarding self-disclosures of past abuse would be disclosed to the foreign national. In addition,
the bill would establish federal criminal penalties for specified broker violations, misuse of
information obtained by international marriage brokers, and failures of U.S. clients to make
required self-disclosures. Finally, the bill would permit U and T visa holders in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to count time physically present in the
Commonwealth toward the three-year continuous U.S. presence requirement for adjusting their
status to legal permanent residence.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

H.R. 4970 includes provisions that would permit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
admit credible evidence from alleged abusers for purposes of adjudicating VAWA petitions. It
would require local USCIS District Officers to interview VAWA petitioners in person. The House
bill would require USCIS to consider law enforcement investigations or prosecutions of alleged
abusers, or the lack thereof, as evidence when adjudicating VAWA petitions. Adjudication of
VAWA petitions would be stayed until any pending investigations or prosecutions of abusive
conduct alleged by the petitioning alien were concluded. Likewise, the bill would require USCIS
to determine, and take into consideration, if VAWA petitioners had applied for immigration
benefits previously as well as outcomes from such previous applications. Denial of VAWA
petitions would terminate any obligations from an underlying affidavit of support previously filed
by the accused U.S. citizen or LPR.
Regarding U visas, H.R. 4970 would limit LPR status eligibility for U visa recipients to victims
whose criminal perpetrators were aliens convicted of related crimes and deported to the same
country of origin. The bill would maintain the current annual allocation of U visas at 10,000. It
would mandate additional reporting requirements on U visa recipients from both DHS and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). It would also require that law enforcement
certification for U visas occur only in cases where the related criminal activity is under active
investigation or prosecution and where U visa petitioners help law enforcement identify the
perpetrator if that information is unknown.
Two potential concerns for Congress have been emphasized regarding the immigration provisions
of VAWA. The first is whether the proposed VAWA reauthorization provides sufficient relief to
foreign nationals abused by their U.S. citizen or LPR sponsoring relatives. Advocates for battered
foreign nationals suggest that additional provisions are needed to assist this population in
obtaining legal and economic footing independently of their original sponsors for legal immigrant
status. Critics of expanding immigration, however, question the extent to which these provisions
may increase the number of legal immigrants, thereby incurring costs to U.S. taxpayers.
The second related concern is the degree to which VAWA provisions unintentionally facilitate
immigration fraud. This may occur through what some perceive as relatively lenient standards of
evidence to demonstrate abuse; as the unintended result of processing procedures between the
District Offices of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which adjudicate
most immigration applications, and the USCIS Vermont Service Center, which adjudicates VAWA
petitions; or as an unintended consequence of the structure of current law. While some suggest
that VAWA provides opportunities for dishonest and enterprising foreign nationals to circumvent
U.S. immigration laws, empirical evidence offers minimal support for these assertions.

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
How VAWA Provisions Work .......................................................................................................... 2
Trends in VAWA Petition Volume ....................................................................................... 4
Critiques of Immigration Provisions of VAWA ............................................................................... 5
Self-Petitioning Requirements................................................................................................... 6
Concerns About Immigration Benefit Fraud ............................................................................. 7
Marriage Fraud Generally ................................................................................................... 7
VAWA and the Potential for Marriage Fraud ...................................................................... 8
VAWA and Controls to Prevent Marriage Fraud ............................................................... 10
Current Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 12
Selected Potential Issues for Congress .......................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Tables
Table 1. VAWA Petition Processing Statistics, 1997-2011............................................................... 5
Table C-1. U Visa Processing Statistics, FY2009-FY2011............................................................ 33

Appendixes
Appendix A. Family Sponsorship and Lawful Permanent Residence ........................................... 19
Appendix B. Legislative Background of VAWA ........................................................................... 20
Appendix C. How U Visas Work................................................................................................... 32

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Introduction
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 19941 and its subsequent reauthorizations in 2000
and 2005 authorized funding related to domestic violence for enforcement efforts, research and
data collection, prevention programs, and services for victims. VAWA also increased penalties
for certain domestic violence-related crimes and expanded the Federal Criminal Code to include
new categories of crimes. With respect to noncitizens,2 VAWA gave abused noncitizen spouses
the opportunity to “self-petition” for themselves and/or their abused children for lawful
permanent resident (LPR)3 status independently of their sponsoring spouses.4 In addition, the
VAWA reauthorization in 2000 created the U visa, which protects and assists victims who assist
law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting an array of crimes that includes
domestic violence. It is available to any foreign national who suffered physical or mental abuse as
a victim of a qualifying crime that violated U.S. laws; has information about the crime; and was,
is, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the crime. (For more information
on U visas, see Appendix C. For a detailed legislative history of the immigration provisions in
VAWA, see Appendix B.)
As Congress considers reauthorizing appropriations for the programs under VAWA, several
immigration-related VAWA issues have surfaced. For instance, those advocating on behalf of
battered foreign nationals seek to expand eligibility to excluded groups and to refine portions of
existing law that may unintentionally prevent foreign nationals from realizing benefits that the
law was intended to provide. Some have focused on provisions to improve the economic well-
being of victims, such as work authorization and unemployment insurance.
As laws have been enacted to protect foreign nationals from domestic violence, some observers
have expressed concerns about the potential for immigration fraud using the same VAWA
provisions that were intended to protect abused foreign nationals. False claims of domestic abuse
fall within the broader category of marriage fraud by foreign nationals who, intent on obtaining
legal status in the United States, misrepresent sham marriages as legitimate or report abuse when
none exists. These schemes are perpetrated either unilaterally or cooperatively with their U.S.
citizen or LPR partners.5 The extent of these types of fraud, however, remains unclear.6

1 The VAWA immigration-related provisions reside in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which is Title 8 of
the United States Code. VAWA was passed as Title IV, sections 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, and signed as P.L. 103-322 by President William Clinton on September 13, 1994.
2 This report uses the terms “noncitizen” and “foreign national” interchangeably.
3 An LPR is a foreign national who is authorized to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis.
4 Noncitizen victims of domestic violence who seek to permanently reside in the United States face a precarious
situation because their legal immigration status often depends upon remaining married. In addition, research on
domestic violence indicates that foreign nationals married to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPR) possess
factors that increase their risk of spousal abuse compared to U.S. citizens. See, for example, Giselle Aguilar Hass,
Nawal Ammar, and Leslye Orloff, Battered Immigrants and U.S. Citizen Spouses, Legal Momentum, West Bethesda,
MD, April 24, 2006; Michelle J. Anderson, “A License to Abuse: The Impact of Conditional Status on Female
Immigrants,” Yale Law Journal, v. 102, April 1993, p. 1401-1404 (hereafter cited as Anderson, “A License to Abuse”);
N. Ammar and L.E. Orloff, “Battered immigrant women’s domestic violence dynamics and legal protections,” in It’s a
Crime: Women and Justice
, ed. R. Muraskin ( NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006); D.W. Valdez, “Deportation that keeps many
battered women silent,” Borderland News, 2005; and A. Raj, J. G. Silverman, and J McCleary-Sills, et al.,
“Immigration Policies Increase South Asian Immigrant Women’s Vulnerability to Intimate Partner Violence,” Journal
of the American Medical Women’s Association
, vol. 60, no. 1 (2005), pp. 26-32.
5 For instance, see David Seminara, Hello, I Love You, Won't You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) includes provisions to prevent marriage fraud
such as the requirement for face-to-face interviews with trained adjudicators.7 It also includes
some measure of information sharing between the Vermont Service Center of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which
processes domestic abuse petitions, and USCIS District Offices that adjudicate petitions for most
other immigration benefits.8 Yet, concerns have been raised about the degree to which the VAWA
provisions themselves and the manner in which VAWA petitions are processed by USCIS might
facilitate marriage fraud, either through relatively lower standards of evidence or as the
unintended result of procedural differences between local USCIS District Offices and the
Vermont Service Center.9
This report describes how the VAWA provisions work in practice. It discusses improvements
suggested by immigration attorneys and law enforcement observers to increase the utilization of
VAWA provisions by abused foreign nationals as well as ways to reduce immigration fraud. The
report closes with possible immigration-related issues that Congress may choose to consider
should it reauthorize VAWA.
How VAWA Provisions Work
Foreign national spouses of U.S. citizens and LPRs can acquire legal status through family-based
provisions of the INA. To do so, they must be sponsored by their citizen/LPR spouses and meet
the requirements for admissibility to LPR status.10 This path to lawful permanent residence status
through marriage includes a two-year evaluation period for marriages of short duration (under
two years at the time of sponsorship)11 and is entitled conditional permanent residence status, a
provision of the INA that helps USCIS determine if such marriages are bona fide. Conditional
residence status grants the same rights and responsibilities as that of LPR status12 but requires
filing a joint petition by both the foreign spouse and the sponsoring U.S. citizen or LPR within 90

(...continued)
Phenomenon, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC, November 2008.
6 For more information, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a
Sanctions Strategy Could Enhance DHS’s Ability to Control Benefit Fraud
, GAO-06-259, March 2006; and CRS
Report RL34007, Immigration Fraud: Policies, Investigations, and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
7 A face-to-face interview between a foreign national, a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, and a USCIS adjudicator is
required for applicants who seek LPR status. It is a critical mechanism by which USCIS confirms information in the
application and evaluates the legitimacy of the marriage for the purpose of granting LPR status.
8 USCIS District Offices enforce immigration laws and provide immigration services and benefits to residents in their
geographic service areas/jurisdictions.
9 Practitioners have noted, for instance, a lack of understanding of particular exemptions and rules applicable to VAWA
petitions among District Office adjudicators. See Julie E. Dinnerstein, “Violence Against Women Act(VAWA) Self-
Petitions,” updated from an article appearing at Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook 331, 2006 (hereafter
referred to as “Dinnerstein, Violence Against Women Act”), pp. 16-17. At a broader level, a recent DHS Office of the
Inspector General report highlighted USCIS’ vulnerability to fraud based on current policies and procedures. See,
Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, The Effects of USCIS Adjudication Procedures and
Policies on Fraud Detection by Immigration Services Officers
, OIG-12-24, Washington, DC, January 2012 (Hereafter
referred to as “2011 DHS OIG Report.”).
10 INA §204.
11 This also applies if the parent-child relationship is less than two years old; or the foreign national spouse entered the
United States on a fiancé(e) visa. INA §216.
12 These rights include legal status to live and work in the United States.
Congressional Research Service
2

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

days before the two-year conditional status period ends to remove the conditionality. Failure to
file the joint petition within this 90-day period terminates lawful status and initiates removal
proceedings.13
Conditional permanent resident status provides USCIS with two opportunities—separated by at
least two years—to review the characteristics of a relatively new marriage between a foreign
national and a U.S. citizen or LPR for possible fraud. If conditions in the law have been met and
an interview with a USCIS officer uncovers no indication of marriage fraud, conditional
permanent resident status converts to LPR status.14
VAWA modified the INA to permit certain abused spouses, children,15 and parents of U.S. citizens
and LPRs to petition for legal status independently of their abusive sponsors.16 Conceptually, the
VAWA self-petition serves to replace the initial petition filed by the U.S. citizen or LPR to
sponsor the foreign national for legal status.17 In general, the following individuals may self-
petition through VAWA: abused noncitizen spouses married to U.S. citizens or LPRs; noncitizen
parents in such a marriage whose children were abused by U.S. citizens or LPRs; unmarried
noncitizen children under age 21 abused by a U.S. citizen or LPR parent; and noncitizen parents
abused by U.S. citizen adult children.18
VAWA petitions must meet certain conditions. For spouses, these include evidence that the
foreign national entered into the marriage in good faith and not solely for immigration benefits,
resided with their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, and is a person of good moral character.19 For
children, evidence must show proof of the relationship to the U.S. citizen or LPR parent,
residence with the abusive parent, and good moral character for children over age 14.20 For
parents, evidence must demonstrate abuse by a U.S. citizen son or daughter, residence with the
abusive son or daughter, and good moral character.
VAWA applicants submit a Form I-360, “Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special
Immigrant,” with supporting documentation to the USCIS’s Vermont Service Center.21 If just the

13 Removal proceedings refer to administrative proceedings to determine an individual’s removability under the INA.
They are usually conducted by an immigration judge in the U.S. Department of Justice’ Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR).
14 8 CFR §216.4.
15 “Child,” as defined in §101(b)(1) of the INA and used in this report, refers to an unmarried child under age 21.
16 §§40701-40703 of P.L. 103-322 (8 U.S.C. §204(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. §216(c)(4), and 8 U.S.C. §244(a)). VAWA policies
help protect the confidentiality of the self-petitioner. Assistance is also available from the National Domestic Violence
Hotline which has information about shelters, mental health care, legal advice, and other forms of assistance, including
information about filing petitions for immigration status.
17 See Dinnerstein, Violence Against Women Act, Appendix C, for a detailed comparison between the requirements for
the I-360 form filed for a VAWA petition and those for a I-130 form filed for conventional relative sponsorship.
18 Also eligible are unmarried children between ages 21 and 24 who can demonstrate that abuse was the primary reason
for not filing prior to age 21. 8 U.S.C. §204(a)(1).
19 Good moral character is not specifically defined in the INA, but a determination of good moral character indicates
that the petitioner for an immigration benefit must not have engaged in a range of crimes, offenses, and related
activities. However, the absence of such determination does not preclude a finding that the individual was not of good
moral character for other reasons, such as providing false information in a legal petition. 8 U.S.C. §101(f).
20 Children, as defined in 8 U.S.C. §101(b) are automatically included in the VAWA petitions of their parents and may
apply for immigration status on the same basis and at the same time as their parents. 8 U.S.C. §204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I) and
§204(a)(1)(B)(ii).
21 Supporting documentation includes evidence of the following: (1) existence of the qualifying relationship; (2)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

filing requirements are met, a Prima Facie Determination Notice—which is neither a benefit nor
an immigration status—notifies the petitioner that the materials submitted appear to present a
legitimate case. Issuance of the notice does not serve as a factor in the adjudication of the petition
nor as a binding determination of the credibility of the submitted evidence.22 If the I-360 petition
is ultimately approved, the foreign national is granted deferred action status, a “quasi” status and
administrative act that halts actions to remove the individual from the United States for a
renewable period of time.23 Foreign nationals with an approved I-360 and any children listed in
the petition may apply for work authorization until they are eligible to apply for lawful permanent
residence (see Appendix A).
Trends in VAWA Petition Volume
The past 15 years saw a considerable increase in VAWA petition volume. Figures in Table 1
indicate that between 1997 and 2011, the number of petitions increased almost fourfold, from
2,491 to 9,209. On average, about a quarter to a third of all petitions adjudicated each year were
denied.24 During this 15-year period, approval rates fluctuated, with a peak of 85% in 2002 and a
trough of 67% in 1998, but no consistent trend emerges. In the context of all USCIS petitions and
applications for which data are available, I-360 petition approval rates are relatively low. Of 73
petitions and applications, approval rates for I-360 VAWA petitions ranked 58th, with an average
approval rate of 74%, compared with 88% for all petition types. 25
Petitions that raise concerns among VSC adjudicators because of incompleteness or inconsistent
information are typically assessed with requests for evidence (RFE). A similar inconsistent trend
characterizes requests for information from 2003 to 2011. Hence, during a period when petition
volume increased roughly fourfold, rates at which petitions were reviewed or approved do not
appear to have changed according to any distinct pattern. Nevertheless, in the context of all
USCIS petitions and applications for which data are available, I-360 petitions trigger the highest
proportion of such requests for additional information. I-360 VAWA petitions ranked 1st for RFEs
with an average rate of 68% compared with 19% for all petition types.26 Requests for evidence

(...continued)
citizenship or immigration status of the abuser; (3) self-petitioner’s eligibility for immigrant classification; (4)
residence in the United States; (5) evidence that, during the qualifying relationship, the petitioner and abuser resided
together in the United States for some unspecified period of time; (6) battery or extreme cruelty; (7) good moral
character; (8) extreme hardship; and (9) in the case of a self-petitioning spouse, good faith marriage. 8 U.S.C.
§204.2(c)(1) and (e)(1).
22 The INA stipulates that the attorney general (i.e., USCIS, which adjudicates VAWA petitions) shall consider “any
credible evidence relevant to the petition in making determinations of abuse. INA § 204(a)(1)(J).
23 Deferred action does not confer any immigration status nor does it prevent DHS from initiating removal proceedings
against abused noncitizens if other factors make the individual inadmissible according to the INA.
24 Previous agency reports suggest that denials often resulted because self-petitioners failed to meet statutory eligibility
requirements. Examples included self-petitioning by battered spouses who were no longer married to citizens or LPRs
and by battered children who were age 21 and older. For more information, see Gail Pendleton, “VAWA Self-
Petitioning: Some Practice Pointers,” in Immigration Practice Pointers, ed. Gregory Adams et al, 2011-12 ed.
(Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association, 2011), pp. 571-574 (hereafter referred to as Pendleton,
“VAWA Self-Petitioning”).
25 Data on approval and denial rates from 2003-2011 for 73 USCIS petitions and applications were provided by USCIS,
Office of Performance and Quality, Data Analysis and Reporting Branch. Data for 2011 reflect only the first nine
months of that year.
26 Data on requests for evidence from 2003-2011 for 35 USCIS petitions and applications were provided by USCIS,
Office of Performance and Quality, Data Analysis and Reporting Branch.
Congressional Research Service
4

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

measure neither fraud nor fraud prevention. Rather, they reflect the degree to which USCIS
demands additional evidence prior to adjudicating a petition.
Table 1. VAWA Petition Processing Statistics, 1997-2011
Petitions Received
Proportion of
or Transferred from
Proportion of
Requests for
Fiscal Year
Prior Year
Petitions Approved
Information
1997
2,491 75% N/A
1998
3,331 67% N/A
1999
3,158 76% N/A
2000
3,384 80% N/A
2001
5,642 84% N/A
2002
5,943 85% N/A
2003
6,714 81% 63%
2004
7,052 76% 72%
2005
7,704 79% 52%
2006
9,131 76% 55%
2007
8,355 71% 67%
2008
9,184 67% 62%
2009
8,534 79% 74%
2010
8,360 71% 55%
2011
9,209 68% 114%a
Total 98,192
75%
68%
Source: For years 2000-2011: CRS presentation of data from USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality, Data
Analysis and Reporting Branch; for years 1997-1999, CRS presentation of INS data from archived CRS Report
RL30559, Immigration: Noncitizen victims of Domestic violence, by Andorra Bruno and Alison Siskin, May 3, 2001.
Notes: The total Proportion of Petitions Approved shown at the bottom of the table is an average for all
petitions submitted over the entire 1997-2011 period. The total Proportion of Requests for Information is the
average of each year’s annual proportion because underlying figures for computing a summary average were not
available. Differences between these two methodologies are not substantial.
a. Because petitions not adjudicated by USCIS in one fiscal year are processed in the next, proportions of
petitions approved or requests for information can exceed 100%. USCIS provided the Proportions of
Requests for Information to CRS but it did not provide the underlying data from which to confirm
computation of these proportions.
Critiques of Immigration Provisions of VAWA
Critiques of the immigration provisions of VAWA resemble those of other provisions of U.S.
immigration policy. Such policies often involve balancing the granting of immigration benefits
with adequate enforcement to reduce fraud and ensure intended eligibility. Immigration attorneys
and advocates highlight changes to VAWA that would facilitate its intended objective of
protecting abused foreign nationals from their abusers and independently providing them with a
path to lawful permanent residence. Other observers highlight the vulnerability of U.S.
Congressional Research Service
5

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

immigration policy to fraud within VAWA and the U visa provisions of the INA that undermines
the intent of Congress and the rule of law.27
Self-Petitioning Requirements
As noted above, VAWA operates within the context of family-based immigration policy whereby
foreign nationals acquire legal status through sponsoring relatives, but it also permits certain
abused noncitizen spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens and LPRs to petition for legal
status independently of their abusive sponsors. Contingent upon meeting certain conditions and
filing requirements, an approved VAWA petition grants deferred action status that halts removal
procedures for a renewable period.28 Approved petitioners may then apply for work authorization
and ultimately lawful permanent residence.
Advocates for battered foreign nationals, however, maintain that the requirements under VAWA
are so stringent that they sometimes deter qualified battered spouses and children from self-
petitioning, and prevent those who apply with legitimate cases from having their petitions
approved.29 They argue, for example, that a battered spouse may not necessarily possess
documentation necessary to prove that the marriage was entered into with good faith. Similar
concerns have been expressed about what some view as unnecessarily burdensome requirements
for demonstrating good moral character. This is particularly the case when self-petitioners’
disqualifying actions in the past may have been directly related to being a victim of domestic
violence or when abusive spouses file for custody of children or bring criminal countercharges
against the victim.30 Advocates argue that immediate relatives who apply for LPR status under
standard family-based immigration policy are not subject to this requirement, which is
unnecessary to deter marriage fraud.
In addition, immigration attorneys have expressed concerns about the time lag between the
passage of legislation and the implementation of guidance or regulations by USCIS.31 Examples
include the 2005 VAWA provisions making abused parents of U.S. citizens eligible to apply for
protections under VAWA, preventing children who turn 21 from “aging out” of eligibility for
VAWA protections after their petitions have been filed, and allowing abused spouses of certain
nonimmigrant visa holders to apply for work authorization. The last of these provisions still has
not been implemented as of this writing.32

27 See for instance “2011 DHS OIG Report.”
28 Removal (deportation) proceedings can occur whenever a foreign national has no legal status for remaining in the
United States. For foreign national spouses, this may occur because of lack of sponsorship by a U.S. citizen or LPR.
29 For more information on the advocacy perspective, see testimony of Dr. Phillip C. McGraw, Michael Shaw, and Dr.
Jane Van Buren, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Violence Against Women Act: Building on
Seventeen Years of Accomplishments
, 112th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2011.
30 Julie E. Dinnerstein, “Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Self-Petitions,” Immigration and Nationality Law
Handbook
, vol. 331 (2006-07 ed.).
31 Discussions with Gail Pendleton, co-director of ASISTA, a national immigration law technical assistance project
funded by the federal Office on Violence Against Women, February 22, 2012. See also Pendleton, “VAWA Self-
Petitioning.”
32 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Concerns About Immigration Benefit Fraud33
Immigration benefit fraud is defined as the willful misrepresentation of material facts to qualify
for a specific immigration status or benefit in the absence of lawful eligibility for that benefit.34
Immigration marriage fraud, a type of immigration benefit fraud, is the entering into a sham
marriage with a U.S. citizen or LPR in order to obtain legal immigration status.35
Marriage Fraud Generally
How prevalent is immigration marriage fraud? Policy analysts cannot reliably quantify what
proportion of the roughly 300,000 spouses36 who gain LPR status annually receive such status
through fraudulent means.37 At the time Congress was considering the Immigration Marriage
Fraud Amendments (IMFA) of 1986, the INS Commissioner, testifying at a hearing before the
Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy and using data from INS surveys,
estimated that as many as 30% to 40% of all spousal petitions involved marital fraud. This initial
estimate, also cited elsewhere,38 was subsequently discredited.39 At the same hearing, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) refuted that estimate and claimed that the
proportion amounted to no more than 1%-2%, a contention subsequently supported by findings of
a North Carolina federal district court.40 Despite significant media attention on immigration
marriage fraud and mail order brides, reliable estimates are difficult to obtain.41
Penalties for marriage fraud include five years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine for “any
individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the
immigration laws.”42 Marriage fraud can also be grounds for deportation.43

33 See CRS Report RL34007, Immigration Fraud: Policies, Investigations, and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
34 INA §274C mandates civil penalties for persons who commit fraud to meet an INA requirement or acquire an
immigration benefit. Additionally, a civil penalty under §274C is a separate ground for inadmissibility and deportation.
35 For more information on how a marriage is judged fraudulent, see Leslie Tuttle DiTrani, “Was it Really a Sham
Marriage?,” in Immigration Practice Pointers, ed. Gregory Adams et al, 2011-12 ed. (Washington, DC: American
Immigration Lawyers Association, 2011), pp. 135-137.
36 Between 2001 and 2010, spouses of U.S. citizens who were granted LPR status each year averaged about 273,000.
Spouses of LPRs averaged 94,000, but this category also included children and unmarried adult sons and daughters.
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Legal Permanent Residents, Table 6.
37 David Seminara, Hello, I Love You, Won't You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon,
Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC, November 2008, p. 12, http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/
back1408.pdf.
38 John N. Sampson, Immigration Marriage Fraud 101, CSI Consulting & Investigations, LLC, 2009,
http://csiinvestigations.vpweb.com/. (Hereafter referred to as “Sampson, Immigration Marriage Fraud 101”).
39 In Manwani v. INS, (736 F. Supp. 1367 (W.D.N.C. 1990)), the INS acknowledged that its estimates were based on
data collected in just three cities where investigators suspected but had not proven actual fraud.
40 Ibid.
41 Anne-Marie D'Aoust, “Love Stops at the Border”: Marriage, Citizenship, and the “Mail-Order Brides” Industry,
Penn Program on Democracy, Constitutionalism and Citizenship Workshop, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, February 18, 2009, pp. 6-7.
42 §1325(c) as added November 6, 1986, P.L. 99-639, 8 U.S.C. §1325
43 INA §237(a)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(1)(G). For more information on immigration fraud see CRS Reports CRS
Report RL34007, Immigration Fraud: Policies, Investigations, and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem; and CRS Report
RL32657, Immigration-Related Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences, by
Michael John Garcia.
Congressional Research Service
7

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

VAWA and the Potential for Marriage Fraud
Anecdotal reports from USCIS personnel and others suggest that some foreign nationals who lack
eligibility to remain in the United States or who face imminent deportation because USCIS
denied their immigration benefit petitions may be using VAWA provisions to acquire lawful
permanent resident status.44 In addition to committing immigration marriage fraud, such reports
allege that such foreign nationals sometimes perpetrate financial fraud on their former spouses.45
Foreign nationals in these circumstances generally were denied lawful permanent residence status
for two reasons.46 First, they could have entered the United States without inspection or
overstayed their visas. Hence, despite being married to U.S. citizens or LPRs, they remained
unauthorized aliens. Second, those applying for legal status as a spouse of a U.S. citizen or LPR
under the family-based provisions of the INA may have had their petitions denied because USCIS
found their marriages to be not credible or otherwise invalid. Such petitions based on spousal
relationships also require face-to-face interviews between the petitioning couple and USCIS
District Office adjudicators, at which point fraudulent marriages may be detected.
If USCIS denies a petition for LPR status because they determine that the marriage on which the
petition is based is fraudulent, the petitioner could attempt to perpetrate immigration fraud, either
with the cooperation of the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, or without the spouse’s knowledge, by
claiming abuse and seeking immigration benefits under the VAWA provisions of the INA.47
The potential for immigration marriage fraud may be related to administrative issues involving
the Vermont Service Center (VSC), which is exclusively responsible for processing VAWA
petitions and which relies on documentation supplied by applicants—without face-to-face
interviews—to adjudicate their cases.48 Some immigration attorneys contend that the VSC does in
fact review earlier determinations by USCIS District Office adjudicators when it processes VAWA
petitions.49 However, conversations with USCIS personnel suggested that reported suspicions of
marriage fraud by District Offices appeared to be given relatively little attention by the VSC.50
USCIS personnel suggested that unless new incriminating information indicated that petitioners

44 Based on discussions with several USCIS adjudicators at an undisclosed District Office during a CRS site visit,
January 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Discussions with USCIS adjudicators”). These issues were highlighted by
Julie Poner, a victim of immigration marriage fraud, and John Cutler, a retired Senior Special Agent with the former
INS, who both testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, The Violence Against Women Act, 112th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2011, S.Hrg.109-132 (Washington: GPO,
2011), hereafter referred to as “Testimony of Poner and Cutler.”
45 Ibid. See also “Sampson, Immigration Marriage Fraud 101.
46 See “Discussions with USCIS adjudicators.”
47 See “Testimony of Poner and Cutler.”
48 Consolidation of VAWA petition adjudications in the VSC was intended, among other things, to prevent fraud by
assigning adjudications to a unit of specialists in domestic violence cases who could efficiently discern fraudulent
petitions, fairly adjudicate legitimate petitions, and protect victims from accidental violations of confidentiality. A
single unit was intended to provide consistency and uniformity in the handling of VAWA petitions. U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Report on the Operations of the Violence Against
Women Act Unit at the USCIS Vermont Service Center
, Report to Congress, p. 3 (October 22, 2010).
49 Based on several discussions with Susan Bowyer, Directing Attorney, Immigration Center for Women and Children
(ICWC), San Francisco Office, a non-profit legal organization providing immigration services to underrepresented
women and children in California, January 25-February 1, 2012 (Hereinafter referred to as “Discussions with Directing
Attorney, ICWC.”)
50 See “Discussions with USCIS adjudicators.”
Congressional Research Service
8

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

were engaged in illicit activity, approved VAWA petitions were not subject to review despite
evidence from a previous petition indicating that USCIS was suspicious of immigration fraud.51
USCIS prohibits approving VAWA petitions when the agency determines that a petitioner has
committed marriage fraud. Yet, it is unclear the degree to which the USCIS’s Adjudicator’s Field
Manual (AFM) and other regulations require an adjudicator to consult previous case files,
although the AFM does recommend it.52
USCIS senior staff contend that USCIS standard operating procedures limit the degree to which
immigration fraud can be perpetrated.53 They assert that the VSC includes all prior interactions
and submissions—such as other petitions and claims—in the final “A-file” that constitutes the
complete petition to be adjudicated. Hence, adverse information from another immigration
proceeding or filing involving the petitioner is reviewed and assessed as part of the adjudication
of any VAWA self-petition. Nevertheless, USCIS is mandated by law to make an independent
determination as to whether non-conclusive evidence of marriage fraud in another immigration
petition should result in the denial of a VAWA petition based on the standard of “substantial and
probative evidence.”54
Statutory limitations also influence what information USCIS may use when making an adverse
determination on a VAWA self-petition. Section 384 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) prohibits any officer of the Department of
Homeland Security from making an adverse determination on a VAWA self-petition if the adverse
information was solely provided by certain specified sources, including the alleged abuser. 55 A
1997 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)56 memorandum specified that such adverse
information must be independently corroborated.57 Moreover, if an initial determination of
marriage fraud by a USCIS District Office resulted from information provided solely by the
alleged abuser, USCIS is statutorily prohibited from using that information or finding to make an
adverse determination on a VAWA self-petition.

51 See “Discussions with USCIS adjudicators.”
52 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(17)(ii); USCIS AFM §§11.5, 14.8, 21.2(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(A). An adjudicator apparently must
ascertain, independently of information from the petitioner, the existence in the USCIS database of any previous case
files on the petitioner. USCIS AFM §10.3(a). Recent case law suggests that there is inconsistency or a possible lack of
clarity with regard to how this prohibition is interpreted and implemented by the USCIS regarding any administrative
process for resolving conflicting conclusions of different offices in the same agency or what constitutes “substantial
and probative evidence” of marriage fraud that requires denial of a petition, absent a related criminal conviction.
53 Based on responses to written questions submitted by CRS to USCIS Department of Legislative Affairs, May 25,
2012 (Hereafter referred to as “Responses from USCIS.”)
54 See Matter of Tawfik, 20 I & N Dec. 166, 170 (BIA 1990).
55 IIRIRA §384, codified at 8 U.S.C. §1367.
56 INS was the precursor to today’s USCIS, and the immigration related activities of the Customs and Border Patrol
(CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As such, it was located within the U.S. Department of
Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States. In 2003, with the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), the INS was dissolved and authority for most of the INS functions transferred from the
Attorney General to the DHS Secretary.
57 Virtue, INS Office of Programs, “Non-Disclosure and Other Prohibitions Relating to Battered Aliens: IIRIRA §384,”
Mem. 96act.036 (May 5, 1997). This language is affirmed by two later memoranda, Williams/Schiltgen, INS Office of
Field Operations, Revocation of VAWA-Based Self-Petitions (I-360s), at 3 (August 5, 2002), and USCIS Office of the
Director, Policy Memorandum, Revocation of VAWA-Based Self-Petitions (Forms I- 360) (AFM Update AD10-49), at 3
(December 15, 2010). The 2010 memorandum added this requirement to USCIS AFM §21.14(z)(3).
Congressional Research Service
9

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

According to USCIS, the VSC weighs the alien’s credibility based on all evidence submitted with
the VAWA petition, all evidence in the alien’s administrative file, and any other information
available regarding the alien’s interactions with USCIS, ICE, and CBP. USCIS posits that its team
of specially trained officers who only work on victim-based adjudications allows them to
effectively assess how much weight to give the evidence and determine what may not be used
based on statutory restrictions. VSC also claims a close partnership with its own Fraud Detection
and National Security (FDNS) Unit, which regularly interacts with similar units at USCIS offices
across the country to identify fraud trends.58
In practice, the VAWA requirements of evidence of abuse to accompany VAWA petitions may be
sufficiently generous to encourage potential immigration fraud. The 1994 VAWA, as amended in
2000 and 2005, allows “any credible evidence” to establish spousal abuse.59 Foreign nationals
who are intent on committing immigration fraud through VAWA and familiar with U.S. law need
only report alleged abuse to their local police. If a police report is generated, it apparently meets
this standard required by VAWA. As noted above, such activity could occur with or without the
cooperation of the spouse. Responsibility for prosecuting immigration fraud rests with ICE,
which has prosecuted relatively few immigration fraud cases compared to other types of cases.60
VAWA and Controls to Prevent Marriage Fraud
Some immigration attorneys question the ease with which foreign nationals could perpetrate
immigration fraud using VAWA.61 According to these attorneys, documentary evidence of abuse
required by the Vermont Service Center is relatively stringent, petitions are reviewed thoroughly,
and even slight inconsistencies found among the evidence supporting petitions often trigger
additional requests for information and raise the threshold for petitioners to establish legitimate
abuse cases. The attorneys contend that information and decisions from USCIS District Offices
usually influence final adjudications by the VSC.62

58 According to USCIS, FDNS investigates petitions referred to it in accordance with statutes, regulations, and policies
that affect eligibility for benefit sought. Statutory restrictions may limit the sources and types, as well as permitted uses
and disclosure, of information that USCIS may consider during its investigations. FDNS does not adjudicate
applications or petitions, but rather performs administrative investigations and reports its findings to VSC adjudicators.
On confirming fraud, FDNS will refer certain cases to ICE for criminal investigation and possible prosecution. For
those cases that do not meet criteria for referral to ICE, USCIS will deny the benefits sought and issue a Notice to
Appear, seeking removal of the alien from the United States. See “Responses from USCIS.”
59 Amended INA §204(a)(1)(J), codified at 8 U.S.C. §1154(a)(1)(J) provides: “In acting on petitions filed under clause
(iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A) or clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (B), or in making determinations under
subparagraphs (C) and (D), the Attorney General shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition. The
determination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion
of the Attorney General.”
60 In 2010, for example, all fraudulent activities related to immigration comprised just 2.3% of the 168,532 criminal
aliens removed. See Office of Immigration Statistics Policy Directorate, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010,
Department of Homeland Security, Annual Report, Washington, DC, June 2011, p. 4. Moreover, it remains unclear the
degree to which USCIS follows up on foreign nationals receiving deferred action status to see if they subsequently
applied for LPR status. Coordination issues between USCIS and ICE have been noted in earlier CRS reports. See CRS
Report RL34007, Immigration Fraud: Policies, Investigations, and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
61 See “Discussions with Directing Attorney, ICWC.”
62 See also Pendleton, “VAWA Self-Petitioning.” According to Pendleton and other immigration attorneys, even minor
inconsistencies between supporting materials in a petition raises the possibility that USCIS will issue an adverse
credibility determination, a major obstacle to successful petitions. Moreover, police officers are typically trained to
discern the presence or lack of domestic violence. Attempts to mimic domestic violence often result in citations for a
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

As discussed previously, VAWA provides a mechanism for an abused foreign national to self-
petition for LPR status. This requires two separate USCIS petitions. The first, classifying a
foreign national as a battered or abused spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or LPR, requires
substantial evidence of physical or emotional abuse; a bona fide, good faith marriage; and good
moral character.63 Approved VAWA petitions provide only deferred action status, not LPR status.
The second petition, establishing the relationship between the foreign national spouse and the
U.S. citizen or LPR, requires the self-petitioner to prove admissibility.64 Immigration attorneys
contend that adjudicators typically examine all grounds of inadmissibility, including previously
denied petitions. A final determination for adjustment of status cannot occur without a face-to-
face interview at some point between the USCIS adjudicator, the U.S. citizen or LPR, and the
foreign national spouse, regardless of current marital circumstances.65 Thus, while the Vermont
Service Center does have the final determination on whether VAWA self-petitioners receive
deferred action status through the I-360 petition, immigration attorneys believe it is unlikely that
the VSC would not take into account the determination of fraudulent or other adverse information
from a USCIS District Office.66
Despite VSC adjudication of VAWA petitions that occurs separately from USCIS District Office
operations, immigration attorneys contend that both the law and current practices undermine
Congress’s intent to prevent abusers and other perpetrators from influencing the immigration
system’s deliberative process. They take issue with the term “solely,” noted above, which they
view as a loophole allowing some VSC adjudicators to consider evidence provided by alleged
abusers as credible despite the widely accepted view that it is inherently unreliable.67 Moreover,
they also allege that some Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)68 and USCIS officers
may be skeptical of, or antagonistic to, VAWA and domestic violence claims that they “attempt to
insert the abuser’s voice into the process or allege marriage fraud on their own.”69
Moreover, immigration attorneys question whether persons intending to commit immigration
fraud through VAWA can actually do so.70 They suggest that the evidentiary requirements for a
successful false VAWA application would require foreign nationals to possess an unusually high
level of skill in both legal procedure and deceptiveness. Also, contrary to assertions made by

(...continued)
domestic disturbance, rather than arrests for domestic violence. These anecdotal reports suggest that obtaining police
reports that serve as evidence of abuse may pose a formidable challenge to foreign nationals seeking to falsely petition
for immigration benefits under VAWA.
63 8 U.S.C. §204(a)(1).
64 INA §204. For more information on grounds for inadmissibility and a more complete definition of good moral
character, see CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
65 See “Discussions with Directing Attorney, ICWC.”
66 Ibid. In addition, USCIS asserts that where underlying fraud or other concerns are discovered by the field office, it
may refer the approved VAWA case back to VSC for review and possible revocation of the approved VAWA petition.
See “Responses from USCIS.”
67 See Pendleton, “VAWA Self-Petitioning,” p.572.
68 ICE is the investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Its Homeland Security
Investigations directorate is tasked with detecting, deterring, and disrupting document and benefit fraud, including
marriage fraud.
69 See Pendleton, “VAWA Self-Petitioning,” p.572.
70 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
11

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

some USCIS adjudicators, immigration attorneys claim that while the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) prohibits the denial of a petition based solely on
evidence furnished by the abusive spouse or family member, such evidence receives considerable
weight at the VSC relative to other documentation in the application.71
Nonetheless, if a foreign national is determined to commit immigration fraud via the VAWA
provisions and applying self-inflicted injuries, it may be possible to fabricate evidence of abuse.
When accompanied by other required supporting evidence, and when not adequately contested
with contrary evidence provided by the alleged abusive spouse, VAWA petitions could result in
illegitimately obtained deferred action status. Immigration attorneys contend that successfully
perpetrated VAWA fraud is likely to occur on a relatively small scale comparable to other types of
fraud generally.72 However, they acknowledge that the potential for immigration fraud places a
burden on USCIS to follow up with persons granted deferred status. The critical protection
against such fraud appears to be face-to-face interviews between a USCIS adjudicator and both
members of the previously married couple that are required for LPR status.73
Current Legislation
On November 30, 2011, Senator Leahy introduced S. 1925, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2011. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it was
reported favorably on February 7, 2012. A manager’s amendment replaced the original S. 1925
and the new version was accepted by unanimous consent. On April 26, 2012, S. 1925 passed the
Senate by a vote of 68 to 31.
Within the bill, Title VIII, entitled “Protection of Battered Immigrants,” contains several
provisions that would expand protections under the VAWA and U visa provisions of the INA. The
bill would amend current law by including “stalking” in the definition of criminal activity
covered under the U visa.74 It would require more extensive background checks on each U.S.
citizen who petitions on behalf of an alien fiancé or fiancée using the National Crime Information
Center’s Protection Order Database in order to provide the latter with greater information about
potentially abusive relationships.75 Inconsistencies regarding self-disclosures of past abuse would
also be disclosed to the foreign national.

71 Ibid.
72 In September 2011, CRS conducted a search of press reports and legal proceedings related to immigration benefit
fraud using the U visa and was only able to locate one press report of systematic immigration benefit fraud. According
to the newspaper article, some defense attorneys believed that applicants were “defrauding the system by taking cases
to court they otherwise wouldn’t in the hopes of getting a visa.” The article also reported that since U certification is
entirely at the discretion of law enforcement, significant differences exist in the criteria used by jurisdictions to decide
when to provide certification, with some jurisdictions certifying almost all victims and others certifying none. The
article concluded that it was difficult to tell “whether U visa fraud is truly common, or whether defense attorneys are
merely doing a good job of making it seem so.” See Lauren Smiley, “The New U Visa: Illegal Immigrants Find That
Being A Crime Victim Is Their Ticket To Citizenship,” SF Weekly, March 16, 2011. Members of USCIS’ Fraud
Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate recently told CRS that they had not seen cases of benefit fraud
using the U visa.
73 See “Discussions with Directing Attorney, ICWC.”
74 The Leahy version introduced in committee also included “dating violence.”
75 The provision would require including information on both crimes specified in 8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(3)(B)(i) as well as
on any protection or restraining orders issued that are related to such crimes.
Congressional Research Service
12

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

The bill would also prohibit international marriage brokers from marketing information about any
foreign national under age 18. It would allow federal judges as well as DOJ to impose federal
criminal penalties for specified marriage broker violations. It would criminally penalize both
misuse of information obtained by international marriage brokers, and any fraudulent or false
representations made by U.S. clients to foreign nationals to foster a dating or matrimonial
relationship.
S. 1925 would extend VAWA coverage to derivative children whose self-petitioning parent died
during the petition process, a benefit currently afforded to foreign nationals under the family-
based provisions of the INA.76 It would protect U visa petitioners under age 21 and the derivative
children of adult U visa petitioners from aging out of eligibility if they reach age 21 after
initiating a U visa petition. It would exempt VAWA self-petitioners, U visa petitioners, and
battered foreign nationals from being classified as inadmissible for LPR status if their financial
circumstances raised concerns over becoming potential public charges.77 It would allow
conditional LPRs who are married to U.S. citizens or LPRs and who qualify for U visas to obtain
hardship waivers to remove their conditional status if they were also unknowing victims of
bigamous marriages.78 It would also increase the quota of persons granted U visas from 10,000 to
15,000.79
On March 27, 2012, Representative Gwen Moore introduced a related bill in the House, H.R.
4271, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. The bill, which has immigration
provisions similar to S. 1925, was referred to the following committees: Judiciary, Energy and
Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Financial Services, and Natural Resources.80
On April 27, 2012, Representative Sandy Adams introduced H.R. 4970, To reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it

76 Currently, §204(l)(2) of the INA protects all foreign nationals—children and adults—from removal proceedings if
they are in the process of applying for or have been approved for LPR status on the basis of family relationships and
their sponsoring relatives die subsequent to petitioning for such status.
77 Being likely to become a public charge (unable to take care of oneself without public assistance) is a ground for
inadmissibility under §212(a)(4) of the INA. It is determined by USCIS using multiple criteria, with some factors
supporting and others detracting from that determination. USCIS officers must at least consider the following: age,
health, family status, assets, resources, current financial status, education, and skills. See CRS Report RL33809,
Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, p. 6.
78 Additional provisions in S. 1925 would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to report to the Senate
and House Judiciary Committees with detailed statistics on numbers and characteristics of foreign nationals filing
petitions under the VAWA and extend the VAWA protections to foreign nationals living in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands who were victims of domestic abuse.
79 The additional visas, if required, would be recaptured from the balance of unused U visas not issued to victims
between 2006 and 2011 (see Table C-1 for U visa figures). Because regulations to implement the U visa were not
issued until late 2008, U visas were not issued between 2006 and 2008, creating an unused balance of 30,000 U visas
for those years. Between 2009 and 2011, 25,986 U visas were issued, leaving an additional unused balance of 4,014 for
those three years. The total unused balance of 34,014 (30,000 plus 4,014), divided by 5,000 additional visas per year
mandated by S. 1925, suggests that the increased annual quota of U visas would last for roughly seven years. S. 1925
mandates that the 5,000 visa increase each year would sunset once this balance was used up. Objections have been
raised regarding this increase, pertaining to its costs and impact on U.S. workers. See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting, Violence Against Women Act, Nominations,
Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., February 2, 2012, (hereafter referred to as
“Prepared Statement of Senator Grassley.”)
80 The Senate bill includes a provision not related to domestic violence but related to immigrants which would make
three drunk driving convictions an aggravated felony and a deportable offense.
Congressional Research Service
13

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

was reported favorably, as amended, on May 8, 2012. A manager’s amendment, which replaced
the reported version of H.R. 4970, was passed by the House on May 16, 2012, by a vote of 222 to
205.
Similar to S. 1925, H.R. 4970, as amended, would provide foreign national fiancées and fiancés
with additional background information on protection or restraining orders issued against U.S.
citizens and LPRs petitioning for legal status on their behalf; and it would prohibit international
marriage brokers from marketing information about foreign nationals under age 18. Like S. 1925,
the House bill would extend VAWA coverage to derivative children whose self-petitioning parent
died during the petition process, a benefit currently afforded to foreign nationals under the
family-based provisions of the INA. It would protect U visa petitioners under age 21 and the
derivative children of adult U visa petitioners from aging out of eligibility if they reach age 21
after initiating a U visa petition. It would also exempt VAWA self-petitioners, U visa petitioners,
and battered foreign nationals from being classified as inadmissible for LPR status if their
financial circumstances raised concerns over becoming potential “public charges.” It would also
allow conditional LPRs who are married to U.S. citizens or LPRs and who qualify for U visas to
obtain hardship waivers to remove their conditional status if they were also unknowing victims of
bigamous marriages.
H.R. 4970, as amended, includes provisions that would permit the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to admit credible evidence from alleged abusers for purposes of adjudicating
VAWA petitions. It would also require local USCIS District Officers to interview VAWA
petitioners in person. The House bill would require USCIS to consider law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions of alleged abusers, or the lack thereof, as evidence when
adjudicating VAWA petitions. Adjudication of VAWA petitions would be stayed until any pending
investigations or prosecutions of abusive conduct alleged by the petitioning alien were concluded.
Likewise, the bill would require USCIS to determine, and take into consideration, if VAWA
petitioners had applied for immigration benefits previously as well as outcomes from such
previous applications. Denial of VAWA petitions would terminate any obligations from an
underlying affidavit of support previously filed by the accused U.S. citizen or LPR.
Regarding U visas, H.R. 4970 would limit LPR status eligibility for U visa recipients to victims
whose criminal perpetrators were aliens convicted of related crimes and deported to the same
country of origin. The bill would maintain the current annual allocation of U visas at 10,000, and
mandate additional reporting requirements on U visa recipients from both DHS81 and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO).82 It would require that certification for U visas occur
only in cases where the related criminal activity is under active investigation or prosecution and

81 DHS reporting requirements are similar to those stipulated in S. 1925. They would include the number of aliens who
submitted VAWA, U visa, and T (human trafficking victim) visa petitions; the number of petitions approved and
denied; mean and median times required to adjudicate each of the three petition categories; mean and median times
between petition receipt and work authorization issuance for approved petitions; the number of aliens who qualify for T
visas who are granted continued presence in the United States; and a description of actions taken to reduce adjudication
and processing times for VAWA, U visa, and T visa petitions. The House bill would also require that DHS include a
description of activities to combat fraud and ensure program integrity. In addition, an amendment to H.R. 4970
introduced by Representative Adams and adopted by the committee would require DHS to report on the types of
criminal activity that lead to the issuance of U visas.
82 A mandated report, issued within one year of legislation enactment, would require GAO to assess the efficiency and
reliability of the VAWA and U visa petition adjudication processes, as well as their safeguards against fraud and abuse.
Congressional Research Service
14

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

where U visa petitioners help law enforcement identify the perpetrator if that information
is unknown.83
Following the passage of H.R. 4970, a procedural complication known as a “blue-slip problem”
emerged that has the potential to stall negotiations between the two chambers’ versions of the bill.
According to the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution, all revenue-raising legislation must
originate in the House. However, the Senate bill S. 1925 includes a provision that increases fees
on USCIS Diversity Visas.84
Selected Potential Issues for Congress
Those advocating on behalf of battered foreign nationals seek to expand eligibility to excluded
groups and to refine portions of existing law that may unintentionally prevent foreign nationals
from realizing benefits that the law was intended to provide. Some advocates have emphasized
eligibility by increasing the number of U visas available or by expanding the means by which
foreign national crime victims can obtain law enforcement certifications.85 Others have advocated
for an amendment to the U visa provisions to prevent both U visa applicants and children
included in U visa applicants’ petitions from aging out of eligibility for protection if they reach
age 21 after the petition has been filed but while it is pending, similar to what is currently in place
for children under VAWA.86 Both S. 1925 and H.R. 4970 include such aging-out provisions.
Advocates have also emphasized economic assistance for abused noncitizens. For instance, given
that work authorization cannot be provided without an approved U visa or VAWA petition, some
have proposed either an accelerated processing for VAWA and U visa applications or an
established waiting time for receiving work authorization to assist petitioners in planning their
lives and financial affairs.87 Others have advocated expanding the availability of unemployment

83 In addition, H.R. 4970 would allow VAWA petition information to be shared with other government agencies for
national security purposes, provided the confidentiality provisions of §384(b) of IIRIRA are maintained. It would also
permit DOJ to go beyond the record of conviction when determining whether a crime of domestic violence constitutes a
crime of violence when determining whether an individual is deportable.
84 Diversity visas are allocated to natives of countries from which immigrant admissions were lower than a grand total
of 50,000 over the preceding five years. See CRS Report R41747, Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
85 U visa applications must contain a certification from a U.S. law enforcement agency or relevant investigative or
prosecutorial authority to demonstrate that the foreign national victim has been, is currently being, or is likely to be
helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the related crime. Based on discussions with Leslye E. Orloff, President,
National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project, February 29, 2012 (hereafter referred to as “Discussions with
Orloff”). See also letter from David R. Thomas, Assistant Director, Domestic Violence Education Program, Johns
Hopkins University, to Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley, chair and ranking Member, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, January 27, 2012. Foreign nationals who apply for U visas must have their petitions
claiming victimization certified by a law enforcement agency or supervisor. Foreign national advocates have asserted
that the certification process represents an onerous obstacle to obtaining a U visa for persons living in areas with few
foreign nationals or sparsely populated areas.
86 Based on “Discussions with Orloff.” Under VAWA, children of self-petitioners who are included in the petition, and
who turn 21 between the time the petition is filed and approved by USCIS, remain on the petition as children and
receive protections under VAWA. They do not “age out” because they turned 21. INA §204(a)(1)(D)(i)(III).
87 Based on “Discussions with Orloff.” Research by Orloff suggests that the majority of U visa and VAWA petitions
require considerably more than six months for approval. See also letter from Mony Ruiz-Velasco, Director of Legal
Services, National Immigrant Justice Center, to Sen. Patrick Leahy and all Committee Members, Senate Judiciary
Committee, and Secretary Napolitano, January 31, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
15

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

insurance to those who must leave their jobs because of violence.88 In recognition of the
challenging economic circumstances facing foreign nationals upon leaving abusive relationships,
both S. 1925 and H.R. 4970 include provisions sought by advocates that would eliminate the
public charge grounds for inadmissibility for U visa and VAWA petitioners who apply for LPR
status.89
In addition to concerns over both the range of protections available under VAWA and eligibility to
receive them, there are also concerns over potential fraud. Congress may be interested in having
USCIS clarify its policies and procedures for adjudicating VAWA and U visa petitions. Included
in such clarifications could be a description of USCIS procedures and policies to prevent
immigration fraud, including its treatment of information provided by an alleged defrauded U.S.
citizen or LPR spouse. Specific concerns include the possibility that USCIS could approve a
VAWA self-petition to a person whom the USCIS previously denied because of suspected
marriage fraud; the vulnerability of USCIS to potential fraud given the absence of face-to-face
interviews between VAWA petitioners and adjudicators in USCIS’ Vermont Service Center; and
options for mandating such interviews prior to issuing deferred action status90 through VAWA or a
U visa.
H.R. 4970 contains other provisions that address fraud prevention. The bill would mandate
interviews between VAWA self-petitioners and adjudicators at local USCIS District Offices. It
also would require DHS to report annually on measures it has taken to combat fraud, and would
require USCIS adjudicators to interview VAWA petitioners in-person. The bill would halt the
processing of a VAWA petition if a prosecution against the alleged abuser is occurring. While
such a provision would ensure that VAWA petitions are adjudicated with more conclusive
information about the alleged abuser, it would delay the granting of immigration benefits under
VAWA, a delay that advocates contend increases risks to VAWA self-petitioners.
Questions have also been raised about whether the provisions of the U visa undermine its law
enforcement utility. Some have characterized as generous the eligibility requirements for
obtaining a U visa91 and questioned the lack of a mandated inquiry on whether, how, and within
what time frame such information provided by foreign nationals led to the apprehension or
prosecution of persons committing criminal acts.92 One of the U visa provisions of H.R. 4970
would mandate that U visa certification be granted only with active investigations or
prosecutions. Some contend that such a provision would restrict the ability of law enforcement
agencies to pursue investigations according to their own schedules and strategies. Another

88 See letter from Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence et al (20 organizations), to Sen. Patrick
Leahy and Senator Michael Crapo, Senate Judiciary Committee, February 1, 2012.
89 See footnote 77.
90 As previously discussed, deferred action status is a “quasi” status and administrative act that halts actions to remove
the individual from the country for a renewable period of time. It does not confer any immigration status nor does it
prevent DHS from initiating removal proceedings against abused noncitizens if it determines that other factors make
the individual inadmissible according to the INA.
91 Of the three primary requirements for receiving a U visa (the first two being victimization and possessing
information about the crime), it is the third requirement that some have characterized as generous. According to the
INA, a U visa may be given to a foreign national who “has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to a
Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, to a Federal, State, or local prosecutor, to a Federal or State judge, to
the Service [referring to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, predecessor agency to USCIS], or to other Federal
State, or local authorities investigating or prosecuting criminal activity.” INA §101(a)(15)(U)(i).
92 See S.Rept. 112-153, VII. Minority Views, Immigration Issues.
Congressional Research Service
16

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

provision of H.R. 4970 would eliminate eligibility for LPR status except in circumstances where
the criminal perpetrator was an alien, was convicted of a crime, and was deported to the same
home country as the victim.
Congress may be interested in how other federal agencies complement the enforcement functions
of USCIS. For instance, there may be interest in knowing what the Office of Audits in the DHS
Office of Inspector General has done to further its FY2011 performance objective of
“determining whether I-130 marriage-based petitions are being adjudicated uniformly, according
to established policies and procedures, and in a manner that fully addresses all fraud and national
security risks.”93 It may benefit Congress to be informed in greater detail about the extent to
which the Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) investigates and prosecutes alleged
immigration fraud. Congress may also benefit from similar information on the benefits fraud
referral process of USCIS’s Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNA) regarding
adjudication of VAWA petitions. H.R. 4970 includes a provision that would require GAO to
evaluate the degree to which USCIS procedures for processing U visa and VAWA petitions are
efficient, reliable, and resistant to fraud.
Those favoring more restrictive approaches to VAWA eligibility for noncitizens argue that the
INA should not serve as what they view as a form of asylum94 for foreign nationals in abusive
relationships who would otherwise not qualify for immigration benefits.95 In addition, they
contend that USCIS officials should have the option of extending conditional permanent
residence status beyond its current two-year period, if necessary, to clarify the validity of a
marriage, rather than be forced to make a definitive determination after two years. Similarly, they
argue that USCIS should have options for withdrawing approval of VAWA petitions and U visas
should unfavorable information come to light that makes the recipient of these immigration
benefits removable.96 H.R. 4970 would require that USCIS take into account current law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions of the alleged abuser, or the lack thereof, as evidence
to be considered when adjudicating VAWA petitions.
In general, the tension between balancing the provision of immigration benefits with ensuring
adequate controls against immigration fraud is reflected in concerns raised by immigration and
battered persons advocates on the one hand and law enforcement advocates on the other. This
tension was reflected in differences between the introduced and reported versions of S. 1925. For
example, the introduced version of S. 1925 would have expanded options for U visa certification
from law enforcement agencies and supervisors and limited to six months the waiting period for
VAWA self-petitioners to receive work authorization. Favored by advocates for battered foreign
nationals, both provisions were omitted in the reported bill.
Such tension is also reflected, more broadly, in S. 1925, which, among other provisions, would
expand the number of foreign nationals covered under the U visa provisions of the INA, versus
H.R. 4970, which would maintain the current limit on the number of foreign nationals covered

93 DHS Office of Inspector General, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Performance Plan, at 48.
94 Asylum refers to legal protection afforded by the United States to persons who demonstrate a “well-founded fear of
persecution” based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Unlike
refugees, asylees have already entered the United States legally or illegally and seek protection from deportation.
95 Discussion with Jessica Vaughn, Center for Immigration Studies, March 1, 2012.
96 Based on discussions with Jessica Vaughan, Policy Studies Director, Center for Immigration Studies, March 1, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
17

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

under the U visa provisions and mandate a number of provisions aimed and reducing or
preventing fraud.
Conclusion
In the last several decades, Congress has enacted provisions to provide relief to abused noncitizen
relatives of U.S. citizens and LPRs. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 represents a
milestone in this legislative history by providing for the first time the opportunity for abused
foreign nationals to self-petition for lawful permanent resident status independently of their
abusers. With the reauthorization of VAWA in 2000, this benefit was extended to victims of a
broad array of crimes, including domestic violence, who assisted law enforcement. The VAWA
reauthorization of 2005 added protections for abused children and parents, allowed abuse victims
to apply for work authorization, and increased requirements to provide information about U.S.
nationals to prospective foreign national marriage partners. The recently reported S. 1925 would
expand protections and eligibility for noncitizen victims of domestic violence. The recently
reported H.R. 4970, while sharing some provisions of S. 1925, would increase measures to reduce
immigration fraud.
Although current discussions of noncitizen victims of domestic violence have emphasized
expanding existing protections, providing relief to vulnerable populations is not the only goal of
immigration policy. Other goals include preventing immigration-related fraud and deterring
illegal immigration. Although reliable estimates of the extent of marriage fraud generally, and
VAWA fraud specifically, remain elusive, anecdotal evidence based on CRS’s discussions with
USCIS personnel suggests that attempted fraud through VAWA remains an ongoing concern.
Between 1997 and 2011, the number of VAWA petitions filed increased almost fourfold, from
2,491 to 9,209. On average, about one-quarter to one-third of all petitions adjudicated each year
were denied, a relatively high denial rate compared with other USCIS petitions and applications.
While various factors might have contributed to the increase in petition volume, including the
VAWA reauthorizations of 2000 and 2005, average annual rates at which petitions were reviewed
or approved between 1997 and 2011 did not appear to have changed according to any distinct
pattern. Moreover, the rate at which USCIS issued Requests for Evidence for VAWA petitions
exceeded that of all other USCIS petitions and applications for which data were available.
Making and implementing immigration policy with respect to noncitizen victims of domestic
violence requires striking a balance among these different goals. It also requires finding ways of
providing adequate relief to abused foreign nationals while simultaneously guarding against
potential abuses of the immigration system.
Congressional Research Service
18

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Appendix A. Family Sponsorship and Lawful
Permanent Residence

Family reunification, a central principle of U.S. immigration policy, is reflected in legal
provisions that grant lawful permanent residence to foreign national spouses of U.S. citizens
without numerical limitation, and to foreign national spouses of lawful permanent residents
(LPR) according to a numerically limited system of family preferences.97 These INA provisions
highlight the importance of being related to a U.S. citizen or LPR for foreign nationals seeking to
become lawful permanent residents of the United States.98
The first step in this process is to obtain immigration preference status, petitions for which have
to be filed with USCIS by the beneficiary’s U.S. citizen or LPR relative.99 In addition to an
approved petition for LPR status, prospective immigrants sponsored by LPRs must have a visa
number100 immediately available to them. Spouses and children of LPRs are treated differently
than spouses and children of U.S. citizens. Spouses or children of LPRs are subject to the visa
allocation system, which sets limits on the number of individuals in the various preference
categories who can be granted lawful permanent resident status each year. Thus, after their
petitions for immigration preference are approved, relatives of lawful permanent residents must
wait for the State Department to assign them an immigrant visa number. Spouses and children of
U.S. citizens, on the other hand, are not subject to numerical immigration limits. They do not
have to wait for an immigrant visa number to become available and receive a visa number as soon
as their petitions are processed and approved.
Once a visa number is available, a foreign national already in the United States may be eligible to
apply to adjust to LPR status without leaving the country. Those not eligible to adjust status must
apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad, usually in their home country. Upon
admission to the United States, the visa holder acquires LPR status. All applicants for LPR status
must be found “admissible” to the United States by USCIS. Under the INA, foreign nationals
may be inadmissible for health, security, criminal, financial, or other reasons.101

97 See CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
98 Foreign nationals who have no U.S. citizen or LPR immediate relatives (adult children, spouses, parents) who can
sponsor them for LPR status must apply for such through other provisions of U.S. immigration law. These include
employment-based provisions, the Diversity Visa Lottery, refugee and asylee provisions, and other special immigrant
provisions. For more information, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
99 Ibid.
100 Visa numbers are issued by the U.S. Department of State (DOS). An approved petition to receive an immigrant visa
is not the same as a visa number, because the U.S. receives and approves more visa petitions than are available in any
given year. DOS issues immigrant visa numbers, indicating the availability of a visa, based on annual numerical limits
for each family-sponsored immigration category, per-country limits, and other criteria governing visa issuance. CRS
Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
101 For more information, see CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion: Policy and
Trends
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
19

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Appendix B. Legislative Background of VAWA102
Domestic violence103 affects a broad segment of society,104 yet experts believe that several factors
may put noncitizen women married to U.S. citizens or LPRs at increased risk of spousal abuse.
These factors include poor English language skills, unemployment, poverty, crowded living
conditions, and most notably, economic dependence on the sponsoring citizen or LPR spouse.105
Moreover, as described in Appendix A, remaining married is essential for foreign national
spouses of U.S. citizens or LPRs who wish to adjust their immigration status to lawful permanent
residence. This requirement, which maintains the family relationship between the foreign national
and the U.S. citizen or LPR, tends to discourage foreign national spouses from leaving abusive
marriages.106
Over more than two decades, Congress has sought to balance the protection of foreign nationals
abused by their U.S. citizen and LPR relatives with the prevention of fraudulent marriages
initiated solely to obtain immigration benefits. This legislative history often reflects Congress’s
attempts to expand protections, mitigate unintended consequences, and reduce immigration fraud.
The Immigration Fraud Amendments (1986)
The original INA passed in 1952 granted immediate LPR status to foreign nationals who married
U.S. citizens and LPRs. In response to growing concerns about immigration-related marriage
fraud, Congress, in 1986, passed the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA; P.L. 99-
639), which established a two-year conditional permanent residence status for foreign national
spouses and children who obtained permanent residence through a new marriage (under two years
duration) with a U.S. citizen or LPR.107 The new provision was intended to provide sufficient

102 This section relies partially on an archived CRS Report RL30559, Immigration: Noncitizen victims of Family
Violence
, by Andorra Bruno and Alison Siskin, May 3, 2001.
103 The term “domestic violence” in this report is synonymous with the terms “battery” and “abuse.” The term abuse is
used in more recent legislation because it refers to abuse more broadly, not only corporal battery but also to other forms
of abuse gradually recognized by ongoing legislation, such as verbal and psychological abuse.
104 The most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that “nearly 3 in 10
women and 1 in 10 men in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate
partner.” See Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., et al, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report, Atlanta, GA, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, November 2011.
105 See for example, Giselle Aguilar Hass, Nawal Ammar, and Leslye Orloff, Battered Immigrants and U.S. Citizen
Spouses
, Legal Momentum, West Bethesda, MD, April 24, 2006; Michelle J. Anderson, “A License to Abuse: The
Impact of Conditional Status on Female Immigrants,” Yale Law Journal, v. 102, April 1993, p. 1401-1404 (hereafter
cited as Anderson, “A License to Abuse”); N. Ammar and L.E. Orloff, “Battered immigrant women’s domestic
violence dynamics and legal protections.,” in It’s a Crime: Women and Justice, ed. R. Muraskin ( NJ: Prentice Hall,
2006); D.W. Valdez, “Deportation that keeps many battered women silent,” Borderland News, retrieved:
http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20050221-26609.shtml, 2005; and A. Raj, J. G. Silverman, and J
McCleary-Sills, et al., “Immigration Policies Increase South Asian Immigrant Women’s Vulnerability to Intimate
Partner Violence,” Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, vol. 60, no. 1 (2005), pp. 26-32.
106 Ibid.
107 According to the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chapter 25.1, “Congress was particularly moved by the
testimony of numerous citizens whose foreign national spouses had left them shortly after obtaining residence, as well
as the testimony of Service representatives concerned with “marriage for hire” schemes. Congress also acknowledged
the inherent difficulties faced by the INS in determining whether the marriage is fraudulent and whether the alien
intended to leave the marital union once lawful permanent residence was granted.”
Congressional Research Service
20

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

time for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to determine whether such a
marriage was bona fide. During the two-year conditional period, INS (now DHS) could terminate
the alien’s conditional permanent resident status if it determined that the marriage was entered
into to evade U.S. immigration laws or that the marriage had been terminated other than through
the death of the spouse. In most cases, the foreign national and his or her spouse were required to
submit a joint petition at the end of the two-year period to have the condition removed.108
For noncitizen victims of domestic violence, however, IMFA created unintended consequences.
By establishing a two-year conditional residence requirement, advocates argued that the statute
served to increase the power of abusers over foreign national spouses. By requiring the filing of a
joint petition, the law made battered women reluctant to leave their abusive U.S. citizen or LPR
spouses, whose sponsorship they depended on for permanent residency and whose abandonment
would result in their deportation.109 Many separated, divorced, and battered women were left
legally stranded by their husbands, often resulting in a loss of legal status at the conclusion of
their conditional status period.110
Although IMFA provided for waivers of the joint petition requirement for spouses in such
situations, they were difficult to obtain. Evidence of battery by itself was not sufficient to qualify
for a waiver. A 1990 House Judiciary Committee report questioned whether the statute
sufficiently clarified that abused spouses in bona fide marriages would receive a waiver either on
the basis of “extreme hardship” or termination of the marriage for “good cause.”111
The Immigration Act of 1990
In 1990, Congress attempted to remedy the problems the joint petition requirement had created
for noncitizen victims of domestic violence in the Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649), which
established a new battered spouse or child waiver.112 To obtain this waiver, the foreign national
spouse had to demonstrate that he or she had entered the marriage in good faith and that “during
the marriage the foreign national spouse or child was battered by or was the subject of extreme
cruelty perpetrated by” the U.S. citizen or LPR spouse or parent. The foreign national spouse also
had to show that he or she was not at fault for failing to meet the joint petition requirement. A
House Judiciary Committee report articulated congressional intent for the battered spouse or child
waiver:

108 Under IMFA as originally enacted, the joint petition requirement could be waived on two grounds if the foreign
national demonstrated that (1) extreme hardship would result if he or she were deported; or (2) he or she had entered
into the marriage in good faith but had terminated it for good cause and was not at fault for failing to meet the joint
petition requirement. Denial of a joint petition or waiver application terminated the alien’s LPR status.
109 See for example, Linda Kelly, “Stories From the Front: Seeking Refuge for Battered Immigrants in the Violence
Against Women Act” Northwestern University Law Review, v. 92, winter 1998, p. 670. (Hereafter cited as Kelly,
“Stories From the Front”)
110 Felicia E. Franco, “Unconditional Safety for Conditional Immigrant Women,” Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, vol.
11 (1996), pp. 99-141. (Hereafter referred to as “Franco, Unconditional Safety”).
111 U.S. Congress. House Committee on the Judiciary. Family Unity and Employment Opportunity Immigration Act of
1990, report to accompany H.R. 4300, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess., H. Rept. 101-723, Part 1, p. 51. (Hereinafter cited as
House Report 101-723(I)). Also see Kerry Abrams, “Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage,” Minnesota
Law Review, v. 91, Summer 2007, pp. 1625-1709.
112 8 U.S.C. §216(c)(4)(C).
Congressional Research Service
21

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that when the U.S. citizen or permanent resident
spouse or parent engages in battering or cruelty against a spouse or child, neither the spouse
nor child should be entrapped in the abusive relationship by the threat of losing their legal
resident status.113
The report specified that evidence to support a waiver “can include, but is not limited to, reports
and affidavits from police, medical personnel, psychologists, school officials, and social service
agencies.” It further stated that legitimate requests for battered spouse waivers should be denied
only in “rare and exceptional circumstances such as when the foreign national poses a clear and
significant detriment to the national interest.”114
The 1990 act further assisted battered foreign nationals by making other changes to the INA joint
petition waiver provisions. It added language to the INA instructing the Attorney General to
establish by regulation “measures to protect the confidentiality of information concerning any
abused foreign national spouse or child.”115 It also broadened the existing waiver based on
termination of a good faith marriage by eliminating the requirement for battered foreign nationals
to have been the ones terminating the marriage and for good cause.116 Thus, foreign nationals who
had entered into good faith marriages that subsequently terminated could apply for the waiver
regardless of who had terminated the marriage and for whatever reason. The House Judiciary
Committee report justified these changes as follows:
In many cases there are obstacles that prevent a battered alien spouse from initiating a
divorce, such as lack of resources to pay for a lawyer; ethnic or cultural prohibitions against
divorce…. Often, aliens are denied the waiver because they cannot satisfy the “good cause”
requirement under no-fault [divorce] laws.117
Implementing the Battered Spouse Waiver
In May 1991, the former INS issued an interim rule to implement the battered spouse or child
waiver provisions of the 1990 Immigration Act.118 Supplementary information accompanying the
rule stated INS concerns:
The Service has balanced the need to make compliance with the evidentiary requirements for
the waiver as simple as possible against the need to ensure that unscrupulous aliens do not
take advantage of the waiver to obtain immigration benefits.... This rule allows battered
conditional residents to establish eligibility, yet is stringent enough to prevent misuse of the
benefit.119
As noted above, the 1990 act required that the foreign national spouse demonstrate that he or she
or a child “was battered” or “was the subject of extreme cruelty” to qualify for the waiver. The

113 House Report 101-723(I), p. 78.
114 Ibid., p. 78-79.
115 P.L. 101-649, §701(a)(5); 104 Stat. 5085; 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(4).
116 P.L. 101-649, §701(a)(2); 104 Stat. 5085.
117 House Report 101-723(I), p. 51.
118 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Conditional Basis of Lawful Permanent
Residence for Certain Alien Spouses and Sons and Daughters; Battered and Abused Conditional Residents,” Federal
Register
, v. 56, no. 95, May 16, 1991, p. 22635-22638. The regulations are codified at 8 C.F.R. 216.5.
119 Federal Register, v. 56, no. 95, May 16, 1991, p. 22636.
Congressional Research Service
22

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

INS rule defined these terms together as including, but not being limited to, “being the victim of
any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention, which results or threatens
to result in physical or mental injury.” It specified that “psychological or sexual abuse or
exploitation, including rape, molestation, incest (if the victim is a minor) or forced prostitution”
were to be considered acts of violence.120
The rule distinguished between the types of evidence needed to support waiver applications based
on claims of “physical abuse” and “extreme mental cruelty.” In the case of physical abuse claims,
the rule echoed the language of the House Judiciary Committee report. It stated that acceptable
evidence “may include, but is not limited to, expert testimony in the form of reports and affidavits
from police, judges, medical personnel, school officials and social service agency personnel.”121
In contrast, waiver applications based on claims of extreme mental cruelty had to be supported by
the evaluation of a licensed clinical social worker, psychologist, or psychiatrist.122 INS justified
such professional evaluations because “the effects of mental and emotional abuse are difficult to
observe and identify” and “most Service officers ... are not qualified to make reliable evaluations
of an abused applicant’s mental or emotional state.”123
At the time, advocates for battered foreign nationals criticized as overly stringent the INS
evidentiary requirement for extreme cruelty, maintaining that “very few women fleeing an
abusive relationship will be able to first locate, and then pay for a mental evaluation by a
psychologist or other professional.”124 They cited social and cultural norms and experiences to
explain the reluctance of many foreign nationals to report their abuse and seek assistance from
formal institutions that would produce the type of paper trail stipulated by law.125 They further
argued that the requirement reflected a clear misunderstanding of abuse by “focusing exclusively
on the applicant’s mental state rather than the abuser’s activity.”126 In their view, the high
standard of proof was contrary to congressional intent in establishing the battered spouse or child
waiver.127
Violence Against Women Act (1994)
To address immigration-related problems faced by battered aliens, the 103rd Congress included in
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994128 three provisions related to abused aliens:
self-petitioning by abused foreign national spouses and their children (§40701), evidentiary
evidence for demonstrating abuse (§40702), and suspension of deportation129 and cancellation of
removal (§40703). These petitions allowed battered foreign national spouses and their children to

120 8 C.F.R. 216.5(e)(3)(i).
121 8 C.F.R. 216.5(e)(3)(iii).
122 8 C.F.R. 216.5(e)(3)(iv) and (vii).
123 Federal Register, v. 56, no. 95, May 16, 1991, p. 22636.
124 Martha F. Davis and Janet M. Calvo, “INS Interim Rule Diminishes Protection for Abused Spouses and Children,”
Interpreter Releases, v. 68, June 3, 1991, p. 668.
125 See “Franco, Unconditional Safety,” pp. 114-115.
126 Ibid.
127 Ibid., p. 669. For a discussion of congressional intent, see Anderson, “A License to Abuse,” p. 1419-1420.
128 VAWA is Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322.
129 Suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal are forms of discretionary relief that allow an individual
subject to deportation or removal to remain in the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien.
Congressional Research Service
23

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

essentially substitute a self-petition for lawful status in place of a petition for lawful status that
was based on sponsorship by the abusive spouse; they clarified the evidence required for joint
petition waivers; and they established requirements for battered foreign national spouses and
children to stay deportation.
Self-Petitioning for Battered Aliens
Advocates had long urged policymakers to end battered aliens’ reliance on their abusers to obtain
legal residency. Prior to 1994, most family-based petitions for immigration preference status for
battered noncitizens, like those for noncitizens generally, had to be filed by the alien’s U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident relative. However, abusers are less likely than others to
petition for their noncitizen spouses and children because, according to the former INS, “they find
it easier to control relatives who do not have lawful immigration status.”130 Battered relatives also
tend to avoid either seeking help or leaving their abusers because they fear deportation or lack
knowledge about available services.131 As a result, some noncitizen victims of domestic violence
were not eligible to seek relief by applying for a battered spouse or child waiver of the joint
petition requirement for conditional residents because they had never been granted conditional
permanent residence status in the first place.
VAWA Section 40701 provided relief for this situation by allowing some battered foreign
national spouses (and their children) married to U.S. citizens or LPRs to self-petition for lawful
permanent resident status independently of their original sponsoring petitioner.132 The House
Judiciary Committee explained that “the purpose of permitting self-petitioning is to prevent the
citizen or resident from using the petitioning process as a means to control or abuse an alien
spouse.”133 Self-petitioners were required to
• be married to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
• be a person of “good moral character”;
• have resided in the United States with the citizen or permanent resident spouse;
• be currently residing in the United States;
• have entered into the marriage in good faith;
• have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by the citizen or permanent
resident spouse during the marriage, or be the parent of a child who was so
battered; and
• demonstrate that removal from the United States would result in extreme
hardship to the foreign national or his or her child.134

130 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Petition to Classify Alien as Immediate
Relative of a United States Citizen or as a Preference Immigrant; Self-Petitioning for Certain Battered or Abused
Spouses and Children,” Federal Register, v. 61, no. 59, March 26, 1996, p. 13062.
131 Ibid.
132 8 C.F.R. §204(a)(1).
133 U.S. Congress. House Committee on the Judiciary. Violence Against Women Act of 1993, report to accompany
H.R. 1133, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., H. Rept. 103-395, p. 37.
134 108 Stat. 1953, 1954; 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(ii).
Congressional Research Service
24

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Self-petitioning foreign national children had to meet similar requirements.135 In language
identical to that for joint petition waiver applications, Section 40701 also directed the Attorney
General to consider any credible evidence relevant to battered foreign national petitions and
granted the Attorney General sole discretion to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.136
In March 1996, INS published an interim rule to implement Section 40701 that detailed eligibility
requirements for self-petitioning battered spouses and children.137
Easing Evidentiary Requirements
VAWA Section 40702 amended the joint petition waiver provisions by directing the Attorney
General to consider “any credible evidence” relevant to the application.138 Some read this
provision as an implicit repudiation of the INS’s licensed mental health professional
requirement.139 However, the statute also granted the Attorney General sole discretion to
determine credibility and weigh the evidence.140 The credible evidence language applied to all
applications for joint petition waivers, and not specifically to those for battered foreign national
waivers.141
Suspension of Deportation/Cancellation of Removal
The third battered foreign national provision of VAWA, Section 40703, established provisions for
battered foreign national spouses and children to suspend deportation and obtain lawful
permanent residence.142 Prior to VAWA, applicants for suspension of deportation were required to
have lived in the United States continuously for at least seven years. VAWA reduced this
requirement to three years.
However, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)
of 1996 (Division C of P.L. 104-208), Congress replaced “suspension of deportation” with
“cancellation of removal.” In doing so, it reformulated the VAWA suspension of deportation
provisions as a special cancellation of removal rule for battered spouses or children.143 Prior to
the enactment of the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 (see below), an applicant
for cancellation of removal under the special battered foreign national rule had to demonstrate
that he or she

135 108 Stat. 1953, 1954; 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(iii).
136 108 Stat. 1954; 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(H).
137 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Petition to Classify Alien as Immediate
Relative of a United States Citizen or as a Preference Immigrant; Self- Petitioning for Certain Battered or Abused
Spouses and Children,” Federal Register, v. 61, no. 59, March 26, 1996, p. 13061-13079. The regulations amended 8
C.F.R. 103.1, 103.2, 204.1, 204.2, 205.1, 205.2, and 216.1.
138 8 C.F.R. §216(C)(4).
139 See “Franco, Unconditional Safety,” p. 120.
140 108 Stat. 1955; 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(4).
141 The legislative history of the credible evidence provision, however, suggests that it was originally intended to loosen
INS’s evidentiary requirements for extreme mental cruelty waivers. For additional legislative background on this
provision, see archived CRS Report RL30559, Immigration: Noncitizen victims of Family Violence, by Andorra Bruno
and Alison Siskin, May 3, 2001, p. 6.
142 108 Stat. 1955.
143 The rule was added to INA as §240A(b)(2). For more information, see archived CRS Report 97-606, Suspension of
Deportation: Tighter Standards for Canceling Removal
, by Larry M. Eig, 1997.
Congressional Research Service
25

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

• had been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a citizen
or LPR spouse or parent, or was the parent of a child who had been subjected to
such abuse by a citizen or LPR parent;
• had been continuously physically present in the United States for at least three
years prior to petitioning for cancellation of removal;
• had been a person of “good moral character” during the period of continuous
physical presence in the United States;
• was not inadmissible to the United States on criminal or security grounds;
• was not deportable based on marriage fraud, criminal offenses, document fraud,
or security-related activities;
• had not been convicted of an aggravated felony; and
• if removed, would have themselves experienced, their child would have
experienced, or, if the foreign national was a child, the alien’s parent would have
experienced, extreme hardship.144
If an alien’s petition for cancellation of removal was approved, he or she was eligible to adjust to
LPR status immediately. In any fiscal year, however, the Attorney General could only cancel the
removal and adjust the status under INA Section 240A, or suspend the deportation and adjust the
status under the pre-IIRIRA suspension section, of no more than 4,000 aliens.145
Despite similarities between the requirements for cancellation of removal and self-petitioning for
battered foreign national spouses and children, the two procedures differed considerably. While
foreign national spouses could self-petition at any time, they could only apply for cancellation of
removal during removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Battered foreign nationals
applying for cancellation of removal could not include their children in their petitions. Moreover,
since the two procedures had different eligibility requirements, a battered foreign national might
not have been eligible for both. As such, the 1996 IIRIRA created greater barriers for abused
spouses who were petitioning to remain in the United States.
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000
The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000), which reauthorized the 1994 VAWA,
was contained within The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
386). Within VAWA 2000, Title V, the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000
(BIWPA), addressed provisions related to foreign nationals. It established special rules for
noncitizen victims of domestic violence with respect to cancellation of removal and suspension of
deportation; eliminated time limitations on motions filed by such victims to reopen removal and
deportation proceedings; and made victims eligible for adjustment of status. BIWPA included
measures to prevent violence and provide economic security and safety for battered foreign
national women. Finally, BIWPA established the U visa for foreign national crime victims who

144 P.L. 104-208, §304(a); 110 Stat. 3009-587, 3009-594. The battered alien rule can be found at 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2).
145 INA §240A(e)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1229b(e)(1). This cap does not apply to certain aliens, including VAWA suspension of
deportation petitioners, as set forth in INA §240A(e)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(e)(3).
Congressional Research Service
26

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

assisted law enforcement, a provision that included battered foreign national spouses. Provisions
of the BIWPA are discussed below.
The U Visa
A newly created U visa benefit was made available to any foreign national who (1) suffered
physical or mental abuse as a victim of a qualifying crime that violated U.S. laws;146 (2) had
information about the crime; and (3) was, or was likely to be, helpful in the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.147 Foreign national victims were able to petition from outside the United
States.148 The quota of U visas was capped at 10,000 per fiscal year.149 Successful petitioners who
received a U visa were classified as temporary nonimmigrants for up to four years.150 After living
continuously in the United States for three years, U visa holders were eligible to adjust to LPR
status if they had not refused to provide assistance to law enforcement and could justify their
continued presence in the United States on the basis of family cohesion or the national or public
interest.151 Immediate family members of a U visa holder could also adjust to LPR status,
although their requirements differed.152
Cancellation of Removal
BIWPA created certain exemptions for battered foreign nationals who faced removal proceedings,
including the annual numerical limitation on cancellation of removal.153 It established for battered
foreign nationals a more expansive method for calculating continuous physical presence in the
United States. In addition, BIWPA waived the continuous physical presence requirements for
cancellation of removal for battered applicants who could demonstrate a connection between their
absences and the battery or extreme cruelty. The act also allowed the Attorney General to
determine that battered foreign nationals satisfied the good moral character requirement even if
they had been convicted of certain domestic violence-related crimes, if the act or conviction was
connected to the alien having been battered.154

146 Qualifying crimes include abduction, abusive sexual contact, blackmail, domestic violence, extortion, false
imprisonment, genital female mutilation, felonious assault, being held hostage, incest, involuntary servitude,
kidnapping manslaughter, murder, obstruction of justice, peonage, perjury, prostitution, rape, sexual assault, sexual
exploitation, slave trading, torture, trafficking, witness tampering, unlawful criminal restraint, and other related crimes.
147 8 U.S.C. §101(a)(15)(U).
148 If inadmissible, a U visa applicant must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility adjudicated by USCIS on a discretionary
basis that allows the petitioner to continue with the U nonimmigrant visa petition.
149 8 U.S.C. §214(p)(2)(A). Exceptions to the 10,000 quota include derivative family members such as spouses,
children or other qualifying family members who are accompanying or following to join the principal foreign national
victim. To accommodate petitions exceeding the annual cap in any given fiscal year, USCIS will places the petitions on
a waiting list and gives petitioners deferred action or parole, making them eligible to apply for employment
authorization or travel until their petitions are adjudicated after the start of the following fiscal year.
150 Extensions are only available if a certifying agency can attest that the foreign national’s presence in the United
States is required to assist in the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying crime.
151 8 U.S.C. §245(l).
152 For more information on U visas, see CRS Report RL34317, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for
Congress
, by Alison Siskin and Liana Sun Wyler, pp. 26-28.
153 P.L. 106-386, §1504, §1512.
154 P.L. 106-386, §1504(a)(2)(C).
Congressional Research Service
27

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

BIWPA included other related provisions. It granted parole155 to children of foreign nationals or
parents of foreign national children when the alien’s removal was cancelled under the battered
spouse or child rule.156 BIWPA also allowed these foreign nationals to file to adjust their legal
status.157 In another important change, BIWPA extended the battered spouse or child cancellation
of removal rule to battered “intended spouses” of U.S. citizens and LPRs (see section on VAWA
self-petitioning below).158 It also permitted battered spouses to include their children in their
cancellation of removal applications and battered children to do the same for their parents.
Adjustment of Status
BIWPA amended INA Section 245 to make battered aliens who successfully self-petition for
immigration preference status and meet requirements for immigrant visa issuance eligible to
adjust to LPR status.159 As noted in the next section, BIWPA expanded eligibility for VAWA
self-petitioning beyond battered spouses and children to cover “intended spouses,” former
spouses, adult sons and daughters, and parents, and it made these newly authorized self-
petitioners eligible for status adjustment. The legislation also addressed the aging out of abused
children who reach age 21 after applying for status adjustment.
VAWA Self-Petitioning
BIWPA extended VAWA self-petition eligibility to “intended spouses” or foreign nationals who
believed that they had married U.S. citizens or LPRs but whose marriages were “not legitimate
solely because of the bigamy” of those citizens or LPRs. It also extended coverage to foreign
national spouses and children of U.S. citizens and LPRs who had either died or lost their
citizenship status because of domestic violence within the past two years.160 For divorce cases,
foreign nationals had to demonstrate a connection between legal termination of their marriages
and battery or extreme cruelty.
BIWPA also introduced protections for battered self-petitioners whose former abusers’ citizenship
or immigration status changed after petitions were filed.161 INS regulations had previously
required that abusive spouses or parents be U.S. citizens or LPRs at the time of self-petition filing
as well as at the time of approval.162 BIWPA eliminated that requirement. In addition, BIWPA
removed the requirement for self-petitioning foreign nationals to show that their removal would
result in extreme hardship to themselves or their children. BIWPA also no longer required that
self-petitioners had to reside in the United States.

155 “Parole” refers to temporary permission granted to an foreign national to enter and be present in the United States.
Such parole is given to someone who is otherwise inadmissible based on urgent humanitarian reasons or if there is a
significant public benefit. Parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States. Parolees are required to
leave when the parole expires, or if eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status. P.L. 107-206, §402.
156 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)
157 Adjusting legal status refers to the process by which foreign nationals residing in the United States without status or
as legal nonimmigrants petition to become lawful permanent residents.
158 P.L. 106-386, §1503(b) and (c).
159 8 U.S.C. 1255.
160 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1).
161 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1).
162 8 C.F.R. 204.2(c)(1)(iii) and (e)(1)(iii).
Congressional Research Service
28

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

BIWPA permitted that self-petitioning children of U.S. citizens or LPRs (or children of
petitioning foreign nationals who turned 21) be considered petitioners for preference status,
respectively, as unmarried or married sons or daughters of U.S. citizens or LPRs, with the same
priority date as the self-petitioner. In addition, BIWPA allowed self-petitioning battered children
to include their own children in their petitions.
Inadmissibility Grounds
BIWPA amended the INA to provide various inadmissibility waivers and exceptions for battered
aliens.163 While BIWPA did not establish any waivers of the public charge grounds for
inadmissibility, it changed how they were determined for battered foreign nationals with
approved self-petitions by excluding any benefits received as the result of the 1996 IIRIRA.
BIWPA also allowed the Attorney General, “for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or
when it is otherwise in the public interest,” to waive all but a few specified inadmissibility
grounds for battered foreign nationals who qualified for immigration preference or cancellation of
removal.164
BIWPA also amended the 1996 IIRIRA provision related to unauthorized presence.165 Current
law at the time included exceptions to these inadmissibility provisions for certain battered foreign
nationals and children who could show that they qualified for immigration preference and had
been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty. However, those battered foreign nationals had been
required to demonstrate a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty and either the
alien’s unlawful entry into the United States or the alien’s visa overstay. BIWPA eliminated this
requirement.
Domestic Violence Grounds for Removal
BIWPA also addressed an unintended consequence of IIRIRA that made deportable any foreign
national convicted of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or who
violated a protection order.166 Advocates expressed concerns that victims of domestic violence,
who might have committed violent acts in the course of defending themselves, could be subject to
removal on these grounds. BIWPA provided for discretionary relief in such circumstances by
allowing the Attorney General to waive application of these grounds for removal under certain
circumstances, such as acting in self-defense.

163 8 U.S.C. 1182(a). The INA establishes a set of criteria that foreign nationals must meet if they wish to reside
permanently in the United States. Bureau of Consular Affairs officers (when the foreign national is coming from
abroad) and USCIS adjudicators (when the foreign national is adjusting status in the United States) must confirm that
the foreign national is qualified for the visa under the category he or she is applying, and is not ineligible for a visa
under the grounds for inadmissibility of the INA, which include criminal, terrorist, and public health grounds for
exclusion. For more information, see CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for Exclusion:
Policy and Trends
, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
164 8 U.S.C. 1182(d).
165 The 1996 IIRIRA amended INA §212(a)(6)(A) to add unauthorized presence in the United States as grounds for
inadmissibility if an unauthorized foreign national subsequently sought legal admission to the United States. The
IIRIRA established three-year and 10-year bars on admissibility based on periods of illegal presence—between 6-12
months versus more than 12 months, respectively. Unauthorized foreign nationals who reside in the United States less
than 6 months are exempt from the admissibility bars.
166 8 U.S.C. 1227(a).
Congressional Research Service
29

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005

Expanded Protections for Children
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA
2005; P.L. 109-162) added protections to VAWA 2000 and expanded eligibility. Most notably, it
extended the aging out protections in the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)167 for abused
children and children of abused foreign national spouses;168 removed the two-year custody and
residence requirements for abused adopted children;169 expanded eligibility for self-petitioning to
foreign nationals abused by their U.S. citizen sons and daughters;170 and allowed abused spouses
of certain nonimmigrants to apply for work authorization.171 In addition, it exempted VAWA self-
petitioners from sanctions imposed for overstaying grants of voluntary departure172 if the cause of
the overstay was abuse and from deadlines and numerical limitations imposed on motions to
reopen for cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation.173
Reducing Marriage Fraud and Increasing Marriage Broker Regulations
VAWA 2005 also included provisions to reduce immigration fraud by prohibiting a VAWA self-
petitioner or a U visa foreign national from petitioning for immigrant status or nonimmigrant
admission on behalf of their abuser.174
Finally, the legislation included a number of provisions directed toward international marriage
brokers (marriage brokers).175 It required a U.S. citizen petitioning on behalf of his or her

167 The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002, allows a child to
retain his/her classification as a child even though he/she has reached 21 in certain conditions. If a U.S. citizen petitions
for a child before the child reaches 21, USCIS will continue to classify the child as such until issued permanent resident
status. Hence, classification as a child depends on when the citizen petitions for legal status, not when the petition is
approved.
168 P.L. 109-162, §805.
169 Ibid.
170 P.L. 109-162, §816.
171 P.L. 109-162, §814(c).
172 In these cases, grants of voluntary departure are periods of up to six months that are often used by judges and
USCIS trial attorneys to persuade a foreign national with a weak case for asylum or suspension of deportation to
withdraw their application and agree to leave the U.S. voluntarily. Generally, such grants or opportunities to depart
voluntarily are given to most foreign nationals who are being removed from the United States, and most accept it.
Foreign nationals who do not and are not under expedited removal face formal removal proceedings in front of a
Department of Justice immigration judge. Foreign nationals who were previously allowed to depart voluntarily and
criminal aliens are ineligible for voluntary departure. Foreign nationals who fail to depart within the time period
specified face monetary penalties and are ineligible for voluntary departure or other relief from removal for 10 years.
Voluntary departure costs less than formal removal since, in most cases, the government does not have to pay for the
alien’s repatriation. Moreover, the resources required to formally remove all foreign nationals apprehended along the
borders would be prohibitive.
173 P.L. 109-162, §825
174 P.L. 109-162, §814(e)
175 The law incorporated the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 which became Subtitle D of Title
VIII (§831-834) of VAWA 2005 (P.L. 109-162).
Congressional Research Service
30

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

fiancé(e) to disclose whether the relationship resulted from the services of a marriage broker;176
and it prohibited a marriage broker from disclosing personal contact information of any
individual under age 18. It required a marriage broker to search the National Sex Offender Public
Registry or state sex offender public registry and collect specified criminal, marital, and residency
background information about the U.S. client prior to providing the U.S. client with personal
contact information about any foreign national client; provide such background information to the
foreign national client in his or her primary language; and receive from the foreign national client
in his or her primary language a signed, written consent to release such personal contact
information to the specific U.S. client.177
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 represents
the last substantial revision to the VAWA.

176 P.L. 109-162, §833
177 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
31

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Appendix C. How U Visas Work
The U visa was created by Congress as a part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), which reauthorized VAWA. It protects and assists victims
who assist law enforcement agencies’ efforts to investigate and prosecute domestic violence,
sexual assault, alien trafficking, and other crimes. The U visa is available to any foreign national
who suffered physical or mental abuse as a victim of a qualifying crime178 that violated U.S. laws,
has information about the crime, and was, is, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or
prosecution of the crime.179 Foreign national victims may petition from outside the United
States.180 The INA caps the number of U visas at 10,000 per fiscal year.181
U visa applications must contain a certification from a U.S. law enforcement agency or relevant
investigative or prosecutorial authority182 to demonstrate that the foreign national victim has been,
is currently being, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the related
crime.183 Attestation by law enforcement of both abuse to the alien national and subsequent
assistance by that individual serves to prevent immigration fraud.
Foreign national victims apply for a U visa using a Form I-918 “Petition for U Nonimmigrant
Status” along with supporting documentation to USCIS’s Vermont Service Center. USCIS
conducts a de novo review of all evidence submitted. This is as if the VSC were considering the
question for the first time. Hence, USCIS may evaluate evidence previously submitted for other
immigration benefits but is not bound by its previous decisions. Petitioners subject to final orders
of removal may still be removed during adjudication of their U visa petitions.184
Successful petitioners receive a U visa, classifying them as a temporary nonimmigrant, with a
duration of stay of up to four years.185 Denied petitioners are informed of the reasons for the
denial in writing. Applicants may appeal the decision. Because U status is humanitarian in nature,
USCIS does not initiate removal proceedings against those denied U status and illegally present

178 Qualifying crimes include abduction, abusive sexual contact, blackmail, domestic violence, extortion, false
imprisonment, genital female mutilation, felonious assault, being held hostage, incest, involuntary servitude,
kidnapping manslaughter, murder, obstruction of justice, peonage, perjury, prostitution, rape, sexual assault, sexual
exploitation, slave trading, torture, trafficking, witness tampering, unlawful criminal restraint, and other related crimes.
179 8 U.S.C. §101(a)(15)(U).
180 If inadmissible, a U visa applicant must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility adjudicated by USCIS on a discretionary
basis that allows the petitioner to continue with the U nonimmigrant visa petition.
181 8 U.S.C. §214(p)(2)(A). Exceptions include derivative family members such as spouses, children or other qualifying
family members who are accompanying or following to join the principal foreign national victim. To accommodate
petitions exceeding the annual cap, USCIS plans to provide means by which victims cooperating with law enforcement
agencies can stabilize their immigration status. Such petitioners will be given deferred action or parole, making them
eligible to apply for employment authorization or travel until their petitions are adjudicated.
182 Agencies such as child protective services, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Department of
Labor qualify as certifying agencies because they have criminal investigative jurisdiction within their respective areas
of expertise.
183 8 C.F.R. 214.14(a)(3)(i). This condition is intended to deter fraudulent petitions.
184 8 C.F.R. 214.14(c).
185 Extensions are only available if a certifying agency can attest that the foreign national’s presence in the United
States is required to assist in the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying crime.
Congressional Research Service
32

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

unless applicants represent national security or criminal threats, have serious immigration
violations, or otherwise warrant removal proceedings.186
Holders of U visas can ultimately adjust to LPR status if they have lived continuously in the
United States for at least three years since receiving their U visa, have not refused to provide
assistance to law enforcement, and can demonstrate that their continued presence in the United
States is justified on the basis of family cohesion or the national or public interest.187 Immediate
family members of a U visa holder may also adjust to LPR status, although requirements differ.
Table C-1 presents the number of U visas received, approved, and denied in FY2009-FY2011.
On average, roughly four-fifths of victims’ petitions adjudicated each year were approved. As is
the case with VAWA petitions, the number of U visas processed during the period in which the U
visas were made available has increased substantially, from a total of 9,509 total petitions to
22,264, a 134% increase.
Table C-1. U Visa Processing Statistics, FY2009-FY2011
Fiscal
Proportion of
Year
Petitions Processed
Petitions Approved
Petitions Approved





2009 6,513 5,825
89%
2010 14,420 10,073
70%
Victims
2011 13,017 10,088
77%
Total 33,950 25,986
77%





2009 2,996 2,838
95%
Family
2010 11,891 9,315
78%
Members
of
2011 9,247 7,602
82%
Victims
Total 24,134 19,755
82%





2009 9,509 8,663
91%
2010 26,311 19,388
74%
Total
U Visas:
2011 22,264 17,690
79%
Total 58,084 45,741
79%
Source: CRS Presentation of data from USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality, Data Analysis and Reporting
Branch.



186 Email from USCIS Congressional Relations, August 29, 2011. For example, USCIS may institute removal for
conduct committed after the alien is granted U status, for conduct or a condition that was not disclosed to USCIS prior
to the granting of U status, for misrepresentations of material facts in the U application. (8 C.F.R. 214.14(i)).
187 8 U.S.C. §245(l).
Congressional Research Service
33

Immigration Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Author Contact Information

William A. Kandel

Analyst in Immigration Policy
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703

Congressional Research Service
34