Gov Hochul Signs Legislative Package to Empower Victims of Crime

Governor Hochul Signs Legislative Package to Empower Victims of Crime

Governor Kathy Hochul recently signed a legislative package to empower victims of crime. This sweeping package of bills expands what qualifies as documentation of identity theft and expands the eligibility of victims of unlawful dissemination of intimate images, as well as reckless endangerment. These bills will help to lift up victims of these heinous acts and give them the opportunity to seek justice. "In New York we believe strongly in protecting and uplifting all victims," Governor Hochul said. "This legislative package allows victims that have not been physically injured to still obtain compensation for other impacts of various crimes — taking an important step to help victims seek the justice they deserve." Legislation (S.9359/A.7487) expands which documents can be used to show identity theft in certain circumstances relating to debt collection. These materials can now include Federal Trade Commission and Law enforcement reports, as well as criminal and family court documents. This increases protection for victims of identity theft by requiring creditors to cease collection activities until completion of their review of certain information. Under existing law, victims of identity theft must have filed a police report for a creditor to cease collection, with there being no alternative if a police report was not filed. This will allow more victims of identity theft to put these heinous acts behind them. State Senator Kevin Thomas said, "Identity theft impacts New Yorkers from all walks of life, and can happen to any of us. Under current law, creditors can only halt collection activities if identity theft victims file a police report documenting the alleged theft, with no acceptable alternatives. Certain victims who may not feel safe turning to law enforcement to report such activity have a harder time proving the legitimacy of their claims. My legislation expands protections in New York by now including family court filings, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ID Theft Victim form and more as acceptable documents needed for debtors to cease collection efforts until completion of their review. Affording these alternate ways to properly report such victimization is the right thing to do — and I thank Governor Hochul for protecting consumers by making it easier to access financial relief." Assemblymember Charles Fall said, "I along with many New Yorkers who have been impacted by identity theft, especially from someone they may know, thank Governor Hochul for signing my legislation today. Affording victims, especially of domestic violence and elder abuse an alternate way to report such victimization in order for debtors to pause collection efforts while other factors are considered is the right thing to do." Legislation (S.8975/A.7489) expands the eligibility of victims of unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image as defined in section 245.15 of the Penal Law (Revenge Porn). Under cur-

Gov Hochul. Editorial credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com rent law, to be eligible for reimbursement for certain crime-related expenses, one must be a physically injured victim of a crime. This bill allows uninjured victims of unlawful dissemination of intimate images to be reimbursed. This gives more power to victims of revenge porn acts and allows them to collect damages for what they endured. State Senator Julia Salazar said, "These bills expand the list of offenses the crime victim can receive compensation for. This helps fill the gaps the previous law has left wide open. We want to make sure victims of all offenses, regardless if there is physical injury or not, are protected and compensated accordingly." Assemblymember Monica Wallace said, "The crime of revenge porn leaves emotional and psychological scars that are just as painful and enduring as the scars suffered from a physical assault. This legislation therefore allows victims who have had their intimate images unlawfully disseminated to receive the same services and compensation as victims of other crimes, including access to mental health counseling and relocation expenses. I thank Governor Hochul for her support of this legislation and for providing victims of revenge porn with the tools they need to heal."l

Immigration Services Fraud/ continued from page 1 •Providers cannot state directly or indirectly that he or she has special influence with or can obtain special favors or guarantee an outcome from the United States Citizenship and Immigrations Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or any other governmental entity; •Providers cannot demand a fee in exchange for immigration forms or for a referral to a qualified legal service provider; •Providers must provide written contracts in the language understood by the immigrant customer; •Customers can cancel their contracts and get a refund and upon request have their original documents and immigration file returned to them, even if there is a fee dispute; and •Providers must post clear multi-lingual signage about the limited scope of their services.

The immigrant community is a fragile one.We spoke to Attorney Brian Figeroux of the Law Firm of Figeroux & Associates. Mr Figeroux has been practicing immigration law for almost 25 years and is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). He shared the following: "When people come to the office with immigration issues, it's a painful situation. If they have been taken advantage of and defrauded, they've been here for many years, undocumented, and exploited by their employers or fellow people from their own community. So, yes, pain is a common thing."

Pain and Arleigh Lousion There are many fraudulent immigration providers. There is a new one lurking in the community that we have eyes and ears on. One of the more recent immigration fraud service providers was Arleigh Louison. Federal law enforcement agents arrested Arleigh Louison on July 18, 2019. He was indicted in Vermont on 12 counts of making false statements and submitting over 1,800 fraudulent immigration applications to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Figeroux spoke on the pain and the devastation from Louison's fraud: "So, one of the pains that people suffer, a lot of people in Kings County, especially from the Caribbean, is the pain that they have after Arleigh Louison, who is now deceased. He defrauded people by submitting fraudulent immigration applications on their behalf. There were lies in those applications that persons were abused by their spouses, children, or others, which did not qualify them for immigration benefits." Figeroux continued, "So, Arleigh Louison knew that you had pain. He was a notary, not a lawyer. Louison preyed on that pain and filed those fraudulent applications because he knew you would make bad decisions. You would make immoral decisions or Christian life decisions to have the ability to work in America. He also knew that you got to feed your children, wife, husband, and family back home. You need to send those barrels. He's aware of it. And by being aware of your pain and your need economically to survive, he took advantage of you. It doesn't matter what he said. You would sign those forms even though you didn't know what was written on the documents, which is what many persons who Arleigh Louison defrauded said. And there are other notaries in the community that do the same. In fact, some bad lawyers do the same. So, when you have pain, you also must be careful to who you disclose your pain, and you must get a second or third consultation if you think what the person is saying is either illegal, immoral or will get you into trouble.

Problems for Victims/Clients of Arleigh Lousion Yes, Louison has since passed. However, he has left a carnage of victims facing deportation and many immigration issues. What does this mean? Since Arleigh Louison was arrested for immigration fraud, the files of all his clients will be reviewed by the Immigration & Customs Enforcement agents (ICE). Additionally, every single client will be served a Notice to Appear (NTA) and be interviewed by ICE agents with the sole purpose of seeking admission to initiate deportation proceedings. The NTA is the first step taken by the American government to remove an immigrant from the country.

Legal Assistance If you were a client of Louison, it is imperative that you consult with an AILA attorney and do not meet with ICE alone. You should also seek the advice of more than one counsel. Get a case evaluation. ASK THE LAWYER – call 855-7688845 or visit www.askthelawyer.us to schedule an appointment.l

Save Your:

*Home *Business *Car

Creditors’ Harassments! Lawsuits! Foreclosures!

Get the legal help you need NOW! Call 718-222-3155! GET YOUR BANKRUPTCY CONSULTATION

*Health *Peace of Mind/Health *Marriage/Relationship

Documents Required:

*List of debts *Your most recent tax returns *Correspondence from creditors *Lawsuit documents *Social Security and ID *List of assets

Filing a Chapter 7, 11 or 13 bankruptcy may be your only choice!!!

Call 718-222-3155 for a consultation today!

Immigrant Rights Look Very Different After the Latest Supreme Court Term

BY AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL STAFF

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have roiled the immigrant rights community. Though many decisions weren’t surprising given the conservative majority on the Court, the decisions touch on a wide range of issues—from federal court review of detention to agency accountability for misconduct at the border. Some of the Court’s decisions addressed immigration law directly, while the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, for example, signaled a warning that other rights currently protected under the Constitution may be threatened in the future. One bright spot was the Court’s recent decision upholding the Biden administration’s right to end the Migrant Protection Protocols, or the “Remain in Mexico” program.

Decisions Regarding Immigration Detention and a Court’s Ability to Grant Relief Both the Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez and Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez cases decided this term involved noncitizens who had been ordered removed from the United States. Each sought withholding of that removal because they feared persecution in their home country. The Court decided in both cases to overturn lower court rulings that required bond hearings if a person in removal proceedings had been detained for longer than six months. The Court found that the immigration statute did not require these bond hearings. As counsel in Aleman Gonzalez stated, however, the ruling does allow for a challenge to the federal policy on constitutional grounds. In addition, in a blow to class action litigation, the Court ruled in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez that granting classwide relief on behalf of individuals challenging their detention was prohibited. The Court ruled that lower courts may not enter an injunction that instructs federal immigration officials to act in a specific way with respect to decisions to enforce provisions of the law governing “inspection, apprehension, examination, and removal . . .” of immigrants. Despite the absence of injunctive relief, other types of relief—such as declaratory relief—may continue to be available.

Decision Limiting Review of Factual Error Patel v. Garland centers around Pankajkumar Patel, a native of India, who erroneously checked a box on a Georgia drivers’ license application labeled “U.S. citizen.” When the immigration court found Patel ineligible for relief, his attorneys asked for review of that decision by a federal court. They argued immigration statute permits review of eligibility for relief and only prohibits review of the ultimate discretionary decision to grant relief. The Court disagreed. It found that federal courts could not review factual findings related to certain discretionary relief, even when the facts are tied to eligibility and not the ultimate exercise of discretion. With a case backlog of nearly 1.8 million cases and an over-stressed and understaffed court system, we expect immigration judges to sometimes make mistakes about individuals’ eligibility for relief from removal. With Patel, those mistakes will now be more difficult to review. The decision also leaves open questions about the scope of the decision. Following the majority’s logic, federal courts may no longer be able to review denial of adjustment of status applications issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in which the immigration agency also makes factual determinations about eligibility for relief. This may be the next wave of litigation on this judicial review provision.

Decision in Favor of Ending “Remain in Mexico” Program In Biden v. Texas, the Supreme Court gave a decisive win to the Biden administration, rejecting arguments that the Biden administration could not end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The Court ruled that immigration law does not require the Biden administration to send people to Mexico to wait for their asylum hearings in the United States; the ability to return asylum seekers to Mexico is discretionary. Under the portions of the ruling addressing judicial review, questions now remain about whether a court now can “vacate” a policy under the Administrative Procedure Act and what it means for a court to hear a lawsuit in a case where it does not have the authority to issue a binding ruling. And though MPP now will end, many asylum seekers will remain outside of the United States because Title 42—the primary obstacle to seeking protection in the United States—remains intact.

Decision Finding Monetary Remedies Not Available to Hold Border Patrol Agent Accountable for Assault The Supreme Court decision in Egbert v. Boule barred a civil rights lawsuit against a U.S. Border Patrol agent for reportedly entering the property of a U.S. citizen without a warrant and assaulting him. Mr. Boule was the owner of a bed and breakfast near the U.S.-Canada border. In 2014, Border Patrol Agent Egbert entered the property to question one of Mr. Boule’s international guests. When Mr. Boule asked Agent Egbert to leave, Agent Egbert threw Mr. Boule to the ground. After Mr. Boule filed a complaint with Border Patrol about his excessive use of force, Agent Egbert allegedly retaliated by initiating investigations into Mr. Boule’s business. Mr. Boule filed a lawsuit relying on a 1971 Supreme Court case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Congress has never passed a law that allows people to sue federal agents for money for violating the Constitution. However, a successful lawsuit based on the Bivens case allows an individual to hold a federal government official accountable for violating their constitutional rights and collect monetary damages for the harm they suffered. In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Boule could not bring Bivens claims because a lawsuit against a Border Patrol agent necessarily implicates national security concerns. Because of that, only Congress could allow such a lawsuit. The Court also found a Bivens remedy inappropriate because U.S. Border Patrol has a grievance process. The Court said it did not matter that this process did not award Mr. Boule monetary damages, that it could not be appealed, or, as the dissent points out, that it offers “no meaningful protection of the constitutional interests at stake.” The Supreme Court’s decision likely makes it virtually impossible to bring a Bivens action against Border Patrol agents in the future. This removes an important tool for holding that agency—one known for abuse and misconduct—accountable. And Border Patrol has proven unwilling to police itself. According to a study, over 95% of disciplinary actions resulting from complaints result in no consequences against the agent. By ruling against a Bivens action, the Court leaves individuals like Mr. Boule without any options to seek damages for the violations against them.

Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overturning Roe v. Wade was based on a legal concept known as “originalism,” which looks to the original text of the Constitution to discern fundamental rights. The Court determined Roe was wrongly decided because the right to an abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and so, in the view of the majority, not protected as a “fundamental right.” Other long-standing Supreme Court decisions implicating immigrants’ rights may now be at risk. An immigrant’s right to an education under Plyler v. Doe is one example. Plyler originated from an attempt by the state of Texas to prohibit the use of state funding to educate any students that were not “lawfully admitted” into the country. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held in Plyer that the right of these students to a public education was covered by the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. An immigrant’s right to an education, for example—a right not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution but protected under the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyer v. Doe—might be in danger.l

Deferred Action for Special Immigrant Juveniles

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on March 7, 2022, announced that it is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to consider deferred action and related employment authorization for noncitizens who have an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification but who cannot apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) because a visa number is not available. Deferred action is an act of prosecutorial discretion that defers proceedings to remove a noncitizen from the United States for a certain period. Deferred action does not provide lawful status. The program created in 1990 allows immigrants under 21 to apply for permanent residency in the United States if a state court determines that they need protection and that returning to their home countries would be unsafe. The SIJ classification is available to noncitizen children subject to state juvenile court proceedings related to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law. SIJ classification does not confer lawful status and does not result in eligibility to apply for employment authorization. Deferred action and related employment authorization will help to protect noncitizens with SIJ classification who cannot apply for adjustment of status solely because they are waiting for a visa number to become available. This process furthers congressional intent to provide humanitarian protection for abused, neglected, or abandoned noncitizen children for whom a juvenile court has determined that it is in their best interest to remain in the United States. USCIS will consider deferred action on a case-by-case basis and will grant it if the SIJ warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. USCIS will automatically conduct deferred action determinations for individuals with SIJ classification who cannot apply for LPR status because a visa number is not available. A separate request for deferred action is not required and will not be accepted by USCIS. SIJs who have moved since their Form I-360 was approved should update their address with USCIS as soon as possible to ensure that they receive correspondence related to deferred action. If USCIS grants deferred action, it will be for a period of four years. An SIJ who has been granted deferred action will be able to apply for employment authorization for their period of deferred action by filing Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and indicating eligibility category (c)(14). USCIS Director Ur Jaddou in a statement said the policies would help children who are abused or abandoned rebuild their lives in the United States. "These policies will provide humanitarian protection to vulnerable young people for whom a juvenile court has determined that it is in their best interest to remain in the United States," she said. This update contained in Volume 6 of the Policy Manual, is effective May 6, 2022, and applies to eligible noncitizens classified as SIJs before, on or after May 6, based on an approved Form I-360. This guidance is controlling and supersedes any prior guidance on the topic. l Read more stories at www.311immigration.com