U.S.Department Ofhomeland Security

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFHOMELAND SECURITY

U.S.CITIZENSHIPANDIMMIGRATION SERVICESVERMONT SERVICECENTER

IntheMatterof:

Applicant:

xxxxxxxx

A123456789

)

)

)AppealofDenialofFormI-918Petition

)forUNonimmigrantStatus

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

APPEALOFADECISIONOFTHEDIRECTOR OFTHEVERMONTSERVICECENTER

Pursuantto8C.F.R.section103.3,XXXXXXXX("Ms.XXXX"),throughheraccreditedrepresentative,TrishaTeofiloOlaveoftheNationalImmigrantJusticeCenter,movestoappealtheU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices'(USCIS)denialofherFormI-918,PetitionforUNonimmigrantStatusPetition,whichwasdeniedonSeptember8,2014.IfMs.XXXX'sFormI-918receivesafavorabledecision,Ms.XXXXrequestsreconsiderationofthedenialofherForm I-192,ApplicationforAdvancePermissiontoEnter asNonimmigrantandherFormI-765,ApplicationforEmploymentAuthorization.

I.STATEMENT OFFACTSANDPROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms.XXXXisanativeandcitizenofMexico,bornonAugust3,1972inYuriria,Guanajuato,Mexico.Ms.XXXXisthesoleproviderofhertwoU.S.citizenchildren:SON(age

16)andDAUGHTER(age7).See BirthcertificatesofchildrenpreviouslysubmittedwithRFEresponsefiledApril11,2014.

Ms.XXXXlastenteredtheUnitedStateswithoutinspectionthroughCalifornia,nearSan YsidroinaboutNovember1992.Ms.XXXXdeeplyregretsenteringtheU.S.unlawfullyandhermotivationatthetimewastobeabletofinanciallysupportherselfandherfamily.SeeApplicant'saffidavitsubmittedwithinitialUVisa.

Overaperiodofapproximatelysixteenyears,from1995until2011,Ms.XXXX'shusband,ABUSER("Mr.ABUSER")continuallyabusedherphysically,emotionallyandmentally.HepunchedherinthefaceforthefirsttimeafewmonthsaftertheymarriedonJanuary28,1995.OnMarch22,2009,Ms.XXXXcalledtheChicagoPoliceDepartmenttoreportanincidentfromMarch15,2009inwhichMr.ABUSERgrabbedherbytheneckandstartedchokingher.SeeExs.C,G.Ms.XXXXinformedthepolicethatherhusbandputhishandaroundherneckandtoldherhewasgoingtokillher.Sheassistedthepoliceindetectingthecrimeofdomesticviolenceagainsther.ItisunclearfromthepolicereportwhetherEnglishorSpanishwasusedtocommunicatewithMs.XXXX.Thepoliceinformedherofanorderofprotection andshewasgivenavictiminformationsheet.SeeEx.G.

OnSeptember9,2011,Mr.ABUSERthreatenedtokillMs.XXXXandtoldherhehadaknife.Ms.XXXXcalledtheChicagoPoliceDepartmentbecauseshefearedforhersafety.CPDreportedrednessaroundMs.XXXX'sneckduetoherhusbandplacingbothhandsaroundherneckandattemptingtostrangleher.SeeEx.C,H.Again,Ms.XXXXassistedthepoliceindetectingthecrimeofdomesticviolenceagainsther.AfterthereportedincidentonSeptember9,2011,Ms.XXXXimmediatelypetitionedforanorderofprotection,attendedallcourthearingsregardingtheordersandobtainedaplenary,civilorderof protectionvalidfromJanuary11,2012untilJanuary11,2014.SeeExs.C,I.

Ms. XXXX suffered severe physical, mental and emotional harm as a result of the

domesticviolenceshesufferedatthehandsofher husband,Mr.ABUSER.Ms.XXXX wouldbeverballyandphysicallyabusedinfrontofherchildrenandmother,causinghertoliveinfearnotonlyforherself,butinfearforherfamily.Mr.ABUSERwouldalsoverballyinsultthechildrenandMs.XXXX'smother.Ms.XXXX'syoungson,SONsteppedintodefendheragainstMr.ABUSERwhen hewasonly13years-old.SeeApplicant'saffidavitsubmittedwithinitialUVisaandaffidavitofapplicant'ssonsubmittedwith RFEresponseonApril11,2014.

OnNovember14,2012,Ms.XXXXfiledanapplicationforUNonimmigrantStatuswiththeVermontServiceCenter(I-918/1-765ReceiptNumber:EAC1303450707).Ms.XXXX'sinitialfilingincludedaForm1-918,SupplementBsignedbytheChicagoPoliceDepartment(CPD)onMay5,2012indicatingthatshewasavictimofthequalifyingcrimeofdomesticviolence.OnOctober16,2013,USCISissuedarequestforadditionalevidence(RFE).TheServicerequestedanewlysignedForm1-918,SupplementB,becausetheformsubmittedwasmorethansixmonthsoldatthetimeofsubmission.SeeEx.F.Inaddition, theService indicatedthatMs.XXXXisinadmissibleundersection212(a)(6)(A)(i)forbeingpresentintheU.S.withoutadmissionorparoleandrequestedaForm1-192,ApplicationforAdvancePermissiontoEnterasaNonimmigrant.Ms.XXXXfiledaresponsetotherequestbyprovidinganewForm1-918,SupplementBsignedbyCPDonNovember20,2013and bysubmittingaForm1-192.SeeidandForm 1-192receivedbythe ServiceonJanuary 24,2014.

OnDecember9,2013,theServiceissuedaNoticeofActionrejectingMs.XXXX'sForm1-192becausetheproperfilingfeeor feewaiverrequestwasnotincluded.OnJanuary23,2014,Ms.XXXXresubmittedherForm1-192withafeewaiverrequestwhichwasreceivedbytheServiceonJanuary24,2014(EAC1408050654).See1-192Receiptnoticeonrecord.

OnJanuary28,2014,theServiceissuedasecondrequestforadditionalevidence.The

ServicerequestedastatementfromacertifyingofficialindicatingwhetherMs.XXXXhadbeen,isbeingorislikelytobehelpfultotheinvestigationorprosecutionofthecitedcriminalactivity.OnJanuary28,2014,theServiceagainrequestedtheproperfilingfeeorfeewaiverrequestforformI-192.However,theFormI-192hadalreadybeenreceivedbytheServiceonJanuary24,2014andthereceiptnoticefortheFormI-192wasissuedonJanuary28,2014.Seeid.

OnApril11,2014,Ms.XXXXfiledaresponsetoUSCIS' requestbyprovidingalegalargumentandswornaffidavitdescribinghercooperationwithCPDandthathercooperationwasreasonablegiventhecircumstances.SeeCoverLetterofattorneyATTORNEY,Applicant'saffidavit,Applicant'sson'sandmother'saffidavitsallsubmittedonApril 11,2014.

OnSeptember8,2014,USCISdeniedMs.XXXX'sFormI-918UNonimmigrantStatus,statingthatMs.XXXXcouldnotestablishthatshehasbeenhelpful,isbeinghelpful,orislikelytobehelpfultothecertifyingagencyandsincetheinitiationofcooperation;shehasnotrefusedorfailedtoprovideinformationandassistancereasonablyrequested.SeeEx.A.TheServicealsodeniedMs.XXXX'sFormI-192,ApplicationforAdvancePermissiontoEnteras NonimmigrantandFormI-765,ApplicationforEmploymentAuthorization,giventhattheapprovalsarecontingentupontheapprovaloftheFormI-918. SeeEx.B.

Ms.XXXXnowmovestoappealUSCIS'decisionpursuantto8C.F.R.§103.3giventhattheServiceclearlyerredinitsdecisiontodenyherUNonimmigrantStatus.Inconnectionwiththisappeal,Ms.XXXXrequeststhatUSCISreopenandreconsiderherFormsI-765andI-192,acknowledgingtheircontingencyupontheapprovalofFormI-918.USCISmaytakefavorableactionprior to forwarding the caseto the Administrative Appeals Officepursuant to 8CFR

§103.5(a)(5)(i)and8CFR§103.3(a)(2)(iii).

II.LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL: USCISERREDASAMATTER OFLAW WHEN IT DENIED MS. XXXX'S FORM I-918PETITION FOR UNONIMMIGRANT STATUS

USCISmadeanerroneousconclusionoflaw whenitstatedthefollowing:"Atthistime,theevidenceyousubmittedinsupportofyourForm1-918isnotsufficientinestablishinga continuedongoinghelpfulnessasrequiredbytheU-visaregulation."SeeEx.A.TheUvisaregulationsfoundat8CFR§214.14(b)donotinfactrequirethattheapplicantprovide"ongoinghelpfulness"tolawenforcement.Theregulationsdonotcontainthelanguage"ongoinghelpfulness,"rather,8CFR§214.14(b)(3)statesinrelevantpart:

Section(b)UVisaEligibilityRequirements:

(3)Thealienhasbeenhelpful,isbeinghelpful,orislikelytobehelpfultoacertifyingagencyintheinvestigationorprosecutionofthequalifyingcriminalactivityuponwhichhisorherpetitionisbased,andsincetheinitiationofcooperation,hasnotrefusedorfailedtoprovideinformationandassistancereasonablyrequested.[emphasisadded}

TheUSCISadjudicatingofficermusttake intoconsiderationthepertinentlanguageintheUVisaregulationsregardinginformationandassistancereasonablyrequestedsincetheinitiationofcooperation.SinceMs.XXXXinitiatedcooperationwiththeChicagoPoliceDepartment,shedidnotrefuseorfailtoprovideinformationandassistancereasonablyrequested.

A.Itis notreasonabletoexpectMs.XXXXtorespondtoCPDcorrespondenceinEnglish

Ms.XXXXhasestablishedandtheServicehasacknowledgedthat alanguagebarrierexistedwhenMs.XXXXreportedtheincidentsofdomesticviolencetolawenforcement.Ms.XXXX'sson,SON,whowas11years-oldatthetimeand whospeaksEnglish,calledthepoliceforherinMarch2009.DuetothechaosandtraumaMs.XXXXexperiencedsurroundingthisreported

incident,itisdifficultforhertorememberiftheofficersspokeSpanishwhentheyarrived.

Ms.XXXXcalled911inordertoreporttheincidentinSeptember2011.ShedidrequestthattheoperatorsendaSpanish-speakingofficerbutwhenthepolicearrived,they only spokeEnglish.Ms. XXXXwasforcedtoaskherson,SON,whowas13years-oldatthetimetointerpretforher.ItwasunreasonablefortheCPDtorequestinformationandassistancefromMs.XXXXthroughtheinterpretationservicesofherchild,especially duetothesensitivecontentdiscussedwhichinvolvedbothofhisparents.

AlthoughCPDcontracts LanguageLineServices,a24-hour,telephonicinterpreterservice,Ms.XXXXwasnotofferedthisservice.SeeEx.K.InDecember2007theDepartment ofJustice'sOfficeforCivilRights(OCR)reviewedthelanguageservicesattheCPDtoassessforcomplianceundertheTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964andtheOmnibusCrimeControlandSafeStreetsActof1968.SeeEx.L.AfterinterviewingCPDofficers,theOCRfoundseveralshortcomingsinregardstolanguageaccessforlimitedEnglishproficiency(LEP)persons.

First,theOCRfoundthattheCPDdoesnothaveapolicyinplacerequiringthatthetypeofinterpretationserviceusedforassistanceberecordedbyeithertherespondingCPDofficerortheOfficeofEmergencyManagementandCommunications(OEMC)operator.Therefore,theCPDofficerrespondingtothecallmaynotknowthatthecallerrequiresaninterpreter.SeeEx.L,Pg.4:

Duringtheonsiteinterviews,manyoftheoperatorsstatedthattheyoftenresolvetelephonicencounterswithLEPpersonswithoutusingLanguageLine,suchasusingtheirownlanguageskills, thelanguageskillsofco-workers,orthelanguageskillsoffriends orfamilymembersoftheLEPindividual.Theoperatorsstated thattheysometimes note intheadministrativepaperwork thatthe

operator usedanon-LanguageLineinterpreterfor assistance;however,thispracticeisneitheraCPDpolicynor dooperatorsconsistentlyperformit.

TheOCRreportalsomentionsthatoperators willrelyontheinterpretationassistanceofthe"LEPcaller's friendsandfamily,includingminors."CPDemployeesreportedthatinrespondingtoon-sitevisits,theywilloftencommunicatewithhandgesturesiftheydonot speakthelanguageoftheLEPindividual."CPDemployeescommentedthattheycan'getby'inthismannerandthattheyare'abletopiecetogether'informationwiththeLEPperson."SeeEx.L,Pg.10.CPDofficersalsomentionedallowingindividualstospeakwiththemin"brokenEnglish."SeeEx.L,Pg.5.TheCPDdeniedusingfriends,familyorbystandersasinterpretersalthoughOCRreportedthat "virtuallyallemployees,ineverydivisionanddistrictstation,statedinonsiteinterviewsthattheyregularlyuse theseindividualsinrespondingencounterswithLEPpersons."SeeEx.L,Pg.10.

Further,thereportstatesthattheCPDdoesnothaveapolicyrequiringthatarespondingofficerrecordthelanguagepreferenceofcivilianswhileinthefield.Thereportstatesonpage4:"Also,whileCPDemployeescompleteacontactinformationcardtodocumentencounterswithmembersofthepublic,thecarddoesnotcontainareferencetoLEPstatus."Therefore,ifanofficerneedstofollowupwithanindividualseveraldaysafterapolicereportismade,itisnotlikelythatanofficerwouldrememberifanindividualrequiresinterpretationortranslationserviceswhencallingorsendingletterstotheindividual.

Second,theOCRreportstatesthatCPDhasaccesstoseveralresourcesforinterpretationservices,butthatCPDemployeesdidnotseemtobeawareof manyof them.Forexample,theCPDhasdevelopeddocumentstoassistnon-Spanishspeakingofficersinemergencies.However,theOCRreportedthatemployeeswerenotfamiliarwiththedocumentsandseveralstatedthat

theydidnotreceiveanytrainingonworkingwithLEPindividuals.SeeEx.L,Pg.10.Thereportlistsseveralinformationalbrochures,pamphletsandletterswhichhavebeentranslatedintoSpanishbyCPD.However,theOCRstatesonpage12:

DespitetheCPD'seffortstomakealargeamountof resourcesavailableinlanguagesotherthanEnglish,manyemployeesthatOCRinterviewed werenotawareofthetranslatedmaterials.Several employees suggested to OCR thatCPDconsidertranslatingcertaindocuments,wheninfacttheCPDhadalreadytranslated them.Additionally, evenwhenofficerswereaware oftheavailabilityoftranslateddocuments,itdoesnotappearthatmanyoftheseofficersdistributedthem...Inatltlition,severalemployeescouldnotidentifyonedocumentthattheyprovided tothepublic thatwasnotinEnglish.

TheOCR's2007reportontheCPD'slanguageaccessinconsistenciesandshortcomingsareconsistentwithMs.XXXX'sexperiencesinreportingtheincidentsofdomesticviolencebothin2009 and2011.Shespokewith anoperatoroverthephoneinSeptember2011 andrequestedthataSpanish-speakingofficercometoherhome.However,themessagedidnotseemto havebeenrelayedtothereportingofficer,asheorshedidnotspeakSpanish.SeeEx.C.Ms.XXXX'sminorsoninterpretedforheranditappearsthatshethenreceivedfollowupcorrespondenceinEnglish.SeeExs.C,D.ThepracticesthatMs.XXXXexperiencedwerecritiquedbytheOCRandtheyrecommendedthatCPD"takefurtheractiontoensurethatitismeetingitsobligationsunderTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964andtheOmnibusCrimeControlandSafeStreetsActof1968."SeeEx.L,Pg.2.Therefore,itcannotbesaidthatCPDreasonablyrequestedinformationandassistanceofMs.XXXX.

TheMayor's OfficeoftheCityofChicagopublished aNewAmericans Campaign m

November2012whichrecommendsseveralinitiativesaimedatimprovingthelivesofimmigrantsin Chicago.SeeEx. M.OneoftheinitiativesrecommendedbytheMayor'sofficeistoimplementaCity-widelanguageaccesspolicy,whichtheOCRalsorecommendedspecificallyforCPDintheirreportfrom2007.SeeEx.L,Pg. 2.Atthetime Ms.XXXXreportedthedomesticviolenceincidentsin2009and2011,acity-widelanguageaccesspolicyhadnotbeenimplemented.IftheCPDhadalanguageaccessorassistanceplan,moreimmigrantswhodonotdominateEnglishproficientlywould"benefitfromincreasedaccessibilityandpredictabilityofservices."SeeEx.M,Pg.36.Intum,theimmigrantwouldbereasonablyequippedtoprovideinformationorassistancetolawenforcement,thusmoreeffectivelyfurtheringthepurposeoftheUVisa.

ItisclearthattheCPDinformationorassistanceprovidedtoorrequestedofMs.XXXXwasnotreasonablyexpressedorrequested.DuetotheinconsistenciesofCPD'smethodswhenrecordinglanguagepreferencesofindividualscallingoperatorsorinteractingwith officersinthefieldasrecordedintheOCR'sreport,itisclearthatMs.XXXX'sexperiencewasnotuniqueandthatshedidnotunreasonablyrefusetocooperatewithlawenforcementsinceinitiatingcooperation.BoththeOCRreportin2007andtheChicagoMayor'sOfficeofNewAmericansin2012,havesuggestedlanguageaccessorassistancepoliciesbeimplemented,thusfurtherdemonstratingthatMs.XXXX wasnotunreasonableinhercooperationwiththeCPD.

B.ItisnotreasonabletoexpectMs.XXXXto haveunderstoodtheU.S.legalsystemduring thetimeofthereportedincidents

Duetothelanguagebarriers,Ms.XXXXdidnotunderstandtheroleofthepoliceanddidnotunderstandtheservicestheyprovided.Ms.XXXXsubmittedapersonaldeclarationsignedonApril10,2014inresponseto theService's requestforevidence.Shementionsinparagraphfivethathermotherrelatedtoher thatpoliceofficersvisitedherhomeonseveraloccasionsafterthe

secondreportedincidentinSeptember2011.ThepoliceofficersspokenoSpanishbutMs.XXXX'smotherunderstoodthattheywerelookingfor Ms.XXXX'shusband,ABUSERbecausetheyrepeatedlysaidhisname.SandraWall,anattorneywhocontactedtheCPDon behalfofMs.XXXX,statesthatSergeantJamesEldrige,SergeantoftheRecordsDivisionoftheCPDsaidthatpolicewouldnothavevisitedMs.XXXX'shomeinordertofollowuponthedomesticviolenceincidentsshereported.SeeEx.D.

Ms.XXXXpetitionedforaplenaryorderofprotectionagainstMr.ABUSERduringthistimeandofficerswouldhavebeensentbythecourttoattempttoservehimwiththeorder.Ms.XXXX'smotherremembersofficerslookingforMr.ABUSERonthreeoccasions.SeeEx.E.The courtattemptedto locateMr.ABUSERtoservehimonthreeoccasionswhichis evidencedbythetwoAliasSummonsesandtheOrderofServicebyPublication.SeeEx.I.Itmaybeconcludedthattheofficers'homevisitswerenotrelatedtotheinvestigationof domesticbatteryreportedinSeptember2011,butrelatedtotheorderofprotectionMs.XXXXpetitionedfor afterwards.

ItisclearthatMs.XXXXdidnotunderstandthepurposefortheofficers'visitsto herhomewhichfurtherdemonstratesthesevereconfusionshe faceddueto thelanguagebarriers.SeeEx.

C.Itisnotreasonabletoexpecthertohaveunderstoodthepolice'srole,especiallyinlightofherstatedunderstandingofthecourt'srole.SeeEx. C.Ms.XXXXdidnotunderstandthe roleofthepolicewhenshereportedtheincidentsandprovidedinformationandassistancetothepolicetothebestofherability.

III.MS.XXXXWASHELPFULTOLAWENFORCEMENT

TheServicemustrecognizeMs.XXXX'spetitionforaplenaryorderofprotectionascooperationwithlawenforcement.SeeExs.C,I1.Ms.XXXXpetitionedforandreceiveda

PlenaryCivilOrderofProtection,obtainedanemergencyorderofprotectionandattended allcourthearingrelatedtotheorders.SeeEx.I.OnSeptember14,2011,immediatelyafter contacting lawenforcement,Ms.XXXX filedapetitionforanorderofprotectionthroughtheassistanceofSpanishspeakingattorneysatthecourt'sDomesticViolenceLegalClinic.SeeExs.H,I1.Ms.XXXXattendedeachstatushearingonOctober5,2011,October26,2011,November16,2011andDecember7,2011butherhusband,ABUSERneverappeared.SeeEx.I3-6.Itisreasonabletoconcludethatlawenforcementhelped tointroduceMs.XXXXtotheconceptofordersofprotectionbecausesherecallsbeinggivenacardwiththedomesticviolencecourt'saddressSeeEx.C.ThepolicereportcorroboratesMs.XXXX's memoryandstatesthatshewasgivena"domesticviolenceinfosheet,"whichnormallyincludesinformationregardingordersofprotection.SeeExs.G,H.

TheServicestatesthatthedescriptionprovidedonForm1-918,SupplementB,onpage3,question5iscontradictorytothecertifyingofficial'sinformationonpage2.SeeEx.A.Thisconclusionisincorrect.TheServiceonlytakesthedescriptionofCPDnotbeingabletocontactMs.XXXXaftertheincidentsintoaccountanddoesnotacknowledgethatshewashelpfulatthetimeofmakingthe reports.NeitherdoestheServiceacknowledgethatMs.XXXXprovidedinformationandassistanceaswasreasonablyrequestedbylawenforcement.TheServicelistsadditionalevidencereceivedinsupportofMs.XXXX'sapplicationonApril22,2014butfailstolistthedeclarationsfromhermotherandson.Ms.XXXXurgestheServicetonowproperlyacknowledgeandconsiderhersworndeclarationandthedeclarationsofhermotherandsonassufficientevidencethatshecooperatedreasonablywithlawenforcement.SeeExs.C,E andApplicant's son'sandmother'saffidavits submittedonApril 11,2014.

Ms.XXXX acknowledges andunderstands thatthepurpose oftheUVisaisfurtheredby

victimscooperatingwithlawenforcement.TheService'sdenialnoticementionstwice thatusersrequestedastatementfromthecertifyingofficialindicatingwhetherornotshewas helpful intheinvestigation orprosecution. Thisisunnecessary because thecertifying official

fromtheChicagoPoliceDepartment signedaFormI-918,SupplementBonMay10,2012andNovember20,2013.Onbothoccasions,hecertifiedonpage2,inpart4,question2thatMs.XXXXhasbeen,isbeingorislikelytobehelpfultotheinvestigationorprosecutionandthatshedidnotunreasonablyrefusetocooperate.SeeEx.FandFormI-918SupplementBsubmittedwithinitialUVisaApplication.ThisisbecausewhenbothpolicereportsweremadeMs.XXXXprovidedadescriptionoftheincidentstothepolicetothebestofherabilityandatthetimeofreportingtheincidents,shewashelpfultolawenforcement.NeithertheFormI-918SupplementBnorthepolicereportsindicatethatMs.XXXXrefusedtoprovideinformationandassistancereasonablyrequestedofherbyCPD.SeeExs.F-H.

Inaddition,atthetimeofreportingtheincidents,Ms.XXXXassistedtheCPDinidentifyingthecrimeofdomesticviolenceperpetratedagainsther.TheUVisaregulationsrequirethattheapplicanthavereasonablycooperatedinaninvestigationorprosecutionofthecrime.Theregulations,foundat8CFR214.14(a)(5)definean"investigationorprosecution" asincludingthedetectionofthequalifyingcriminalactivity.Therefore, Ms.XXXXfullymeetstherequirementastheCPDclassifiedtheincidentsasdomesticbatteryonthepolicereportsandcertifiedthatshewasthevictimofdomesticviolenceonherFormI-918SupplementBbycheckingtheDomesticViolenceboxonpage1.TheCPDcites720ILCS5/12-3-a-1,thestatuteforbatteryonpage2andlistsherhusband,ABUSERastheoffenderonpage3, againidentifyingthequalifyingcrimeofdomesticviolence.SeeExs.F-H.

ThefactsofMs.XXXX'scasearesimilartothefactsofacaseappealedtotheOfficeof

AdministrativeAppeals(AAO)withadecisiondateofJuly26,2010.SeeEx.J.Inthereferencedcase,theUVisaapplicant'sUVisawasdeniedbecausetheServicedirector concludedtheapplicanthadnotbeenhelpfulintheinvestigationor prosecutionofthecrime.The AAOdecisioncitestotheSupplementBsignedinthiscaseinwhichtheLosAngelesPoliceDepartmentcertifiedthattheapplicantwashelpfulintheinvestigationanddidnotunreasonablyrefusetoprovideassistancetolawenforcement.TheCPDalsocertifiedthatMs.XXXXwashelpfulanddidnotrefusetocooperateonpage two ofher SupplementBandtherefore,thisshouldalsobeconsideredassufficientevidenceofhelpfulnesstolawenforcement,asitwasconsideredinthereferencedAAOdecision..S.eeEx.F.TheAAOsustainedtheappealinthereferencedcaseandaffirmedthatthedetectionofacrimeissufficienttodemonstratethattheapplicantwashelpfultolawenforcementintheir investigation.SeeEx.J.ThecasewasthenremandedbacktotheServiceforanewdecisiononthe FormI-918,Petitionfor UNonimmigrant Status.

IV.CONCLUSION

Inlightoftheforegoing,Ms.XXXXhasdemonstratedthatUSCISerredasamatterof lawwhenitdeniedherFormI-918,PetitionforUNonimmigrantStatusandherFormI-192 ApplicationforAdvancePermissiontoEnterasaNonimmigrant.USCIS'denialfailedintheirreadingoftheUVisarequirementsfoundat8CFR§214.14(b)(3)anddidnotacknowledgethattheinformationorassistancerequestedoftheapplicantbylawenforcement,musthavebeen reasonablyrequested.ApartfromUSCIS'faultydeterminationregardingMs. XXXX'scooperationtolawenforcement,USCISdoesnotmakeanyotherfindingofineligibilityforUNonimmigrant StatusbasedontheevidenceMs.XXXXhassubmitted.

WHEREFORE, Ms.XXXXrespectfully requestsUSCISreopenandgrantherFormI-

918,PetitionforUNonimmigrantStatusorinthealternative,forwardtheappealtotheAdministrativeAppealsOfficeforconsideration.Additionally,Ms.XXXX requests that her FormI-192,ApplicationforAdvancePermissiontoEnterasaNonimmigrantandFormI-765,ApplicationforEmploymentAuthorizationbereconsidered andgrantedcontingentontheFormI-918adjudication.

Sincerely,

TrishaTeofiloOlave

BIAAccreditedRepresentativeNationalImmigrantJusticeCenter208S. LaSalleStreet,Suite1300

Chicago,IL60604

(312)660-1304

October8,2014