VAWA Immigration Assistance

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA)

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994(VAWA) is a United States federal law (Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994H.R. 3355) signed as Pub.L. 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.

VAWA was drafted by the office of Senator Joseph Bden  (DDE), with support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups. The Act passed through Congresswith bipartisan support in 1994, clearing the House by a vote of 235–195 and the Senate by a vote of 61–38, although the following year House Republicansattempted to cut the Act’s funding.[1] In the 2000 Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, a sharply divided Court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue their attackers in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the Court’s conservative wing overturned the provision as an intrusion on states’ rights.[2][3]
VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005.[4] The Act’s 2012 renewal was fiercely opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act’s protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas.

Contact Figeroux & Associates at 718-222-3155 for guidance from an experienced litigator and a strong negotiator in your child custody matter.

FREE CONSULTATION

HIGHLIGHTS
  • LLP successfully defended longtime client 7-Eleven, Inc., the world’s largest convenience retailer, which was dismissed from the lawsuit soon after the trial commenced.
  • The jury returned a verdict of no negligence for the franchise owner, Mr. Jagtar Samra.
  • In-depth preparation and skilled cross-examination of the Plaintiff exposed critical inconsistencies in her.