VAWA Prima Facie, State/Federal benefits for DV victims

[belinda63 3,038]

The only path for you to gain benefits starting prior to your PF would be to appeal the ruling. Once the court has Ordered something only a higher court can overturn it.

[SingleDad2usc 71]

That's clear. If I'm to continue, it's only with a Legal Aide counsel. I just need to first find out whether there is payout under MKB. This Judge has not determined if I may be a member of the class; in fact, he totally ignored the existence of any case pertinent to the subject. He did acknowledge in his discussion that evidence showed both that I'm pre-PWTORA eligible and a DV victim. This is what I find strange with his gradual transition from seemingly positive fact-finding, to only selective discussion pages, to an abrupt negative decision. It would seem that might mean I were simply in the wrong jurisdiction, that his decision could be based on statutes alone - and could not include any case history. Of course, MKB v. Eggleston did not change the Law, it only won informal retroactive relief for members of the class and moved to effect HRA's routine attitude, which was upheld numerously following 2006 stipulation. I don't seek to become the enforcer of the the latter, but to share in the former seemed granted...Again, zero discussion of any case law on his 12 pages makes me think that he knew he had to rule on one thing, knowing that I can always partake in the other...

Edited September 22, 2013 by SingleDad2usc

[Villanelle 4,122]

Of course there was payout under MKB.

You can find the complete settlement here- http://www.legal-aid.org/media/19033/mkb_signed_stipulation_of_settlement.pdf (seems to be around page 18 or so for retro stuff but its limited for food stamps as it refers to retroactive food stamps no earlier then dec 31 2004, and was eligible for fap between dec 13 2002 and sept 30 2005. The amount paid was 50%.

So again, if you feel you do meet the criteria laid out in MKB and fall into that class (specifically the residency qualifier because thats the main one) and the judge did seem to acknowledge that your other evidence of pre-PWTORA and DV is solid- you shouldve been successful.

Because thats honestly the only three things Im seeing that you need. The 96 residency, the pre PWTORA and the DV. You say he did mention 2, but theres no mention of the 3rd. Could it be he denied you based on the 3rd? Somewhere in the decision is the reason for the denial.

Its all rather odd and a bit complicated and probably not something that you should attempt to tackle again in another appeal on your own with out the help of legal aid unless you must.

I do think your best bet is to contact the legal aid group that was involved in the MKB originally and seek assistance from them. I do remember seeing something a while back about them gathering up people who are currently still having issues with denials that shouldnt be for another possible class action suit since the dept is still generally mistreating people and denying when they shouldnt. Thats not really the one you want to get in on, but perhaps they have another one for people that were excluded from MKB or because of how far you already took your personal case they will assign you someone.

[belinda63 3,038]

Looking at the ruling there are four categories under which a person could qualify.

1. Battered spouse of an LPR or USC. His wife was neither of these at the time and still may not be either of these.

2. Qualified parent of an immigrant child who was battered. Does not apply.

3. LPR with status of less than five years. Does not apply.

4. PRUCOL, did not apply until he received his PF.

[SingleDad2usc 71]

The record establishes that the Appellant entered the U.S. on xx.xx.xxxx (date substantially pre-PRWORA) and has remained as an undocumented alien since that time.

The record further establishes that on Feb 27, 2013, the Ap filed I-360 and on Mar 1 a notice was sent stating a Prima Facie case had been made.

The record further establishes that Agency added the needs of Ap to his household's eff Mar 14. On July 22, 2013 the Agency issued notice authorizing special CA benefits in amount $xxx for the period 3/14-8/10.

The record further establishes that the Agency rejected Ap's request to add his needs to his household's SNAP. However, the record also establishes that the Agency authorized a special SNAP benefits $xxx for Mar 1-July 31 as "Retroactive Full or Partial SNAP Benefits".

At the hearing, the Ap presented no documentation of his eligibility as a qualified alien until he obtained his Prima Facie notice dated March 1, 2013, which he presented to the Agency on March 14, 2013.

Accordingly, the Ap failed to establish that the Agency's determination not to add the Ap's needs prior to Mar 14, 2013 was not correct...

As you see, pre-PRWORA date of entry was established and P.F. Evidence of DV was established - but no "eligible alien" was established for period prior to Mar 14, 2013. In my view, the Judge errs the same way that 99% of this forum erred when they thought I was ineligible for VAWA. VAWA required spousal battery in the U.S. + spouse to be LPR (not necessarily at the time of battery). Same in my view: presence in U.S. Pre-PRWORA and evidence of battery (not necessarily acknowledged by Feds prior to Mar 1, 2013). But Judge makes no mention on 12 pages that I presented DV evidence to HRA ever since initial household Application in Aug 2004! No mention of 8 times over the years that Agency demanded SSN and I came back with a letter from SSA confirming SSN was never issued! No mention that in 2008, after transfer of case to new local office, the Agency issued records that I may be PRUCOL and may have qualifying status! No mention that Agency continued sending notices to old address between 2006 and 2009, the time when the Agency was supposed to notify me of MKB! No mention of MKB or any other case!!

[SingleDad2usc 71]

An interesting element of the ongoing Public Assistance ambiguity vis-a-vis aliens and DV victims: HRA has settled many cases, including class actions - but apparently, the Agency has never admitted or denied its wrongdoing. Thus the Law never had good chance to change, and Applicants continue to be treated under same Law as was established to be mistreatment in many court cases. And even though part of MKB stipulation of 2006, which was never overturned, was injunction from continuing this routine behavior - the behavior continued to this date, and even by an Administrative Judge

[belinda63 3,038]

Of the qualifiers listed in my prior post, which are taken directly from the Court finding, under which one do you believe you qualified for benefits?

[SingleDad2usc 71]

Not trying the others, it appears that the first one was the case since 2007-2008. It's even possible that DVL could have facilitated my immigration petition as early as that - but HRA workers neglected to refer me to DVL

[SingleDad2usc 71]

Just got a letter from non-forum friend with a much more cynical view of the state fair hearing process:

I expected this "quick shuffle" since you and your advisors do not understand the system. For this reason, I suggested that you limit your appeal to one year and not give in the docs nor go back 2004 . Of course , they took it in to see if anything "procedural" can be used against them. I would never have given them your packet. Machevelli approach!

Your first step to find out what appeal process if any to "amend" the decision which you are dissatisfied with. There are many appeal processes within and outside the system

[SingleDad2usc 71]

Capri, your point was insightful! Legal Aid Society's intake was impressed enough with my struggles, and they promise to assign an attorney. A few of their preliminary thoughts:

1. This Administrative Judge has erred. His 12-page decision failed to touch on a few issues that I brought up at the hearing, and that Judge appeared to promise to address. The decision makes no mention of those issues at all. A lawyer says: as such, such decision is unacceptable, and may be overturned by Albany without going back to the same judge.

2. Legal Aid has requested transcript of the Hearing, and if their lawyer is in fact assigned to my case then the lawyer will first verify that the above indeed has taken place: i.e. that the decision didn't address the issues discussed during the Hearing.

3. If a lawyer familiar with MKB is assigned, they said the Lawyer will try to work directly with HRA's lawyer that handles MKB class.

4. They say that punitive damages for HRA's mishandling (e.g. Failure to refer to DVL) are possible in theory; alas, not via the same Legal Aid case. I'd have to bring such separately, if I wish.

Overall, they say little surprise in all of those negative actions: because at no level of HRA do you find employees wanting to tackle non-standard situations. Even in the face of successful VAWA, HRA representatives still can't easily comprehend the situation where a DV perpetrator was the wife/mother and where the husband/children were at risk. So the concept of Battered Qualified Alien was hard for HRA to handle - prior to the legal route I'm attempting now

Of course there was payout under MKB.

You can find the complete settlement here- http://www.legal-aid.org/media/19033/mkb_signed_stipulation_of_settlement.pdf (seems to be around page 18 or so for retro stuff but its limited for food stamps as it refers to retroactive food stamps no earlier then dec 31 2004, and was eligible for fap between dec 13 2002 and sept 30 2005. The amount paid was 50%.

So again, if you feel you do meet the criteria laid out in MKB and fall into that class (specifically the residency qualifier because thats the main one) and the judge did seem to acknowledge that your other evidence of pre-PWTORA and DV is solid- you shouldve been successful.

Because thats honestly the only three things Im seeing that you need. The 96 residency, the pre PWTORA and the DV. You say he did mention 2, but theres no mention of the 3rd. Could it be he denied you based on the 3rd? Somewhere in the decision is the reason for the denial.

Its all rather odd and a bit complicated and probably not something that you should attempt to tackle again in another appeal on your own with out the help of legal aid unless you must.

I do think your best bet is to contact the legal aid group that was involved in the MKB originally and seek assistance from them. I do remember seeing something a while back about them gathering up people who are currently still having issues with denials that shouldnt be for another possible class action suit since the dept is still generally mistreating people and denying when they shouldnt. Thats not really the one you want to get in on, but perhaps they have another one for people that were excluded from MKB or because of how far you already took your personal case they will assign you someone.

[SingleDad2usc 71]

The Legal Aid attorney who handled MKB from the outset says: I'm unfortunately NOT member of the class, because my spouse never originally filed I-130 for me. wow, seems they had narrow class... They also seem to be sure there has been no other class action suit on behalf of Immigrants