New York’s Southern District Provides Relief to Battered Immigrants

October 1, 2006

Author: Barbara Weiner

“It is not the policy of the United States, nor of the State of New York, to leave destitute the battered immigrant wives and children of lawful U.S. residents just because their abusive husbands are no longer supporting them or providing a basis for obtaining aid.”  So saying, Judge Rakoff of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York granted preliminary relief to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of battered immigrants who have sought assistance from the New York City’s Human Resources Administration (HRA).  See M.K.B. et al. v. Verna Eggleston, et al., 05 Civ. 10446 (S.D.N.Y, August 29, 2006).1   Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Verna Eggleston, as Commissioner of HRA; Robert Doar, as Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), and Antonia Novello, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH).

The M.K.B. plaintiff class consists primarily of immigrants who have been battered and abused by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses and who, in their attempt to flee their abusers and bring their children to safety, have repeatedly sought assistance from HRA (the City’s welfare agency.)  Though legally eligible for benefits, plaintiffs were consistently turned away because of programming inadequacies in the City and State welfare computer systems that failed to recognize their particular immigrant eligibility status as well as denials by city workers who had been inadequately trained, poorly supervised and who worked from State and City policy issuances that were often misleading and sometimes completely inaccurate.

Under federal law, immigrants who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by spouses or parents who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents are eligible for federal and state benefits even before they obtain lawful permanent resident status.  8 USC § 1641(c).  To be eligible, the immigrant must show that either a self-petition or a family-based petition for permanent residence has been filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and that such petition or self-petition is pending or has been approved. 

These special eligibility provisions were contained in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in recognition of the fact that abusers routinely use their control over the immigration process to keep the victim dependent.  Without economic support, the immigrant spouse or child is unable to escape his/her abuser.  Nevertheless, ten years later, eligibility determinations in New York City (and in most of New York State) are still marked by a lack of understanding of this particular immigration category.  Added to this is the difficulty the cumbersome State and local computer systems have in establishing welfare cases for immigrants with a qualified status based on abuse, since at the time the systems were developed, this particular eligibility category did not exist.

The stories of plaintiffs and their often futile attempts to secure assistance are tales of deprivation and extreme frustration.  For example, Plaintiff W.J. provided proof to HRA that USCIS had made a prima facie determination of her eligibility for status based on the self-petition she had filed with the immigration agency, a clear indication of her eligibility for benefits.  Nevertheless, her request to be added to her child’s benefits case was denied.  After securing the assistance of counsel and obtaining a winning fair hearing decision, W.J. was finally added to her child’s benefit case, only to have her benefits terminated a short time later “because she did not have a green card.” 

The plaintiffs alleged, and the Court agreed, that immigrant victims of domestic violence who provided evidence that a family petition filed on their behalf by their abusers was pending or approved had a particularly difficult time obtaining assistance.  Although this too is a benefits qualifying category under federal law as long as the immigrant provides evidence of abuse to the benefits agency, the guidance provided to eligibility workers by OTDA and HRA over the years since PRWORA was enacted, both in terms of the training given and policy documents issued, failed to adequately recognize this category of eligibility. 

In addition, one of the most pervasive obstacles to securing assistance faced by the plaintiffs was the requirement that an applicant for benefits produce a Social Security card, often even before even being permitted to apply and most definitely before receiving benefits.  This practice found support in many of the policy statements about the Social Security number requirement issued by both OTDA and HRA over the years.  However, the Social Security Administration does not provide a Social Security number to immigrants who do not have work authorization and it often takes more than a year into the self-petitioning process before an immigrant victim of domestic violence is granted the authorization to work.  It is precisely during this time, in the first months after the victim leaves the abusive household, that the need for assistance is most acute and it was precisely during this time that immigrant victims of domestic violence were routinely being turned away by the City welfare workers because they lacked a Social Security number.

In light of the overwhelming evidence provided by Plaintiffs of pervasive and systemic problems in HRA’s provision of assistance to battered immigrants, the Court found that plaintiffs’ had a clear likelihood of success on the merits and were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the City.  The Court held that the denial of assistance, including public assistance, Medicaid and food stamps, resulting from these systemic problems violated plaintiffs’ rights under the various state and federal statutes governing the administration of these programs and their rights to due process under the United States Constitution. The Court found that these were not isolated incidents of employee mistakes but rather the direct results of “the flawed design of the City’s computer system, the pervasive errors in the City’s training materials and policy directives and the widespread worker ignorance resulting form the inadequate training of the City employees.”2 

Turning to the State Defendants, although recognizing the direct role that OTDA and DOH had in the creation of the problems at issue in the case, the Court found the State’s liability rested primarily on the fact that these two State agencies are administratively responsible for compliance with the federal law governing the administration of the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs.  Given the evidence, the Court held that plaintiffs had established a clear likelihood that the State Defendants would be held vicariously liable for the violations of plaintiff’s federal rights by HRA and were thus entitled to a preliminary injunction also against the State Defendants.  

Plaintiffs are represented by The Legal Aid Society of New York, the New York Legal Assistance Group, and Hughes Hubbard.  Empire Justice Center is of counsel.

Endnotes

1.  To read the decision, go to: M.K.B. et al. v. Verna Eggleston.

2. The plaintiff class also includes non-citizens whose eligibility for benefits is based on their “permanent residence under color of law” (PRUCOL).  This is a benefits eligibility category no longer recognized under federal law but which is still recognized in New York and provides individuals who are PRUCOL with access to state welfare and Medicaid benefits.  Here too, the Court found that HRA had a “policy, custom and usage” of denying benefits to such individuals.
 

Supporting Documents: