On Wednesday, October 23, 2024, The Daily Record reported that the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee has opted not to categorize the signing of U Visa certifications by judges as an administrative function. This decision marks the second time in two years that the committee has addressed this issue, underscoring ongoing discussions regarding the role of judges in such matters.
In a supplemental opinion recently published, the ethics committee clarified that the distinction between administrative and judicial functions is not defined by the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. This conclusion emerges from inquiries by the Domestic Law Committee of the Maryland Judicial Council, which sought clarity on whether judges must notify all parties involved in a case when responding to requests for U Visa certifications.
The U Visa program, administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, provides temporary lawful immigration status to noncitizen victims of specific crimes, including domestic violence, who assist in prosecuting those responsible for their victimization. Established by the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, the program aims to protect individuals whose immigration status may render them more susceptible to further victimization and to encourage them to report crimes.
Previously, in 2023, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opined that judges could sign U Visa certifications under certain circumstances. Specifically, the committee noted that a judge might be required to recuse themselves from proceedings involving the same victim or defendant related to the certification request. This prior opinion indicated that judges, in some cases, can engage with the U Visa process without breaching ethical guidelines.
In its latest opinion, the committee emphasized that any judicial involvement in U Visa certifications is inherently linked to the judge’s role in adversarial proceedings. The committee’s guidance aims to ensure that judges navigate these complex interactions without compromising their ethical obligations or the integrity of the judicial process.
Source: The Daily Record
