Q&A
Debate over pro se vs. full legal representation for SIJS cases
3:03:34
·
178 sec
Council Member Alexa Avilés and Masha Gindler, Executive Director of the NYC Asylum Application Help Center, engage in a debate over the effectiveness of pro se legal services versus full legal representation for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) cases.
- Gindler defends their pro se model, stating they complete all necessary paperwork for SIJS applications
- Avilés raises concerns about potential complications, such as requests for further evidence or appeals of denials
- Gindler acknowledges limitations but argues their approach helps prevent age-outs and provides a foundation for future legal representation if needed
Alexa Avilés
3:03:34
Yeah.
3:03:34
No.
3:03:34
I appreciate that.
3:03:35
And I'm sure you're you're trying your best.
3:03:38
But you're you're you're here saying under oath that there will be no reason for any of those young people to go to to be before a court without legal representation because you have done the whole process us.
Masha Gindler
3:03:53
We have done the whole process.
3:03:55
Yeah.
3:03:56
Yeah.
3:03:57
Okay.
Alexa Avilés
3:04:01
Okay.
3:04:02
In terms of the
Masha Gindler
3:04:03
but they do sorry.
3:04:04
Just to clarify, They do go to family court to file the initial set of paperwork.
3:04:10
We we help them with that.
3:04:12
Then in all of our cases, except for 2, that has successfully been filed, and then we help them file with USCIS.
3:04:18
They do go in front of court, but what I'm trying to say is after our work with them is done, all they have to do is wait for USCIS to make the determination.
3:04:25
And I am saying that under oath until strongly about the success of that.
Alexa Avilés
3:04:30
Yeah.
3:04:30
And and what if UCIS sends the youth to request further evidence?
Masha Gindler
3:04:36
Great question.
3:04:37
And something we face across all of our service types, we allow those folks to come in across for asylum TPS work authorization, and we help them process additional work as as we can.
3:04:52
In terms of scaling up, that's something we'll have to look into, but it that that request for additional information is true for our work authorization and TPS filings as well, and we do provide that extra step.
3:05:04
Again, I don't want us we're not competing with full legal representation.
3:05:08
If I could wave a magic wand and give full legal representation to everyone, I would do that.
3:05:14
But in the resource trap world and the high demand, I think we're strong, that positive to it.
3:05:21
These folks otherwise could have gotten as well.
Alexa Avilés
3:05:24
So what about appeals of denials?
Masha Gindler
3:05:29
It's true that at that point, we haven't we haven't crossed that bridge yet, and I think that they're because we don't do full representation, even for our asylum TPS work authorization, you know, we we we aim to do the most good for the most people, and I think the best way to look at it is Is this individual can we help as many plus possible overwhelmingly get these statuses or not?
3:05:55
And I think there might be situations that people come across a more complicated situation than we're able to help with, and in that case, we'll refer folks.
3:06:02
But I still believe that that person is better serve by having filed that application before their 21st deadline such that if they were to get a lawyer, that lawyer has the benefit of of dealing with that situation rather starting with someone that timed out and wasn't to apply.
3:06:18
I think from a lawyer's perspective, from a client's perspective, they much rather be in a situation where they've applied, and maybe there's an appeal they have to work through versus, oh, you're 22.
3:06:27
Shoot.
3:06:28
Why didn't you apply, you know, and and trying to work through a resource that way.