Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the U Visa Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Ana oversight panel approves revised U Visa certification policy
Summary
The Police Oversight Commission approved a redlined update to SAPD policy 41-30 on U Visa certification procedures, adding clearer roles for CID supervisors, an appeal process and annual reporting; the motion passed 5-0 and will go to the city manager for review.
Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission Chair Carpenter and commissioners voted unanimously Dec. 11 to approve a revised Santa Ana Police Department policy (41-30) governing U Visa certification procedures.
Police Oversight Director Jack Morris presented the redlined draft that he said incorporates feedback from legal and community stakeholders including the immigration and deportation defense clinic at Western State College of Law, the Public Law Center, the Orange County Rapid Response Network and the Orange County Justice Fund. Morris said the draft also draws on state and federal law and the USCIS resource guide for law enforcement agencies.
The revised policy clarifies which SAPD staff review U Visa requests, specifying that the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) supervisor — not a sergeant specifically — will handle reviews. It adds a list of factors for assessing whether a victim has been, is being, or will be helpful to an investigation, establishes a rebuttable presumption that victims should be presumed helpful unless they fail to provide reasonably requested information, and explicitly bars consideration of an applicant's immigration status or criminal history when deciding certification.
"I am very much in favor of a victim centered, trauma informed approach to investigations," Morris said, noting that the policy includes procedures for written denial explanations and an internal appeal handled by a different CID supervisor.
The policy requires that if SAPD declines to certify an application the department provide a written explanation to the applicant that addresses why the application was denied and how a refusal was unreasonable, and it creates an internal appeal and rereview process. The draft also requires training for personnel who evaluate applications and calls for annual reporting to the California Legislature; Morris said those reports will also be provided to the commission and posted on the SAPD website.
During questions, Commissioner Vega asked whether the outcome of a criminal prosecution affects U Visa eligibility; Morris said prosecution or non-prosecution is not determinative. Commissioner Pereira asked whether the change would be only administrative or codified as an ordinance; staff said implementation would follow existing police department processes (city manager, legal review and POA meet-and-confer) and that the commission could later forward the item to city council if it wanted a more permanent ordinance.
Commissioner Vega moved to approve the redlined changes; Commissioner Pereira seconded. The motion carried 5-0.
Next steps: the approved recommendation will be forwarded to the city manager for internal review; the city manager has 30 days (extendable by another 30) to respond. If the commission is dissatisfied with the response, it may refer the policy to the city council for consideration.
