AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

Two consolidated cases involved criminal defendants seeking access to their alleged victims' U-Visa and T-Visa applications. These visas allow crime victims to obtain lawful residency in the U.S. The defendants sought these applications for impeachment purposes, while the victims' representatives argued for their protection under federal privacy standards (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, July 13, 2023: The district court in Marsh ordered in-camera review of the U-Visa application, which was challenged by the victims' representatives (paras 6-7).
• District Court, September 12, 2023: In Leos, the district court ordered the disclosure of the T-Visa application, which was contested by the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center (paras 11-12).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that U/T-Visa applications are protected by federal law and should not be disclosed. They claimed no exceptions under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(b) applied and that the applications were not subject to discovery under Brady v. Maryland (para 20).
• Respondents: Sought access to the visa applications for impeachment purposes, arguing that due process and Brady required disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence (paras 20, 29-30).

Legal Issues

• Whether U/T-Visa applications are privileged material and protected from compelled disclosure.
• Whether federal regulations prohibit non-governmental agencies from disclosing T-Visa applications.
• Whether due process and Brady require disclosure of U/T-Visa applications.
• Whether the attorney-client privilege protects the T-Visa application in Leos.

Disposition

• U/T-Visa applications are privileged material and cannot be compelled for disclosure.
• 8 C.F.R. § 214.216(c) prohibits NMILC from disclosing the T-Visa application.
• The attorney-client privilege protects the T-Visa application in Leos.
• The writs of superintending control are granted, and the district courts' orders are reversed (para 47).

Reasons

Per Bacon J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that U/T-Visa applications are privileged due to the policies underlying 8 U.S.C. § 1367, which aim to protect victims' privacy and encourage crime reporting (paras 22-25).
• 8 C.F.R. § 214.216(c) further prohibits NMILC from disclosing T-Visa applications, as it binds non-governmental agencies to confidentiality provisions (paras 27-28).
• Due process under Brady requires the prosecution to disclose the fact of a U/T-Visa application if known, but not the application itself unless it contains material evidence (paras 29-34).
• The Confrontation Clause allows cross-examination about the fact of a U/T-Visa application but does not grant a right to pretrial discovery of the application (paras 37-42).
• The attorney-client privilege barred the compelled disclosure of NMILC's client file in Leos, as it contained confidential communications (paras 43-46).