Committee on Immigration

Ready? Okay. Ready? Okay. Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing from the Committee on Immigration. At this time, I would like to remind everyone to silence all electronic devices. Also, at this point going forward, no one is to approach the dais. If you would like to sign up for in-person testimony, please see one of the sergeant-at-arms. Chair, we're ready to begin.

I am calling this hearing to order. Good morning, everyone. I am Councilmember Elsie Encarnación, Deputy Whip of the New York City Council. and Chair of the Committee on Immigration. Thank you all for joining us today.

Today, we will be examining the Executive Order 13 of 2026 report and audit findings and recommendations. I'd like to thank all of the representatives from the administration, members of the public, and my council colleagues who have joined us here today, including Council Member Lewis. New York City has a proud legacy of restricting the use of city time or property to facilitate federal immigration enforcement.

Local laws enacted by the council since 2011 have directed city resources away from the enforcement of xenophobic federal immigration policies and the agencies that weaponize them. These safeguards ensure that the city does not conduct civil immigration enforcement and that it instead upholds the dignity of all residents of our sanctuary city. Thank you. city. But laws are only as good as their enforcement and implementation.

In late 2025, the city's Department of Investigation released 2 reports detailing violations of the city's detainer laws by the New York City Department— Police Department and the Department of Correction. Public reporting also revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had entered New York City shelters armed and without judicial warrants at least 5 times in 2025. To be a true sanctuary city, our residents must trust that the city will uphold its protective local laws.

That's why I was extremely pleased when on February 6th, 2026, the Mamdani administration issued Executive Order 13, protecting New Yorkers from abusive immigration enforcement. The EO required that the Administration for Children's Services, Department of Correction, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Department of Probation, Department of Social Services, and the New York City Police Department to ensure compliance with all relevant laws, rules, procedures, guidelines, and reporting requirements related to non-local immigration enforcement.

The EO ordered the agencies to immediately conduct a review and audit all internal policies, guidelines, and protocols related to communication, cooperation, and coordination with non-local law enforcement agencies charged with immigration enforcement and submit a report to the mayor within 90 days. The EO also established an Interagency Response Committee and moving forward, I will refer to it as the IRC, to coordinate and manage policy response across agencies for any crisis in the City of New York.

On May 22nd, the administration released the Executive Order 13 audit report of audit findings and recommendations. Among other findings, the multi-agency order revealed that federal immigration authorities had intensified their targeting of city shelters, sharply increased the issuance of detainer requests to DOC, and the NYPD, and employed increasingly aggressive and misleading tactics. The mayor adopted several agency-specific recommendations to strengthen policies and protocols to respond to the changing landscape of federal immigration enforcement.

The administration stated that in the coming months, the city would implement recommendations from the audit to strengthen protections for immigrant New Yorkers. The administration also noted that the IRC would issue updated citywide guidance and work closely with agencies to implement these policies and protocol changes. At this hearing, we will assess the administration's implementation of the recommendations from the audit and ascertain how the administration intends to communicate its process— progress to the public.

We will question the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs about its role on the IRC, the timeline for issuing updated citywide guidance, and the nature of the office's work with agencies to implement the policy and protocol changes. Although it seeks to examine a report of audit findings and recommendations, this hearing is not merely an academic exercise. If properly implemented, enforced, and resourced, the recommendations contained in this report would be game-changing for the immigrant residents of our, our city.

This committee takes our community's trust in government and willingness to access city resources extremely seriously, and so we understand the high stakes of getting this right. We are holding this hearing today to ensure that the administration's report is not the end of the work to uphold the safety and well-being of our city's immigrant population, but rather that it signifies the beginning of that work.

Lastly, the Committee on Immigration will hear Resolution 626, sponsored by Councilmember Farrah Lewis, Calling upon the United States Senate to pass and the President to sign S.4814 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protective status. Haiti has experienced a great deal of instability since the 2010 earthquake, including an epidemic, another earthquake, and tropical storm.

I'm actually going to let— because I know you have a few words on this, so I'll let you kind of get into the actual resolution. And I am also proud to co-sponsor this resolution, and I thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for introducing it. I would also like to thank the committee staff for their work on this hearing, including Senior Legislative Counsel Nicole Cata, Senior Legislative Policy Analyst Rebecca Barrilla, Principal Financial Analyst Dobby Baines, and Assistant Finance Director Florentine Kabor.

Finally, I would like to thank my staff, especially my chief of staff, Stephanie Herrera, and everyone working behind the scenes to make this hearing run smoothly, including our amazing sergeant at arms. I will now turn it over to Councilmember Lewis for brief remarks on her bill.

Thank you, Chair Encarnacion, for your support of this resolution and for convening today's hearing. Good to see you, Commissioner Ali. And I want to thank some of the advocates that are here today. The Haitian American Lawyers Association of New York, you have President Rodney Pepe here, Thank you. And Cheryl John from 1199. I want to begin by saying this plainly.

Res. 626 is personal to me, Haitian Americans, to the broader Black diaspora in New York City, and to every friend and ally of the Haitian community. I am a proud Haitian Bahamian American woman representing one of the largest Haitian diaspora communities in the United States, in Central Brooklyn. When I speak about TPS recipients, I'm not speaking about statistics.

I'm speaking about my neighbors, my constituents, my family. I want to tell you about my cousin. His name was Pierre Richard Eloy. In August 2024, Richard Pierre Richard was days away from boarding a flight to New York City. He had just received confirmation that he would be granted temporary protected. status, also known as TPS. Word got out to his community that he was leaving, and because he refused to join the barbecue gang, they murdered him. 10 bullets in front of his own home, in front of his family.

They held his body for ransom. And when— and we have seen Haitian immigrants subjected to electronic monitoring and public humiliation, including the deeply troubling case of Pierre Damas Bell, A young Haitian American— sorry, a young Haitian college student whose family described the profound distress he experienced after being placed on an ankle monitor simply for existing in this country while seeking safety.

These are not criminals. These are not— these are our families. These are workers. These are our neighbors. There are so many stories like these. So many families who followed every rule, did everything right, and still paid the highest price imaginable. This is what TPS termination means in real life. It's literally life or death. An estimated 350,000 Haitians nationwide held TPS, 40,000 right here in New York City.

Those protections allowed people to work, support their families, and build lives in our communities. Today, those protections are now gone. While Haiti remains consumed by gang violence, with 1.47 million people displaced and 5.8 million facing food insecurity, the country our neighbors fled is no safer today. It's actually worse. And the consequences are being felt right here in New York City.

In July, ICE arrested 919 people in New York City, nearly twice the number just 3 months prior. More than 3 quarters had no criminal history. None. Even Mayor Momdami recognized what is at stake, convening his 3rd meeting with President Trump yesterday, this time at Gracie Mansion, raising directly how TPS termination has devastated several industries in our city, including hospitality, healthcare, and faith-based communities.

If the mayor of New York City is bringing this message to the president, the least we can do is go on record in support of restoring these protections. Haitian New Yorkers are part of the fabric of this city. They have cared for our seniors, staffed our hospitals, raised families, and enriched every borough they call home. They deserve to live with dignity, not in fear.

For Pierre Richard, For every family that has paid an unbearable price, they deserve TPS. For the 40,000 TPS recipients in New York City who wake up every morning wondering if today is the last day here in the United States is troubling. I urge my colleagues to support Resolution 626 and call on the United States Senate to pass and the president to sign Senate Bill S.

485. 14. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, and thank you for introducing this very important piece of legislation. And, um, my condolences to your family. I will now turn it over to the committee counsel to administer the oath before we hear from the mayoral administration. Thank you, Chair. We will now hear testimony from the administration. We will hear from MOYA Commissioner Faiza Ali, as well as Lorena Lucero.

Before we begin, I will administer the affirmation. Panelists, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee and to respond honestly to councilmember questions? Yes. Thank you. You may begin when ready.

Good morning, and thank you, Chair Encarnación and Councilmember Farrell-Lewis, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Faiza Ali, and I'm the commissioner for the New York City Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs. Since 1989, New York City's sanctuary status has been foundational to the trust between our immigrant communities and local government. Our city's local laws have helped strengthen public health and safety, empower immigrant New Yorkers to access city services, and ensure that they can participate meaningfully in civic life.

That trust is something that I've experienced firsthand through conversations with community organizations on the ground. One-on-one conversations with immigrant leaders and impacted families, visits to immigration court, and canvassing across the city. Those experiences have made clear to me that these protections are not abstract policies. They shape whether people feel safe going about their daily lives. For an immigrant New Yorker, that can mean going to the hospital with confidence, knowing that their immigration status does not determine their ability to access care.

It can mean entrusting their child to our public schools knowing that city resources and property cannot be used for civil immigration enforcement. That assurance is especially critical today as increased activity by federal immigration agencies has heightened fear in immigrant communities and disrupted the lives of families and neighbors. Responsive government requires us to continually examine the processes and safeguards we have in place to protect New Yorkers.

On February 6th, 2026, Mayor Mondani signed Executive Order 13 directing 6 agencies— ACS, DOC, DOHMH, DOP, DSS, and the NYPD— to conduct comprehensive audits of their internal policies relating to interactions with federal immigration agencies, update protocols and guidance where needed, and identify opportunities to strengthen implementation of our local laws limiting or barring city agency participation in federal civil immigration enforcement.

New York City Health and Hospitals voluntarily agreed to participate in the audit, and while New York City Public Schools was not included in EO 13, the agency proactively began its own internal review independent of the formal audit process. The executive order also established the Interagency Response Committee, or IRC, which coordinates a citywide response to crises. The First Deputy Mayor serves as chair of the IRC in direct consultation with the Chief Counsel to the Mayor and City Hall, Special Advisor for Strategic Coordination and Operations to the FDM, and myself, with support from the Corporation Counsel and the Law Department.

In May, the city published a report of audit findings and recommendations. The findings confirmed that overall, our local laws are working as intended, while also identifying areas where we can strengthen policies both citywide and within individual agencies. Throughout this process, we have emphasized the importance of ongoing accountability and review, as well as broadening reporting to ensure that our local laws continue to be implemented effectively as federal activity in our city and nationwide evolves.

The audit found a dramatic increase in federal immigration-related activity targeting city shelters between January and August 2025. It also revealed a significant uptick in civil immigration detainer requests to city law enforcement agencies, an expanded set of federal agencies involved in civil immigration enforcement, and increasingly aggressive and misleading tactics by immigration authorities. Informed by the audit findings, Mayor Momdani adopted 3 sets of recommendations to strengthen the city's implementation of our local laws.

I'm pleased to share that we have made significant progress on implementing each of these recommendations. First, the city updated its guidance on reporting requests for information and assistance from federal immigration authorities to ensure that every agency interaction with federal immigration authorities is accounted for. This guidance was issued to all agencies in June. Second, the city updated its guidance and best practices on non-local law enforcement access to city property and lots.

This guidance was also issued to city agencies in June. The 6 city agencies subject to the audit, as well as New York City Public Schools and Health and Hospitals, have completed their updated access to property protocols, which will be issued by the end of the month, and are now working to ensure that staff are trained on these policies.

Third, the city— the 6 city agencies subject to the audit, as well as Health and Hospitals, have completed or made significant progress to fully implement the adopted agency-specific recommendations. New York City Public Schools has also been meeting regularly with the IRC to monitor enforcement activity and strengthen preparedness. I wanted to take a moment to highlight a few examples of the progress our city agencies have made in strengthening their protocols and implementing audit recommendations.

The Administration for Children's Services has strengthened its practice of reviewing determinations for seeking orders of protection if the safety of the children and caregiver can be met otherwise when there are potential negative immigration consequences for the parent. The agency has incorporated this practice into its trainings, into its meetings with family court legal services, and throughout the supervision process.

ACS has also established a process through which the agency will review a set of court reports from every borough Family Court Legal Services Unit each month to audit them for inappropriate references to a person's immigration status. The Department of Corrections Correction Intelligence Bureau has instituted enhanced review of requests from federal law enforcement agencies to clearly identify the purpose of these requests and appropriately elevate to the Legal Division to ensure that they are not in furtherance of civil immigration enforcement.

The Department of Probation has reinforced through trainings and its academy limitations on inclusion of immigration status in parts of pre-sentencing investigation reports, which do not require this information under state regulation. DOP has established a process for regularly submitting reports that document, track, and publicly post the number of detainer requests it receives to strengthen compliance with local laws on reporting.

The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is finalizing post-incident protocols, including notification to individuals and their counsel when appropriate, and working to install new facility signage. The Department of Social Services has issued revised protocols and best practices to ensure shelter and provider staff are prepared for when non-local law enforcement may show up at their facilities, incorporating what we learned from the period of intense activity at shelters in the first half of 2025.

The New York Police Department is on track to complete updated protocols and policies related to detainer requests, access to property, and joint task forces. In addition, NYPD has begun the implementation of protocols in response to 911 calls about the presence of federal immigration authorities or relating to immigration. The NYPD has also completed its email audit of task force officers to ensure their compliance with local law.

The email audit is currently under review. Relatedly, the NYPD is on track to release new protocols to assess information requests that are made through the joint NYPD federal task forces with federal law enforcement. New York City Health and Hospitals has developed and issued guidance for when ICE brings an individual to an H&H facility for medical care. It has also centralized and issued best practices as well as a flowchart for when staff interact with federal immigration authorities.

And finally, New York City Public Schools has strengthened its guidance for staff if non-local law enforcement is present on school grounds. The guidance has been expanded for the first time to include after-school and weekend programs, off-site activities like field trips, and what to do if ICE is nearby a school, particularly during arrival and dismissal. I want to thank all of our agency partners and really emphasize the cooperation on this effort from all of them, the careful work that they have done to implement these recommendations, and the ongoing conversations around continuous improvement.

That collaboration gives me confidence in our approach, but our work, of course, is not finished. City agencies will continue to complete the implementation of adopted audit recommendations, reviewing and updating their policies as needed. Through our role in the IRC, MOYA will continue to provide guidance on preparing for and responding to impacts on our immigrant communities, while working with colleagues at sister agencies to educate the public about our laws.

As federal enforcement practices and tactics evolve, our city government must remain responsive. The Executive Order 13 audit was one step in that direction. This administration is closely monitoring the escalation of civil immigration enforcement activity and responding to the needs we see on the ground. especially when it comes to the interactions our city agencies and federal immigration authorities have.

It is our responsibility to support and maintain trust with all New Yorkers, including our immigrant communities.

Before I conclude, I also want to briefly discuss and express support for Resolution 626 sponsored by Councilmember Farrell-Lewis calling on Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status. The federal government's termination of TPS for Haiti has created fear, confusion, and anguish in our Haitian communities. It has resulted in Haitian New Yorkers losing access to work authorization and economic stability, families becoming afraid to send their children to school, and small businesses seeing fewer patrons in typically active commercial corridors.

In addition to advocating for the restoration of TPS, the mayor and MOYA have also advocated for deferred enforced departure for Haitian New Yorkers affected by the termination of TPS. We will continue to push for these protections while supporting Haitian New Yorkers and other TPS holders here in New York City. At MOYA, we have worked across the administration and with our community partners, including organizations that are part of our Haitian Response Initiative, to ensure impacted New Yorkers know their rights and have access to legal support.

We are also working to address increased food insecurity and other immediate needs as Haitian New Yorkers who have lost work authorization transition into life without status. We have developed a comprehensive FAQ available in multiple languages, expanded community outreach, distributed resources on the ground, and stood up rapid response clinics to bring legal services directly into impacted communities. And we encourage those who are impacted to call MOYA's free, safe, and confidential immigration legal support hotline at 1-800-354-0365, where trained staff can connect people with trusted legal assistance in their preferred language.

New York has always been a city where immigrants come Immigrants come not only to build a future for themselves, but to build a future for everyone. Our administration will continue to make sure that immigrant New Yorkers know that we will stand up for them, that we will defend their rights, and we will fight to protect their families.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I also want to acknowledge that we've been joined by Councilor Aviles. And now we get into the good stuff. So, uh, first and foremost, thank you for detailing all of the folks that are a part and make up the IRC. Can you go into a little bit about what each one of their responsibilities are as it pertains to the IRC?

Yes, um, thank you, Chair, for, for that question. The IRC, as you mentioned and I have mentioned in my testimony, was established through Executive Order 13, and it's a coordinating body. It coordinates the city's response to federal crises and impacts. The members of the IRC include the FDM, who serves as chair of the committee in direct consultation with the Chief Counsel to the Mayor and City, our Special Advisor for Strategic Coordination and Operations, Bita Mostofi, and myself as MOYA Commissioner.

The committee's broader membership also includes other senior-level staff. And some of our responsibilities include helping to coordinate the implementation of Audit 13— of Executive Order 13's recommendation, but it also includes supporting agencies as they review and strengthen their policies, their protocols for reporting, and training. We see this as an ongoing responsibility to continue to provide support to agencies because of the changing federal immigration enforcement environment.

So how frequently do you feel like the IRC will review contracts, data sharing agreements between the city and third parties to ensure data privacy for New Yorkers? Yeah, thank you for that question as well. And I, I do want to, um, just pivot back because I want to make sure we also highlight that the completion of the audit doesn't mean a completion of the IRC's work, and, and just want to stress that that is ongoing.

With respect to contracts, this was also part of our ongoing review. As part of the audit, the IRC asked several agencies to examine specific technologies and vendors that could be— that could present potential data risks, data sharing risks. And we have said for the technologies and vendors that the IRC has reviewed, the audit confirmed that agencies included the necessary identifying information law rider and other contract provisions pertaining to data sharing limitations that is required by local law.

As I mentioned up top, the IRC is going to continue to monitor these issues and work with agencies on updating their practices as things evolve. Sorry. And that includes examining the systems themselves, right? Not just the— contractual language or for the data sharing with vendors? That's correct. Gotcha. Does the IRC interact with the state, or is there any state representatives that are on the IRC?

There aren't any state representatives that are on the IRC, but we do continue to work with our state partners in communicating the impacts both on the ground and any policy changes. And does that happen formally through the IRC to state partners, or is it informally through the members of the IRC? Yeah, it's informally through the members of the IRC.

Much of the work that Moya does in collaboration with the Office of New Americans, and then the direct communication that our City Hall office has with the governor's team along with the attorney general. And in addition to some of the things that the IRC will continue to consider, will one of those things involve more severe penalties for city workers who violate the sanctuary policies and regulations?

Yeah, a failure to implement the city's laws that protect our neighbors is a failure that we will not tolerate. So city employees who fail to comply with the applicable sanctuary policies and reporting requirements may be subject to discipline.

And I know you mentioned a lot of work with the New York City Public Schools as kind of like it being voluntary on their end. Is there any Are you looking to formally incorporate them into the work of the IRC moving forward? We're really pleased with the work that MOYA and IRC are doing in collaboration with New York City Public Schools.

We meet regularly with them to review their policies and protocols and focus on what resources that they may need to, you know, support students and families. And, you know, as I mentioned, although New York City Public Schools was not specifically identified in EO 13, the department did conduct its own internal review and issued updated guidance ahead of the first day of school.

Some of the work that we do that I'm really proud to highlight between MOYA and New York City Public Schools is particularly working on resources for immigrant families at a really critical point. as we face increased immigration actions. Know Your Rights flyers have been updated and are being translated in New York City Public Schools' 14 languages. We are really— I want to uplift our partnership with the Project Open Arms team.

They do an incredible job in collaborating with us, but also making sure that parents have the information that they need. We've I don't know if folks have seen, there's been some press coverage of the collaboration between our offices on a comic book, on a Know Your Rights comic book that was developed and is also available in multiple languages.

This is really an opportunity for us to meet students where they are and making sure that we're providing materials that are both accessible and age-appropriate. And then finally, on the school protocol, MOYA has worked alongside the IRC and New York City Public schools to update their policies that govern their interactions with non-local law enforcement. This is really critical because it provides clear guidance to staff and frontline staff on how to respond and protect families and help them understand the protections that are in place.

The comic book is like those double-edged swords. It's great that we have it, but it's also very sad that we have it. So, you know, I applaud it. We have it in our office. We give it out during, you know, outreach sessions and resource tabling. But it's just a sad reality that we've come to that. But I do applaud them as well for creating it.

In terms of the EO 13 findings, the audit essentially asks agencies to look at any interactions with federal agencies that were related to immigration, even when those agencies had not historically played a central role in civil immigration enforcement. So were all city agencies given information about which federal agencies are now looped into civil immigration enforcement prior to reporting on these actions, on these interactions?

Yes. During the audit, we identified that federal agencies beyond the traditionally associated agencies with civil immigration enforcement, like the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement were all playing somewhat of a role. We've asked agencies to take a broad approach in reporting their interactions with federal agencies, and in other words, we want agencies to report anything that they think can be potentially related to immigration enforcement, and our goal here is really to capture as complete a picture as possible.

How do you feel that the audit identified those key issues to be reviewed? That's a great question. It really was a combination of a few different things: data analysis, external oversight, and, and I want to really center stakeholder engagement and conversations we had with advocates. You know, we've analyzed through the IRC city data on interactions with federal immigration authorities, including detainer requests. and in-person incidents at shelters and other facilities.

We looked at and reviewed historic reporting data that we know revealed significant gaps and previously unreported incidents. We also considered the findings of the Department of Investigations report on DOC and NYPD, which you referenced in your opening, and looked to get input from advocates journalists, and other stakeholders. Agencies were, as we mentioned, were also asked to report and, you know, over-report, be over-inclusive in their reporting of any interaction that they had with federal authorities, which is how we uncovered many of these interactions.

And then finally, members of our IRC team also conducted site visits and visiting shelters directly to assess the vulnerabilities and you know, and any other protocols. In your— also, I just want to note that we've been joined by Councilmember Joseph. I'm going to ask about 2 more questions, and I'm going to allow her to make a statement on the resolution we're hearing today.

Um, in your opening statement, you mentioned a timeline. I believe you said that some of the updated citywide guidance was released as of June, and some might be released by the end of this month. I believe that was in relation to the public schools, but I'm not sure. I was trying to write as fast as possible. But for all of the citywide guidance, is there a timeline for when those will be released?

So both citywide guidance, the guidance on reporting requirements, and guidance as well on best practices for non-local law enforcement access to city property and lots, both were issued in June. Yeah. And who will oversee the IRC's issuance of the updated guidance? Yeah, the IRC, along with our partners at the Law Department, will oversee the issuance of citywide guidance and implementation of those updated policies and protocols.

Does the city anticipate needing any additional resources to conduct this work? At this time, our work is focused on existing agency structures and resources to support the implementation and really the ongoing work. But Chair, you've heard me say this before, MOYA continues to assess resource needs, and that's something that we're closely monitoring as well. And so will agencies— have they been instructed, like, if they need additional support or if they find that they need help making sure that this happens throughout their agency as far as trainings, for example, that's something that they will alert MOYA and MOYA will bring to the IRC and then— That's right.

Okay. That's right. And training is required for all public-facing city employees, contracted employees, and others. And so that is something that we will continue to work with individual agencies on. And lastly, before I hand it over to the council member, when will MOYA and IRC revise previously published reports? and issue unpublished reports as indicated by the EO recommendations?

The Local Law 228 reports for FY26, I'm pleased to say, have been completed and are published, and Moya and the IRC are continuing their work on the amended reports identified in the EO recommendations, and we'll notify the council as soon as those are ready.

Okay, okay. Councilmember Joseph, ready?

Thank you so much. This is remarks in support of Reso 48-14. So just want to read remarks in support, Chair. Thank you, Chair. So I stand here today as a daughter of Haiti and as the representative of thousands of Haitian New Yorkers who built their lives in this city in good faith under the protection this country promised them. 16 years 16 years ago, an earthquake took 300,000 lives in less than a minute.

Out of that devastation, America made a promise: temporary protective status. A chance to work, to raise a family, to breathe without the fear of being sent back into chaos. That promise still matters today because the chaos never left. Nearly 1.5 million Haitians displaced, millions facing hunger, gangs controlling entire neighborhoods of the capital. And yet this past year, that protection was stripped away, first by an agency, then upheld by the Supreme Court.

I've walked the streets of Little Haiti and Flatbush. I've watched vendors disappear, storefronts go dark, parents afraid to send their children to school. That is what fear does to a community. That is what we're asking Washington to reverse. S. 4814 is not a favor. It is not charity. It is a recognition of a simple truth. Haiti is not safe, and the people who fled it are not a threat.

They are our neighbors, our caregivers, our small business owners, our future. The House had already passed its version. Now the Senate must act, and the president must sign. In Haiti's motto, it says "L'union fait la force." Unity makes strength. That is the spirit of Little Haiti. That is the spirit of this city. And today, this council stands behind 40,000 New Yorkers who are counting on us not to look away.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember.

So I want to get into some questions around ACS. ACS indicated that they plan to audit their court reports to review any improper inclusion of immigration status. Has that audit occurred? Yes, that audit— I'm just making sure I have the correct information in front of me. Yes, ACS has established an ongoing process where each of the 5 Family Court Legal Service Deputy Bureau Chiefs, that they actually review a set of those court reports every month.

These reviews are going to be logged. They'll be assessed to audit for improper inclusion of immigration status, and the first monthly audit has been completed and is— it is under review. Okay, and so the next steps for that is that it will be reviewed, and that is being reviewed through the IRC, just to be clear? Through conversations with the IRC and the agency.

Okay. There are also required annual refresher trainers for all of ACS and providers' staff on compliance and reporting requirements. Will the training take place this year? That is currently in process as well, and ACS is working to create its refresher trainings and implement it starting January 2027, and it's incorporated in the updated protocols. MOYA is going to be involved in reviewing and supporting the rollout of that training.

You read my mind. That was the next question. I know they also indicated that they plan to institute audit procedures that included retraining if violations are found and disciplinary procedures if there are repeat violations. Have those audit procedures been instituted? ACS is working to establish a procedure for retraining, and it will be among— all the same timeline as the refresher training.

So it's probably early next year. Okay. And so I know that they also indicated that they were developing a procedure to seek written consent from attorneys for children prior to outreach to immigration authorities on an individual's case. Will MOYA and the IRC be involved in ensuring that those recommendations are implemented? I think first it's important for us to highlight some of the progress that ACS made on this front.

ACS now uses a form to obtain written consent from attorneys for children before doing outreach to immigration authorities, and Moya will continue to work through the IRC to work with ACS along with some of the other agencies to implement these policies. moving forward. Gotcha.

So now I'm going to move over to DOC. What does it mean for DOC to institute an enhanced review of requests for federal law enforcement agencies? As I mentioned in my testimony, in practical terms, it means that DOC's Correctional Intelligence Bureau will institute and review their policies that clearly identifies the purpose behind any law enforcement request for information or assistance, including requests that are made through the task forces, and then elevate those requests to legal— to their legal division for review.

When will DOC discontinue daily reports to ICE that are not required by federal, state, or local law, and who will be responsible for confirming this discontinuation? So this has already taken effect. DOC no longer sends these reports. As you mentioned, these were reports that were not required by state law, and this is— the ongoing oversight of this will be conducted through the IRC.

And is that on a monthly basis? Do you know? Is there like a reporting— like, how do you envision that happening through the IRC? I will get back to you on that. I don't know if there's a formal sort of timeline, but we do have regular communications and maintain regular regular communications with not just the 6 audited agencies but other agencies as well.

You also mentioned in your opening about the email audit that occurred. Can you talk a little bit about who was responsible for that audit within the department? So, DOC is currently working with its IT team to set up the audit and is targeting for that audit to be completed by the end of the year. And you also mentioned some audit of technology vendors and third parties.

What did that entail, that audit? So, that was part— I believe it was reflected in our audit findings as well. It entailed a review of contracts and of different vendors at different agencies. So, the IRC team worked with the agencies to review those documents. And did it identify every vendor that stores, processes, or has access to information maintained by city agencies?

I will have to get back to you on that. Okay. Okay.

And, uh, so before we move on to the next set of questions, I'm going to pause and allow Councilmember Aviles to ask her questions. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. Good morning.

I just want to ask a follow-up question to the earlier subject of the IRC reviewing contracts and the data sharing agreements, where you noted that the process also looked at the actual data. So I was just curious about if possible you could explain a little more detail about the breadth and scope of that surveying of actual data in the systems and over what period of time.

So I will get back to you on terms of the timeline, but as I mentioned that the the technology and the vendors that were reviewed from the audit, it can— we were looking for a few things, but one thing in particular, to make sure that the necessary identifying information law riders were present and that other protections were present in the contracts as well.

But we can follow up and get you additional details on the timeline and the timeframe of— Yeah, I guess what I'm really interested in learning is what did a surveying of samples actually look like with the breadth of contracts that I'm sure the city engages in. Um, I'm glad to hear that, you know, those, those elements are in the contracts, but I would love to know if when you look at the data actually across some of those systems, what, what you found.

Um, so happy to talk about that some more. In terms of council member looking also at how data flows, um, and so we will certainly follow up with you in terms of what actually was surveyed and what did the samples look like. Great, thank you so much. In terms of the work with the New York City Public Schools, again, thank you for, you know, being much more aggressive in this work with our city and our communities who are deeply struggling.

In terms of the policy, the updated policy, Are you supporting New York City Public Schools' effort in actually what training down looks like? Because we find that these policies stay stuck in OGCs or in leadership and very little attention being paid to how they actually go through the system. Yeah, the, the one thing we want to avoid is a set of new policies that do the right thing and aren't actually being implemented.

And so we are working really closely with each of the agencies, including our partners at New York City Public Schools, on timelines for their trainings and ensuring that these are completed. The updated policies that were rolled out prior to the first day of school were shared with principals before that first day of school, and so we are pleased to know that there has been some progress, but part of the ongoing work with the IRC and the agencies is to ensure that this isn't something that sits on a shelf.

Yeah, all hands on deck. Right. We'd love them to be able to validate that from janitorial service to kitchen staff to educators and paras, everyone in the building should know those policies. And we often find they stay stuck at the principal level or leadership in the school. Thank you for that. I'd love to know if there's been any progress on Local Law 114 on the signage.

I know that's not the focus of the hearing today, but I selfishly am going to ask. We were prepared, Councilmember, for this question and wanted to make sure that, you know, we have— pleased to say that we've actually made progress. We've created the signage and we've sent that out to agencies who are on track to have them posted no later than September 30th.

I love that answer. Thank you very much. I know how important it is to you. It's important to us too. Is it pretty? You know, it looks good. Okay. Yeah, I'll be the judge of that. I did not design it, thankfully. I don't have those skills, but it looks good. Yeah, yeah. Happy to share that with you as well.

Great, thank you. We'll follow up offline for sure.

In terms of the hotline, Obviously, with the public charge change and just the constant surges of ICE, well, potentially not surges, but a consistent presence of ICE across New York City. What has been your experience of the use of the hotline? Are you seeing any evidence of increases, positive engagement as a result of also the campaign to get the information out?

Just would like to hear some more about that. Yeah, before I turn it over to my colleague who has— is equipped with numbers, I do want to just say that our partnership with our legal service providers, with our hotline providers, has been really strong. We've put a tremendous amount of strain on them as well, just given the climate that we are living in now, whether it's the expiration of TPS, or an increase in ICE activity in our neighborhoods that we are also seeing and they are fielding questions from the public on, or public charge.

There has been an increase in the number of calls, and that is also due to the fact that there's been significant outreach. Yeah. And it's through partnerships with you all, frankly, and partnerships with councilmembers when we are out in the community distributing our hotline information. people know that they can call and get some trusted, confidential legal support.

So I'm going to turn it over to Lorena to share some top-line numbers on who's calling and for what. I also knew you were going to ask about the hotline, Councilmember, but just to sort of say, we also have pivoted some of the work that the hotline is doing so it's a bit more targeted. We had very targeted outreach for TPS, for example, clinics that were upcoming, as well as public charge.

So there is a direct loop back to some of these providers so folks don't have to go in circles and they're getting direct service. I can tell you that with the launch of our targeted outreach for TPS for Haiti, at least 154 individuals were contacted for the hotline. On the weekend when our team was out canvassing in Little Haiti, we saw a very direct increase.

I don't have that number in front of me, but I will get it to you. And that's what we've noticed, that the more that not only the mayor, who also shared the hotline, but but also the direct touchpoint with community members has helped, as well as some of our weekend hours. As you know, we are available and open one Saturday a month, and we have seen an increase, um, again with the, with the collaboration of some of the outreach that we're doing as well.

Great, thank you, Chair. If I may just wrap, last, last question, or maybe a little bit of a comment. Um, uh, definitely heartened to hear the increased investment in making sure that the hotline is a functional hotline, that people— there are people on the other end of that hotline. I am interested in learning how we are collaborating around the very real issue that we do not have enough legal service providers physically present in our city to meet the need, and what kind of alternatives are we creatively thinking about around how to address some of that unmet need?

We may not get there entirely, but it feels like there's only so much we can do with a very finite element of resources. So would love to have that deeper conversation with you all around what other ways, how are we looking at the pipeline of legal support in our city to make sure that we continue to build into the future?

Thank you. Thank you.

So we are going to go into the Department of Probation now and questions around that. When will the Department of Probation institute limitations on inclusion of information about immigrant status in presenting investigation reports, and how will those be confirmed, and who will be responsible for confirming this? DOP has already instituted these limitations. Specifically, DOP communicated with executive staff outlining these limitations on including immigration status information in pre-sentencing investigation reports, and they have reinforced both of this in their trainings in the academy and field trainings for probation officers that are assigned to investigations.

And were you involved in those? Yes. Yes. So as a member of the IRC, MOYA has worked on providing guidance on how to strengthen these protocols and others. And just another point, I think we had mentioned this in our testimony, that we have established a regular process for the agency to submit reports under Local Law 228. So our interactions with the agency continue in that regard as well.

Great. And then I'll ask quickly some questions about DSS, and then I'm going to pass it over to my colleague to ask some questions. In regards to DSS, have incident reports been revised to ensure that all incidents and interactions at DSS shelters are reported, and what would be entailed in that reporting? Yes, this has also been completed, and it really entails 2 main changes.

DSS clarified that for all staff, for all staff, that any interaction with non-local law enforcement must be labeled a Priority 1 incident, and that they are also continuing as an agency to review incidents and reports and ensure that no incident is is missed through their enhanced training. I noticed that there was a recommendation that stated that guidance will be issued in response to an incorrect referral to 26 Federal Plaza.

Can you clarify what that means? Yeah, DSS here issued clarifying and explicitly clarifying guidance that caseworkers should not refer any individuals to 26 Federal Plaza, but instead they should be connecting individuals to an immigration attorney and legal services. Thank you for clarifying that.

Councilmember? Thank you so much, Chair. Commissioner, always good to see you and your team. Thank you for all that you do. A couple of questions. What option exists or what steps is the city taking to aid people who may have lost status in the future, TPS or otherwise? So on this front, I'm really pleased to say we've been working closely with our HRI partners to ensure that anyone who is at risk or has lost protections has access to legal services.

And so, not only is a hotline available for individuals to call, but we have been standing up legal clinics in communities and through our partners to make sure that individuals are connected to an attorney and who can make an assessment if they have other forms of relief. The other thing that I think is really critical, and it pains me really to say this, is that in many circumstances, we are learning that there are very limited options for families.

And so we've been working with partners to train organizations on what does it mean to help a family really plan for what their next steps are. So it's really a combination of making sure, first and foremost, if there are legal options available, connecting individuals to those services. and then also making sure that there are additional resources that are available to families who are especially vulnerable right now.

Well, thank you for also working with our nonprofits to make this happen. Will the administration conduct an audit or review of similar scope in the future? Audit as it relates to— My previous question. Is there going to be an audit? Are you going to look at this? There has to be lessons learned, right? We don't Correct. There is lessons to be learned.

That is absolutely true. And I think that part— I don't know if it's a form of a formal audit, but these are ongoing conversations that we have with people who are most impacted on the ground and the service providers. They know what works and what does not work. And if we need to pivot to other protections and other things that we need to offer families who are experiencing a loss of protection.

Absolutely. Thank you. And I know, Councilmember, you will hold us accountable to that as well. No doubt. As you should.

What type of audit tools do the agencies include in the IRC utilize? What kind of tools do you use? So, the part of our audit, and this is included in our findings, is engaging directly with the agencies who are reviewing every policy and protocol as it relates to any interaction that they have with federal immigration. enforcement. Some of those are agencies that are very— that are focused on immigration enforcement like ICE, and then other agencies that are nontraditional.

And so, what we're trying to do is make sure that agencies report every immigration agency interaction that they have, and then we take it from there. Thank you. The most famous question, and I think Councilmember Avila's, what human capacity do these agencies have to respond and conduct Yeah, this is really important, and I think that it's been really reflective in the level of cooperation from agencies, that agencies are taking this work really seriously as well.

They understand the city's role in protecting immigrant communities and preserving service delivery, and so, you know, this is something that is an ongoing conversation with agencies, but I'm pleased to say that everyone has been really supportive and engaging in this process, and we haven't had any issues or pushback. Good to hear. Good to hear. In the audit, finding included description of a February 2025 situation in which armed and masked agencies entered the shelter facility without permission of agency staff.

What are we instructing staff to do in such situation if there's a training and such policies? Because I know even when they were asking questions for them to identify themselves, they just pushed into the shelter. and just went about? What protocols are in place? I think that that's a very important question. DSS has issued and revised protocols for frontline agency staff and updated a flowchart that's going to be posted at every shelter on what to do if they face, you know, that encounter.

And right now they're working to incorporate and strengthen those best practices in its trainings. I think the most important and critical piece here is that frontline staff know that they are not alone in making a determination if an agency is coming in, if they are allowed to enter the facility. And by that, I mean if someone comes in and presents themselves as a federal enforcement agency and says, I have a warrant, they will take that warrant and not make an assessment.

Is it a judicial warrant? Are they allowed entry? They will take a photograph, flag that for their legal counsel, and only the legal counsel will be making that determination on who enters. So there are a series of protocols that have been put in place to prevent that and really protect the frontline staff and make sure that they're equipped to protect anyone who is in the shelter.

Thank you, but we've seen how aggressive ICE has been on the ground, so I don't know how much pushback sometimes they can do, so we have to probably Absolutely. Revisit that conversation? Absolutely. And this is part of the IRC's work in continuing to engage the agencies because we— what we're seeing now and what we anticipate is that immigration enforcement will continue to evolve.

And so we— that forces us and requires us to continuously look at our policies as well. Chair, I just have one more question. How many times have federal agents entered New York City-operated facilities without permission or despite a lack of permission? That is a great question, and we can follow up with you on that. That'd be great.

And then my other question is, um, how is MOYA working with Open Arms in New York City public school? You know that was coming. Um, and to make sure that if our students are detained, what are the legal steps? The council has been very supportive, and what are the legal steps in place? And has— have there ever— have there been any ICE taking of any of our students recently.

So we— I, I speak to them every week, and that's true. Um, and, um, we have been working very collaboratively. The commissioner mentioned on top that even with the rollout of some of the protocols at schools, we were working closely with them. We continue to collaborate on the legal services front and coordinate if cases are elevated. As from the top of my head, I can't give you a I haven't either.

But I'm happy to circle back. But we are working with them. And again, we thank council for the foresight in supporting that initiative with Project Open Arms in particular because it has added some capacity. So we appreciate that. Is there any collaboration with The Door, the organization The Door? Because they also do that work around young people and especially young people who are in care.

We work with them through iCare as well, through the iCare Coalition and some of the work that we do with unaccompanied minors. Thank you. I look forward to more conversations. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Actually, in part of the protocols and trainings that you all have, is there detailed about reporting when an incident like this happens, for example, to like the AG's office, that there is now a system in place that they can report?

Is that part of the training and protocol so people know what to do if someone does push pass them and go forward? Yeah, that's a great question. That is part of our Local Law 228 reporting and part of the enhanced protocol there, and I feel like I've referenced, I continue to reference this because I think it's a really important point, is the over-inclusive reporting that is now being encouraged.

Any interaction, if it smells like immigration, we want to make sure that that is reflective in the reports that that are shared with MOYA. And so we are looking— that is one way to capture these incidents, and that is one way that these incidents have been captured in these reports as well. And so in those trainings, it does include, like, what they should be detailing, taking information on, pictures of anything, videos or anything like that, that all can be submitted as part of the reporting?

I will have to get back to you on what exact information, if it includes videos or other footage. Yeah, we can follow up on that. Great. And then also in just thinking about the public schools and knowing that school safety falls under NYPD, and so are they getting— how different or aligned are the trainings for school safety officers to actual staff in the school building?

So the training applies to school safety agents and all frontline staff in New York City public schools. So school safety agents are being trained through the Department of Education, not through the arm of the NYPD? On this, we'll have to defer to our New York City Public Schools team, but we can also follow up and get clarity on who is exactly training the school safety agents.

Perfect.

Sometimes those two don't talk, so we want to make sure that everybody is on the same line. Now switching over to DOHMH, which Which snaps for them for participating in this willingly. I know in your opening statement you'd mentioned that they have already developed and issued and were finalizing their post-incident protocols. You're talking about H&H or— that's for H&H or DOH?

DOHMH, sorry. Yes. So MOYA is working with the IRC and DOHMH. They are developing protocols, including notification to individuals and their council when appropriate, with its Office of General Counsel, and aiming for a target date that protocol we're hoping is finalized by October 30th. October 30th. So later— I was going to say later this month. Later next month, almost.

There was also some mention of developing a process to audit facility signage. Yes. So what does that mean? So DOHMH has a new sign, a new signage that's currently under review. This is signage that is posted in their facilities. They're planning for installation of this new signage that is underway. I think the aim for that target date is also October 30th for implementation.

Also in collaboration with you all? Correct, yes. Correct.

Okay, in terms of the NYPD, um, when will the NYPD institute their protocol for notification to the Operations Division of any requests for information or otherwise in connection with civil immigration enforcement, and who is responsible for confirming when this is instituted? The NYPD has established this protocol for any requests for information or otherwise in connection to civil immigration enforcement.

This is part of the ongoing work within the NYPD to institutionalize this policy, this protocol through policy, and the IRC is working to support and confirm when this policy is implemented. So this is work through the So the IRC as a whole is responsible for confirming what it is? That's right. And there are also— will adapt enhanced protocols requiring supervisory and legal review?

This protocol in particular is something that the PD is continuing to work on, and it will soon release this new protocol. Soon as in before the year is up, or? It's on track to release the new protocols that assess this, and we're working really closely to, you know, get closer to releasing this. And the same question as it pertains to 911 calls and related to the presence of federal immigration authorities or immigration matters.

Who is— again, is the IRC again responsible for confirming that that protocol is established? Yes, that is the work that we're— ongoing work with us and each agency on their implementation plan. And on this, you know, I'm happy to share that the PD has begun implementation of this particular protocol in response to 911 calls as they relate to immigration enforcement or immigration activities overall.

So outside of the IRC, what formal or informal lines of communication exists between MOYA and NYPD for purposes of this kind of reporting or just information sharing and its impact on immigrant communities? Yeah, we continue to work across agencies and outside of the IRC. You know, we have the interagency task force that MOYA also conducts that includes, you know, all 40-plus city agencies where we share best practices, where we flag any incidents and information.

So we have good communication across agencies, including the NYPD. Did they complete their email audit that was slated to be completed by the end of 2026? Yes, the NYPD did conduct an email audit of the task force officers, I believe that's what you're referencing, to ensure that there is compliance with With local law, that email audit is complete and is currently under review.

And will there be a cadence of additional audits in terms of those email exchanges? Related to the cadence, I'm going to defer to our colleagues at the NYPD on that. Gotcha. So it's essentially— it's— it— the required piece is done, and so anything would be reviewed. Gotcha. Yeah. And, um, has they— have they complied with the outstanding reporting requirements under 10-178?

Yes, I'm happy to report that the PD is now in compliance with those outstanding reporting requirements. They've also completed a new revision to the patrol guide on elevating civil immigration detainer requests to appropriate supervisors and review the any— and determine any action that needs to be taken. Perfect, thank you.

Now H&H. So H&H developed 5 key recommendations. Will they be working with MOYA to implement those recommendations moving forward? Yeah, so MOYA, as part of the IRC, is going to be working with H&H by supporting and guiding them on their implementation of these recommendations. Including the reporting requirements in 10-178? H&H has voluntarily committed to submitting reports in the next Local Law 228 reporting cycle within, of course, the parameters of HIPAA and other legal privacy requirements.

Okay.

Now, in terms of non-local law enforcement in New York City, I know the city found that the Department of Homeland Security ICE was operating something called Operation Rotten Apple, and it took place this summer, which confirmed the uptick of ICE agents across the city. Were you tracking the surge, Esmoya? So we've seen an increase in immigration enforcement activities across the city, which we know have had a really significant impact on immigrant communities, and it's heightened concerns amongst New Yorkers and neighbors alike.

MOYA does closely monitor these trends and their impact. MOYA, along with our partners at the IRC, also track ICE enforcement as it relates to how they interact with city agencies. That's where we have visibility and that's where we have authority. Specifically under Local Law 228, MOYA and other agencies are required to track like you had, as you've previously mentioned, and report any requests, any interactions.

And then more broadly, I'll say that we are monitoring trends both in New York City and really across the country and remain in close communication with state partners, with our advocates, with community organizations, mutual aid groups who are on the ground and really are the eyes and ears for different communities to understand what is actually happening and how best can cities respond.

And I'm assuming that part of that was also performing targeted outreach in the areas where you saw spikes and surges. That's right. We have a community engagement team that we deploy in neighborhoods that are impacted. They'll go out a few days of the week and canvass neighborhoods, give out Know Your Rights information, talk to small businesses and making sure that if anyone is one, directly impacted, has information on how to access our immigration legal support hotline, but also is equipped with Know Your Rights information.

What do you do if you encounter ICE at work or at home? I'll just add here, if I may, Chair, that MOYA has worked with our interagency partners, so we are actively partnering with the Office of Mass Engagement, the Mayor's Office Office of Public Engagement, SBS, and DCWP to leverage some of their folks so we can have a larger reach around the 5 boroughs.

You guys are so good. Every time I'm about to ask about if you need more resources, you tell me about all the resources that you implore to get the work done. Because I'm assuming that when there's a surge and there's an increase of need for people to be out and actually reaching folks. Right. on deck moment, and we're really grateful for our partners.

You know, one thing I think Lorena stopped short is of kind of sharing the impact that these partnerships are actually making. You know, we've conducted just since March, since I joined, 30 canvassing events and days of actions across the 5 boroughs. We've distributed over 8,000 printed materials and engaged 650 businesses, and all of that work is not possible, one, without the incredible team at MOYA that I am fortunate to work with every day, but also that deep partnership with different parts of city government.

I had another question that just went out of my head, but I guess what do you see the function for IRC as continued surges or future surges come? Where do you see them playing the similar role? Are they— do you see IRC expanding to include additional people? Like, what do you feel like for the future of the IRC?

Yeah, I think that it's critical to sort of really be grounded in, you know, why the IRC was established and for what purpose. And it's really to, you know, serve as a coordinating body, right, to respond to the federal actions that are affecting New York City residents, to monitor the federal enforcement activity, and then to provide support to city agencies and making sure that they have what they need to deliver services to immigrant New Yorkers and that they are also protected and have, you know, the support that they need to do this work.

So, that work is ongoing. You know, I think that there are significant changes and increases that are happening on the federal level in of policy, so it's not just enforcement activity, but we are seeing significant policy changes, you know, public charge, changes to other policies that have real impacts in New York City and are felt in, you know, on the ground, and so we're really pleased that we have thought partners within the IRC to help track and monitor those developments, but also You know, work with us to deliver information to New Yorkers who might be impacted.

Speaking of some of this reporting and these local laws, for Local Law 228, the reports for the first 2 quarters into 2026, those will be published? So those reports have been— They've both been published? Yes. When were they published? Do you know? Yesterday. Yesterday. Yes. All right. For, I believe it's Q1, 2, 3, and 4 for 2026.

Okay. And all 6 agencies named in the audit, they will provide information for Local Law 228 in the reports going forward, right? That's right. And while not required by local law, as we've mentioned up top, that H&H and New York City Public Schools have also voluntarily agree to participate in providing, um, in reporting on Local Law 228.

Of course, in alignment with other city agencies, um, and within— for H&H, within the parameters of HIPAA and FERPA and, and all the other legal privacy requirements as well. Now, the report also notes that NYPD and the Department of Probations are not currently required to disaggregate the number of civil immigration detainers lodged by conviction status and/or possible match in federal terrorist screening database, whereas DOC is required to do so.

I know the report recommends that these 3 agencies standardize their reporting. So have NYPD and DOP agreed to adopt this recommendation? So the NYPD and DOP will So, the short answer is yes, and they will report on civil immigration detainers broken down by conviction status and/or possible match in a federal terrorist screening database. And this already aligns with what DOC is currently doing.

And in the IRC's view, and you may not want to speak for the full IRC, but as a member of the IRC, or you may know, would this discrepancy require a legislative fix? On that, I'll defer to the council regarding any future legislation, but the agencies here are in compliance. Okay. The report also states that NYPD, DOC, DOP are required to submit the quarterly detainee reports.

So that is happening, you said, right? It is happening, and the guidance was issued to clarify and give clarity on the expectations to NYPD, DOC, DOP as well. And all 3 agencies have agreed to the frequency of reporting. These were annual reports that will now be quarterly. Okay.

In terms of— and shifting a little bit gears for the legal services and Know Your Rights, I know that Councilmember Aviles talked about legal services. How many people have called the MOYA hotline this fiscal year? I can assume from July 1st, which is when we began, through September 15th, we had 8,199 people call the hotline. 8,199? That's right.

How many people have called the hotline for connection to specifically immigration legal services? That's the top issue as to why people call Yeah. And have people called the MOYA hotline seeking services who were previously helped by the Asylum Application Help Center? So that information I wouldn't have because we don't collect people's, you know, personal identifying information. But I can say that the hotline has been shared, new New Yorkers, old New Yorkers, and that number has been shared with people so they can access legal services, but we just don't track that.

Yeah. And I appreciate some of your details in talking about how neighborhoods that are experiencing frequent ICE activity, what kind of things are deployed there, some of the agencies that have been tasked to help. You mentioned Mass Engagement, DCWP, SBS. All great agencies. In the surrounding neighborhoods or neighborhoods that are surrounding them, do you see it like— what is the radius, should I say, of what classifies as a neighborhood that is experiencing a surge?

Well, we go by district. So similar to the council's district map, that's sort of what we do. When we hear— and we could hear this from advocates, we can hear this from the news, news. We can hear it from other agency partners if there is a nice spotting, for example. I would say that the surge in New York has looked different than across the country, right?

Where maybe in LA it's very targeted to a specific area and location, in New York it's a bit different. They're a bit more scattered. So when we hear about them, we do share that with our outreach staff and equip them with information. What we want to do is to be on the ground as quickly as we can to share some of the legal service forward-facing material and information.

We try to target areas where we know people will be, so train stations, business corridors, for example, and then we try to match it up so we can get to people like workers, right? So after 6 o'clock, for example, and that's the way that we do it. I will say that we have partnered with city council members.

I think we've partnered with you at least in one event, um, because you're also the eyes and ears. And I think that's an open invitation to work with us, given how close you are with the districts. And you might know corners that we might just not, um, by not having that insight in, in some of those council districts.

But that's a bit how that works. And how often do those, uh, outreach surges, I'll call them, uh, happen? We do an outreach event at least once a week, and sometimes 2 or 3. And I would say that when the news came down from TPS connected to Haiti, we were in Little Haiti that week at least 3 times in one week.

Well, I appreciate truly all of the work that you do on a day-to-day basis through the IRC. Obviously, the EO 13 was extremely helpful for us to really get eyes on, but again, as I I mentioned in my opening statement, it is really just the beginning, and we really look forward to seeing how these findings, these recommendations are all implemented and how more come out throughout that process.

And so we'll be following up. And then just lastly, in terms of, you know, your role in— Commissioner in the IRC, is this something that you see as a I know you mentioned that there was a chair who was sharing— The first deputy mayor is chairing that. The first deputy mayor is chairing that. But do you see as ongoing your role being how significant in this particular thing?

Because of course, I want you to run it. You know, given the climate and given the sort of fast-changing nature of immigration enforcement and, you know, on activities on the ground and in policy, I think it's really critical, the role that the IRC continues to play. I think it's actually extremely important and to underscore having senior-level City Hall staff and team and leaders, frankly, guiding this work is what is, to me, communicates that this is a serious issue for the mayor.

Having the first deputy mayor be present in these meetings to help guide the conversation is an indication that we are serious about protecting New Yorkers. So this work is ongoing. I'm really pleased to work, I feel really privileged to work with the FDM, with his team, with the Chief Counsel, having the support of the Law Department and the countless staff, frankly, that make this work happen to show that, you know, we are serious when it comes to protecting immigrant New Yorkers.

Thank you for that.

I'm now going to take a break really quickly, and then we'll move on to public testimony. Thank you so much. Thank you. Quiet down, quiet down everyone and find your seats. We're going to be resuming momentarily. Ladies and gentlemen, would you kindly find your seats? We're going to be resuming momentarily.

All right, everyone. Thank you for entertaining that brief break.

I am now going to call up Isabel Ortega Romero from the Brooklyn Thank you, Chair Encarnación and members of the committee for holding this hearing today. My name is Isabel Ortega Romero, and I'm here representing the Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. New York City is home to 3.1 million immigrants, 38% of the city's population. The city is built by immigrants.

Immigrants comprise 43% of our workforce, and in 2024 alone, immigrant New Yorkers paid $74.8 billion in taxes. However, immigrants are far more than the labor they provide. They are our neighbors, friends, community members and leaders, and family. New York City is a sanctuary city, but its people are living in fear that going outside might lead to permanent separation from their loved ones.

ICE arrested more people this July than in any other month during President Trump's second term. Recently, the administration's audit of city agencies revealed that many city agencies were not in compliance with sanctuary status. We commend the mayor for conducting this audit and agree with its recommendations, and we need more. Meaningful and reliable oversight of agencies' compliance with sanctuary city laws must be independent and ongoing, because sanctuary city laws are only as strong as their enforcement, and allowing city agencies to unlawfully cooperate with ICE erodes trust in city government.

For these reasons, we recommend the following. Form an independent commission to audit, monitor, and enforce compliance with sanctuary city laws. This commission would conduct quarterly audits to thoroughly examine noncompliance and misconduct and would hold city agencies accountable for violations. Draft legislation creating penalties for violations of sanctuary city laws. Recommendations are not enough to ensure that agencies will abide by the law.

City Council should establish mandatory disciplinary action fines, procedures for removing officers, employees, and agency leadership, and other enforcement mechanisms for repeat violations. The intent of these recommendations is to ensure that city agencies abide by city law designed to protect the safety and rights of all New Yorkers regardless of national origin. We can only prevent federal outreach by ensuring local agencies abide by the law.

Lastly, Borough President Reynoso strongly supports Resolution 626, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status. We hope that S.4814 passes so that our Haitian community can access healthcare, education, and employment without legal risk. Thank you again for holding this hearing today. We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that city government advances justice, promotes public trust, and honors the laws that protect immigrants who call this city home.

Thank you. Thank you. Please send our regards to the borough president.

I now open the hearing for public testimony. I remind members of the public that this is a government proceeding and that the quorum shall be observed at all times. As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recordings to the sergeant-at-arms for inclusion in the hearing. If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out one of these appearance cards you'll see out in the front with the sergeant-at-arms, and please wait to be recognized.

When recognized, you will have You have 2 minutes to speak on today's oversight hearing topic, the Executive Order 13 of 2026 Report of Audit Findings and Recommendations, or the legislation on today's hearing agenda, Resolution 626, or both. That is it. Oh, if you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to You may also email written testimony to testimony@council.nyc.gov within 72 hours of the closing of this hearing.

Audio and video recordings will not be accepted. For in-person panelists, please come up to the table once your name has been called. Now I will call our first in-person panel. And in advance, please excuse me if I cannot read the name or say the name incorrectly. As somebody with a last name with 11 letters, we should all understand, right?

So first is Deborah Lee from the Legal Aid Society, Whitney Braunstein from Immigrant Defense Project, Rosa Cohen-Cruz from the Bronx Defenders, Brittany Brown from New York County Defenders, And Josh Epstein from Brooklyn Defender Services. Thank you. Do you have any extra copies? Oh, um, sorry. When you're ready, you can begin.

I guess I'll go first. Good morning, Chair Encarnacion. My name is Rosa Cohn Cruz, and I'm the Director of Immigration Policy for the amongst offenders. I have testified before this council alongside many of the same people right here and my immigrant justice colleagues about half a dozen times over multiple years about persistent violations of our city's sanctuary laws, particularly on the part of the Department of Corrections, NYPD, and in at least one instance, ACS.

We welcomed and were encouraged by Mayor Mamdani's early action by issuing EO 2013, and auditing compliance with our laws. Some of the findings were shocking to us, especially the finding that the Department of Corrections had been sending a daily list of noncitizens with VSE convictions to ICE, despite that not being required by law, and we are glad to hear that that practice has been discontinued.

However, as we have been testifying about for many years, we are really concerned about the Department of Corrections' reading of the statute and their belief that they are in compliance, even though it goes against the clear text of the, the plain reading of the statute itself, particularly their reading that they are allowed to transfer custody of individuals with VSC convictions without a judicial warrant, and their reading that conviction qualifies even if it is the instant arrest.

Neither of those comport with the plain reading of the statute, and this counsel should, or this administration should update their guidance, but also this council needs to pass legislation to make sure that the department is being held accountable, as well as the other agencies named in the audit. We need lasting legislative solutions, not just executive action, even though it is, we are very grateful to see it happen.

And there are 3 bills that we've continued to come back to this council about. One is Intro 209, the Immigrant Trust Act, The other is Intro 395 and 396, all of which address accountability for following the sanctuary laws and would fix the loopholes in existing laws. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, good morning. Thank you. My name is Brittany Brown. I'm the supervising attorney of the Collateral Consequences Unit at New York County Defender Services. Thank you to the Committee on Immigration for holding this public hearing on this necessary and historically overdue audit, and recognizing that meaningful sanctuary protections need to exist in practice. In examining DOC's practices, the audit identified information-sharing practices, as Rosa mentioned, that were unknown and had received little public scrutiny.

Most notably, the audit found that DOC affirmatively and routinely transmitted information concerning individuals in custody to federal authorities. Specifically, DOC sent federal law enforcement agencies daily lists containing information about individuals in custody. The significance of this finding cannot be overstated. It is unimaginable that in a sanctuary city, a city agency would preemptively cooperate with federal immigration authorities without any approval for such a policy from the mayor's office.

We are grateful that this was discovered during the audit, and it shows how this administration is handling the situation differently from previous ones. But it also illustrates how difficult it can be for the council, advocates, and the public to understand how information actually moves through DOC without meaningful and sustained oversight. There have been countless hearings where DOC has testified in front of the council, but not once was this policy ever discussed.

Disclosed. We've also seen concerning and arguably unlawful examples of DOC personnel facilitating direct contact between people in custody and federal immigration authorities. In one recent case, while our client was in DOC custody, a correction officer approached him with a form asking whether he wished to participate in an interview with ICE. Put more simply, DOC personnel was facilitating ICE's access to a person in city custody.

We believe this type of facilitation violated our city's detainer law, which sharply limits DOC's use of city personnel and resources to assist federal civil immigration enforcement. This example would not have been caught by the audit and shows why the audit's analysis knows— needs to go beyond formal requests. Briefly, I just want to also highlight the Department of Probation's collection and inclusion of immigration information in pre-sentence investigation reports.

The city should determine what immigration information is actually required to be in these pre-sentence reports, and where DO— Department of Probation can obtain or verify necessary information without contacting ICE, and what safeguards can ensure that the pre-sentence investigation process does not become a conduit for federal immigration enforcement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Encarnacion and members of the committee. My name is Deborah Lee, and I'm the attorney in charge of the Immigration Law Unit at the Legal Aid Society. I'm testifying on behalf of Legal Aid, including our criminal defense practice, whose attorneys witness firsthand the consequences when the Department of Corrections and NYPD collaborate with federal immigration enforcement.

New York City should be proud of its sanctuary laws and their role in protecting noncitizen New Yorkers safeguarding due process, promoting access to essential services, and building trust in government institutions. All New Yorkers are safer when people can access schools, shelters, healthcare, courts, and other public services without fear of immigration enforcement. The EO 13 audit highlights serious gaps that require attention, though.

Most concerning is DOC's continued coordination with ICE. The audit found that DOC responded to 24 ICE detainee Detainer requests by providing release notifications and facilitating transfers to federal custody. No New Yorker's information should be shared with ICE absent a judicial warrant. We urge the council to reintroduce and pass Intro 396 to close this loophole. We also urge the council to pass the New York City Trust Act, Intro 209 and Intro 395.

Sanctuary laws are only meaningful when they can be enforced. New Yorkers whose rights are violated should have a clear path to accountability. Accountability also requires transparency. We urge the administration, Moya, to make the quarterly EO 13 reports public so New Yorkers can assess whether sanctuary laws are being faithfully implemented. Finally, Legal Aid supports Resolution 626 calling for the restoration of TPS for Haiti.

As ICE intensifies efforts to detain and deport Haitian nationals, Following the termination of TPS protections, Haitian New Yorkers face family separation, loss of work authorization, and removal to a country still experiencing profound instability. At a time of escalating federal immigration enforcement, New York City must strengthen its sanctuary laws, close remaining loopholes, promote transparency, and ensure meaningful accountability.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Josh Epstein. I'm the Director of Immigration at Brooklyn Defenders Queens Office. Thank you so much to the committee and to Chair Encarnacion for hosting today's hearing. We are grateful to the mayor for signing Executive Order 13 and to the IRC for their work to strengthen New York City's compliance with local sanctuary laws and completing a thorough audit of agency practices.

Thank you. This critical process helped elucidate the ways federal immigration enforcement is targeting New Yorkers and highlighted the ways that the city can tighten protections to make New Yorkers safe for all. The City Council has taken steps to limit city agencies' ability to facilitate civil immigration enforcement, such as New York City's groundbreaking detainer discretion laws, and the Executive Order 13 report highlighted the interpretation and implementation of these laws have left gaps, and these gaps expose immigrant New Yorkers to ICE detention.

The City Council, as my colleagues have mentioned, can pass the New York City Trust Act, which will strengthen the enforceability of New York City's existing detainer protections. Brooklyn Defenders is grateful that as part of the audit, the data sharing agreements between the Department of Corrections, the NYPD, and third-party technology vendors reviewed. Relying on outside vendors in an era of mass data accumulation by big tech companies and the federal government carries serious risks for immigrant New Yorkers, but also the civil rights and liberties of all New Yorkers.

We're also glad the IRC will continue reviewing the contracts for data sharing agreements between city agencies and third parties. We urge the Mayor's Office and the IRC to review NYPD's policies regarding audits, of the Domain Awareness System. And the Domain Awareness System is NYPD's surveillance platform that serves as a hub for aggregating data under NYPD's control. And this vast system is available to officers on their cell phones, and it has not had an independent audit in over a decade.

In correctional settings, the use of digital surveillance technology also raises risks of data leaks that could lead to immigration enforcement, in violation of our city's sanctuary policies. The jail phone call systems operated by Securus not only record jail phone calls, but also store voiceprints, a form of biometric data, on every individual who uses the system. This includes family members, friends, community members, children of people experiencing incarceration.

And this problem is compounded by the sheer volume of data that the city allows the NYPD IPD and DOC to collect, and while asking minimal questions about who is accessing it, why, and how it is being used, we can't meaningfully protect it from misuse. Thank you to the committee for hosting this hearing. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you to the Committee on Immigration and Chair Encarnación for holding this hearing. My name is Whitney Bronstein, and I am senior attorney for community defense at the Immigrant Defense Project, which is an organization focused on fighting for justice for all immigrants, including those targeted by the criminal and immigration legal systems. Executive Order 13 has taken critical steps in auditing city agencies and their compliance with local laws around communication and collaboration with ICE.

However, I would like to highlight key issues yet unaddressed by the report, which have undermined due process and caused irreversible harm to New Yorkers. First, the Department of Corrections is squarely prohibited by our laws from transferring New York Rikers to ICE custody absent a judgment of enumerated conviction for one of the 178 laws within our very serious crimes carve-out and a judicial warrant.

However, DOC has routinely allowed ICE to show up at Rikers to detain New Yorkers directly from their cells without a moment of freedom, without a judicial warrant, under a mythical distinction that they are not honoring a detainer but solely communicating with ICE, communication that is not obligated for them to do and has the effect of separating families, precipice of being reunited.

Additionally, under statute 9131, as well as DOC's own 2019 operations order, when DOC is considering honoring a detainer, convictions of relevance are those that precede the instant arrest. DOC has long misinterpreted this to allow them to take into account charges flowing from the instant arrest, which can include people who have no conviction at all, certainly not ones that precede the current incarceration that they're experiencing.

This is the basic misreading of the statute that must must be addressed. Second, I'd like to address the report's recommendations regarding the NYPD. It was great to hear from the committee and from Commissioner Ali earlier this morning that NYPD is up to date on its reporting and compliance with those requirements under our Local Law 10-178. However, non-reporting elements of that section have not been addressed, such as the use of resources or taking direction from the Department of Homeland Security primarily in furtherance of immigration enforcement were not addressed. addressed.

With regard to 911 calls, we heard earlier this morning about the way in which reporting requirements have been implemented by the NYPD, which is great to hear. However, incidents such as the May 2026 raid at the Wyckoff Medical Center continue to occur. We need recommendations that address actions, not solely reporting. For this reason, we urge the council to pass the New York City Trust Act and the not yet reintroduced Bills 395 and 396 to ensure that our laws are enforced in order to protect the rights of immigrant New Yorkers.

Thank you.

Thank you to all of you for— and some of you are part of conversations that we were talking about these 3 bills in particular, 209, 395, 396. I am now the sponsor, lead sponsor for 395 and 396, and have committed to move it forward through the legislative process. And I'm hoping to get this in front of of DOC and have a hearing as soon as it goes through this process.

And I will continue, and I'm committed to working with many of you to look at how we can strengthen the wording of those particular pieces of legislation. And we'll see how we get on the other side of that. And I appreciate you all meeting with me and also supplying me with some questions, some of which I was able to get to today, some of which I think are more appropriate to ask directly to DOC, but I appreciate all of you for your testimony today.

Thank you. Thank you.

I will next call up the— I will now call up the next panel. We have Monique Francis from CUNY Citizenship Now, Loza Adams from The Door, Maria Posante from Safe Passage Project, Rodney Souvenir from the Haitian American Lawyers Association, and Joshua Santangelo from Children's Law Center in Brooklyn. Hello, everyone. Hi. And as soon as everyone is situated, we can begin.

Of course. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Encarnación, and members of the Immigration Committee. I would also like to express gratitude to Councilmember Farah Lewis for the invitation to share this testimony today and for her advocacy in pushing forward Resolution 626 that calls for Congress to extend TPS for Haitian New Yorkers. My name is Monique Francis. I'm the executive director at CUNY Citizenship Now, CUNY Citizenship Now has remained a lifeline for New York City's immigrant communities.

We provide trusted, free, and confidential legal services since 1997. For 3 decades, our attorneys and paralegals assist eligibility for immigration benefits, and we help New Yorkers navigate application process, including TPS. The infrastructure has become even more important during these moments of rapid changing immigration policies, when misinformation and fear can leave families vulnerable, and especially in this moment when the federal administration has forgotten the contributions of immigrants.

Our work with Haitian TPS began long before the first major earthquake devastated Haiti in 2010, and we have remained steadfast not only with Haitian TPS, but also with the Haitian Family Reunification Program, asylum support, and most recent, Haitian parole programs. I want to take you back to 2010 when I was working as the budget manager for Citizenship Now.

On January 28th, less than 2 weeks after the first earthquake, Citizenship Now, in partnership with Legal Aid Society, helped— held the city's first large group processing TPS application assistance event. The event was held at Medgar Evers College with more than 400 Haitians Haitians seeking support for this humanitarian relief. We made a call for volunteers and help for interpreters and translations, and the number of New Yorkers who spoke French and Haitian Creole who reached out to support this event was astonishing.

Within the first few months after the earthquake, CUNY, through our partnerships with and collaborations with both state and city government, helped more than 1,000 immigrants. In June of 2026, with the deadline to end the protections near, our organization has held virtual Zoom sessions offering guidance on other types of legal benefits. We have partnered— we have partnered with organizations like Little Haiti BK, Haitian American Alliance of New York, and the Haitian Institute at Brooklyn College to provide Know Your Rights and family preparedness sessions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, and thank you for letting me speak here today. And we look forward to sending our full written testimony after today's hearing. I'm Laura Adams— I apologize for my handwriting— the legal program manager at The Door, which is a comprehensive youth development organization. And at The Door's Legal Services Center this year, we've handled over 2,500 immigration matters for youth from infancy to 24 years old. including 614 unaccompanied immigrant minors.

Executive Order 13 is a great first step to ensure immigrant youth have the best success and chance at success at the growth in New York City without the fear of abusive immigration enforcement. We have observed significant drops in our attendance at all of our programs at the door, including drop-in centers, schools, health clinics, housing assistance, and mental health programs due to fear of ICE enforcement.

And we do want to draw the council's attention to the audit's reports of the continued illegal ICE harassment of staff and participants of our city shelters and of our foster care youth and families in the ACS system. The information in the audit on the so-called wellness checks from ICE and DHS agencies for foster care youth is consistent with what we have observed with the collusion between the Office of Refugee Resettlement and ICE to target recently released unaccompanied minors in New York City.

So ORR is definitely part of our immigration enforcement units at this point, and I want to draw attention to the fact that their information sharing policies are problematic here. These young people should be able to pursue their immigration cases and live normal lives without the harassment and intimidation from the federal government once they're out of federal custody.

We do want to echo concerns that the Department of Youth and Community Development was not included in this audit or in the executive order. Protections required for other city departments should extend to protect runaway and homeless youth, especially as hundreds of immigrant youth come to DYCD and their drop-in centers. And the New York City Council has met about DYCD in the past and their information-sharing policies with ORR and ICE, so it's very relevant to this.

And they've acknowledged the sensitive nature of the information sharing on unaccompanied minors So finally, we do urge the codification of the protections in Executive Order 13 through the passage of legislation like the New York Safe Trust Act and offer our support as well for the resolution in support of TPS for Haiti. So thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity today. My name is Maria Passadenti, and I'm a staff attorney at Save Passage. Project, a nonprofit that provides free legal representation to immigrant children facing deportation in New York City and Long Island. We're grateful that city officials are taking steps to ensure that city agencies protect the immigrant New Yorkers who rely on them, and we want to warn that more must be done to ensure that unaccompanied immigrant children in the custody of New York Administration for Children's Services do not fall through the cracks.

I have represented a young person who I will call D since January 2023. D is an unaccompanied minor who was found to be a destitute child and placed in ACS custody after his abusive older brother kicked him out of his home. I met D after he was ordered deported because ACS neglected to inform the caseworkers at his placement facility that he was scheduled for an immigration court hearing, which he missed.

We petitioned for special immigrant juvenile status while we moved to reopen his immigration court case. ACS moved him from a Manhattan placement to a group home on Long Island, where where he repeatedly expressed feeling unsafe and unhappy. We also learned he had a pending criminal case in Suffolk County, which made him vulnerable to being turned over to ICE.

We warned ACS about this and advocated for him to be moved back to New York City. Sadly, our fears were realized. In May, Suffolk police took D from his group home to a police station for questioning, where ICE waited outside to arrest him. ICE claimed that D was an adult, not a 16-year-old child, despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them proving his age.

ICE held D in adult detention for over 3 months while we filed a habeas petition to get him released. Finally, in August, ICE quietly moved D to a shelter for immigrant minors without conceding their error. D suffered immeasurable harm during his months in adult ICE detention, including being attacked by other detainees and being placed in solitary confinement.

Had ACS placed D within NYC instead of out on Long Island, I believe that the city's measures to limit information sharing between local police and ICE would have stopped him from being turned over to immigration officials, in turn saving him from months of suffering as a child in adult ICE custody. I urge the members of this committee and the mayor's administration to remember Dee's story as you work to implement the findings of this audit and take concrete steps to ensure that children in ACS custody like Dee are truly protected.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Encarnacion and members of the Committee on Immigration. My name is Ronnie El Pepe Souvenir, and I'm the president of the Haitian American Lawyers Association of New York. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of Resolution 626 sponsored by Councilmember Farrell Lewis, calling upon the United States Congress to pass Senate Bill 4814, designating Haiti for Temporary Protective Status, TPS.

I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for her leadership and her steadfast commitment to the Haitian community here in her district and across our city. On April 16th, the House of Representatives passed its version of this legislation, HR 1689, with bipartisan support. Senate Bill 4814 would give the Senate the chance to finish that work and allow eligible Haitian nationals to continue living and working lawfully in this country.

After the Supreme Court allowed the termination of Haiti's TPS to move forward, Congress is now the clearest path to protecting these families. Nationwide, roughly 350,000 Haitians depended on TPS. Many of them are our neighbors here in New York City, in Flatbush, Canarsie, East Flatbush, Cambria Heights, and beyond. They are nurses and home health aides, teachers, small business owners, lawyers, and parents of American citizen children.

Many have lived here for more than a decade. As lawyers, we see every day what uncertainty does to these families. We see people afraid to go to work, afraid to renew a lease, afraid to plan a future. We have had to tell parents that they have to make a choice. Of whether to take their children into the certain dangers that exist currently in Haiti or separate and leave their children with a trusted friend or family member here in the States.

TPS exists for exactly the conditions that Haiti faces today: political instability, widespread violence, and the humanitarian emergency. Sending people back into that danger is neither lawful in spirit nor humane in practice. This council has long stood with New York City's immigrant communities. I respectfully urge the committee to adopt Resolution 626 and add New York City's voice to the call for Congress to pass Senate Bill 4814 without delay.

Our families cannot wait. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Encarnación and the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Joshua Santangelo. I am the supervising attorney for Children's Law Center's Youth Guardianship Project, which does SIJ work, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status work. Firstly, I want to applaud this administration and the council's efforts to protect our immigrant populations against the propagation of rules from the federal government.

As this body is aware, the federal government's recent actions have created real and irreparable damage and fear within our immigrant communities. Many of the clients that we interact with are afraid to enter any governmental building, including state and city courthouses. Many of our cases hit snags when guardians of our clients refuse to get fingerprinted at state courthouses due to fear of ICE presence.

So far, we've been able to overcome that by accompanying guardians, finding outside fingerprinting resources, and making applications to waive fingerprints where applicable, but the emotion of distrust present within these communities is palpable. This administration's efforts to protect our communities and separate the city government's intentions from that of the federal government are admirable, but there's still more work to be done.

There's so much distrust in any governmental body that is present within immigrant communities that we serve. And we have seen this through MOYA's efforts to disseminate Know Your Rights materials and through directives by city administrations that there is an intention to separate the city from the federal government. However, as this committee has commented on, there's just not enough attorneys present in this city to do the work that is necessary.

So we encourage the passage of the TRUST Act and similar legislation to both try to limit how many cases are actually moving into the court system by holding the administrations that are passing information to ICE accountable, and also to continue to propagate Know Your Rights materials. I would like to have commented on the resolution as well, but I will just submit the written testimony in the interest of time.

Thank you very much. And my assumption is you are in support of the resolution? Yes, absolutely. Okay, you can put that on the record. Thank you.

All right, thank you all for your testimony. I will now call up Ladies de la Rosa from La Colmena, Gisela from Mixteca Organization, Van also from Mixteca, Julio Santo Domingo. IRC and Sandra Duda, Jude, Judah, Judah. I believe one of the folks that I called up may be at another hearing, so I'm going to call up Karina from New York Lawyers for the Public to take her space.

Thank you so much, and you may start.

Good morning. My name is Gisela Marroquín. I'm the managing director of Mixteca, a community-based organization based out of Sunset Park, Brooklyn. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony this morning as this committee analyzes the Executive Order 13 report of audit findings, its information and learnings, and gets ready to make further recommendations. Mixteca has provided services to the Latina and Indigenous communities in Sunset Park for 26 years.

Our service delivery model centers mental health and well-being and is delivered through trauma-informed Our reach now expands beyond Brooklyn, and community members across all five boroughs come to Mixteca, particularly seeking information and legal support around immigration policies and understanding their rights as immigrants, parents, and caretakers. With so much information out there, our community members trust us to identify accurate and up-to-date information that protects them and their families.

We're happy to hear that changes have been made across several agencies. agencies, and we appreciate the continued efforts to ensure the safety of our immigrant neighbors. The audit identified gaps, and the following are specified and measurable oversight mechanisms we hope the council could require to close the gaps and demonstrate accountability. Every city agency should have clear, public, and easily accessible data sharing policies.

Given the Department of Corrections' history of daily jail reporting sharing with ICE, there must be a strong accountability for non- compliance. Once finalized, these protocols should be published in multiple languages so that all New Yorkers can understand them. Policies regarding ICE access to city facilities must be shared with community-based organizations. Many community members come to Mixteca before seeking medical care or other basic services because they are unsure whether an interaction with the city agency or shelter could expose them or their family member to immigration enforcement. enforcement.

Unauthorized ICE access to hospitals, public buildings, parking lots, or schools violates community trust and can keep families from obtaining essential care and services. The council should establish a firm deadline for agencies to finalize and implement these policies and the mechanisms to track their implementation. If I could just go, uh, lastly, while we commend Mayor Mamdani's proactive signing of Executive Order 13, we urge the city council to consider ensuring protections and their implementation are not only dependent on a single administration or one mayor's commitment, and the council should examine which of these protections should be made into permanent law with clear enforcement, reporting, and oversight mechanisms that are transparent and accessible.

Thank you.

Um, good afternoon, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Van. I'm the community organizer at Mexteca, a community-based organization in Sunset Park, Brooklyn that has served immigrant, Latinx, and Indigenous communities for over 25 years. After reviewing the Executive Order 13 audit recommendations, it was great to see that the majority of the city agencies were able to comply with and enforce the changes that the mayor implemented.

But as the report also showed, there were a few instances in which these new Executive Order 13 protocols were not followed. The proposed recommendations call for strengthening documentation, reporting, and transparency, which I agree with, but it is unclear how this information will be shared with immigrant New Yorkers. A plan to inform immigrant New Yorkers about the new policies and procedures should be developed, particularly targeting community-based organizations where many people in our community obtain their information and updates.

With the recent changes to public charge policies and ongoing threats facing our community, it is essential to ensure that there is consistent communication and regular updates for immigrant New Yorkers. The recommendation suggests that city agencies should endure quarterly audits, which should be followed by proposals to enhance protections for our immigrant community. Additionally, there should be quarterly plans to share updates, findings, and changes to policies and procedures with all New Yorkers.

At Mixteca, we provide continuous Know Your Rights workshops and resources to our community members. During these presentations, we do our best to inform our community members and keep them updated on policy changes that may affect them. Some of the presentation materials we provide are the IRW presentations from the Mayor's Office of Immigration Affairs. It would be incredibly helpful if MOYA's IRW presentations could include updates on how EO 13 is strengthening protections for immigrant New Yorkers.

I would like to thank the committee for their continued work supporting our immigrant New Yorkers, and I hope you are able to develop a communication plan. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sandra Jardinet, and I am the supervising attorney for the Haitian Response Initiative at Catholic Charities. I would like to thank Councilwoman Farrah Lewis for inviting us to speak today and for sponsoring Resolution 626. And thank you, Councilwoman Encarnacion, for having us here today. The Catholic Charities Haitian Response Initiative was established in 2022 to respond to the growing legal and humanitarian needs that Haitian New Yorkers faced.

HRI provides culturally and linguistically responsive immigration legal services, meaning that the staff is Haitian or Haitian American, and we all speak Haitian Creole, which helps with cultural sensitivities and for New Yorkers to tell us their stories. We assist with asylum, temporary protected status, employment authorization, special immigrant juvenile status, adjustment of status, and other forms of humanitarian relief.

Our work extends beyond the 4 walls of our offices. We conduct Know Your Rights presentations, legal clinics, immigration screenings, and community outreach throughout New York City. We work with faith-based organizations, elected officials, and trusted partners. We meet Haitian New Yorkers where they are and provide critical information and services in both Haitian Creole and English. Today, as we know, TPS has ended, and more than 300,000— 330,000 Haitians nationwide have faced the loss of Temporary Protected Status, placing their families who have lived, worked, and paid taxes and raised children in the United States at risk of losing their work authorization and their protection from deportation.

Haitian TPS holders are our neighbors, healthcare workers, home health aides, caregivers, business owners, students, and parents in this community. The impact reaches far beyond immigration status. The psychological toll can also be very profound. People have spent years building stable lives are now suddenly facing horrible conditions. The thought of sending them back to Haiti, where it's very dangerous, and they have mixed-status families where the parents are TPS holders, but their children are U.S. citizens, and now they're deciding whether I take my children to this dangerous country, or do I leave them here with people that do really not— they don't really know.

We're asking that Senate pass— the Senate bill passes 4814, because it's really important to make sure that we protect our Haitian immigrants in the United States. We're also asking that DHS halts arrests and deportation of affected former TPS holders and restore humanitarian protection where legally available. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Canacio and the committee. My name is Julio Santo Domingo. I'm a deputy director of the New York office of the International Rescue Committee. I am here to express our support for Resolution 626. The IRC, or International Rescue Committee, supports both internally in the United States and of course New York, and also internationally the Haitian population.

In the last 4 years, we have served 10,000 Haitian clients overall, 5,700 through New York and New Jersey alone. So it's a reflection of how central this population is to our organization. In IRC's country program in Haiti, here's the reports every day reflect the profound security and humanitarian challenges the country faces. Including sexual violence, kidnapping, displacement, combined widespread food insecurity.

Armed gangs have control across 90% of the capital and beyond, restricting humanitarian access. Over half the population, 5.8 million people, do not have enough to eat, a crisis extended to— expected to deepen as an approaching El Niño pattern threatens to drive food insecurity even higher. For Haitian families who have built their lives in the United States, States, the loss of TPS has devastating consequences, creating uncertainty surrounding not only their ability to remain and work in the U.S., but also the stability of their communities.

These are not simply immigration matters; they're deeply human concerns that affect families, livelihoods, and the ability of individuals to plan for their futures. One of our clients, for example, who fled Haiti and arrived in 2023 with her 2 children, It's just one of those great examples of a New Yorker facing— that's facing this crisis right now. TPS would have protected her from returning to Haiti and from detention in the U.S., but this protection for Haitians was ended before she could submit her application.

We at DRC have helped her continue in other means, such as applying for asylum. However, there's a saying— You can finish your sentence. Go ahead. So the loss of TPS is potentially being set back to harm. It threatens not only the safety of current generations, but the hope of the children and the generations to come. So thank you for your time today.

Thank you, and thank you for clarifying that you are not the same IRC that we were talking about the whole time that we were having this hearing. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Encarnación. My name is Karina Ruiz de Guiadler. I'm the director of the Health Justice Program at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. We, of course, support Intro 626, but I'm here to testify about Executive Order 13. In brief, we support the recommendations that the mayor has adopted and applaud H&H for voluntarily participating in the audit and adopting policies.

H&H is the largest public health system in the country, and I believe that what H&H does will help set the tone for every other hospital in the city, including private and voluntary hospitals, many of which are located in immigrant communities and have been involved in incidents of ICE presence and violent enforcement. Today, we have a few recommendations.

First, as part of the reporting requirement, we ask that H&H track and report any medical clearance requests that ICE directs neglects at treating providers when they are caring for patients in ICE custody. We've heard repeatedly that ICE brings people to H&H for medical clearance or demands written medical clearance after apprehending and injuring New Yorkers on the street and before transferring them to immigration detention centers.

We know from our extensive work documenting and litigating medical neglect in immigration detention centers that the continuity of care after discharge is not being honored. If true, we fear that these letters can contribute to the continued neglect and inhumane detention of New Yorkers. Careful tracking, reporting, and auditing of these requests could make the difference between detained New Yorkers returning to their community or languishing in immigration detention centers.

Second, we hope that the IRC will formally partner with immigrant patient advocacy organizations like Health Justice for New York behind us, NLP, as they consider policies, implementation, and ongoing reporting. And lastly, we ask the committee pass a resolution to support State Bill— Senate Bill 10494, the Safe Access to Care Act. The bill would require every hospital in New York, public or private, to adopt written protections.

Right now, only H&H is stepping up to volunteer, but this bill would close the gap for everyone. Thank you again for your time. I look forward to continued collaboration support the health and safety of New Yorkers. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Our next and what looks like final panel will be, uh, I believe ladies, you came back. Yeah, I see you. De La Rosa from La Colmena, Stephanie Delia from Little Haiti, BK. I almost said BX. I thought it was my neighborhood. I was like, ah, Nazia Faiza. And that's from Health Justice for New York. And Steven Averbatch from Health Justice for New York.

And if anyone is here to testify and has not been called, please fill out one of these forms over at the front. Our sergeant-at-arms always taking care of us, making sure we're on point. You may begin.

Thank you, Chair Encarnacion and New York City Council Immigration Committee, for hearing us today. My name is Stephanie Delia. and I'm the executive director of Little Haiti BK. On July 27th, 2026, over half a million Haitian TPS recipients lost status, and over 100,000 Syrian immigrant TPS recipients lost status. We know by those sheer numbers alone that there are not enough immigration lawyers to represent each and every single one of them.

In response to that, I think the city has a duty to start to focus substantially more on pro se services. If we cannot be there with them, at least give them the tools, the information, and the confidence to support themselves. I used to work with CUNY Citizenship Now, and I know personally that they are one of the best at doing this work.

Little Haiti BK is partnering with them to provide legal services so that people could be prepared to represent themselves pro se, as many of the former CPS recipients are receiving no notices to appear to show up in court. We have seen by the prior reports that some of the agencies unfortunately are sharing information, and so some of the TPS— former TPS recipients attending court are not safe.

In addition to just immigration services, I cannot stress the importance of preparedness planning. Specifically, it is important that people protect their children, protect their money, come up with an emergency plan so that they could help protect themselves and get their documents in order so that if they are picked up by ICE unexpectedly, an attorney who is prepared to assist them can get the documents quickly.

We know that this administration is transporting parents or people to other states, and so to the extent somebody gets picked up in New York and ends up going to Louisiana, we want to ensure that if they have any— the proper orders, guardianship orders filed for their children, that at one point they could be reunited and families do not get separated.

Lastly, when it comes to protecting their money, a lot of the Haitian TPS recipients have been in America for a very long time. They own businesses, they own property, they have made a living here. They have a huge portion of this community in the healthcare industry. They have pensions, they have 401 plans, some of them have small businesses, and I think it's very important that the city starts to consider manners to ensure that they are able to protect some of their funds if they are unexpectedly removed.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Chair Encarnación. My name is Ladies de la Rosa, and I'm the advocacy coordinator at La Colmena. We're a nonprofit community-based organization working with day laborers, domestic workers, and other low-wage immigrant workers in Staten Island through organizing, education, culture, and equitable economic development. On September 13th, on Port Richmond Avenue in Staten Island, we celebrated Mexican Independence Day with a colorful and vibrant parade.

And just a few days later, ICE enforcement activity took place on those same streets, terrorizing members of our community. Our staff was there, and they witnessed an ICE officer threatening a child. These are not stories that we hear from the news. As local organizations, we are learning about these incidents directly from the people in our community. who are experiencing them.

This is why community-based organizations are so important in New York City. Organizations like La Colmena play a critical role in building trust, educating workers about their rights, and connecting community members with appropriate legal, mental health, and other support services. We are already receiving calls from community members about what they're experiencing and what they should do when they encounter immigration enforcement.

While strengthening NYPD protocols is an important step, forward, we also have to recognize the reality on the ground. Some immigrant workers and families may feel safer reaching out to a trusted community organization than directly to a government agency. This is why the city must make concrete investments in community-based organizations that are already trusted by immigrant communities. We could receive and document reports, connect people with legal assistance and other services, and follow up with community members and help ensure that incidents do not go unaddressed.

Executive Order 13, as was said, is an important step towards strengthening New York City's sanctuary protections, but protections on paper are only enough— are not enough. Those protections must be understandable, accessible, and meaningful in practice. City protections only work if people know about them, trust them, and feel safe enough to use them. Thank you for your continuous commitment to the people of New York City and for allowing me to testify.

Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Nazia Fiazi. I'm a steering member of Health Justice for New York, and I'm currently a grad student studying data analytics and public health policy at Mount I'm here with also committee member Steve Arbuck. My background has been in neuroscience research and management. I say this because it's relevant to what I'm about to say.

I'm also here from a personal experience. I was once an immigrant myself. I'm— so I understand the challenges immigrants face is not always visible in a policy document or statistic. Sometimes they are simply the fear and uncertainty that come with interacting with institutions you don't always know that you can trust. That is why I believe that protecting immigrant New Yorkers has to mean more than creating policies on paper.

These protections have to be something people can actually feel when they walk into a hospital or a shelter, a school, or city agency. For many immigrants, there, there's already a fear of interacting with the government. When you add the fear of immigration enforcement, that fear can become a barrier to getting help. Someone may be sick but hesitate to go to the hospital.

A parent may need assistance for their child but be afraid to ask for it. Someone experiencing domestic violence, a mental health crisis, or another urgent situation may worry about what information will be collected and where it could go. From a health— public health perspective, this matters because fear can become a barrier to care. I believe the city should focus not only on whether agencies have the correct policies, but on whether New Yorkers can actually understand those protections.

I would like to see clear multilingual information about immigrant rights available where people receive services that are not buried on hard-to-navigate government websites. I would also like to see regular training for city employees that are front-facing with immigrants so that people receive the same protections regardless of which agency or employee they interact with. I believe the city should be able to have ways to measure whether these policies are doing what they say they are, how effective they are working for the people.

We need to understand if people are avoiding healthcare and other essential services because they're afraid. Are agencies consistently following these procedures that are already in place and what gaps are missing? In addition, I want us to think about this through the experience of immigrant women. During my times as a case manager at a family shelter, it was predominantly immigrant women immigrant women who represented their families.

These women were seeking healthcare for pregnancy, domestic violence, mental health, and other pertinent services. A lot of times I had tough conversations with these folks about doing what's best for them while trying to calm their feels about putting themselves and their families at risk by getting their basic needs care— taken care of. My message today is simple: a right that people are afraid to exercise is not truly accessible.

New York City has an opportunity to make its protections practical, understandable, and accessible to the people who need them. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

Hi, I'm Dr. Steve Auerbach with Health Justice for New York. Thank you for having us again in front of this committee. Wish it wasn't so necessary. We have supported in the past, in 2025, in 214, 1268, and 1272, and 1412. Um, and earlier this year, 55 and 261. And of course, the New York Trust Act and 395 and 396, uh, which I think we'll be getting new numbers.

We support all of those. Um, and of course, the, um, Mayor's Executive Order 13. What has been shown with the audit is that there needs to be actual enforcement Including consequences for persons who violate existing sanctuary laws and the executive order. That needs to include, and it is politically tough, but it needs to include if you're going to actually have law enforcement, uh, equal under the law for everybody, members of DOC, NYPD, et cetera, who violate existing statute and executive order.

Number one. Number two, we support, of course, uh, S. 4814. We call on our joint Senator Schumer to use his power as majority leader to whip the, um, a handful of, uh, Democrats who have not signed on to it, including in our neighbor Connecticut. Um, we also, uh, co-wrote with Attorney General James, um, and feel very proud of the New York state law legislature, Safe Access to Care Act that was mentioned earlier.

It is carried by Rivera S. 10494 and A.M. Forrest A. 11537. And we would call on both passage in the New York State legislature and perhaps a copycat legislation at the city level. And finally, I really want to call upon— and this is my main message— I want to call upon the city council and the mayor to use whatever means necessary, whether it's the bully pulpit or calling stakeholders together, to involve the private voluntary hospitals, whether it's individually or through their group, the Greater New York Hospital Association, Hospital Association of the State of New York, to also obey these laws.

Senior management at some of those hospitals, including their boards of directors, include MAGA supporters, and they have been very reticent to follow New York City and New York state law. And there needs to be consequences. There are levers, including zoning, taxes, and licensing of facility licensing that can be brought to bear if they're non-cooperative. Thank you very much.

We do have one witness on Zoom, so I'm going to take an opportunity to call that panel. Thank you all for your testimony, and I look forward to seeing you at other future hearings. Our witness on Zoom, Amanda Powers from NYC Anti-Violence Project. If you're ready, you can begin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Encarnacion and the committee, for holding this public hearing to address Executive Order 13. My name is Amanda Powers, and I am a legal fellow at the New York City Anti-Violence Project, or AVP. AVP provides critical holistic support and legal services to LGBTQ+ and HIV-positive people in New York City. Thank you. HIV-positive survivors of violence, including many immigrant survivors of violence in New York City.

Today, in addition to discussing EO 13, I offer my voice on behalf of the queer immigrant survivors of violence who AVP serves to urge you to pass critical legislation that will allow immigrant New Yorkers who have survived violence to feel safe interacting with city government, specifically the New York City Trust Act, Intro 209, as well as former Intro 395 and 396, and thank you, Chair Encarnacion, for sharing your ongoing support for 395 and 396.

At AVP, our immigrant clients live in constant fear of ICE detention or deportation because of the devastating reality that for many LGBTQ+ immigrants, deportation is a death sentence, and ICE detention centers are sites of anti-LGBTQ+ violence. One of our clients, A transgender woman who came to New York City seeking safety from the transphobic violence in her home country is currently sitting in solitary confinement in an all-male immigration detention center in Louisiana.

In detention, she has experienced transphobic attacks and violent harassment from guards and been denied access to necessary medical care. Before her detention, she survived violent rape in New York City but did not report it to the police because she was afraid that doing so would lead to her being targeted by ICE. Now, months later, AVP has helped her report the crime from inside ICE detention in Louisiana.

Her reality is the reality that LGBTQ+ immigrant New Yorkers understandably fear they will experience if their information is shared with ICE. This fear is holding back AVP clients from interacting with city agencies at many levels. AVP operates a crisis hotline for queer survivors of violence in New York City. So we hear every day— I'm sorry? We hear every day from community members who are experiencing abuse and exploitation, but who feel that they cannot seek help from city agencies because they believe that government contact will lead them to further violence at the hands of ICE.

We hear stories from hotline users and clients about how this fear of ICE prevents domestic violence victims from seeking government resources to enable leaving their abusers or from relying on the city's shelter system after fleeing abuse, and how it's keeping LGBTQ+ survivors of violence from pursuing their winnable immigration cases because they believe that interacting with any government entity will make them a target for federal immigration enforcement.

Passing the New York City Trust Act and Intros 395 and 396 are important steps toward rebuilding trust with immigrant New Yorkers, and specifically with the LGBTQ+ survivors of violence who we work with at AVP. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.

We have now heard from everyone who has signed up to testify. If we inadvertently missed anyone who would like to testify either in person, please visit the sergeant's table if you're here in person and complete a witness slip now. If we inadvertently missed anyone who would like to testify virtually, please use the raise hand function in Zoom, and a member of our staff will call on you in the order of your hand raised.

I will now read the names of those who registered to testify but have not yet filled out a witness slip or appeared on Zoom. Sean S.N., The Native Claim Firm. Okay, seeing no one else, I would like to note again that written testimony, which will be reviewed in full by committee staff, may be submitted to the rec— on to the record up to 72 hours after the close of this hearing by emailing it to testimony@council.nyc.gov.

Thank you, everyone. This hearing is hereby adjourned. Thank you.