"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Despite two years of blather and broken promises, the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum at the border hasn’t advanced much over Trump’s. That’s a shame, because the tools and expertise to fix the system are available, yet largely ignored by the Administration. It might come to a head on Dec. 22. Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
As experts predicted, the Biden Administration’s poorly-conceived and ineptly implemented “expedited asylum dockets” have sharply diminished favorable outcomes and due process for asylum seekers in a broken system already stacked against them. This preventable disaster is particularly acute for the too many unrepresented applicants who have little chance of relief in a system designed to reduce them to dehumanized denial statistics.
But, the real “sleeper” here is that over three quarters of the cases “referred” by the Asylum Office are GRANTED by the Immigration Courts. This shows a gross “over-referral” of cases to the Immigration Courts that could and should be expeditiously granted at the Asylum Office. The Administration’s regulation change to give Asylum Officers more authority to grant asylum at the first instance has not had the positive effects it should have.
Of course, the Administration’s unforgivable failure to “leverage” asylum grants for recently arrived refugees cripples their border response and creates fodder for GOP White Nationalist xenophobes. It builds unnecessary backlogs and promotes “aimless docket reshuffling” in Garland’s disgracefully dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged EOIR!
But, beyond that, this statistic also projects that a large part of EOIR’s largely self-inflicted “asylum backlog” consists of clearly grantable, represented “affirmative” asylum cases referred by the Asylum Office. Rather than working with the private bar to identify and prioritize these cases in an orderly, professional manner for expedited grants, Garland has done the exact opposite!
The problem of mass over-referral to EOIR by the Asylum Office is hardly “today’s news.” Indeed, in 2016, the year I retired from the bench, 83% of the “affirmative” referrals by the Asylum Office were GRANTED in Immigration Court! https://www.statista.com/statistics/234398/affirmative-asylum-case-grant-rate-by-us-immigration-courts/ And, that was with a BIA setting precedents that were generally, and quite incorrectly, unfavorable to asylum seekers. Of course the latter problem has also gotten worse in the intervening years.
As I have pointed out before, despite two years to reform and improve the asylum system at both DHS and EOIR, the Biden Administration appears woefully unprepared to reinstitute the rule of law for asylum seekers on December 22 in a manner that is fair, efficient, reasonable, and humane. Failure to solve the long-festering problem of under-granting asylum and over-referring cases to EOIR is just part of the overall ineptitude, lack of dynamic leadership, absence of vision, and, frankly, moral vapidity of the Biden Administration on human rights and racial justice.
Failure to timely and competently grant asylum at the first instance is a major driver of disorder and backlogs at both USCIS and EOIR. That’s basically “Good Government 101,” apparently not required to work on immigration in this Administration.
The process requires close coordination and cooperation with NGOs and the pro bono bar for representation (essential for due process), quick identification and granting of strong cases, and orderly resettlement (in place of the random bussing by GOP grandstanding governors curiously empowered by the Biden Administration’s lack of leadership).
But, if there is a plan by the Administration to involve the private sector in a positive manner, it’s certainly a secret. That’s tragic, as the imbalance in experience, expertise, and competence between the private bar, where it resides, and the Administration, where it doesn’t, has reached incomprehensible levels!
I always hope for the best, even when it’s against the odds. But, if disaster and massive human rights violations unfold on and after Dec. 22, expect the Biden Administration, like Trump, to blame everybody but themselves.
The job of creating order out of disorder is likely to fall primarily on NGOs and advocates at or near the border. As always, the first priority is saving as many refugee lives as possible. But, the next priority is to hold the Biden Administration accountable and not let them shift the blame for their self-created disorder at the border and the predictable, yet avoidable, mess they appear determined to create!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
NPR: This has been the deadliest year ever for migrants trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. More than 800 migrants have died border-wide in the fiscal year that ends this week, according to internal government figures shared by a senior Border Patrol official.
NYT: For now, the changes are tiny; only 99 people since the end of May have completed what are called asylum merits interviews with an asylum officer and been fully evaluated under the new rules. Of those, 24 have been granted asylum, while most of the rest have had their cases sent back to the immigration court system for an appeal.
NYT: The decision to leave the cap at 125,000 was a contrast with the Trump administration, which severely restricted entry, but advocacy groups said migrants were still processed too slowly.
CNN: National security adviser Jake Sullivan and homeland security adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall, among other White House officials, met with the representatives of 19 countries at the White House to iron out the implementation of that declaration and appoint a special coordinator for each country, according to the senior administration official.
Intercept: The Warden of what was once one of the nation’s most notorious immigration detention facilities was arrested this week after allegedly killing one migrant and wounding another in the desert of rural West Texas.
Forbes: Compelling new research finds immigrants, including those with less than a high school degree, provide enormous fiscal benefits and a significant subsidy to U.S. taxpayers.
Reuters: In the first eight months of 2022, Royal Canadian Mounted Police intercepted 23,358 asylum-seekers crossing into the country at unofficial entry points, 13% more than all of 2017, when an influx of border-crossers at Roxham Road, near the Quebec-New York border, made international headlines.
Politico: Because cannabis remains illegal at a federal level, all employers — even those licensed at the state level — lack access to E-Verify, a government service that helps businesses verify immigration status. They also cannot use visa programs like H-2A and H-2B, which facilitate legal immigration of farmworkers in other industries… The Oregon legislature in the last 12 months set aside more than $31 million for law enforcement and advocacy groups working to combat illicit cannabis cultivation and help undocumented workers in the industry.
NPR: What is the connection between climate change, the movement of people around the globe, and the rise of xenophobic politicians? That’s the overarching question we’re hoping to answer with this reporting trip.
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review whether the Fifth Circuit was right to reject a Guatemalan woman’s deportation case on the grounds that she hadn’t gone through a final round of administrative appeals.
Law360: The Third Circuit has affirmed an Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal judge’s rejection of a Dominican Republic citizen’s appeal of his conviction on firearm and immigration law offenses — albeit for different reasons than the lower court.
Law360: The State Department will not have to schedule visa interviews for 12 winners of the 2022 Diversity Visa Lottery, after a D.C. federal judge found that the selectees didn’t show a high likelihood of proving that the Biden administration unlawfully delayed their interviews.
Law360: An Ohio federal judge on Wednesday said the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals wrongly tossed a woman’s visa petition for her Ghanian husband over a previous “sham marriage,” saying whether the prior marriage was actually fake was open to dispute.
Law360: The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday hit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in D.C. federal court, accusing the agency of improperly withholding access to records regarding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees’ access to counsel.
AP: The request comes in a lawsuit filed by migrants seeking compensation from the government after thousands of children were taken from parents in a policy maligned as inhumane by political and religious leaders around the world. Settlement talks with attorneys and the government broke down late last year.
AP: A companion complaint Wednesday to the office of civil rights at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security documents retaliation, including restrictions on access to legal representation and a falsified accusation of misconduct against an immigrant under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
Reuters: Two U.S. government employees said they experienced retaliation after they sounded alarms about the conditions at Fort Bliss, which has been used for emergency housing since March 2021, according to the report issued by the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) inspector general’s office.
USCIS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced an extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burma for an additional 18 months, from Nov. 26, 2022, through May 25, 2024, due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Burma that prevent individuals from safely returning.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Despite disingenuous claims otherwise, the overhyped “launch” of asylum “reform” has been a “dud” — producing little for the Administration but even less for legitimate refugees and due process advocates caught up in the mind-boggling dysfunction of the failed Mayorkas/Garland asylum system. PHOTO: NASA/Joel Kowsky Public Realm
As border deaths continue to soar, nativist GOP Governors use humans as political pawns, and conditions in refugee sending countries deteriorate, the Biden Administration’s failed human rights/racial justice bureaucracy has no answers!
By attempting to replicate, remarkably even touting, the unrealistically high denial rates produced by the previous system — too often the result of badly flawed adjudications, poorly trained officers and judges, lack of effective representation, chronic systemic anti-asylum bias, and overly restrictive, anti-asylum precedents produced by a BIA loaded with anti-asylum zealots by the Trump Administration — Mayorkas and Garland have basically guaranteed continuing human rights abuses and defective adjudication of claims.
Truth is, even during the height of the overt anti-asylum program of the Trump Administration, approximately 70% of those whose claims were “referred” by the Asylum Office were eventually granted protection in Immigration Court.
According to Human Rights First (“HRF”), an international human rights organization, in Fiscal Year 2021, 68% of asylum cases referred to immigration court by the AO were subsequently granted protection.[1] With nearly 70% of claims being granted in FY2021, this represents a clear and apparent waste of judicial resources.
And, this was with a legal system with overly restrictive precedents that clearly and improperly manipulated generous asylum laws AGAINST refugees, often hindered effective representation, and was “overseen” by many Immigration Judges who were hand-selected or retained by the Trump DOJ because they were “programmed to deny” asylum at outrageous rates. By granting only a pathetic 24 of 99 cases that actually were decided over four months, and “referring” the rest to Garland’s beyond dysfunctional “courts” (currently fighting an indescribably stupid all-out “war” with NGOs and pro bono attorneys), Mayorkas hasn’t come anywhere close to “leveraging” the system to locate, prioritize, timely grant many more legitimate cases, and drastically reduce the huge number of unnecessary referrals to EOIR.
Rather than “cleaning house” at USCIS and EOIR, bringing in dynamic, qualified leaders, expert adjudicators and judges who can timely recognize the many legitimate claims, working with NGOs and pro bono groups to get all asylum seekers represented, and utilizing the expert training resources that currently exist outside Government, Mayorkas and Garland are perpetrating the same anti-asylum myths spewed out by Miller, Trump, and company! Essentially, instead of fixing the fatal flaws in the current system, the Biden Administration has chosen to institutionalize and expedite them! That’s insane!
The Biden Administration’s failure to do the butt-kicking, bold, thoughtful work necessary to establish robust, timely, efficient, refugee and asylum systems is dragging down our legal system, promoting racial injustice, perpetrating xenophobic myths, advancing “worst practices,” harming, sometimes killing, legitimate refugees fleeing repressive regimes, and denying American communities legal residents who could be using their skills to help build a stronger economy and a better future for America.
With thousands of asylum seekers from countries where persecution is well-documented being “orbited” by nativist GOP Governors, the Biden Administration was presented with a golden opportunity to work with NGOs, states, and local governments to coordinate resettlement, get them competently represented, and grant asylum in a fair and timely manner, thus demonstrating how an improved asylum system could work with proper staffing, attitudes, and legal guidance. Instead, the Administration has chosen to waste time on a “thudding dud” of a pilot that shows a stunning lack of leadership, courage, imagination, initiative, humanity, and respect for the rule of law!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Professor Alberto Benitez reports:
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, K-H-, from Indonesia, and her student-attorneys, Jordan Nelson, Julia Yang, and Alex Chen. The client’s asylum application was filed on December 3, 2018, she had two interviews at the Asylum Office, on November 10, 2021 and March 2, 2022, and she was granted asylum on May 24, 2022. We received the notice today. The above-captioned is what K-H- said upon learning about her asylum grant.
K-H- is a lesbian woman. Throughout her life, she has had to hide her identity for fear that her family would disown her and that she would be arrested, physically harmed, or even killed if she was outed in her country. K-H- came to the U.S. in 2017 to work as a nanny. During that time, her host family was also hostile towards members of the LGBTQ+ community. Afraid once again, K-H- moved households and with the support of that host family and the Immigration Clinic, she decided to apply for asylum so that she could live her life openly as a lesbian woman. K-H- now volunteers for several LGBTQ+ initiatives, including a theater program for LGBTQ+ people of color. She finds that sharing her story is therapeutic. When Professor Vera asked how K-H- planned to celebrate, she replied that she will be celebrating with her new girlfriend.
Congrats again to my friends Alberto and Paulina and their talented students!
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
Proving the “Dzubow Rule:”“The winners are out here! We just have to get them represented and to merits determinations before competent adjudicators in a hopelessly backlogged system.”
How many refugees like K-H- have been arbitrarily and illegally returned to danger and harm by the Biden and Trump Administrations with no process at all, let alone due process of law? Cutting off the right to make and be fairly heard on claims to asylum and mandatory legal protection is a major human rights violation by our Government!
What DHS SHOULD have said about reinstitution of our legal asylum system at the border:
“The Department of Homeland Security works to secure and manage our borders while building, maintaining, and improving a fair and orderly immigration system. That includes a fair and timely system for granting asylum or other forms of refuge from persecution or torture to qualified applicants. Insuring legal protection for refugees is a critical part of DHS’s mission of administering and enforcing the laws.
Violence, political upheaval, war, genocide, religious intolerance, racism, food insecurity, poverty, femicide, child abuse, environmental disasters, rampant corruption, and prospects of starvation in several areas around the world are driving unprecedented levels of migration to our Southwest Border. The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which involved the temporary suspension of our system for legal immigration, including admission of asylees and other refugees, has only exacerbated these challenges. A number of sources, including human smuggling organizations, peddle misinformation about entering the United States or coming to our borders.
With the restoration of our legal immigration system on the horizon, only two groups of foreign nationals will generally qualify for admission at our borders: first, those in possession of visas or equivalent documents usually issued by U.S. consular officers abroad; and second, those who can establish that they qualify for asylum or other forms of legal protection from return to persecution and/or torture.
Under our laws, asylum can only be granted to those reasonably fearing harm because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Other foreign nationals facing harm not amounting to “torture” in their home countries will not be eligible for admission under our laws. Those who apply or are apprehended at or near the border and cannot show a “credible fear” of harm because of one of the foregoing grounds will be summarily removed from our country.
In short, if you do not have a valid visa or a bona fide claim for asylum or other legal protection, you should not make the journey to the U.S. border. You will be apprehended and summarily returned to your home country in accordance with our laws.
DHS is implementing a comprehensive strategy to address a potential increase in the number of border encounters. That strategy includes:
Acquiring and deploying many more trained Asylum Officers to legal ports of entry to promptly decide “credible fear” cases for asylum seekers;
Delivering a more efficient, fair, and timely asylum process by allowing Asylum Officers to grant credible, well-documented claims at the border;
Working with NGOs, legal aid groups, and local governments to provide legal counseling and representation to those seeking asylum;
Working with NGOs, religious organizations, and other social services entities in the U.S. to assist in orderly resettlement of those granted asylum or whose cases cannot be timely processed at the border;
Processing and removing those who do not have valid claims; and
Working with the UNHCR, NGOs, and other countries globally to manage migration and address root causes.
With the restoration of a fair and timely asylum and protection processing system at our legal ports of entry, all asylum applicants should apply in an orderly fashion only at those ports. That will be the safest, most efficient way of applying, offer the greatest opportunities for legal representation, and increase the chances of timely, legal admission into the United States for those who are qualified.
Those who attempt to avoid legal processing at ports of entry by unauthorized entry may well find their lives endangered by unscrupulous smugglers. Additionally, those who attempt to avoid the legal process available at ports of entry might subject themselves to detention, additional grounds for removal, bars on future reentry, and criminal prosecution. With the return of full legal immigration and improved asylum processing to ports of entry, DHS will be able to devote more enforcement resources to locating and apprehending those attempting irregular entry into the U.S. DHS will also target human smuggling operations.
There is broad agreement that our immigration system is fundamentally broken. The Biden-Harris Administration continues to call on Congress to pass legislation that holistically addresses the root causes of migration, fixes the immigration system, and strengthens legal pathways.”
FACT SHEET: DHS Preparations for a Potential Increase in Migration
Release Date: March 30, 2022
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works to secure and manage our borders while building a fair and orderly immigration system. The CDC has announced that, on May 23, 2022, its Title 42 public health Order will be terminated. As a result, beginning on May 23, 2022, DHS will no longer process families and single adults for expulsion pursuant to Title 42. Instead, DHS will process them for removal under Title 8. Until May 23, 2022, the CDC’s Title 42 Order remains in place, and DHS will continue to process families and single adults pursuant to the Order.
Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), are subject to additional long-term consequences beyond removal from the United States, including bars to future immigration benefits.
DHS is implementing a comprehensive strategy to address a potential increase in the number of border encounters.
The strategy includes: 1) Acquiring and deploying resources to address increased volumes; 2) Delivering a more efficient and fair immigration process; 3) Processing and removing those who do not have valid claims; and 4) Working with other countries in the Western Hemisphere to manage migration and address root causes.
Violence, food insecurity, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity in several countries in the Western Hemisphere are driving unprecedented levels of migration to our Southwest Border. The devastating economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the region has only exacerbated these challenges. Human smuggling organizations peddle misinformation that the border is open. DHS is implementing a comprehensive strategy to address a potential increase in the number of border encounters.
There is broad agreement that our immigration system is fundamentally broken. The Biden-Harris Administration continues to call on Congress to pass legislation that holistically addresses the root causes of migration, fixes the immigration system, and strengthens legal pathways.
1. Acquiring and deploying resources to address increased volumes.
Developed an integrated and scalable plan to activate and mobilize resources.
DHS initiated a Southwest Border contingency planning effort last fall. Last month, the Secretary designated a Senior Coordinating Official and established the Southwest Border Coordination Center (SBCC) to coordinate planning, operations, engagement, and interagency support.
Ready to surge personnel and resources to the Southwest Border.
DHS has moved officers, agents, and DHS Volunteer Force personnel to rapidly decompress points along the border and more efficiently process migrants.
Increasing CBP temporary holding capacity to process high volumes of individuals in a humane manner.
CBP has mobilized resources to rapidly stand up, expand, and/or reinforce Central Processing Centers in order to provide more efficient end-to-end processing for migrants encountered at the Southwest Border. Additionally, more ICE staff will be deployed to the border to facilitate processing.
Utilized appropriated resources to improve border processing
In its FY22 appropriations bill, Congress provided an additional $1.45 billion for a potential Southwest Border surge, including $1.06 billion for CBP soft-sided facilities, medical care, transportation, and personnel costs; $239.7 million for ICE for processing capacity, transportation, and personnel costs; and $150 million for FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program at the Southwest Border. Earlier this week, President Biden submitted to Congress its FY23 Budget, which would fund the hiring of 300 new Border Patrol Agents and 300 new Border Patrol Processing Coordinators.
While the 2022 appropriation exceeded the request and represents a historic funding level for DHS, the appropriation would not be sufficient to fund the potential resource requirements associated with the current increase in migrant flows. DHS will fund operational requirements by prudently executing its appropriations; reprioritizing and reallocating existing funding through reprogrammings and transfers; requesting support from other Federal agencies; and finally, by engaging with Congress on any potential need for supplemental appropriations, as necessary.
Implementing COVID mitigation measures
The health and safety of the DHS workforce, communities, and migrants themselves is a top priority. CBP provides PPE to migrants who cannot be expelled under the CDC’s Title 42 order or are awaiting processing from the moment they are taken into custody, and migrants are required to keep masks on at all times. CBP also works with appropriate agencies that facilitate testing, isolation, and quarantine of migrants.
DHS has also been providing the COVID-19 vaccines to noncitizens in ICE custody since summer 2021. Beginning March 28, 2022, DHS expanded those efforts to cover migrants in CBP custody, so as to further safeguard public health and ensure the safety of border communities, the workforce, and migrants. These efforts will be ramped up over the next two months, to cover the majority of noncitizens taken into CBP custody.
In addition, DHS is putting in place decompression plans to protect against the kind of overcrowding that facilitates the spread of COVID-19.
2. Delivering a more efficient and fair immigration process.
Issued rule to expedite asylum claims.
On March 24, 2022, DHS and the Department of Justice issued a rule to improve and expedite processing of asylum claims made by recently arriving noncitizens, which provides for the expeditious granting of relief to those who have valid claims for asylum and prompt removal of those whose claims are denied. Once implemented at scale in the coming months, the rule will transform how cases are processed at the border. In President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget to Congress, he makes good on the promise of this rule by investing $375 million to hire the personnel needed to quickly process asylum claims.
A Dedicated Docket process for more efficient immigration hearings.
In partnership with the Department of Justice, DHS established a new, more efficient process called the Dedicated Docket to conduct speedier and fair immigration proceedings for families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. As a result, the length of time it takes for many of these cases to reach a final disposition has decreased from years to months.
Increased efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations that exploit vulnerable migrants
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of State, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice launched a counter-network targeting operation focused on transnational criminal organizations affiliated with the smuggling of migrants.
This Operation targets criminal networks that profit from a broad range of illicit activities, such as human smuggling, by using targeted enforcement actions against them, including by denying access to travel and freezing bank accounts.
3. Processing and removing those who do not have valid claims.
Continuing to process migrants in accordance with the laws of the United States, including expeditiously removing those who do not have valid claims to remain in the United States.
Individuals who cross the border without legal authorization will be placed into removal proceedings and, if unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States, expeditiously removed. Those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and without a valid asylum claim, are subject to additional long-term consequences beyond removal from the United States, including bars to future immigration benefits.
Bringing targeted prosecutions of smugglers, repeat offenders, and those who seek to evade law enforcement.
In close coordination with the Department of Justice, DHS will refer border-related criminal activity to DOJ for prosecution where warranted, including that of smugglers, repeat offenders, and migrants who seek to evade U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Customs and Border Protection also continues to enforce its Repeat Offender initiative to target recidivism. Any single adult apprehended along the Southwest Border a second time, after having previously been apprehended and removed under Title 8, is referred for criminal prosecution. This initiative has improved DHS’s ability to escalate consequences and conserve processing resources.
4. Working with other countries in the Western Hemisphere to manage migration and address root causes.
Working closely with source and transit countries in the region to deter migration.
The Administration is working with source and transit countries in the region to facilitate the quick return of individuals who previously resided in those countries, as well as stem migration at its source. DHS, in coordination with the Department of State, has regular discussions with partner countries in the Hemisphere on migration related matters and continues to engage with foreign governments to improve cooperation with countries that systematically refuse or delay the repatriation of their nationals.
Signed Migration Arrangement with Costa Rica to address irregular migration.
On March 15, 2022, Secretary Mayorkas traveled to Costa Rica where he joined President Alvarado in announcing a bilateral Migration Arrangement, outlining our shared commitment to both manage migrant flows as well as to promote economic growth in the region. DHS and the Department of State are currently engaged with other countries in the region to advance similar objectives.
Continuing close partnership with the Government of Mexico on migration-related issues.
The Biden-Harris Administration continues to maintain a close partnership between with the Government of Mexico to stem irregular migration, creating viable legal pathways, fostering legitimate trade and travel, and combating the shared dangers of transnational crime. In March, Secretary Mayorkas made his fourth official visit to Mexico City where he and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador committed to the promotion of lawful trade and travel and a regional approach to migration management.
As a sometimes law professor, “What if” is a question I can’t avoid!
The DHS “Fact Sheet” reads like an unprepared agency, planning to be overwhelmed by forces allegedly beyond their control, and looking for ways to shift the anticipated political fallout by blaming others: Congress, smugglers, foreign countries, COVID-19, the Trump Administration, and, in a particularly “low blow” the victims themselves — asylum seekers and other desperate migrants.
Let’s keep in mind that legitimate “refugees” have been largely “shut out” of our legal system for the past several years. Thus, many were left with little or no choice but to seek “do it yourself” refugee within our large “extralegal immigration subsystem.” Often they resort to smugglers and put themselves at increased risk after finding our borders closed to those orderly seeking protection under our laws. We have watched it unfold, and largely ignored the unsavory consequences of our own actions.
I’m certainly not the only one to see “planned disaster” for the Biden Administration on the horizon. Check out today’s WashPost lead editorial:
However, what if, with 51 days to go, advocates and NGOs could “flip the script” on “programmed failure” and make the asylum system at our border function fairly and efficiently, in spite of itself?
What if the “anticipated narrative” of an out of control border never came to pass? What if the U.S. could actually make the rule of law a reality at the border? What if reopening legal ports of entry for asylum seekers, thereby eliminating the pressure for “do it yourself refuge,” actually helped the Border Patrol concentrate on smugglers and those without any legal claim to remain here?
That might involve getting an “army” of volunteers to the border to:
Convince asylum seekers to trust the new system and apply in an orderly fashion only at ports of entry;
Work with the DHS to insure that any processing lists are established and controlled by legitimate authorities;
Leverage the potential for more rapid asylum grants by Asylum Officers by representing applicants and assisting them in documenting and presenting their claims in formats that will facilitate more AO grants;
Represent those improperly denied by the AO before the Immigration Courts and use effective, “practical scholarship,” expert advocacy, and compelling documentation to force due process and fundamental fairness into an Immigration Court system and a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals historically biased against asylum seekers at our borders;
Counsel those prima facie unqualified for asylum and those rejected after applying on possible alternatives outside the U.S.;
Work with authorities, local communities, and NGOs to provide viable resettlement opportunities for those granted asylum and safe, secure, and non-intrusive temporary living conditionson both sides of the border for those awaiting legal processing;
Advocate to the DHS for establishment of robust, realistic, generous, credible refugee programs for Latin America, Haiti, and elsewhere to reduce pressure on the border asylum system. A “viable alternative” to appearing at the border for refugees is what’s glaringly missing from both our past and current approaches.
Can change really come from below and outside the struggling DHS and EOIR systems? Frankly, I don’t know. But, we’re going to find out in the next several months! We can’t change history, but, perhaps, we can rewrite the future!
Report on Boston Asylum Office finds disproportionately low acceptance rates, bias against applicants
The office serving asylum seekers in and around Maine has the second lowest approval rate in the nation, according to a report by Maine immigrant advocacy groups.
The Boston Asylum Office has the second lowest acceptance rate of any office in the nation, and granted asylum to only 11 percent of its applicants in 2021, according to a report by Maine legal aid organizations handling immigration cases and advocates for reform.
The report says the office that serves asylum seekers in and around Maine is plagued by bias and burnout, and that its low grant rate is “driven by a culture of suspicion” toward asylum seekers.
The process of seeking asylum in the United States begins with an application to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Applicants must prove they are fleeing a country in which they previously suffered persecution or were at risk of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Applications go through asylum offices first, which can either grant asylum from the outset or refer an application to an immigration court for a judge to consider.
Jennifer Bailey, an attorney for the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project and one of the report’s authors, said almost all asylum seekers she works with eventually obtain asylum status through immigration court, after failing to be granted asylum at the Boston Asylum Office. But the court process can take years, and, while they’re waiting, applicants aren’t able to access federal student aid, social services or educational opportunities. Even worse, they spend that time away from their families, who can still be at risk.
“It’s not uncommon for people’s (families) left at home to die while they’re waiting, or to be lost within the violence,” Bailey said.
Collaborating with the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project on the report were the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic at the University of Maine School of Law, the ACLU of Maine and a visiting lecturer at Amherst College in Massachusetts who spent eight years waiting on a decision from the Boston Asylum Office and was ultimately denied in May 2021. Today, he and his family live in Canada.
During its first five years, the Boston office – which opened in 2015 and processes about 5,600 applications a year – granted roughly 15 percent of its asylum applications on average, the report states. Meanwhile, offices in San Francisco and New Orleans were accepting asylum requests at rates that were more than three times higher. Nationally, the acceptance rate from 2015 to 2020 was 28 percent, the report says.
The report acknowledged that asylum officers who approve or refer cases to court face a “complex and essential” list of responsibilities. Being overworked and having less time to consider cases often results in asylum officers sending more referrals to immigration court, said some former officers cited in the report.
Meanwhile, supervising officers play an “outsized” role in the asylum-granting process, according to the report. If an asylum officer recommends granting asylum and the supervisor disagrees, the officer could face retaliation in the form of more work or a negative performance evaluation, the report states.
PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD
The report’s authors contend that their research “strongly suggests” that Boston’s asylum office doesn’t consider applications from a neutral stance, “but rather presumes they must be fraudulent or pose a security threat.” Of 21 trainings for asylum officers mentioned in the report, 14 were focused on fraud detection. Former officers told the report’s authors that constantly hearing concerns about fraud and credibility made them think such problems were more prevalent than they were.
“They’re telling their story, which, no matter what, can involve this unimaginable trauma of torture and violence or sexual violence or death,” Bailey said of asylum seekers. “Put yourself in that position and imagine how hard it is to talk about the worst thing that’s ever happened to you in your life, and having this officer – who has the power to help you and your family – say ‘No, I don’t believe you.’”
According to the report, bias and skepticism in the office extend to certain countries. The Boston Asylum Office granted only 4 percent of asylum applications from the Democratic Republic of Congo from 2015 to 2020, even though the U.S. has acknowledged significant human rights violations in that country, including unlawful killings and torture, the report says. The office granted only 2 percent of its applications from Angola, another country where there is known abuse.
The Newark Asylum Office in New Jersey, which also serves some of New England, granted asylum to 17 percent of its applicants from Angola and 33 percent of its applicants from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
English-speaking applicants are nearly twice as likely to be granted asylum as non-English speakers, who are referred to immigration court 80 percent of the time, the report says. Asylum-seekers who can speak English are referred to immigration court just under 60 percent of the time.
. . . .
**************************
Read the rest of Emily’s fine article at the link.
I did lots of DRC cases over 13 years on the trial bench! Most had lawyers and were extremely well-documented. Often ICE didn’t oppose grants (prior to Trump).
In Arlington, with agreement from the parties, they were candidates for the “short docket.” Nearly all the DRC cases “referred” from the Arlington Asylum Office were granted upon “de novo” review in Immigration Court.
This is a prime example of how our asylum system seriously regressed under Trump and has not been fixed by Garland and Mayorkas! No wonder our Immigration Courts are hopelessly and unnecessarily backlogged with an astounding 1.6 million pending cases. Bad judging, systemic anti-asylum bias, lack of competence, and gross mismanagement by DOJ and DHS are taking a toll on democracy and humanity!
Pathetically and disingenuously, USCIS tries to blame their malfeasance and lack of competence on “the pandemic.” That drew one of the more perceptive public comments I’ve seen recently:
Pandemic restrictions didn’t create bias in other asylum offices – that’s a totally inadequate excuse.
For sure! Just like it’s a pretext for the elimination of our legal asylum system at the border that Garland disgracefully defends! Think that the “anti-asylum culture” problem ends with USCIS? Guess again?
Former Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions was never bashful about sharing his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic falsehoods and myths about asylum seekers with his “captive” Immigration Judges. That’s right, for those not “in the know,” amazingly the “courts” that are supposed to provide expert legal precedents on asylum law and give a “fresh look” to those cases not granted by the Asylum Office aren’t “courts” at all as most Americans know them. They are run by the chief law enforcement official of the United States, the Attorney General, even though they are called “Immigration Courts.”
Sessions actually made the following statement, unsupported by any hard evidence, to a group of his wholly owned “judges” on October 12, 2017:
“We also have dirty immigration lawyers who are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.”
At the same time, he announced that he was, on his own motion and over the objection of the DHS and the applicant, “undoing” the leading BIA precedent recognizing gender-based harm as a ground for asylum. For a good measure, he also warned his supposedly, but not really, “fair and impartial judges” that he expected them to strictly apply precedent — HIS precedents, that is. In other words, start cranking out those asylum denials or your career might be in peril!
Some judges chose to resign or retire. Some kept on doing their jobs conscientiously, legitimately “working around” Sessions’s poorly reasoned and factually inaccurate anti-asylum precedents. Many, however, chose to “go along to get along” with the anti-asylum program — some happily (there were reportedly some cheers and applause when Sessions announced his cowardly assault on vulnerable refugee women of color), some not.
So clearly wrong and totally off-base was Sessions’s assault on asylum-seeking women, primarily those of color, that even the otherwise timid and reticent AG Merrick Garland had to reverse it during his first year in office and restore the prior BIA precedent. However, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on properly and generously applying this potentially favorable, life-saving precedent.
President Biden charged Garland and Mayorkas with developing regulations on gender-based claims by October 2021. Obviously, that date has come and gone with the regulations still MIA!
Think that promoting a culture of xenophobia, racism, and overt bias has no effect? During the Trump Administration, although conditions for refugees, and particularly for refugee women, worsened over that time, the Immigration Court asylum grant rate fell precipitously — from more than 50% during the mid-years of the Obama Administration to only 23% during FY 2020, the last full year of the Trump regime.
The Immigration Courts and especially the BIA were “packed” by Sessions and his successor “Billy the Bigot” Barr with questionably qualified “judges” perceived to be willing to do their nativist bidding. Inexplicably, Garland has been unwilling to “unpack” them, despite these being DOJ attorney positions in the “excepted service,” NOT life-tenured Federal Judges.
Consequently, life or death asylum decisions today depend less on the legal merits of an applicant’s case than they do on the particular Immigration Judge assigned, the composition of the BIA “panel” on appeal, the Federal Circuit in which the case arises, and even the composition of the panel of U.S. Circuit Judges who might review the case.
They also depend on whether the applicant is fortunate enough to have a lawyer (not provided by the USG). Any unrepresented, often non-English-speaking asylum seeker has little or no chance of negotiating the intentionally arcane, opaque, unnecessarily hyper technical, and “user unfriendly” asylum system in Immigration “Court” without expert help.
Almost every week, the Circuit Courts of Appeals publish major decisions pointing out elementary legal and factual errors by the BIA’s “deportation railroad.” But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg! The vast majority of life-threatening errors by the Immigration Courts go uncorrected as the applicants are unable to pursue their cases to the Courts of Appeals or are “duressed” by DHS detention in substandard conditions into giving up viable claims.
Check out some of these denial rates by ten of Barr’s BIA appointees who previously served as Immigration Judges. Those judges are listed with their asylum denial rates, according to Syracuse University’s 2021 TRAC Reports:
Michael P. Baird (91.4%),
William A. Cassidy (99%),
V. Stuart Couch (93.3%),
Deborah K. Goodwin (91%),
Stephanie E. Gorman (92%),
Keith Hunsucker (85%),
Sunita Mahtabfar (98.7%),
Philip J. Montante, Jr. (96.3%),
Kevin W. Riley (90.4%),
Earle B. Wilson (98.2%)
Gee, these guys make even the artificially high nationwide asylum denial rates (76%) resulting from Trump’s all-out assault on due process and the rule of law look low by comparison! Gosh, only one of these Dudes was even within 10% (just barely) of that already outrageously high, artificially “reverse engineered” national denial rate.
Yet, inexplicably, these virulently anti-asylum judges continue to serve and negatively shape asylum law under Garland! Even “pre-Trump,” most of them avoided granting any asylum, in the face of precedents supposedly requiring generous application of the law in accordance with U.N. guidance and recognizing gender-based persecution as real.
So, it’s little surprise that no meaningful positive guidance or helpful interpretation has come from Garland’s BIA that might lead to expedited and consistent asylum grants to the many meritorious asylum cases now buried in his burgeoning 1.6 million case Immigration Court backlog! No wonder civil rights, human rights, equal justice, and Constitutional law experts consider Garland to be a failure as AG!
To date, Garland has appointed only one BIA Appellate Judge out of 21! That was to fill an existing vacancy. Judge Andrea Saenz is a superbly qualified asylum expert with scholarly credentials, “real life” experience representing asylum seekers in Immigration Court, clerking experience in those courts, and proven intellectual and practical leadership capabilities.
But, we need a “BIA of Judge Saenzes” — like yesterday! The talent is out there! But, Garland and his lieutenants have been too dilatory, tone deaf, and shockingly indifferent to these glaring due process, expertise, and racial justice issues to bring in the qualified judges and judicial administrators to fix his unjust, unfair, and grotesquely inefficient “courts.” Thus, the dysfunction grows, festers, and eventually destroys, maims, and kills! Is this really an appropriate “legacy” for a Dem Administration?
Today, in a WashPost OpEd, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President & CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, points out:
Why are members of this outrageous “protection deniers’ club” still on Garland’s broken and biased Immigration Court bench? You don’t have to be a human rights scholar or Constitutional law expert to see that there is something seriously wrong here that Garland is sweeping under the rug!
Yes, the best answer is an independent Article I Immigration Court, free from the mismanagement and political shenanigans of the DOJ, with a merit-based selection system for judges. But, that doesn’t absolve Garland from the responsibility to fix the existing system NOW before more lives are lost, futures ruined, and American justice irretrievably degraded!
The current racially discriminatory, scofflaw, patently unjust parody of a “court” system being run by Garland is as unacceptable as it is immoral!
Garland and Mayorkas have allowed this approach to asylum seekers to flourish on their watch. That raises serious questions about their suitability for their current positions! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“Interim Regulations” Aren’t The Answer!
Today, the Biden Administration released new “Interim Asylum Regulations” that appear designed to fail. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-06148.pdf. That’s because they don’t address the real competency, leadership, and legal problems plaguing the current system!
I won’t claim to have waded through every word of this entire 512-page mishmash of largely impenetrable bureaucratic gobbledygook. But, I can see it’s more tone-deaf micromanagement of the Immigration Court, along with the usual, arbitrary and capricious, unrealistic “off the wall” “time limits” that are guaranteed to make things worse, not better. It’s basically more of Garland’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and his “Treadmill for Immigration Attorneys” that have already helped fuel unprecedented backlogs amidst wildly inconsistent results and a steady stream of life-threatening errors from his dysfunctional “courts.”
As if the answer to a poorly functioning, hopelessly self-backlogged, incompetent, biased, and unfair system is to “speed it up!” Come on, man! That suggests, quite incorrectly, that the primary problems in our asylum system are something other than lack of competence, integrity, expertise, and leadership at DHS and DOJ!
In reality, Garland’s defective “assembly line justice” at EOIR is already cutting so many corners and being so careless and “denial focused” that a steady stream of elementary legal errors show up in the Courts of Appeals every week. How is speeding up an already unfair and error plagued system going to make it better?
The real answer is to move the many grantable asylum cases that pass credible fear through the system correctly, fairly, on a reasonable, timely, predictable basis, with representation. That requires more and better trained Asylum Officers; different, better Immigration Judges who know how to recognize and grant asylum and keep the parties moving through the system; a new BIA of practical scholars who are due-process-oriented human rights experts to set favorable, practical asylum and procedural precedents and to keep IJs, AOs, and counsel for both sides in line; and close cooperation and advance coordination with the private bar and NGOs to insure representation of all asylum seekers.
This “interim regulation” avoids and obfuscates the necessary personnel replacement, attitude adjustment, and changes to the “culture of denial and deterrence” required in the Executive Branch for our asylum system to work! I predict colossal failure!
Get ready to litigate, NDPA! This is an “in your face,” largely unilateral, insulting approach. Rather than respecting your expertise, dedication, abilities, and counsel in fundamentally changing this system, Mayorkas and Garland intend arrogantly to “shove it down your throats and the throats of asylum seekers” with their inferior personnel, a toxic culture of denial, bad attitudes, and poor lawyering! Accept the challenge to resist!`
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
KEY EXCERPT:
III.E. Limitation on Immigration Judge Review
We strongly oppose the proposal to severely restrict the right of those denied asylum by USCIS to a full de novo merits hearing before an Immigration Judge.Given these significant increases in efficiency mentioned above, the proposed restrictions are unnecessary to reduce the backlog.Regardless, even if EOIR and DHS disagree with this assessment, regulations may neither contradict the Congressional intent of statutes they seek to interpret, nor deny due process in the name of efficiency.Yet the proposed rule would violate both of these principles in the changes they propose to the Immigration Court procedures.
EOIR and DHS claim that the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), requiring “further consideration of the application for asylum” to those found to have a credible fear of persecution, is ambiguous.In fact, the legislative history of that statute demonstrates that Congress intended for all of those found to possess a credible fear of persecution to be afforded full Immigration Court hearings. At a 1996 hearing on the bill, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) assured that “[a] specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the [noncitizen] is found to have a ‘credible fear of persecution,’ he or she will be provided a full—full—asylum hearing.”EOIR and DHS are asked to note Sen. Simpson’s repetition of the word “full.”
This same sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,” and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”The regulatory proposal is thus improperly violative of Congressional intent.
As to due process, in a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids.
The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.”Our own experience supports this conclusion.Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.
Having heard as Immigration Judges many cases referred from the Asylum Office, we believe that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys were free to offer documents and briefs, and to present testimony as they saw fit, was the reason for the large disparity in outcomes. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why asylum officers, who need not be attorneys, are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law.
We can vouch from our experience on the bench to the importance of hearing live testimony in reaching the correct decision.We decided many cases in which in-person demeanor observations were instrumental to our credibility findings.Credibility is often a threshold issue in applications for asylum and related relief.In 2005, Congress specifically amended the criteria Immigration Judges may rely on in deciding credibility.While those criteria include their observations of the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness” (observations which cannot be made unless testimony is witnessed), there is no provision in the statute for reaching credibility findings by reviewing an asylum officer’s opinion on the topic.The court in Oshodi cited language in a House conference report on the REAL ID Act of 2005, containing the following quote: “An immigration judge alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluation of testimonial evidence. He [or she] is, by virtue of his [or her] acquired skill, uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.”
We can also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension.
Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes.Some of us teach trial advocacy skills to immigration attorneys, where we emphasize the importance of attorneys formulating a theory of their case, and then presenting documentary evidence and testimony in a manner best designed to support that theory.During our time on the bench, we looked forward to hearing well-presented claims from competent counsel; good attorneys increased efficiency, and usually led us to reach better decisions.And as former asylum officers have indicated that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, questioning in support of such theory will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
But under the proposed procedures, attorneys are largely relegated to passive observer status.At asylum office interviews, attorneys are only provided a brief opportunity to speak after the interview has been completed.And in cases referred to the Immigration Court, the new restrictions may prevent attorneys from presenting any testimony at all.
As to the criteria that must be met in order to supplement the record before the Immigration Judge, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.
******************************
Read our full commentary,, including some parts of the proposal we endorse, here:
Many, many, many thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for collecting the “sentiments of the group” and preparing these cogent comments under extreme pressure!
There are enormous downsides to border disorder, to immigration policy paralysis and to leaving the fates of more than 11 million current immigrants without any path to a secure future — even beyond the reinforcement it provides to the United States’ growing international reputation for dysfunction. No one gains by the chaos except smugglers who soak desperate migrants financially on their way north in hopes of a better life. The losers include not only the “dreamers” brought to this country as children, who must live in perpetual anxiety, but also the country as a whole, which loses the value of immigrants, skilled and otherwise, who would turbocharge entrepreneurship, create jobs and help the economy grow.
There are available solutions if Congress could overcome its horror of bipartisan compromise. The goal should be to establish a realistic annual quota of immigrant visas for Central Americans, Haitians and others desperate to reach this country who otherwise will cross the border illegally — a number that recognizes the U.S. labor market’s demand for such employees. That must be supplemented by a muscular guest worker program that enables legal border crossing for migrants who want to support families remaining in their home countries.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete editorial at the link.
It’s worth adding that the current “border disorder” is largely the result of White Nationalist, legally defective, anti-immigrant policies of the Trump regime compounded by the failure of Mayorkas and Garland to take the obvious, available, common sense steps necessary to reopen legal border ports of entry, to make the long overdue necessary reforms to establish a fair, efficient, and generous legal asylum system at the USCIS Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, and to insist on the creation of a robust, functional refugee program for Latin America and the Caribbean.
None of the this is “rocket science!” 🚀 Plenty of great blueprints for administrative reforms and the potential expert leadership to implement them were “out there for the taking” at the beginning of the Biden Administration. By dawdling, tapping the wrong leaders, and continuing enforcement policies and bad judicial practices that were proven failures, the Administration predictably put itself “behind the eight-ball” in establishing order and implementing the rule of law at our borders!
Until the Biden Administration ends its disgraceful, cowardly, illegal, cruel, ineffective, and inhumane reliance on bogus “Title 42” restrictions to suspend orderly legal processing at the border, they will continue to bobble the next predictable “border crisis.” The GOP will continue to spout nativist nonsense. Desperate people will continue to do desperate things. Only a tone-deaf Administration would continue to ignore this reality!
Garland’s Unwillingness To Install Progressive Competence @ EOIR Continues to Drag Down the Ship Of State! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Here’s a link to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
At first glance, this could potentially be a workable system, with some favorable aspects:
* Restores properly generous credible fear standard;
* Allows AO to grant well-established cases in first instance, even at the credible fear level, without referral to EOIR;
* Retains EOIR review of both credible fear and asylum denials;
* Doesn’t appear to affect pending and affirmative cases;
* Retains access to Circuit review of denials.
But, as with most things, the devil 👹 is in the details. And, personnel, leadership, direction, and accountability are absolute keys to success.
Without:
1) More and better Asylum Officers;
2) Far better training at the AO and EOIR (see, Michele Pistone);
3) Better IJs with proven expertise in asylum law and a demonstrated willingness to grant relief to worthy cases;
4) An entirely new BIA of progressive asylum experts to provide leadership, positive precedents, and accountability for both credible fear reviews and de novo asylum reviews;
5) An agreement with the private bar as to where and on what schedule these cases are to be heard, to achieve universal representation (see, Michele Pistone and VIISTA); and
6) Agreements with NGOs re housing, care, employment assistance to take pressure off particular communities;
this proposal appears to be “headed for failure.”
I can’t glean any of those essential characteristics from this NPR.
In their absence:
1) There are likely to be huge discrepancies in AO decisions;
2) Many current IJs, particularly from border areas, will simply “rubber stamp” both credible fear and asylum merits denials from the AO to keep the EOIR dockets moving and “make quota” (Lucas Guttentag, where are you?);
3) “Rubber stamping” of asylum denials is also endemic at the BIA, as currently comprised;
3) The current BIA will be reluctant to issue positive asylum precedents (not sure they even know how or have the ability to do so) and will likely concentrate on instructing AOs and the IJs on how to deny asylum or credible fear and have it stand up on review;
4) The private bar will be unable to keep up with the pro bono demand, causing many applicants to be unrepresented or underrepresented;
5) Asylum applicants will be concentrated in particular communities, often near the border, who will complain about the burdens being inflicted upon them by the Feds.
In other words, without better, expert, progressive leadership at both DHS and DOJ, and without major changes in personnel and training, this program will rapidly become a disaster, like other “streamlining” efforts that do not deal realistically with the practical aspects of implementation, particularly the qualifications, attitude, “culture,” and training of those making the actual decisions!A continuing lack of progressive leadership and expertise at the “retail level” will likely lead to widespread injustice, inconsistency, and eventually protracted litigation.
I am also concerned that the NPR appears to take the current 1.4 million case EOIR backlog (actually under-stated in the NPR as 1.3 million — Garland has grown it almost as rapidly as Barr-Sessions) as a “given.” But, there are readily available ways to dramatically slash this backlog by perhaps as much as 90% (see, Chen & Moskowitz plan) which would allow both IJs and the BIA to work on these cases “in real time” WITHOUT creating yet more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR (as the NPR, without the changes outlined above, is highly likely to do).
“Like the rest of us, Casey has no idea what Judge Garland is doing and what he hopes to achieve in his Star Chambers!” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
This leads me to reiterate Casey’s cosmic question: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”Ironically, there are many “all-star players” out here in the real world who can and would be “winners.” But, for whatever reason, to date, this Administration has unwisely chosen to leave most of them “on the sidelines” rather than giving them bats and gloves and putting them in the game. ⚾️ That’s painfully obvious at DOJ! Not a recipe for a “winning campaign” in my “preseason prediction.”
A FEW MONTHS BEFORE COVID-19 descended, I spent a week in Dilley, Texas, as a volunteer attorney at the South Texas Family Residential Center, which is essentially a holding center, specifically for women and their children. It’s the last stop before expedited removal and the place where many women and children are sent once they’ve claimed fear of persecution for the purpose of applying for asylum, or for those who have also been apprehended internally.
I was working with asylum seekers at the Mexican border port of entry, where people were held without answers for weeks, even months, while they awaited the next step in their asylum claims: the credible fear interview. If asylum seekers, fleeing persecution in their home countries, declare their fear of returning, they are detained as they await this interview, which will determine whether they can proceed to the next step: appearing before an immigration judge to request asylum. The conversation leads to a proverbial thumbs up or down, a trip to a courtroom or the border they just fled. If an asylum officer determines that their story has objective elements of credible fear, they may proceed to the next legal step. Officers essentially check required elements off a list, including what the specific act of persecution is, if the asylum seeker knows the reason why she’s been persecuted, how many times it happened, if she has sought help to remediate it, and more. In other words, asylum seekers’ lives depend on the hour or so answering questions spent either in a small room or, more likely, over the phone with a government official and interpreter.
Right now, our country again faces a critical point in defining our identity: are we in fact a country founded on freedom and designed to welcome those in need? The Biden administration states that it aims to help asylum seekers, but in order to do so we need to reevaluate how we approach asylum at all levels. That begins with reassessing how we determine credible fear.
During my brief time working in Dilley, I helped women prepare for their credible fear interviews. Many asylum seekers might not understand the process, nor necessarily know which details of their stories determine what the United States has deemed credible fear. Asylum is not a guaranteed right, and attorneys are not permitted to help during the interview; thus, preparation is key.
I spoke with a woman who fled five countries to escape her abusive boyfriend. The man followed her from country to country, raping her and threatening her life in each country. No matter where she fled in South and Central America, he followed her. Her five-year-old son, a product of one of these rapes, held her hand during our conversation in the detention center. I spoke with another woman who was threatened by a well-known drug cartel. Through her tears, she could barely communicate to me that they had already killed her brother, taken her money, patrolled the school where she taught, and routinely policed her town, spitting bullets as easily as words. As I interviewed the women, they cradled their young children, who were also visibly traumatized by what they had experienced in their home countries, by their journeys to the United States, and finally by the process to gain safety on this side of the border.
The credible fear interview places the burden of establishing fear on the applicant and is supposed to be non-adversarial, but given the nature of everything that precedes the interview — the lack of representation during the process, the jail-like location in which it takes place, the asylum officer’s constant questions — it feels adversarial. And this is just the first step. If the officer determines that she does have credible fear, the next step is to present her case to an immigration judge in a proper hearing.
. . . .
******************
Sadly, and completely unnecessarily and inappropriately, there is nobody in a leadership position at DOJ right now with Elizabeth Silver’s practical insights and understanding of our broken asylum system and how it can be fixed! I’ll bet that neither Garland nor anyone on his senior staff has spent a week at Dilley or any comparable site in the “New American Gulag” trying to represent vulnerable asylum seekers in Garland’s “wholly owned star chamber courts.”
Has Garland even taken the time to observe what’s happening in Dilley, Pearsall, Texas (“home of the Big Peanut”); Jena, Louisiana; Lumpkin, Georgia (“where asylum cases go to die”), or any of the other comparable “courts” (that don’t function like “courts” at all)? Has he ever spoken to asylum applicants and their pro bono lawyers trying to negotiate his fatally flawed and intentionally “user unfriendly” system? Has he gone out and hired progressive “practical scholars” to fill in his “blind spots?”
Round Table Judges John Richardson and I have “seen the Peanut” and lived to tell about it! Pictured here in 2015 with then Pearsall JLC B. Atenis Madico.
That says loads about AG Merrick Garland — none of it good! “Ignorance,” “intransigence,” and “good enough for government work” are not acceptable approaches for the Biden Administration! Yet that’s exactly what Garland has “delivered” on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and gender equity during his first three months at “Justice.”
Of course it’s adversarial! Totally, these days!
The White Nationalist racists in the Trump regime like Miller, “Gonzo” Sessions, “Wolfman,” “Cooch Cooch,” and “Billy the Bigot” hated asylum seekers, people of color, and women and “biased out” the system and selection processes accordingly. Heck, in clear violation of the statute, Trump even replaced USCIS Asylum Officers with totally unqualified Border Patrol Agents to insure denial of even the most compelling claims!
Sessions bogusly bellyached about too many individuals passing “credible fear.” To the contrary, this was totally appropriate, given the “super generous” standards that are supposed to be applied at the “access to the system gateway.” The real systemic problem was in the historically poor performance of the Immigration Courts on asylum grants that got immeasurably worse under Sessions and Barr. (And has remained beyond horrible under Garland’s non-existent “leadership!”)
As almost all legitimate human rights experts would confirm, the “high rejection rate” later in Immigration Court results from far, far, far too many unqualified, non-expert, improperly selected, poorly trained, Immigration “Judges” — at both the trial and appellate levels — operating in a “culture of institutionalized racism, misogyny, and default denial” rather than the generous atmosphere and culture required by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca but never truly implemented at EOIR.
“Herculean” although the task might appear, there are thousands of well-qualified immigration and human rights experts, most of them in the private sector right now, who could solve this problem and establish due process, fundamental fairness, real asylum expertise, and the rule of law in short order. But, Garland and Mayorkas have failed to remove the deadwood and the Trump/Miller holdovers and have not brought in the expert problem solvers to get this currently deadly, defective, illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional system under control. Additionally, qualified, expert Immigration Judges, REAL independent, courageous Federal Judges, not “go along to get along “bureaucratic retreads,” could also train and effectively supervise the Asylum Officer Corps, rather than woodenly and often ignorantly “rubber stamping” defective denials of “credible fear.”
Incredibly, Garland aggravated this festering problem “right off the bat” by improperly hiring 17 new, non-expert, not judicial quality Immigration Judges from flawed recruitments, skewed lists, and bogus recommendations developed by “Billy the Bigot” Barr! What an amazing lack of awareness and “open dissing” of humane progressive values and commitment to quality in Government!
Does this group represent the type of diverse, progressive candidates that President Biden would nominate for Article III Judgeships? OF COURSE NOT! Then, what possible excuse is there for “gifting” them some of the most powerful and important Federal Judgeships — those with probably more “life or death” authority and discretion over individuals than even the Supremes? No excuse whatsoever!
Our asylum system is totally “fixable.” Immediate improvements can be made and noticeable systemic changes could and should be in place before the end of this year! But, not the way that Garland and Mayorkas are going about it! The deadwood needs to go NOW, and be replaced with expert, progressive leadership, judges, and adjudicators!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color! His indolent and ineffective approach to asylum decision making in Immigration Court is harming and killing vulnerable individuals and bringing our entire justice system into disrepute!
President Biden’s top advisers promise “long-needed systemic reforms” to address a backlog of more than 1 million asylum cases in the immigration court system, which often keeps people applying for asylum waiting years to resolve their cases. That could mean some big changes to how asylum cases are processed at the southern border.
The plan the Biden administration is considering to speed up the process would take some asylum cases from the southern border out of the hands of the overloaded immigration courts under the Department of Justice and instead handle them under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, where asylum officers already process tens of thousands of cases a year, two people familiar with the discussions who were not authorized to speak about administration plans told NPR exclusively.
Those familiar with the discussions say one outcome could be discouraging unauthorized migration. That’s because those who can argue for a certain fear of persecution are able to gain temporary residence and often a work permit as they wait out their cases.
. . . .
Advocates say they welcome a more efficient system, provided changes are not used as a way to expedite removals as the Trump administration did.
Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First says there are a host of reasons to allow asylum officers to conduct the first set of interviews and reduce the numbers, but she says it’s important that applicants have a chance to appeal to the court before being removed.
“The massive backlog must be dealt with,” she said. “But the answer to that problem is not to deprive asylum seekers of due process and a fair hearing, or to weaponize the asylum process to try to deter other people from seeking U.S. protection.”
The Biden administration has already ended two of the Trump administration’s programs, the Prompt Asylum Case Review and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Program, that were designed to quickly return Mexican and Central American asylum seekers suspected of having invalid claims.
Department of Homeland Security officials declined to discuss plans to shift border cases to the asylum division.
But an administration official said last week they are now working on a number of policies and regulations to create “a better functioning asylum system.”
That includes establishing refugee processing in the region and strengthening other countries’ asylum systems.
Biden also resurrected the Central American Minors program that reunited children with parents who are in the United States legally.
The Biden administration is now seeking to “pick up the pieces” after the Trump administration, with a different set of policies that abide by U.S. law but also international obligations, Meissner said.
“We need to have access to asylum,” Meissner said, “but it needs to be done in a way that can be prompt and fair, not in a way that leads to waits of years and years and court backlogs.
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
Why it could work:
Granting relief at the lowest level of the system is cost effective;
It’s easier to hire, train, and assign Asylum Officers than Immigration Judges;
Immigration Court time should be reserved for those cases where there is a real issue as to whether relief can be granted.
Why it probably won’t work:
Leadership is critical. Right now, there are only a few experts in government with the knowledge, proven leadership ability, organizational skills, and courage to lead this program.
Two obvious names that come to mind are Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, currently USCIS Chief Counsel, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of the “founding mothers” of U.S. asylum law and pioneer of the well-founded fear standard. Both are past Presidents of the NAIJ. Neither has yet been tapped for this assignment.
By contrast, there are a number of experts in the private/NGO sector who could lead this effort. Obvious choices would be Judge Paul Grussendorf, former Immigration Judge, Asylum Officer, UN Representative, and professor; Professor Karen Musalo, Director, Center for Refugee & Gender Studies, UC Hastings Law; Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection, Human Rights First (quoted in this article); Professor Michele Pistone, Creator and Founder of the VIISTA asylum training program at Villanova Law; Professor Phil Schrag, Co-Director of the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law and author of Baby Jails and the upcoming release The End of Asylum; Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations at CLINIC; or Judge Ilyce Shugall of our Round Table. But, nobody of that caliber has been tapped either.
Without creative, dynamic, expert leadership, and a different approach to personnel, the program will be yet another bureaucratic failure. In case nobody has noticed, after four years of never ending abuse, gross mismanagement, and intentional misdirection by the Trump kakistocracy, the USCIS Asylum & Refugee program is also in shambles — demoralized, disorganized, leaderless, incredibly backlogged. An obvious untapped source is retired Asylum Officers and Adjudicators who could be brought back on a limited-term basis, intensively trained by experts from a “Better EOIR,” and who often are in a position to travel frequently and on short notice.
It’s not about deterrence. Already, this article speaks of “possible deterrent effect.” WRONG!The purpose of an asylum adjudication system is to provide fair, timely, generous adjudications of asylum eligibility in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol on which it is based, and the due process clause of our Constitution. We have never had such a system, which inevitably would be more orderly and efficient, but also result in many more grants.
The main reason why we don’t currently have a functioning asylum system, and never have had the system that asylum seekers need and deserve, is that the system is at the mercy of a bogus Executive-controlled “court” system that time and time again has been compromised by politicos seeking who use it as an enforcement tool rather than an independent court of justice.
In 2014, the last year that I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law I “graded” the U.S. Asylum system at “B-.” Not as good as it should be, but not as bad as it could be.
Now I’d give it an “F.” Completely dysfunctional, highly arbitrary, and a tool of institutionalized racism and White Nationalism.
The system is ineffective as a deterrent. There is no known basis to believe that quick and often arbitrary and wrongful “rejections” are an effective deterrent. That’s particularly true because rejections are seldom explained in a reasonable, understandable manner. So, to the extent that there is a “message” it’s that you got the wrong officer or the wrong judge on the wrong day or that the U.S. legal system is inherently unfair and should be avoided by hiring a smuggler to get you to the interior of the U.S. where, as a practical matter, you have a better chance of obtaining “de facto refuge.”
The only “efficiency and leverage” that comes from the Asylum Officer system is in quickly identifying and consistently granting a substantial number of applications. That, and only that, does actually relieve the Immigration Court system of unnecessary cases. Otherwise, “non-grants” still have to go to the Immigration Courts for de novo review. I probably granted the majority of asylum cases “referred” from the Asylum Office. That leaves plenty of room to believe that a better trained and operated system with some positive guidance and effective supervision by better Immigration Judges and a truly expert BIA would achieve substantially higher grant rates and higher efficiency at the Asylum Office, thereby keeping many cases out of court and speeding the process for asylees to obtain permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship!
Some assumptions appear invalid. This article also repeats the unproven assumption that a fair, just, and efficient asylum system would result in rejection of the majority of cases. I doubt that.
Prior to the Trump disaster, approximately 75-80% of asylum applicants at the Southern Border passed “credible fear.” That the majority of them never achieved asylum was due less to the lack of merit in their claims than to factors such as: 1) lack of a system to match asylum seekers with qualified counsel; 2) wrong-headed anti-asylum precedents from the BIA that were specifically directed against asylum seekers from Latin America — basically institutionalized racism in the guise of “enforcement;” 3) poor selection, training, and motivation of Immigration Judges some of whom simply did not treat asylum seekers fairly, nor were they given any incentive to do so.
I granted asylum or other protection to many refugees from the Northern Triangle. I probably could have granted twice that number had the BIA precedents actually fairly and reasonably interpreted asylum law to specifically cover gender-based claims and claims arising from persecution by gangs basically operating “in lieu of government authorities” in most of the Northern Triangle.
Additionally, an honest interpretation of the CAT by the BIA would have allowed life-saving protection to be extended to many others who lacked nexus but had a high probability of torture with Government acquiescence upon return. I believe that a return to the original Acosta-Kasinga line of asylum analysis and adoption of proper CAT interpretationsalong the lines set forth by the (exiled) dissenting judges in Matter of J-E- would result in grants of some type of protection (asylum, withholding, or CAT) in the majority of Southern Border cases coming from the Northern Triangle that passed credible fear or reasonable fear.
Asylum, along with refugee status, is a key form of legal immigration to the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s NOT a “loophole.” It’s the law! Studies by groups of experts such as CMS have shown the huge benefits that refugees confer on the U.S. I have no reason to believe that asylum seekers as a group are any different.
As long as we keep treating the reality of human migration and the strengths and humanity of asylum seekers as a negative rather than a positive, we will continue to fail, as we have for decades, to fully comply with either our own laws or international conventions.
A broken, dysfunctional, unfair EOIR will continue to drag American justice down. There must be de novo review of denials by EOIR and far, far more competent review and direction in the review of credible fear denials by EOIR. A better BIA could actually set binding precedents on “credible fear” and “reasonable fear.”
Currently, EOIR is incapable of producing either consistently fair results (particularly for asylum seekers) or the inspired legal scholarship and leadership for the asylum system to be functional and held accountable. It’s going to require all new leadership, an all new BIA, elimination of all of the Trump-eraprecedents that impede fairness for asylum seekers, new merit-based selection criteria for Immigration Judges, professional administration from judicial experts, and an immediate slashing of the largely self-created “backlog” of 1.3 million cases by closing and removing from the docket every case more than a year old that doesn’t relate to a priority (most are folks who would be covered by Biden’s legalization program anyway; many are eligible for relief that USCIS could grant) to get EOIR in a position to provide the necessary legal guidance and system accountability for the Asylum Office. The absurdist notion that we could or would want to remove every one of the 10-11 million undocumented residents (many performing essential services that propped us up through the pandemic) is one of the “big lies” that has prevented rational reforms of our immigration system.
In plain terms, EOIR needs an immediate “rebuild” with a new progressive, humanitarian judiciary of experts. There is no early indication that Judge Garland either understands that “mission-critical” need or has a plan for achieving it.
As we say in the business the “devil is in the details.” Right now, I can see neither the details nor theleadership in place or “in the pipeline” to solve the debilitating problems in our asylum system that actually are undermining the entire U.S. justice system.
Biden could fix it. But, I wouldn’t count on it. That means that the only real fix in the offing will be for the NDPA to force the Administration to “get it right” through aggressive, never-ending litigation as well as continuing to seek better legislators. Highly inefficient. Yet, sometimes it’s the only way to get the attention of those in power.
If nothing else, we’ll continue to make an important historic record of the cruelty and stupidity with which the current asylum system is being administered. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can always choose to follow our “better angels.” It just takes the courage and the good judgement to get the right folks in the right jobs to make it happen.
“POPPYCOCK!” — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Characterization Of Trump Regime’s Defense Of Asylum Seeker Abuse By DHS & Barr’s Unethical & Frivolous Arguments!
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal & Legal Clairvoyant
Due Process “Legal Eagle” Jacqueline Thompsen reports for the National Law Journal’:
. . . .
The federal immigration law requires that officers who conduct the interviews—in which migrants must show they face at least a 10% chance of persecution due to certain factors in order to be eligible for asylum—receive significant training on handling the applications
In responding to the administration’s claims that the border patrol agents received similar training as asylum officers, Leon wrote, “Poppycock! The training requirements cited in the government’s declaration do not come close to being ‘comparable’ to the training requirements of full asylum officers.”
“To make matters worse, the January MOA precludes any individual CBP agent from conducting credible fear interviews for longer than 180 days, meaning that CBP agents cannot gain the experience necessary to appropriately apply the complex asylum laws and regulations,” the judge added. “These procedures plainly violate Congress’s requirements.”
The Trump administration has administered a widespread crackdown on asylum proceedings, adopting a slew of policies that make it more difficult for migrants fleeing persecution in other countries to obtain protections in the United States.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by attorneys with Tahirih Justice Center and the Constitutional Accountability Center, on behalf of four mothers and their seven children from Honduras, Ecuador and Mexico seeking asylum in the U.S. All of the migrants failed to pass the credible fear assessment conducted by CBP agents, which were upheld by immigration judges.
Leon also found in Monday’s ruling that it “would certainly seem unlikely” that CBP agent interviews of migrants could be considered to be “nonadversarial proceedings with a neutral decision-maker,” as required under federal regulations and guidelines. He noted that border patrol agents are considered law enforcement, and said federal authorities’ statements on measures they have taken to minimize the possibility of the interviews becoming adversarial “hardly seems sufficient.”
Leon wrote the training requirements for those conducting the credible fear assessments “are essential for a functioning asylum process, which is why Congress required them,” describing the legal framework surrounding U.S. immigration, asylum, and other similar processes as “complex, to say the least.”
“After all, an asylum officer who is not adequately trained in the applicable legal requirements is less likely to ask the right questions of an asylum seeker, or for that matter, to gather the facts necessary to make an accurate determination of whether an asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution,” he continued. “Indeed, the record here contains several examples of the effects of inadequate training: one CBP agent failed to follow up with questions about an asylum-seeking plaintiff’s sexual abuse, and another failed to inquire into another asylum-seeking plaintiffs husband’s murder investigation.”
Leon also found the immigrants in the case would face irreparable harm, if he did not issue a preliminary injunction to block their removal from the U.S.
***********
Why isn’t it an ethical and professional problem for “Billy the Bigot’s” DOJ to make nonsense arguments to a Federal Judge in support of unlawful actions? Private members of the bar arguing “poppycock” in a civil case could well find themselves referred for disciplinary action. Why are Cabinet Officials and their attorneys exempt from normal professional and ethical considerations?
If only more judges at all levels could write with such clarity and in plain English!
The rejection at the “credible fear” stage of the bona fide asylum claims described by Judge Leon is beyond appalling! These are essentially totally and intentionally unqualified and biased U.S. Government employees committing “crimes against humanity” and getting away with it! These aren’t “legal errors.” It’s systemic malfeasance, otherwise known as “malicious incompetence” with a heavy dose of racism and misogyny thrown in for a good measure!
If substantiated during the immigration hearing process that should have taken place, all these applicants should have been “slam dunk” grants of asylum, withholding of removal, and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture in a properly functioning justice system. Instead, but for the efforts of pro bono counsel, they would have been illegally returned to harm, torture, and/or death with no legitimate process at all!
No wonder “Billy the Bigot’s” Immigration Courts are out of control and the borders are a deadly mess when individuals who with proper screening and access to competent counsel should have been quickly legally admitted to the U.S. under protection laws are instead being “rejected” by biased and unqualified Border Patrol Agents impersonating Asylum Officers!
Here’s my favorite quote (among many) from Judge Leon’s decision:
Of course, the Government has a strong interest in the “prompt execution of removal orders.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. However, the Government and public can have little interest in executing removal orders that are based on statutory violations, League of Women Voters of U.S. v. I,{ewby,838 F.3d l,12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”), especially where those statutory violations may compromise the accuracy of such removal orders. R.I.L.-R. v Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 191 (D.D.C. 2015); Grace, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 14144 Indeed, the public has an interest “in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. As such, the balance of interests here weighs in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.
The last point, “the public has an interest ‘in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm,’” Nken,556 U.S. at 436, has basically been ignored by the Supremes’ majority recently in sending refugees to their death or into harm’s way without any semblance of due process, based on various lies, distortions, and racist schemes by the Trump regime intentionally mischaracterizing “national security” and “national emergency.” As Judge Leon would say: “Poppycock!”
Perversely, the Trump regime and the Supremes’ have made execution of illegal removal orders, resulting from racist White Nationalist schemes, a “national priority.” Truly, this is a system broken from the top down in need of immediate repair and injections of intellectually honesty, moral courage, and ethics — something that seems “out of vogue” in all three branches of our failing democracy these days
I recently had a conversation with Jacqueline in which she basically predicted this decision based on her study of the arguments and trends among U.S. District Judges, regardless of philosophy or appointing party, in DC. Nice going Jacqueline! Congrats on your clairvoyance!
Those with NLJ access (anyone can get “three free” per month by registering) can read the complete article at the link.
Judge Leon’s linear, straightforward, and “no BS” treatment of the regime’s absurdist, unethical, and scofflaw legal “defense” of essentially “crimes against humanity” contrasts sharply with the disingenuous and essentially “brain dead” treatment of similar BS by the “JR Five” on the Supremes. There, the patently unconstitutional and illegal (not to mention immoral) agenda of neo-Nazi racist Stephen Miller and the unethical maneuvers of SG Noel Francisco are often wrongfully rewarded. By contrast, the the Supremes’ majority routinely trashes the legal and constitutional rights of vulnerable people of color, particularly asylum seekers, migrants, and voters beneath an avalanche of bogus “Dred Scottification” jurisprudence.
Additionally, Judge Leon is “onto something” that has been swept under the carpet by the Supremes and the Circuit Courts when he questions “whether CBP agents could ever lawfully be given authority to conduct asylum interviews and adjudicate asylum claims, see Compl. ‘]Tfl 108-09, it would certainly seem unlikely under these circumstances. After all, law enforcement officers typically “function as adversaries” whose role is “to investigate criminal activity, to locate and arrest those who violate our laws, and to facilitate the charging and bringing of such persons to trial.” New Jersey v T.L.O.,469 U.S. 325,349 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring).”
Similarly, many of us have argued that Immigration “Judges” who work for uber-enforcer and Trump shill “Billy the Bigot” and have been “repurposed” and “weaponized” into DHS enforcement support staff can not possibly be the “fair and impartial” quasi-judicial adjudicators required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment!
Better Justices and better Federal Judges for a better America, particularly for people of color and other minorities. It’s actually quite simple and straightforward. It starts with throwing Trump and the GOP out of every political office this Fall.
Then, we need some real Justices and Federal Judges who will stand against systemic racism and enforce equal justice in America!Not, rocket science! Just knowledge of the Constitution, awareness of human rights and immigrants’ rights, a focus on racial justice, courage to speak truth to power, and a demonstrated commitment to human dignity and human decency.One could easily wonder why those haven’t been the minimal requirements for Federal judicial service in the past.
Past is past, particularly for life-tenured judges. But, America can’t afford any more disastrous judicial appointments, at any level, who lack the guts and human decency to stand up to scofflaw, neo-fascist racists like Trump, Miller, and their cronies.
The top to bottom overall failure of the American judiciary to put an end to unconstitutional and unfair racism and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” in our society is aiding and abetting the dark, lawless forces aligned with the regime destabilizing our country and ripping it apart! No more!
U.S. Asylum Officer Jason Marks writes in the WashPost Outlook Section:
. . . .
Collectively, we were told to implement restrictive new policies, expressly designed to deter people from seeking refuge. The Migrant Protection Protocols, for example, resulted in more than 60,000 asylum seekers being sent to Mexico in 2019, after fleeing the extreme brutality of MS-13 and the 18th Street gang in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Left to live in squalor without any protection, they are preyed upon by cartels and gangs as they wait, sometimes months, for an elusive court date before an immigration judge.
[I became an asylum officer to help people. Now I put them back in harm’s way.]
The pandemic put refugees and asylum seekers in even more desperate straits, as the United States paused refugee resettlement. Many already interviewed and accepted for resettlement in the U.S. now live stateless at the margins of cities, towns and villages where they have no rights or legal status, or in overcrowded refugee camps. Around the world, in places including Jordan, Kenya and Bangladesh, refugee camps are bursting at the seams. People there are unable to practice social distancing, and soap and water are limited.
Meanwhile, at our borders, Customs and Border Protection has turned away thousands of vulnerable people since March, without due process. Some applicants showing symptoms of the coronavirus were deported with no regard for safety measures (such as testing), causing outbreaks in the countries from which they had fled. Others languish in crowded detention facilities, even though many of them pose no security threat and Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the discretion to release them. By law, children must be let out after 20 days of incarceration. But rather than release them with their parents, our government has presented these families with an agonizing choice: Either have their children released, indefinitely separated from their parents — or remain locked up together in these facilities, many of which have already witnessed coronavirus outbreaks.
Amid all this, in June, the administration proposed 161 pages of sweeping regulations that would gut asylum and refugee law. Certain provisions, for example, drastically narrow the definitions of persecution and torture; others raise certain burdens of proof to nearly unreachable standards and redefine what constitutes the protected grounds of political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Still others could disqualify applicants if they made a mistake on their tax filings, or took two or more layover flights on their way here. In July, the administration proposed yet another new policy, allowing the United States to deny asylum to applicants if they come from any country with an outbreak of a highly contagious disease. (Public health experts have said this would serve no legitimate public health purpose.) It’s difficult to see how anyone could qualify for protection under this tangle of new rules, once they’re implemented.
Years of tightening restrictions have made it harder to obtain a wide range of legal immigration benefits, causing applications to plummet and, with them, the user fees that fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services operations. Now, the pandemic has placed our agency on the brink of bankruptcy, and 70 percent of our workforce faces an indefinite furlough unless Congress intervenes. Without emergency funding, only a skeleton crew will remain to administer America’s immigration services system — resulting in even greater backlogs in the processing of applications for benefits including asylum, green cards, work permits and citizenship.
Our nation has an ethical and legal responsibility to protect those who seek refuge here. Instead, we have expended vast resources on preventing people from entering the country and deporting people who are already here. If the current administration’s policies continue unchecked, there will no longer be a pathway for refugees to have a new beginning in the United States. Even if a different presidential administration tried to change course, I fear that it would take many years to reverse the damage and rebuild our capacity to protect refugees. Many people will lose their lives before then.
In the closing words of his farewell address, President Ronald Reagan described our country as a “shining city upon a hill”: “If there had to be city walls,” he said in 1989, “the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” That is still something most Americans believe in.
[Read more from Outlook:]
[Coronavirus can’t be an excuse to continue President Trump’s assault on asylum seekers]
[Americans are the dangerous, disease-carrying foreigners now]
[During the covid-19 pandemic, immigrant farmworkers are heroes]
[Follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.]
Jason Marks, an asylum training officer with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), writes here as a shop steward for Local 1924, American Federation of Government Employees, which represents employees of the USCIS Asylum and Refugee Officer Corps.
***********************
Read the rest of Jason’s article at the above link.
It’s not rocket science! Misusing, misinterpreting, and misapplying refugee and asylum laws to “reject not protect” is clearly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral to boot! It’s also, not surprisingly, toxic public policy because it squanders and misdirects resources on efforts to that actually hurt our economy, society, and reputation. In other words, fraud, waste, and abuse on a grand and deadly scale!
So, a career Asylum Officer has more legal knowledge, guts, and human decency than the life-tenured, yet removed from both reality and humanity, Supremes’ majority! What’s wrong with this picture!
75 years after the end of World War II, America has installed a racist, neo-Nazi White Supremacist Government.Go figure!
To make this happen, Trump and his cronies needed both a feckless Congress and Supremes committed to empowering authoritarian racism in the name of Executive authority. He got both!
We have an opportunity, perhaps our last as a nation, to return to a nobler vision of America. But it will require ousting not only the morally corrupt and maliciously incompetent Trump regime but also the equally immoral GOP Senators who have enabled and enthusiastically hastened our national demise. That will give us a start on the longer-term project of better Justices and Federal Judges for a better America.
There is no excuse whatsoever for the cowardly, disingenuous, and immoral failure of the Roberts Court to stand against Trump. Instead, they have embraced the “Dred Scottification” — that is, dehumanization — of refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, and persons of color. Why is this judicially-enabled retrogression to the “Hay-day of Jim Crow” acceptable in 21st Century America?
This November, vote like your life and the future of our nation and the world depend on it! Because they do!
PHOENIX (AP) — For months, asylum seekers have been prohibited from filing their claims at U.S. border crossings under a much-criticized Trump administration policy. Now some are sprinting down vehicle lanes or renting cars to try to make it inside the U.S.
The migrants’ efforts are causing traffic delays at Arizona crossings because U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials had to barricade lanes used by cars legally entering the U.S. from Mexico, officials said.
Advocates say many have become desperate after waiting for months to legally ask for asylum, often in poor conditions and while facing threats of kidnapping, extortion and violence south of the border.
Shoppers, teachers and visitors traveling to the U.S. through Nogales, Mexico, endured up to five-hour waits Monday and over the weekend, causing concerns among local officials whose tax base relies on Mexican shoppers, especially during the holiday season.
In a statement, Customs and Border Protection said it’s committed to the safety of border crossers, adding that there’s been an increase of incursions through vehicle lanes “by asylum seekers attempting to evade established entry processes.”
“These tactics interfere with CBP officers conducting their responsibilities and exacerbates wait times for daily commuters,” the agency said in a statement. “CBP will not allow ports to be overrun, or unauthorized entry.”
The traffic jams could hurt sales at stores in Nogales, Arizona that depend on Mexican shoppers during the holiday season, said Mayor Arturo Garino.
Garino, a part-time teacher, said some students and teachers who live in Mexico but attend and work at schools across the border in the U.S. have been leaving their homes as early as 5 a.m. to arrive on time.
Garino said Mexican authorities were not doing enough to stem the problem. The Arizona Daily Star reported the Nogales, Sonora, police officers were checking cars headed north to the border on Monday afternoon.
The metal barricades are large and are meant to seal off traffic lanes.
About 3,000 migrants are living in Nogales, Mexico as they wait their turns to seek asylum, said Katie Sharar, communications director for the Kino Border Initiative, a religious-based group that provides meals to needy migrants on the Mexican side of the border.
Under a policy by the Trump administration known widely as “metering,” the asylum-seekers must wait in an unofficial line in Mexico until U.S. authorities call them up in a process that usually lasts several months.
Another policy, colloquially known as “Remain in Mexico,” requires asylum seekers to return to Mexico after they have made credible fear claims to justify their asylum requests and wait there while their immigration cases are pending.
“I think there’s just a lot of desperation and uncertainty. They don’t know what’s happening to them, they don’t know how the policy changes are gonna affect them,” Sharar said.
Sharar said she wasn’t familiar with the migrants who have run through vehicle lanes.
Customs and Border Protection did not respond to email and phone messages regarding questions about the migrants who rushed the border, what countries they come from and whether they were detained or faced criminal charges.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, said his first concern is public safety and that he is confident U.S. officials will resolve the border traffic problems.
Associated Press writer Bob Christie in Phoenix contributed to this report.
*********************************************
The Trump Regime was faced with a potentially very manageable situation. The solution was straightforward. Encourage asylum applicants to present themselves at the border for fair, prompt, and orderly processing as required by law.
Those who passed “credible fear” and who had no serious criminal record could be released in coordination with pro bono organizations whose representation would both help insure a high appearance rate and due process in the Immigration Courts. Money currently being wasted on “the Wall,” unnecessary and inhumane detention, and avoidable litigation could be “repurposed” as grants to communities and NGOs to secure their assistance in placement and orderly, lawful processing of asylum applicants. It could also be used to fund or rehire additional qualified Asylum Officers (not Border Patrol Agents) to process credible fear claims.
Meanwhile, those found to have “no credible fear” after a fundamentally fair process could be returned to their home countries or some suitable “alternative placement” in a third country in a timely, orderly, and humane manner in accordance with existing law.
Instead, the Trump Administration’s unlawful attacks on asylum laws and their war on Due Process and the pro bono community have been facilitated by complicit Federal Courts that have failed to stand up for Due Process and the rule of law.
This is likely to be just another phase of the chaos. With the U.S. asylum system essentially “repealed without legislation” individuals needing protection will be assisted by professional smugglers in avoiding the U.S. legal system by entering illegally, evading apprehension (rather than turning themselves in as had been the case), and losing themselves in the U.S.
It is also possible that the Administration’s fraudulent “Safe Third Country” agreements with Northern Triangle governments eventually will succeed in further destabilizing those countries so that they simply collapse, creating even more refugees.
White Nationalism, the “malicious incompetence” that accompanies it, and judicial complicity in the face of tyranny are nothing short of a prescription for a continuing and escalating national and international humanitarian disaster. We were forewarned.
In the Video Op-Ed above, a former asylum officer reveals why he resigned: to protest President Trump’s policy requiring migrants to remain in Mexico while awaiting hearings.
Doug Stephens had been an asylum officer for two years. But two days and five interviews that resulted in sending asylum seekers back to danger shook him. He drafted a memo detailing his legal objections to the policy, and circulated it to 80 of his colleagues, his supervisors and a member of Congress. And then he quit.
Mr. Stephens is not the only asylum officer who has grappled with following orders. In interviews with a half-dozen current and former asylum officers across the country, The Times learned of individuals leaving their posts, requesting job transfers and falling into deep depression.
The right to asylum has been a cornerstone of international immigration law since the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The United States, along with 144 other nations, made a commitment to protect those who arrive at our borders with “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
To date, Mr. Trump’s remain in Mexico policy, officially known as one of the “Migrant Protection Protocols,” has left nearly 58,000 asylum seekers stranded in Mexico.
Doug Stephens, a lawyer, resigned his post as a Citizenship and Immigrations Services asylum officer in San Francisco in August.
*******************************
See the video at the above link.
Doug “gets it,” and it didn’t take him long. My Georgetown Law students “got it.” They kept asking me how this could be happening when it seemed to be clearly illegal and a violation of the Fifth Amendment as well as international treaties.
But, Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority of the Supremes don’t get it? A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit didn’t get it? The Ninth Circuit ruminates for months on a question that a District Judge already answered in short order and that most first year law students could figure out in a few minutes. Circuit Courts keep signing off on removal orders produced by a clearly unconstitutional “kangaroo court” system where applicants are denied a fair and impartial decision-maker and the Chief Prosecutor can and does reach in and change results favorable to the applicant that he doesn’t like?
Something is wrong with this picture. And, it starts with intellectual corruption and cowardice at the highest levels of our Federal Judiciary.
Trump has never made any secret that he hates refugees and migrants for unconstitutional racial, ethnic, and political reasons, that he intends to keep them out, and that he really doesn’t care about the Constitution, due process (except for himself), the Refugee Act, or international norms. He has utter contempt for Federal Judges and for Congress.
He tried, with spectacular lack of success, to get Congress to change the immigration and refugee laws by holding “Dreamers” hostage. Failing, he just went ahead and plowed through the Refugee Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the UN Convention, harming and killing folks in his wake. Just like he illegally reprogrammed money to build an unneeded, yet politically significant, “wall” that Congress had pointedly refused to fund. Never let the law, the national interest, or democratic institutions get in the way of the Trump White Nationalist political agenda.
The Court’s response: Let’s look the other way, like we did in the “Travel Ban Case.” We’re sort of offended by your unpresidential conduct, but, hey, as long as it doesn’t affect us and our families we’ll just hope you’ll tone it down because we really don’t want to confront you. But, if you “double down” instead, we’ll pretend like it’s never happened. Oh, and by the way, perhaps we can help you heap further abuse on your “Dreamer hostages.” What’s a little more pain and suffering on kids that we can cover up with legal gobbledygook.
One of Trump’s biggest “dissings” of the Supremes: His Administration’s total disregard and effective overruling of the Supreme’s landmark INS v. Cardoza -Fonseca case requiring the Government to implement a generous interpretation of the “refugee” definition for asylum to conform to the plain language of the statute as well as the Congressional intent behind the Refugee Act. Donald Trump and his immigraton thugs don’t even recognize what “generosity” is, and he has basically wiped out the Refugee Act and its asylum provisions without any changes in the law. How’s that for contempt of Court!
Roberts can blabber his head off about whether there are “Obama Judges” or “Trump Judges.” But, actions speak louder than words; until he and his fellow GOP appointees on the Court actually stand up to Trump’s abuses of the law, his babbling will be drowned out by Trump’s tweets.
Trump’s not right about much. But, maybe he has a point in his contemptuously arrogant attitude that the Supremes and most Circuits won’t dare require him to follow the laws or operate within the Constitution, particularly as his continues to “pack” the Federal Courts with his guaranteed judicial toadies.
That’s going to be the legacy of the “Roberts Court” if our Chiefie doesn’t wake up some morning with a new backbone and start joining his liberal colleagues in putting some breaks on Trump’s outrageous scofflaw conduct in the immigration and asylum area and saving some innocent lives in the process.
And the process should start with emphatically rejecting the Solicitor General’s unethical and often factuallyinaccurate and legally defective attempts to invoke the Supremes’ aid in short-circuiting the system any time the Big Baby Boss is upset with lower courts properly reigning in his illegal actions and making him follow the rules like everyone else.
Trump’s “malicious incompetence” often doesn’t accomplish much. He’s a divider, not a uniter.He’s only President of his base. The majority of the Americans can just “go pound sand” as far as he’s concerned.
But one thing he might eventually unite Americans on, for differing reasons, is contempt for spineless Federal Courts who won’t stand up to tyranny. And, that won’t be good for the future of our Constituitional Republic.
Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!
That’s why the “New Due Process Army” could be the last, best hope for American’s survival. Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change! The “blood of the innocents” will be upon their spiffy robes if the “privileged life-tenured ones” don’t get out of their “ivory tower hazes” and have the guts to do their jobs!
Asylum officers rebel against Trump policies they say are immoral and illegal
In collaboration with the radio program “This American Life,” the Los Angeles Times takes an exclusive, front-line look at a much-criticized Trump administration policy to restrict asylum — the Migrant Protection Protocols — from the perspective of the asylum officers implementing it.
It only took Doug Stephens two days to decide: He wasn’t going to implement President Trump’s latest policy to restrict immigration, known as Remain in Mexico. The asylum officer wouldn’t interview any more asylum seekers only to send them back to danger in Mexico.
As a federal employee, refusing to implement the government policy probably meant that he’d be fired, and an end to his career as a public servant. He’d only been assigned five of the interviews so far. But it was five too many — to the trained attorney, the policy officially termed “Migrant Protection Protocols” was not only unethical, it was against the law.
When Stephens told his supervisor in San Francisco his decision, he said he was stunned.
“I told him, ‘You don’t understand. I’m not doing these interviews,’” Stephens said, speaking publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview. “I think they’re illegal. They’re definitely immoral. And I’m not doing them.’”
Stephens is believed to be the first asylum officer to formally refuse to conduct interviews under the program, according to Michael Knowles, a spokesman for the National CIS Council, the union that represents some 13,000 asylum officers and other employees of Citizenship and Immigration Services worldwide.
But he isn’t alone. Across the country, asylum officers are calling in sick, requesting transfers, retiring earlier than planned and quitting, all to resist this and other Trump administration immigration policies that they view as illegal, according to Stephens, as well as other asylum officers and officials.
In a collaboration with the radio program “This American Life,” the Los Angeles Times takes an exclusive, front-line look at one of the Trump administration’s most successful policies to restrict asylum — the Migrant Protection Protocols — from the perspective of the asylum officers forced to implement it.
The asylum officers’ primary job is to make sure that the U.S. government is not returning people to harm in their home countries, a foundational principle in both U.S. and international law. But under MPP, instead of allowing asylum seekers who come to the southern border to wait in the U.S. for their immigration hearings, U.S. officials are forcing them to wait in Mexico.
Since the Trump administration announced the policy in December, U.S. officials have pushed roughly 60,000 asylum seekers back to Mexico, to wait in areas that the U.S. State Department considers some of the most dangerous in the world.
While U.S. officials downplay the danger in Mexico, kidnappings, rape and other violence against asylum seekers under the program are widespread and well documented, according to other officials, advocates, lawyers and academic researchers.
Homeland Security officials concede that the program is designed to discourage asylum claims. The president is running for reelection on renewed promises to limit immigration. Under the policy, only 11 asylum seekers have been granted some kind of relief, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC database.
The half-dozen asylum officers interviewed by The Times say that in almost every interview they’ve conducted under the policy, the asylum seeker expressed a fear of returning to Mexico — many said they’d been harmed there already. But under the new standards, the officers say they had to return them anyway.
“What’s my moral culpability in that?” said an asylum officer who’s conducted nearly 100 interviews. She requested anonymity because she feared retaliation. “My signature’s on that paperwork. And that’s something now that I live with.”
The asylum officers rebelling against Trump’s immigration policies say they run counter to the laws passed by Congress, as well as their oath to the Constitution and extensive training, which includes how to detect fraud or any potential national security concerns.
Under U.S. law, migrants have the right to request asylum. Some 80% of asylum seekers pass the first step in the lengthy process, an interview with an asylum officer that’s known as a credible-fear screening. Congress set a low standard for the officers to use at this initial stage, to minimize the risk of sending someone back to harm, or even death. But ultimately, only about 15% of applicants win asylum before an immigration judge.
Trump and his top officials use this difference between the percentage of asylum seekers who pass the first step versus the percentage who ultimately win asylum to claim that asylum itself is a “hoax” or “big fat con job.”
Ken Cuccinelli, the acting head of Citizenship and Immigration Services, has publicly criticized the officers, saying they approve too many requests and oppose Trump’s initiatives for partisan reasons. On Wednesday, Cuccinelli was named acting deputy Homeland Security secretary.
Cuccinelli’s spokesperson stopped responding to requests for an interview. But The Times asked Cuccinelli during an October media breakfast about concerns from officers.
“So long as we’re in the position of putting in place what we believe to be legal policies that haven’t been found to be otherwise,” Cuccinelli said, “we fully expect them to implement those faithfully and sincerely and vigorously.”
Citizenship and Immigration Services also declined requests for data on staffing for the Homeland Security agency, and the asylum section specifically, to try to quantify what officers and officials called an “exodus” primarily because of the policy.
Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the ongoing litigation against the policy. The panel’s ruling on whether the policy is legal is pending.
When Stephens refused to do the interviews, his supervisors started disciplinary proceedings, issuing him formal warnings, he described at the time. He decided to quit, but not before he sent out a legal memo he’d drafted arguing why the policy violates the law, which he sent to his entire San Francisco office, supervisors, the union and a U.S. senator. He later got his own legal representation, at Government Accountability Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit.
He says he’s still trying to draw attention to the program, encouraging others to speak out against it.
“You’re literally sending people back to be raped and killed,” he said. “That’s what this is.”
****************************
So, what happened to the integrity of 9th Circuit Appellate Judges and Congress? Why are they OK with blatant violations of our laws, our Constitution, and human rights that actually kill people? You could call it “accessory to murder.”
Folks like Doug Stephens, Molly O’Toole, and many other courageous, dedicated members of the “New Due Process Army” are making a public record. While the cowardly abusers might be “getting away with murder” in “real time,” they will eventually be held accountable by history for their illegal, immoral, and unconscionable actions. And, that includes not only the “perpetrators” in the Trump Administration, but also their many disgraceful enablers in the judiciary and Congress.
Many innocent people might die or be sent to oblivion. But, their bloodstains won’t be washed away, even by time.
