February 2017 – Page 9 – immigrationcourtside.com

immigrationcourtside Religion & Politics: In His “Other Life,” Judge Neil Gorsuch Belongs To A Liberal Episcopal Church In Denver!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuch-belongs-to-a-notably-liberal-church-and-would-be-the-first-protestant-on-the-court-in-years/?utm_term=.9e3a77e1bf11

“The day after Donald Trump was elected president, the Rev. Susan Springer wrote to her congregation that they should strive to behave as Godly people who spread hope even though “the world is clasping its head in its hands and crying out in fear.”

That Sunday, one of the ushers at Springer’s church was Neil Gorsuch — soon to become President Trump’s nominee for the open spot on the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch has staked his own conservative positions on numerous issues, including topics of religious concern: In cases involving the art supply chain Hobby Lobby and the Catholic order Little Sisters of the Poor, both of which eventually reached the Supreme Court, Gorsuch ruled in favor of religious conservatives who said the Affordable Care Act infringed on their religious freedom to not pay for contraception.

But at church, he often hears a more liberal point of view.

He belongs to St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colo., the Episcopal diocese of Colorado confirmed on Wednesday. Church bulletins show that the judge has been an usher three times in recent months. His wife Louise frequently leads the intercessory prayer and reads the weekly Scripture at Sunday services, and his daughters assist in ceremonial duties during church services as acolytes.

If he joins the Supreme Court, Gorsuch as an Episcopalian would be the first Protestant member since 2010. Five current members are Catholic and three are Jewish, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia was Catholic as well.”

********************************

To me, it says something very positive that Judge Gorsuch can be a member of and participate in a group that does not necessarily share all of his views. And, it says something about his church that they are able to welcome him even though many might disagree with him politically. My wife and I happen to go to a modest sized community-based church in Alexandria, VA that welcomes all people and has both prominent local Democrats and Republicans among our membership.

In some ways, Judge Grosuch reminds me of one of my wonderful former colleagues who was a conservative judge (with a big heart) but was very committed to the mission of his socially liberal Episcopal parish. He was out there delivering sandwiches to the homeless and helping the church to help those less fortunate all the time and was a very loyal participant in the religious services and the intellectual life of his church. And, I always had the impression that the members of his congregation really appreciated him because he gave them insights that they might not have thought about otherwise.

After sports and politics, theology was probably the next most discussed topic at our numerous Arlington Judges lunches. Perhaps for obvious reasons, we tried to keep a lid on the discussions of Immigration Law or save them for “chambers.”

PWS

02/05/17

N. Rappaport In HuffPost: Visa Restrictions Under President Trump’s EO Might Expand!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5894ed61e4b061551b3dfe64?timestamp=1486251772708

Nolan writes in HuffPost:

“Too much attention is being paid to a 90-day travel ban in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Order). While it is a serious matter, the temporary suspension of admitting aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen into the United States is just the tip of the iceberg. Other provisions in the Order may cause much more serious consequences.

Section 3(a) of the Order directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of State (DOS) and the Director of National Intelligence, to determine what information is needed “from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.” This applies to all countries, not just the seven that are subject to the 90-day suspension.

Those officials have 30 days from the date of the Order to report their “determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information (emphasis supplied).”

Section 3(d) directs the Secretary of State to “request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.” Section 3(e) explains the consequences of failing to comply with this request. Note that this also applies to all countries, not just the seven that are subject to the 90-day delay.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, …) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs (emphasis supplied).
This is far more serious than the 90-day ban on immigration from the seven designated countries. With some exceptions, President Trump is going to stop immigration from every country in the world that refuses to provide the requested information. And this ban will continue until compliance occurs.”

****************************

If this happens, there are likely to be more challenges, and more work for lawyers. Could President Trump turn out to be the best thing that has happened to the U.S. legal profession lately? Stay tuned.

PWS

02/05/17

Refugees Already Are Given “Extreme Vetting!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/01/refugees-are-already-vigorously-vetted-i-know-because-i-vetted-them/?utm_term=.56efba544468

Former U.S. Immigration Officer and refugee processor Natasha Hall writes in the Washington Post:

“This is what President Trump’s recent executive order has done. The order bans entry for citizens of seven countries for 90 days, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, halves the total number of refugees allowed into the United States this year and bars refugees from Syria indefinitely. It demands “a uniform screening standard and procedure,” “questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent,” “a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be” and “a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts.”

Whoever wrote this order is evidently not aware that these screenings, procedures and questions already exist.

During nearly four years as an immigration officer, I conducted in-person interviews with hundreds of refugees of 20 different nationalities in 10 countries. I saw countless refugees break down crying in my interview room because of the length and severity of the vetting process. From that experience and numerous security briefings, it’s clear that the authors of Trump’s order are unfamiliar with the U.S. immigration system, U.S. laws, international law and the security threats facing our nation. I can’t speak for all refugee and asylum officers, but I can say that those who have been working in immigration for years from opposite ends of the political spectrum are appalled by these new policies.”

*************************************

The current ruckus over “vetting” has led to many folks failing to appreciate the outstanding job that the much-maligned DHS, the State Department, The FBI, our NGO partners, U.S. Intelligence Agencies, and the Obama Administration, working together, did in keeping our country safe from foreign terrorist attacks.

PWS

02/05/17

BREAKING: 9TH CIR. Denies Gov’s Request For Immediate Stay Of Judge Robart’s Order, But Orders Expedited Briefing!

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/05/17-35105.pdf

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED

FEB 04 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF MINNESOTA,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-35105

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00141 Western District of Washington, Seattle

ORDER

Before: CANBY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The court has received appellants’ emergency motion (Docket Entry

No. 14). Appellants’ request for an immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied.

Appellees’ opposition to the emergency motion is due Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. PST. Appellants’ reply in support of the emergency motion is due Monday, February 6, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. PST.

MOATT

*************************************

Here’s what it means. The Government has appealed o the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals from Judge Robart’s TRO suspending enforcement of the Executive Order on visas and refugees. The Government requested an “immediate emergency stay” of the Judge’s TRO pending appeal. The 9th Circuit rejected the Government’s request for an “immediate” emergency stay (probably because it would have been “ex parte,” that is, without giving the other side a chance to respond).

However the 9th Circuit did order the State of Washington (and other parties opposing the stay) to file a response by noon today (Super Bowl Sunday), and also ordered the Government to respond to that filing by 3:00 PM tomorrow (Monday).

The 9th Circuit’s denial of the “immediate” emergency stay is not a “ruling on the merits” of the appeal or even the request for emergency stay. It just means that the 9th Circuit wanted additional information from both parties before deciding whether or not to grant the emergency stay pending appeal.

The Government’s request for emergency stay thus remains “alive” and could be granted (or denied) after the 9th Circuit has had a chance to review the legal arguments on both sides.

The reporting on this so far has been pretty confusing. Hope this helps straighten things out.

PWS

02/05/17

Judge Edward F. Kelly Was Just Appointed To The “High Court Of Immigration” — Who Knew?

The answer is that “almost nobody knew” outside of the insular “tower” world of EOIR Headquarters in Falls Church, VA. It took some super sleuthing by ace Legal Reporter Allissa Wickham over at Law 360 to smoke this one out.

With a little help from her friends, the fabulous “AWick” came upon Judge Kelly’s name in the Roster of Board Members in The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) Online Practice Manual. (As the BIA Practice Manual was instituted during my tenure as BIA Chair, I’m gratified that someone out there is actually reading it.)

Armed with that tidbit of information, AWick was able to get confirmation of Judge Kelly’s appointment from EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly on Friday evening. Interestingly, Judge Kelly’s biography no longer appears in the online listing for the Office of Chief Immigration Judge, where he had served for a number of years as a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge. Nor has his name or biography appeared under the online listing for the BIA. In other words, Judge Kelly is somewhat “lost in EOIR space” — close to being a bureaucratic “non-person.”

For those who don’t know, the BIA is the highest administrative tribunal in the filed of immigration. With an authorized membership of 16 Appellate Immigration Judges (Judge Kelly became #15, leaving one vacancy), the BIA received more than 29,000 cases and completed more than 34,000 cases in FY 2015 and had nearly 17,000 pending at the end of that year. By comparison, for the same period, the U.S. Supreme Court received 6,475 cases and took only 81 for oral argument.

The Board also issues nationwide precedents that are binding on the U.S. Immigration Courts and the DHS. Although a part of the Executive, not the Judicial Branch, the BIA effectively occupies a position in our justice system just below that of a U.S. Court of Appeals.

Moreover, as I have pointed out in other blogs, because of the idiosyncrasies of the Supreme Court’s so called “Chevron doctrine,” the Courts of Appeals actually are required to “defer” to the BIA’s interpretation of ambiguous questions of law. Indeed, under the Supreme Court’s remarkable “Brand X doctrine” (“Chevron on steroids”) under some circumstances the BIA can reject the legal reasoning of a Court of Appeals and apply its own interpretation instead.

In other words, notwithstanding their rather cloistered existence, and attempt to remain “below the radar screen,” BIA Appellate Immigration Judges are some of the most powerful judges in the entire Federal Justice system. That makes the lack of publicity about Judge Kelly’s elevation to the appellate bench even more curious.

For those who don’t know him, Judge Kelly started moving “up the ladder” at EOIR when I appointed him to a newly created staff supervisory position at the BIA in the mid-1990s. He was selected because of his reputation for fairness, scholarship, strong writing, collegiality, and ability to teach and inspire others. In other staff positions at the BIA, Judge Kelly became a master of understanding, explaining, and recommending improvements to the case management system. I believe it was those skills and understanding of the mechanics of the Immigration Court System that made him rise to a Deputy Chief Judge position within the Office of Chief Immigration Judge in Falls Church.

Judge Kelly was at the BIA in the late 1990s when the EOIR Executive Group developed the “EOIR Vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Although over the years, Department of Justice and EOIR management have essentially downplayed and moved away from any public expression or reinforcement of this noble vision, I’m confident that Judge Kelly remains committed to the due process mission we all embarked upon together several decades ago.

From his prior vantage point as a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, Judge Kelly saw first-hand the docket and due process disaster caused by the DOJ’s politicized meddling in the daily case management practices of the U.S. Immigration Courts over the past several years. He also witnessed the general failure of the BIA to step up and stand up for the due process rights of individuals being hustled through the system with neither lawyers nor any realistic chance of effectively presenting their claims for potential life saving protection.

I hope that as the “new Appellate Immigration Judge on the block,” Judge Kelly will bring a forceful voice for due process and fairness to his colleagues’ deliberations. By doing so, perhaps he can persuade them to face and address some of the important due process and fairness issues in the Immigration Courts that they have been avoiding.

Judge Kelly’s professional bio (taken from his appointment as Deputy Chief Judge, in the absence of a formal announcement from DOJ/EOIR) is reprinted here:

“FALLS CHURCH, Va. – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of a second deputy chief immigration judge (DCIJ). Effective March 10, 2013, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) Edward F. Kelly will become a DCIJ. Judge Kelly will assume direct supervision of the program components in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), including the legal unit, the language service unit, the organizational results unit, the chief clerk, and the executive officer.

“Judge Kelly’s appointment as deputy chief immigration judge is in recognition of his tremendous contributions to OCIJ’s efficiencies and services,” said Chief Immigration Judge Brian M. O’Leary. “With his expanded role, I am confident OCIJ will continue to improve our operations and inspire our staff.”

Biographical information follows:

Attorney General Holder appointed Judge Kelly as an ACIJ in March 2011. He received a bachelor of arts degree in 1982 and a juris doctorate in 1987, both from the University of Notre Dame. From November 2009 to March 2011, Judge Kelly served as senior counsel and chief of staff for OCIJ. From 2007 to 2009, he was counsel for operations for OCIJ at EOIR. From 1998 to 2007, Judge Kelly was a senior legal advisor for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), EOIR. From 1995 to 1998, he served as a supervisory attorney and team leader for the BIA. From 1989 to 1993 and again from 1994 to 1995, Judge Kelly was an attorney advisor for the BIA. From 1987 to 1989, he served as an assistant counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. From 1982 to 1984, he served in the U.S. Peace Corps in Gabon, Africa. Judge Kelly is a member of the Virginia State Bar.”

Perhaps, eventually, EOIR will announce Judge Kelly’s appointment. Who knows?

Additionally, those of you with full Law 360 access (which I don’t have) can read AWick’s full article at the Lexis link below.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/newsheadlines/archive/2017/02/03/board-of-immigration-appeals-gains-new-member.aspx?Redirected=true

PWS

02/04/17

Watch/Listen To NBC-4’s Northern Virginia Bureau Chief Julie Carey Reporting On Judge Brinkema’s Order!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Joins-Lawsuit-Against-Immigration-Order_Washington-DC-412739303.html

********************************

PWS

02/04/17

BREAKING: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over: U.S. District Judge James L. Robart (W.D. WA) Issues Nationwide TRO Blocking Key Parts Of Trump’s EO On Visas & Refugees: State Of Washington v. Trump — Gov Will Appeal!

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/03/state.of.washington.v.trump.pdf

************************************

This is the issue that never sleeps. A copy of Judge Robart’s Order is at the link. Judge Robart is a George W. Bush appointee.

Here’s more on the TRO and the USG’s reaction from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/index.html

Haste makes waste.

PWS

02/04/17

BREAKING: CNN: Win For Trump Visa Order — US District Judge In Boston Declines To Extend TRO!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-declines-to-renew-restraining-order-on-trump-travel-ban/index.html

“Washington (CNN)In the first court victory for the Trump administration, a federal judge in Boston declined Friday to renew a temporary restraining order that prohibited the detention or removal of foreign travelers legally authorized to come to the US.

The win in court comes at the same time that the administration issued a clarification to its travel order allowing for some citizens from the seven banned countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — to enter the US under specific circumstances.
The original temporary restraining order, issued by US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs and US Magistrate Judge Judith Dein, was put in place early Sunday morning and was set to expire on February 5.
But a different federal judge, US District Court Judge Nathaniel Gordon, ruled Friday that the claims brought by legal permanent residents are now moot given the White House counsel’s recent clarification that the travel ban order does not apply such individuals.”

******************************

Read the full story at the link. Check the internet for updates and additional analysis as it becomes available.

PWS

02/03/17

BREAKING: Judge Brinkema (USDC, EDVA) Allows Virginia To Intervene In Challenge To Trump Visa Order — Slams Implementation — DOJ & DOS Differ (By A Mere 40,000) On Number Of Visas Revoked!

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-virginia-234609

Politico reports:

“Brinkema was also harshly critical of the review and implementation of Trump’s order. “It’s quite clear not all the thinking went into it that should have gone into it,” she said. “As a result, there was chaos.”

During the hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni said that more than 100,000 visas were canceled as a result of Trump’s order last Friday limiting travel by residents of seven majority-Muslim countries, the Associated Press reported.

However, a State Department official told POLITICO later that the total number of visas canceled was fewer than 60,000. Some of those people are currently in the U.S. Their legal status here is not affected, but their visas will not be valid for re-entry if they travel out of the country, officials said.

. . . .

“At the court hearing, Brinkema said the alarm caused by Trump’s order was widespread. She said no case she has ever handled produced the level of public concern she observed in this one.

“It’s obvious that this put hundreds of thousands of people into a state of great discomfort,” the judge said. “People are really upset.”

Brinkema, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, commended the government for its effort to resolve issues raised by Trump’s order, but said more needs to be done.

“I don’t think it’s far enough,” she said as she ruled to keep the case before her alive.

“There’s no question the president of the United States has almost—almost unfettered “ power over foreign policy and border issues, but “this is not ‘no limit,’” the judge said.

Brinkema said individuals and families had “relied” on decisions made to grant visas. She has not ruled on the merits of the case, but she suggested the government could not reverse course in specific immigration cases without a legitimate reason to do so.”

*****************************

Hey, 100,000? 60,000? 40,000 difference? — close enough for Government work. BTW, Judge Brinkema has handled a major terrorist prosecution. So, she actually knows what real terrorism and national security are all about.

Once again, “haste makes waste!”

PWS

02/03/17

HuffPost: 100,000 Visas Revoked Under Trump Order!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-ban-revoked-visas_us_5894b9b9e4b09bd304bb126f?lfqs7aziux8suzyqfr&

Elise Foley Reports on HuffPost:

“WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration provisionally revoked 100,000 visas as part of its ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, a government lawyer said in court on Friday.

The revelation caused shockwaves on Twitter, but the State Department actually confirmed earlier this week that it had provisionally revoked most visas held by people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

State Department officials said later Friday that fewer than 60,000 individuals’ visas were provisionally revoked as a result of the order. “To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and non-immigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” a spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs told The Huffington Post.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the discrepancy in numbers.”

*******************************

As I’ve noted before, to date lawyers have been the only real beneficiaries of the Trump immigration orders.

PWS

01/03/17

Newsweek: Bannon Wants “American Gulag” — Will Anyone Have The Guts To Stop Him?

http://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-fever-dream-american-gulag-551472

Jeff Stein writes in this week’s Newsweek:

“Imagine: Miles upon miles of new concrete jails stretching across the scrub-brush horizons of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, with millions of people incarcerated in orange jumpsuits and awaiting deportation.

Such is the fevered vision of a little-noticed segment of President Donald Trump’s sulfurous executive order on border security and immigration enforcement security. Section 5 of the January 25 order calls for the “immediate” construction of detention facilities and allocation of personnel and legal resources “to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico” and process them for deportation. But another, much overlooked, order signed the same day spells out, in ominous terms, who will go.

Trump promised a week after the November elections that he would expel or imprison some 2 million or 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions—a number that exists mainly in his imagination. (Only about 820,000 undocumented immigrants currently have a criminal record, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Many of those have traffic infractions and other misdemeanors.)

Still, the spectre of new, pop-up jails housing hundreds of thousands of people is as powerful a fright-dream for liberals as it is a triumph for the president’s “America first” Svengali, Steve Bannon. But, like the fuzzy Trump order dropping the gate on travelers from seven Muslim-majority states, the deportation measure presents so many fiscal and legal restraints that is also looks suspiciously like just another act of ideological showboating from the rumpled White House strategy chief.

“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed to the writer Ronald Radosh at a party at his Capitol Hill townhouse in November 2013. “Lenin,” he said of the Russian revolutionary, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

The executive orders were “not issued as result of any recommendation or threat assessment made by DHS to the White House,” Department of Homeland Security officials conceded in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill Wednesday, according to a statement from Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. They were all Bannon-style revolutionary theater.

. . . .

Expect DHS to start advertising for bids from private prison operators, a much-maligned industry that was collapsing in the latter years of the Obama administration. Two of the largest, GEO Group Inc. and CoreCivic Inc., are already seeing windfalls from their second chance at life: Their stock prices have nearly doubled since the election.

All of which recalls another Leninist idea that Bannon may have forgotten: Prisons are universities for revolution.”

***********************************

Stein’s article confirms what many of us had suspected all along — these draconian and unnecessary measures were were “’not issued as result of any recommendation or threat assessment made by DHS to the White House.’” No, they were part of a pre-hatched anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim program cooked up by Bannon and others in the White House to “make good” on Trump’s campaign promises (regardless of whether the measures were necessary of sensible).

But they will be a boon for two important U.S. industries: the private prison industry and the legal industry, as both sides “lawyer up” for a long-term, avoidable, and wasteful fight. Who needs foreign enemies when the Administration is so determined to wage warfare against a large number of our own citizens and residents who disagree with his ill-considered and ill-timed policies?

Stein’s full article (well worth the read) is at the link.

PWS

02/03/17

NYT: Administration Will Allow Iraqi Interpreters To Enter After All — Pentagon Comes To The Rescue Of U.S. War Allies

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/middleeast/trump-visa-ban-iraq-interpreters.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

“BAGHDAD — The Trump administration amended its visa ban on Thursday to allow emigration by the families of Iraqi interpreters who served the United States government and military forces deployed in their country.

The change, recommended by the Pentagon, eased some of the anger generated in Iraq by President Trump’s executive order imposing the ban, which has stoked anxiety and confusion around much of the world since it was issued last week.

The order temporarily blocked all Syrian refugees from entering the United States and suspended visas for applicants from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq. It applied to holders of so-called Special Immigrant Visas issued to interpreters who worked for the United States during its 2003-11 occupation, often at great personal risk, and to their families.

In a statement about the change sent to The New York Times, a United States Embassy official in Baghdad said, “The U.S. government has determined that it is in the national interest to allow Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (S.I.V.) holders to continue to travel to the United States.” Iraqis who have received the visas, the statement said, may use them, and the “U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will continue to process and issue S.I.V.s to applicants who are otherwise qualified.”

********************************

Wow! Why didn’t they just say that in the first place? Would have saved lots of trouble, heartache, and very bad publicity for the U.S. and the Administration. But, better late than never, I guess.

PWS

02/13/17

AP (Via Washington Times): More Coverage Of “Keller Memo” Eliminating “Rocket Dockets” In Immigration Court — Let Me Know If You Have Seen Changes In Your Local U.S. Immigration Court!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/1/immigration-courts-to-focus-on-detainees-not-kids-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

ALICIA CALDWELL and AMY TAXIN – Associated Press reporting:

“The order to refocus the system’s priorities comes just days after Trump signed an executive order directing immigration agents to focus enforcement efforts on far more immigrants living in the country illegally, including anyone arrested on a criminal charge or with a criminal history.

A second order directed Homeland Security officials to detain immigrants caught crossing the border illegally and hold them until they can be deported or a judge rules on their fate.

“He’s going to keep everybody detained,” said Annaluisa Padilla, an immigration attorney in California. “There is nothing about speeding here or having people have due process in court.”

Trump’s call to detain more border crossers comes with a need for more jail space. The government has enough money to jail 34,000 people at any given time, though thousands more people have been held in recent months.

The government is looking for more jail beds, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan said Tuesday.

A message left for the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday was not immediately returned.

Padilla said she worries the change means unaccompanied children with strong cases might get stuck in the backlog.

Immigration attorney Meeth Soni said she believed immigration authorities want the court to move quicker on detention cases to free up more jail space.

“In anticipation of more increased detention, and those proceedings, they’re going to have to basically make that a priority for the court,” said Soni, an attorney at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles.”

*******************************

Please send me a comment if you have noticed that the “Keller Memo” has affected your local U.S. Immigration Court.

Also, seems to me that attorneys for children and families can’t have it both ways. Ever since the beginning of the “rocket docket” they have been complaining about its adverse effect on recently arrived families and children. Finally, Chief Judge Keller (who was recently appointed and not involved in the former Attorney General’s ill-advised decision to institute “rocket dockets” back in 2014) has been able to eliminate the “rocket docket.” Barring very unusual circumstances, attorneys representing the “former priority cases” will just have to get in line with everyone else who has been waiting. While given the length of the wait in some Immigration Courts that’s certainly not ideal; but, it does seem fair under the circumstances.

PWS

02/03/17

AMICUS INVITATION (PROTECTED CLASS OF VICTIMS), DUE MARCH 6, 2017

Amicus Invitation No. 17-02-02
AMICUS INVITATION (PROTECTED CLASS OF VICTIMS), DUE MARCH 6, 2017

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:

ISSUE PRESENTED:

(1) Whether, in light of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Ortega-Lopez v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2016), a conviction under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1), constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In this regard, discuss whether a crime involving moral turpitude requires a protected class of victims and, if so, whether animals may constitute a protected class of victims.

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-02-02. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-02-02. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case may be available. Please contact the Amicus Clerk by phone or mail (see contact information below) for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear and brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by March 6, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear and brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear and brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae).

Notice: A Request to Appear may be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(f). A Request to Appear filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Should the Board decide to publish a decision, the Board may, at its discretion, name up to three attorneys or representatives. If you wish a different set of three names or you have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear and brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus brief.

******************************

PWS

02/03/17

WSJ: Two Articles Show How “Trump Country” Depends On Foreign Trade And Immigration!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-country-might-suffer-more-in-a-trade-war-study-says-1485752403

Bob Davis writes in the WSJ on Jan. 30:

“WASHINGTON—Should the U.S. get embroiled in a trade war, communities that voted for Donald Trump are likely to take a bigger hit than those that voted for Hillary Clinton, according to a study by the Brookings Institution.

Brookings measured what it called the export intensity of urban areas around the country—meaning local goods and service exports as a percentage of local GDP in 2015—to get a picture of those places most dependent on access to the global economy. The most export-intensive places tended to be smaller cities in the Midwest and Southeast—solid Trump country—rather than the big metropolitan areas that went heavily for Mrs. Clinton.
“Trump communities are relatively more reliant on trade,” said Mark Muro, head of Brookings’s metropolitan policy program. “They are smaller communities with less flexibility” to adapt to a cutoff in trade.

“Disruption could be especially troubling for those places,” he said. Brookings said it traces exports back to the point where value is added via production, rather than where goods and services are shipped. The latter gives too much weight to big ports.

Columbus, Ind., a center of machine-making, is the most export-reliant city in the country, Brookings found. The GDP of the city of 46,000, which voted 2 to 1 for Mr. Trump, is 50.6% dependent on exports. Three other Indiana cities—Elkhart, Kokomo and Lafayette—are among the top 10 cities dependent on exports.

The work by Brookings researchers is in some ways the complement to the better-known work of economists David Autor,Gordon Hanson and David Dorn, who identified the localities most vulnerable to Chinese import competition.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-in-midwest-rust-belt-say-they-need-immigrants-1485890637?emailToken=JRrzcf15YH6Qit0wZsw31UEpY7JNCunMQ1LbM33RJg3WqWfJ5Oisw7lwnNKm5H+vSFc/4d0J4ys+QDjQj3BjWtOK3ucjwQr0KiED9c4=

Will Connors writes in the Jan. 31 WSJ:

“An array of Republican and Democratic officials from across the Rust Belt and Midwest are united in concern about President Donald Trump’s clampdown on refugees and certain immigrants for one overriding reason: Their communities need more people.

Large Democratically-controlled “sanctuary cities” including Chicago, San Francisco and New York have been outspoken in resisting the administration’s ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, citing political and moral reasons.

But officials from a second tier of smaller cities, from Columbus, Ohio, to Troy, Mich., to Garden City, Kan., are highlighting the economic importance of welcoming refugees and immigrants to bolster declining populations and add manpower, skills and entrepreneurial know-how.

“I understand that the president is trying to protect the U.S. However, there are many good people that have located here that are escaping wars and political actions, and they’re just looking for a chance to raise their families in a safe environment,” said Janet Doll, a Republican city commissioner in Garden City, Kan. “The immigrants we have here are productive members of society. They have nice jobs and want to contribute to the quality of life in our community.”

****************************

We haven’t even gotten around to the Trump Administration’s next initiative: an attack on legal immigration to the U.S., family members, workers, both temporary and permanent, and refugees, which was covered in one of my earlier blogs.

Perhaps, instead of stirring the pot for a fruitless “can’t win war” on a well-qualified conservative Supreme Court nominee (actually, along with taking Ivanka to be with the family of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens at Dover AFB, one of the most reasonable things Trump has done since Jan 20) the Democrats should take the “high road.” Democrats might also want to do some thinking about how to “build bridges” with with some of these folks in “Trump Country” who are more likely to find economic disappointment, than economic success, in the Trump Administration’s blunderbuss assault on loyal allies, trading partners, and immigrants of all types who fuel the success of the real America (not just Washington, D.C. or “big cities”).

President Trump proved that he could win a comfortable (even if not the “landslide” he likes to claim) electoral victory with only 46.1% of the popular vote. That’s about 40% “Trump base” and a critical 6.1% who might have voted for Obama or Bernie Sanders in earlier elections, but pulled the lever for Trump this time around. If the Democrats don’t come up with a workable strategy to connect with and “peel off” at least some of those voters, Trump will likely be headed for a second term even if he never gets support from a majority of American voters. In that case, Democrats will long for the days when screwing around with an otherwise well-qualified conservative Supreme Court nominee was their biggest problem.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: