http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=1b21fb3b-e996-4631-833b-b3e2d6b0a1c7
Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports for the LA Times:
PORT ISABEL DETENTION CENTER, Texas — Sitting before an immigration judge in this south Texas detention center Thursday, a Central American mother separated from her son pleaded for asylum.
“Your honor, I’m just asking for one opportunity to be here,” said the woman wearing a blue prison uniform and a red plastic rosary around her neck. “You don’t know how much pain it has caused us to be separated from our children. We’re kind of losing it.”
Judge Robert Powell’s face was stern. During the last five years, he has denied 79% of asylum cases, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
“What you’re describing is not persecution,” he said.
“I’m asking for an opportunity,” the woman replied in Spanish through an interpreter.
“I’m not here to give you an opportunity.” He ordered her deported.
Immigrant family separations on the border were supposed to end after President Trump issued an order June 20. A federal judge in California ordered all children be reunited with their parents in a month, and those age 5 and under within 15 days. On Thursday, the administration said up to 3,000 children have been separated — hundreds more than initially reported — and DNA testing has begun to reunite families.
Port Isabel has been designated the “primary family reunification and removal center,” but lawyers here said they have yet to see detained parents reunited.
To qualify for asylum in the U.S., immigrants must prove they fear persecution at home because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or “membership in a particular social group,” and that their government is unwilling or unable to protect them. Most of the Central American parents detained here after “zero tolerance” fled gang and domestic violence. But that’s no longer grounds for seeking asylum, according to a guidance last month from Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions. Immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, so judges are following that guidance.
Because immigration courts are administrative, not criminal, immigrants are not entitled to public defenders. And so, each day, they attempt to represent themselves in hearings that sometimes last only a few minutes.
The courtrooms are empty. That’s because, like others nationwide, the court is inside a fortified Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Access is restricted, and may be denied. The Times had to request to attend court hearings — which are public — 24 hours in advance. After access to the facility was approved last week, admission was denied to the courtrooms when guards said the proceedings were closed, without explanation.
Detainees have little access to the outside world, including their children. It costs them 90 cents a minute to place a phone call. When they do, they can be nearly inaudible. They receive mail, but when reporters wrote to them last week, the letters were confiscated and guards questioned why they had been contacted, according to a lawyer. Lawyers also said some separated parents have been pressured into agreeing to deportation in order to reunite with their children.
UNICEF officials toured Port Isabel Thursday. A dozen pro bono lawyers visited immigrants. But they were spread thin. None represented parents at the credible fear reviews, where judges considered whether to uphold an asylum officer’s finding that they be deported.
Immigration Judge Morris Onyewuchi, a former Homeland Security lawyer appointed to the bench two years ago, questioned several parents’ appeals.
“You have children?” he asked a Honduran mother.
Yes, Elinda Aguilar said, she had three.
“Two of them were with me when we got separated by immigration, the other is in Honduras,” said Aguilar, 44.
“How many times have you been to the U.S.?” the judge asked.
Aguilar said this was her first time. The judge reviewed what Aguilar had told an asylum officer: That she had fled an ex-husband who beat, raped and threatened her. “He told you he would kill you if you went with another man?” the judge said.
Yes, Aguilar replied.
The judge noted that Aguilar had reported the crimes to police, who charged her husband, although he never showed up in court. Then he announced his decision: deportation.
Aguilar looked confused. “Did the asylum officer talk to you and explain my case?” she said.
The judge said he was acting according to the law.
Although she was fleeing an abusive husband, he said, “your courts intervened and they put him through the legal process. That’s also how things work in this country.”
Aguilar knit her hands. She wasn’t leaving yet.
“I would like to know what’s going to happen to my children, the ones who came with me,” she asked the judge.
“The Department of Homeland Security will deal with that. Talk to your deportation officer,” he said. Guards led her away as she looked shocked, and brought in the next parent.
Down the hall, Judge Powell heard appeals from separated parents appearing by video feed from Pearsall Detention Center to the west. Though he denied most asylum cases, there are exceptions. Recently, after an asylum officer denied a claim by a Central American woman who said police raped and threatened to kill her, Powell reversed that decision. She can now pursue her asylum claim, though she still hasn’t been released or reunited with her kids.
********************************************
Obvious question: What, in fact, is a “judge” who isn’t there to give individuals fair hearings and treat them with respect, dignity, and humanity “there for?” What good is a judge who won’t protect individual rights from Government abuses? That’s the whole reason for our “Bill of Rights!”
Jeff Sessions regularly makes bogus, racist inspired claims about “fraud” in our asylum system. But, the REAL fraud in our asylum system is holding ourselves out as a nation of laws and Constitutional government instead of the Banana Republic we have become under Trump. And, maybe if this is what America is today, Trump is right: we don’t need any judges. Just jailers and executioners.
PWS
07-06-18
This “judge” actually was an administrative “judge” at the EEO for 9 years before gracing EOIR with his presence in 2010 (Bio from TRAC below).
I can’t imagine that the litigants at EEO fared much better in front of him than the poor immigrants now having their cases “decided” by him in Texas.
Disgraceful! May he reap what he has sown and may it happen sooner than later.
Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Powell in August 2010. Judge Powell received a bachelor of arts degree in 1970 from Tulane University and a juris doctorate in 1973 from St. Mary’s University School of Law. From 2001 to August 2010, he worked as an administrative judge for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in San Antonio, Texas.
“From 1998 to 2001, Judge Powell was an administrative law attorney for the U.S. Department of the Army. From 1996 to 1998, he was an administrative law attorney for the Panama Canal Commission, where, from 1977 to 1982, he worked in the same capacity. From 1982 to 1996, Judge Powell was in private practice. From 1973 to 1977, he served in the U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General Corps. Judge Powell is a member of the State Bar of Texas.”
I’ve noted numerous times before that the DOJ under Obama cultivated a “go along to get along” Immigration Court that retained almost all of the worst features imposed by Ashcroft at the time of the “2003 Purge” and the immediate, disastrous aftermath. The Obama Administration appointed exactly zero (0) BIA Judges from outside government! Nearly 90% of all of their Immigration Judge appointments were from government backgrounds, mostly former prosecutors.
Those with the best overall knowledge of asylum law and specific knowledge of what it’s like to present an asylum case in Immigraton Court — pro bono attorneys, attorneys working for NGOs, clinical professors, and private practitioners were basically excluded from the Immigration Judiciary. The result is a one-sided, non-diverse, non-deliberative, “no rocking the boat” judiciary that has a strong tendency not to adequately recognize and protect the already limited rights of migrants, and particularly asylum seekers.
I spent the vast bulk of my career in private practice on business immigration. But, I did take a few asylum cases, mostly pro bono. I also was an adviser to what is now Human Rights First on strategizing pro bono asylum cases. I actually had folks with strong cases calling me in the middle of the night because they couldn’t sleep worrying about what would happen to them and their families and why their cases were taking so long.
Folks who haven’t represented asylum seekers and who haven’t worked on the asylum system from the “other side” are missing essential knowledge. I learned a lot about asylum in private practice beyond what I already knew from helping develop and implement the Refugee Act of 1980 and running the Legacy INS Legal Program (which was plenty).
My private practice experience certainly influenced my later work as a judge at both the appellate and trial levels. Sure, judges of any background could learn both sides of asylum law if they are willing. But, there is almost nobody at EOIR right now who can teach and argue asylum law the way it was supposed to be applied.
It’s hard to imagine that any woman fleeing the Northern Triangle these days would’t have at least a strong “CAT” protection case. And, even Sessions had to leave a few avenues open in A-B-. But, no unrepresented individual, in detention, traumatized by family separation, has any chance whatsoever of finding the path to potential success.
Worse yet, we won’t even give these folks the time to listen sympathetically to their cases and explain carefully and humanely the reasons why they don’t fit, if that in fact is the case. We are unwilling to give them a reasonable chance to find a lawyer and document and put on a full case, even though the stakes literally are life or death.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, who’s too busy to care about the fate of other human beings, particularly those in such desperate situations as the families and children arriving at our Southern Border, deserves the privilege of serving as a judge.
And, that goes for the weak-kneed Article III Judges who rubber stamp parodies of Due Process and who fail to find ways to intervene and put an end to the massive abuse of Due Process and human rights taking place at our Southern Border in the “Immigraton Courts,” the totally unfair “credible fear” process, and the horrible clown act that passes for criminal trials conducted in several minutes before U.S. Magistrate Judges in U.S. District Courts along the Southern Border. And these “misdemeanor convictions” do make a difference! Sessions plans to illegally use them to bar individuals from seeking asylum.
Do the U.S. Magistrate Judges take the time to inform the befuddled masses passing before them that not only might they not get their kids back, but the AG has it in for them and reportedly plans to use this kangaroo court proceeding to prevent them from seeking asylum. How do these “judges” deal with the principle of the Convention we signed saying that asylum seekers should not be “punished.”
The whole thing is a cruel farce and an indelible stain on our nation. The “judges” who are participating and “going along to get along” with the egregious human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Trump Administration will eventually be held accountable by history for what they are dong, even if they do escape legal accountability during their lifetimes!
PWS
07-07-18