"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.
At least at first reading, the OPLA memo seems like a more neutral legal analysis than the USCIS “Sessions told us to shoot ’em all on sight” memo:
On its face it also seems like a much less biased analysis than the anti-asylum, anti-woman, anti-Hispanic screed that Sessions spewed forth in Matter of A-B-;
OPLA appears to be emphasizing that each claim must be individually evaluated and examined, rather than the idea promoted by Sessions and USCIS that all women from Central America and all Central Americans fleeing gang violence or domestic violence should be presumptively denied with only a few exceptions;
Does this mean that there is an internal split within DHS?
Interestingly, the OPLA memo specifically reserves judgement on “gender as a particular group” claims;
Of course, if Sessions and Cissna have their way nobody will ever get to Immigration Court to claim asylum, because nobody will get out of the now-gamed “credible fear” process, so perhaps OPLA’s views won’t have much effect.
How bad and biased are Sessions and Cissna? That ICE’s OPLA, the head of all the ICE prosecutors, sounds more reasonable should tell you all you need to know!
It’s also worth remembering that OPLA and the DHS General Counsel actually led the years-long effort to provide protection for victims of domestic violence that Sessions, without any reasonable explanation, reversed in Matter of A-B-.
According to UNHCR, the U.S. cannot return or expel “a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
The United States is meeting this condition with the withholding of deportation provision in the INA. It provides that, “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
The burden of proof is higher for withholding than it is for asylum. Asylum just requires the applicant to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Withholding requires the applicant to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted.
And withholding grants fewer benefits.
A grant of withholding does not convey legal immigration status to the alien. It just prohibits sending him to a country where he would face persecution. He can be removed to another country where he will not be persecuted.
Moreover, it is not derivative. A grant of withholding does not apply to the members of the alien’s family.
The United States also is a signatory to the UN’s Convention against Torture (CAT), which prohibits the U.S. from expelling, returning or extraditing “a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
Relief under CAT does not confer lawful immigration status on the alien. It just prohibits his deportation to the country where he would be tortured. He can be deported to a country where he will not be tortured.
. . . .
************************************
To fully understand the differences between asylum and withholding under the Refugee Convention and the CAT, read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill!
Nolan makes a good point that although asylum is by statute discretionary, these other forms of relief are mandatory. Moreover, the current Federal case law limits discretionary denials of asylum to “egregious” adverse factors.
Trump administration to turn away far more asylum seekers at the border under new guidance
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration is implementing a new asylum policy at the border that will result in potentially thousands of asylum seekers being turned away before they can plead their case in court.
The guidance, reviewed by CNN, also applies to refugee applicants — immigrants seeking similar protections in the US who are still abroad.
Under new guidance given Wednesday to the officers who interview asylum seekers at the US’ borders and evaluate refugee applications, claims based on fear of gang and domestic violence will be immediately rejected. In addition, the guidance tells officers they should consider whether an immigrant crossed the border illegally and weigh that against their claim, potentially rejecting even legitimate fears of persecution if the immigrant crossed illegally.
The move is likely to draw swift condemnation from immigration advocates and legal challenges. Advocates say international law is clear that asylum claims are valid even when a migrant enters a country illegally. They also argue that rejecting these traumatized immigrants puts their lives at risk immediately upon their return home.
The changes being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security come on the heels of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision last month that gang and domestic violence victims no longer qualify for asylum. Asylum protects migrants already in the US who fear persecution in their home country.
Remember, folks, most of the intended “victims” of this policy are:
unrepresented
detained
traumitized
speaking through an interpreter (perhaps telephonic)
totally clueless as to what a “particular social group,” the “three criteria,” nexus,” or Matter of A-B- mean, and
Matter of A-B has never been tested or approved by any “real (Article III) court.”
Shoot first, ask questions later. This is America in the 21st Century. This is how we treat our fellow human beings —- most of them refugees seeking our help and protection under the law. This is what we are as human beings under Trump & Sessions. Someday, our descendants will look back on us and say “how could you!”
One fun example of the conservative judge’s take on workers’ rights is his dissent—the only one—in a case involving the SeaWorld trainer who was eaten by a killer whale during a performance in 2010, the third time the whale had been “involved in a human death.” While his colleagues upheld a prior ruling that the theme park had violated safety standards by “exposing . . . trainers to recognized hazards when working in close contact with killer whales during performances,” Kavanaugh thought that was bullshit, writing that lots of sports are dangerous, but that doesn’t mean the Labor Department should use its authority to implement regulations aimed at minimizing the chances that trainers will be eaten in full view of paying customers. “When should we as a society paternalistically decide,” Kavanaugh asked, “that the risk of significant physical injury is simply too great even for leager and willing participants? And most importantly for this case, who decides that the risk to participants is too high?” Presumably B-Kavs, as we imagine his fellow Yalies called him, also believes that coal-mining companies shouldn’t have to comply with onerous rules intended to prevent mine collapses—because those miners know what they’re signing up for, dammit.
Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh’s take on the SeaWorld incidentdidn’t go over well with labor unions and workers’-rights groups, many of which have opposed his nomination. (“Judge Kavanaugh routinely rules against working families, regularly rejects the employees’ right[s] to receive employer-provided health care, too often sides with employers in denying employees relief from discrimination in the workplace, and promotes overturning well-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumkasaid in a statement.) But his opinion that trainer Dawn Brancheaubasically had it coming is just one of many that scare people who value things like workers’ rights, clean air, and consumer protection.
It’s also one of many items on Kavanaugh’s résumé that the administration is touting to the business community, in the hopes that it will help push his nomination through, per Politico:
The White House on Monday immediately played up Brett Kavanaugh’s pro-business, anti-regulation record and is asking industry trade groups for help pushing his confirmation through the Senate . . . With Republicans holding only a sliver of a majority in the Senate, deep-pocketed business groups could have enough influence, especially in an election year, to help swing votes in Kavanaugh’s favor.
In a one-page document, which was obtained by Politico, the White House wrote that Kavanaugh has overruled federal regulators 75 times on cases involving clean air, consumer protections, net neutrality, and other issues. Most recently, in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he favored curtailing the power of independent federal regulators.
“Judge Kavanaugh protects American businesses from illegal job-killing regulation,” the White House bragged in its e-mail, adding that “Kavanaugh helped kill President Obama’s most destructive new environmental rules,” and has “led the effort to rein in unaccountable independent agencies.” Indeed, the nominee has in fact written that “independent agencies pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.” In a 2016 appellate-court case, he said that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was “unconstitutionally structured,” because its director cannot be fired by the president without cause, suggesting that, should it come to it, he’ll grant Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s lifelong dream of seeing the agency burned to the ground.
Watch Now:
Michael Douglas Breaks Down His Career, From “Wall Street” to “Ant-Man”
Elsewhere, critics say that Kavanaugh’s time on the bench has been marked by “hostility to federal regulatory agencies trying to protect the environment.” According to Bill Snape,a senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, Kavanaugh “sides with industry, he sides with deregulation, he sides with those who would have science be in retreat. He has been a dark force on the D.C. Circuit and now seems to have the opportunity to bring his bag of tricks to the Supreme Court.”
All of which, obviously, makes him the perfect candidate for Trump. Just something to remember should you work in an environment where you could be construed by colleagues as a tasty snack.
If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.
Trump has no idea how NATO works
Here’s what the president of the United States tweeted on Tuesday, one day before the summit in Brussels:
In fact, that’s not how the alliance works at all. Members do not pay the United States, hence they cannot be “delinquent for many years in payments,” nor should they “reimburse the U.S.” Rather, as President Twitter is seemingly unaware, NATO is a collective defense organization whose members agree to defend one another in response to an attack by an outside party. While it was agreed that members will increase their defense spending levels to 2 percent of their G.D.P., they said they would do so by 2024, not whatever earlier date Trump has in mind. As is the case with most instances of the president saying or tweeting things that are factually inaccurate, one cannot, as New York’s Jonathan Chaitwrites, “rule out the possibility that Trump lacks the mental capacity to understand the basic form of America’s most important alliance.” But given his apparent hatred of NATOand desire to pull out of any multilateral agreements signed before he took office, it’s equally possible that, as Chait writes, Trump is “choosing not to understand this, so that he can precipitate a fissure within the alliance.”
Of course Rudy Giuliani is working for foreign clients while serving as the president’s lawyer
Giuliani said in recent interviews with The Washington Postthat he is working with clients in Brazil and Colombia, among other countries, as well as delivering paid speeches for a controversial Iranian dissident group. He has never registered with the Justice Department on behalf of his overseas clients, asserting it is not necessary because he does not directly lobby the U.S. government and is not charging Trump for his services.
His decision to continue representing foreign entities also departs from standard practice for presidential attorneys, who in the past have generally sought to sever any ties that could create conflicts with their client in the White House.
“I’ve never lobbied him on anything,” Giuliani told the Post,referring to Trump. “I don’t represent foreign government in front of the U.S. government. I’ve never registered to lobby.” Among the ex-mayor’s clients is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a.k.a. MEK, an Iranian resistance group that the State Department listed as a terrorist group as recently as 2012, from whom Giuliani said he has regularly received payments for the past decade.
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, a legal-ethics professor at University of California-Irvine told the Post that, obviously,it’s not a great idea for a lawyer serving the president to have foreign business clients because of the high probability they’ll have opposing interests. “I think Rudy believes because he is doing the job pro bono the rules do not apply to him,” she said, “but they do.”
Oops: the tax cuts might not juice the economy at all
Of course, given that this analysis is coming from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, we assume anyone on Team Tax Cuts will write it off as pinko claptrap:
The tax cuts Republicans enacted in late 2017 will likely provide less of a boost to economic growth than many forecasters predict—and possibly none at all—economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco said Monday.
That’s because the changes took effect at a time when the economy was already firing on all cylinders. As a result, there are fewer unemployed workers, spare resources, and idled factories ready to kick into action than there would have been during a downturn.
Citing a bevy of recent research, economists Tim Mahedyand Daniel J. Wilson said fiscal stimulus measures tend to make a bigger splash when there is more slack in the economy.
“The projected procyclical policy over the next few years may raise concerns regarding the nation’s fiscal capacity to respond to future downturns and its ability to manage the growing federal debt,” Mahedy and Wilson wrote. “However, it also has important implications for the macroeconomic impact of the fiscal stimulus represented by the [tax law] and the consequent increase in the deficit.”
Sell-side analyst chooses road less traveled in resigning from job
An irate sell-side analyst appears to have chosen a memorable way to resign—by uncorking a champagne bottle and spraying it around his boss’s office and then pouring the bubbly on the floor around the rest of the office.
A video of the after-hours rampage was posted to an Instagram account belonging to Francesco Pellegrino,formerly of Sidoti & Co.
Music is heard in the background of many of the video’s clips, including Whitney Houston’s “How Will I Know” and Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch’s “Good Vibrations.”
Pellegrino did not return the Post’s requests for comment. When asked about the office trashing, Sidoti said, “I don’t even know how to respond,” before hanging up.
Elsewhere!
Hedge Funds Facing Trump’s Trade War Crossfire Feel the Pain (Bloomberg)
McKinsey Ends Work With ICE Amid Furor Over Immigration Policy (N.Y.T.)
Elliott Management launches action to take control of AC Milan (Reuters)
Swiss Say 1MDB Used as Ponzi Scheme to Bribe Officials (Bloomberg)
Credit Suisse’s Paul Dexter Departs Firm After Intern Investigation (Bloomberg)
Elon Musk doesn’t like being called a billionaire (Twitter)
Morgan Stanley C.E.O. Candidate List Takes Shape with Promotions (Bloomberg)
Man solves 2,474 Rubik’s cubes one-handed in 24 hours (UPI)
**************************
Yup. Standing up for the rights of the already overprivileged against the vulnerable masses. This Dude should make mincemeat out of the Bill of Rights. After all, the Founding Fathers wanted to protect corporations against the actions of individuals.
I can hardly wait for him to uphold reparations for the tea merchants so grievously harmed by those rowdy “patriots” during the highly illegal “Boston Tea Party.”
It was an outrageous assault on commerce, stability, private property, the rule of law, and societal order, as well as an affront to investors and the privileged! If anyone ever deserved to be eaten by Killer Whales, it was those lawless and scummy “Tea Partiers!”
B-Kavs is certainly a judge for whom common sense, humanity, reason, facts, and the US Constitution will never get in the way of protecting corporate privilege and GOP political interests. And, he’ll still be meting out injustice and inequality long after I’m gone.
3 graphs that explain Trump’s dilemma on the border
By Tal Kopan and Sam Petulla, CNN
President Donald Trump’s now-reversed “zero-tolerance” policy to prosecute parents who illegally cross the border with their children did not come out of thin air.
The policy, which drew international outcry for its effect of separating thousands of immigrant families, followed months of previous Trump administration efforts to change border policies, including by rolling back a host of protections for immigrant families put in place by courts and Congress.
Though these moves are partly a reflection of this President’s far more aggressive stance toward immigration, they also reflect this simple fact: Migration at the southern border today is entirely different than it was five years ago.
Much of Trump’s rhetoric on the border harks back a decade, to a time when mostly Mexican individuals were crossing the border illegally in huge numbers looking for work.
But today the situation is far different. Illegal immigration from Mexicans has dropped substantially, and increasingly migrants are fleeing violence and instability in Central America.
The pool of migrants is also increasingly made up of families and of children on their own. Many of them seek asylum when they arrive, believing they may qualify for protections designed for immigrants fleeing persecution in their home countries. They may also know that the court backlog means they’ll likely get to live in the US for at least a few years while they pursue their claims.
The privatization of ICE detention centers has exacerbated the problems the bureau faces and has given considerable fodder to media exposes of abuses. The DHS Office of Inspector General recently released a scathing report on failures of the private contractors to comply with detention standards. It’s time to restructure the responsibilities to administer detention and removal policies more humanely.
To its credit, ICE also performs critical assignments that include investigating foreign nationals who violate the laws. The main categories of crimes its agents investigate are suspected terrorism, criminal acts, suspected fraudulent activities (i.e., possessing or manufacturing fraudulent immigration documents) and suspected smuggling and trafficking of foreign nationals. ICE investigators are housed in the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) component and are among those who would dismantle ICE.
If ICE is not at the border performing critical background checks and national security screenings, who does? First, the State Department consular officers screen all foreign nationals requesting a visa, employing biometric technologies along with biographic background checks. In some high-risk consulates abroad, ICE assists in national security screenings. Then, DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors examine all foreign nationals who seek admission to the United States at ports of entry. CBP inspectors and consular officials partner with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to utilize the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment on known and suspected terrorists and terrorist groups.
They also check the background of all foreign nationals in biometric and biographic databases such the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Improvements in intelligence-gathering, along with advances in technologies and inter-agency sharing, have greatly enhanced the rigor of our national security screenings.
The most effective policy for interior immigration enforcement would be one prioritizing “quality of life” enforcement. As I have written elsewhere, it would be aimed at protecting U.S. residents from the deleterious and criminal aspects of immigration. Foremost, it would involve the investigation and removal of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes and who are deportable, thus maintaining the important activities of the current ICE investigators.
“Quality of life” enforcement, furthermore, would prioritize investigations of specific work sites for wage, hour and safety violations, sweatshop conditions and trafficking in persons — all illegal activities to which unauthorized workers are vulnerable. “Quality of life” enforcement also would encompass stringent labor market tests (e.g., labor certifications and attestations) to ensure that U.S. workers are not adversely affected by the recruitment of foreign workers, as well as reliable employment verification systems. Many of these functions once were performed by the Department of Labor (DOL), before funding cuts gutted its enforcement duties.
Prioritizing these functions likely would go a long way toward curbing unauthorized migration. Whether DOL or a revamped immigration enforcement be the lead on “quality of life” measures remains a key management question. There is a strong case for re-establishing DOL’s traditional role in protecting U.S. workers and certifying the hiring of foreign workers. Given the critical role that ICE investigators play, it is imperative that they be housed in an agency that provides them with adequate support. These are finer points that can be resolved as the functions are reorganized.
Including a multi-pronged agency or agencies charged with ensuring “quality of life” immigration enforcement measures as part of a package of immigration reforms would only increase the strong public support (roughly two-thirds favor) for comprehensive immigration reform. Good policy. Good politics.
Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. She is writing a book about the legislative drive to end race- and nationality-based immigration.
*******************************************
Hit the above link to read Ruth’s entire article over at The Hill.
I believe that both Nolan Rappaport and I have previously noted the importance of better wage and hour enforcement in preventing employer abuse of both the legal and extra-legal immigration systems. Sure make lots more sense than “busting” hard-working, productive members of our community who have the bad fortune to be here without documents in an era of irrational enforcement!
There are lots of “smart immigration enforcement” options out there. Although the Obama Administration for the most part screwed up immigration policy, toward the end they actually were coming around to some of the “smart enforcement” initiatives, particularly with DACA at USCIS and more consistent and widespread use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE.
Naturally, the Trump Administration abandoned all of the “smart” initiatives started by the Obama Administration and instead doubled down on every cruel, ineffective, and just plain stupid policy from the past. But, that’s because it’s never been about law enforcement or developing a rational immigration policy. It’s really all about racism and White Nationalism. This Administration, representing a minority of Americans, has absolutely no interest in democracy or governing for the common good.
That’s why it’s critical for the rest of us, who want no part of White Nationalist Nation, to begin the process for “regime change” at the ballot box this Fall! And, in the meantime, join the New Due Process Army and fight the horrible excesses and intentionally ugly policies of the Trumpsters!
After Mr. Ross’s explanation for the citizenship question’s origin shifted, Judge Furman said it appeared that the Commerce Department had acted in “bad faith” in deciding to add the question.
Mr. Ross said in a statement on March 26 that the Justice Department, which oversees enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, had asked that the question be placed on census forms. But late last month he reversed course, stating in a memo that he actually had been discussing the citizenship question “with other government officials” since shortly after taking office in February 2017 — and that the Justice Department had made its request only after he or his aides asked it to.
Judge Furman called Mr. Ross’s March explanation of his decision both “potentially untrue” and improbable because, he said, the Justice Department “has shown little interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act.”
In an emailed response to questions, a Commerce Department spokeswoman, Rebecca Glover, said there was no inconsistency between the two statements. “Characterizations of the secretary’s prior public statements as somehow misleading are false,” she wrote. Whatever the run-up to the Justice Department’s request, she said, it remained the trigger that led to Mr. Ross’s “thorough and transparent assessment” of the need for a citizenship question.
Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former congressional expert on the census who is a private consultant to groups seeking an accurate 2020 count, called Mr. Ross’s revised timeline “disappointing and deeply troubling.”
“This seems to confirm that the Justice Department request for the citizenship question was a pretense to achieve a political goal through the census,” she said. “The pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together, going back to when President Trump took office.”
In their lawsuit, which is led by the New York attorney general, Barbara D. Underwood, the plaintiffs imply that enforcing the Voting Rights Act was a pretext for another goal: ensuring that the nation’s 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants are not counted for the purpose of drawing congressional and other political districts, which are required to have equal populations.
The practical impact would be to reduce the number of congressional districts, and therefore Electoral College votes, in states with large numbers of noncitizens — often, though not always, Democratic strongholds.
Mr. Ross has not named the administration officials with whom he discussed the citizenship question after taking office. But other lawsuit documents released last month show that Mr. Ross received an email in July 2017 from Kris W. Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state who has taken a strong position against illegal immigration. Mr. Kobach urged Mr. Ross to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census because undocumented immigrants “do not actually ‘reside’ in the United States” but are counted for reapportionment purposes.
Mr. Kobach noted in the email that he had recently reached out to Mr. Ross “on the direction of Steve Bannon,” who was then the White House chief strategist. Documenting the extent of outsiders’ role in the citizenship decision will be a priority when the plaintiffs’ search for new evidence begins, experts said.
“That suggests very strongly that the directive here was ultimately a directive that came from the White House,” said Thomas Wolf, counsel at the democracy program of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law.
The census tally, which includes everyone living in the United States regardless of immigration status, is used to reapportion political boundaries every 10 years to account for population changes. But a growing movement on the far right seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted during reapportionment; Alabama’s Republican secretary of state filed a lawsuit in May seeking to do exactly that.
If only citizens were counted for reapportionment, “California would give up several congressional seats to states that actually honor our Constitution and federal law,” one leader of the anti-immigrant movement, Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said in February.
That is, for now, a distant prospect. But some experts say they believe asking about citizenship could accomplish the same goal by discouraging undocumented immigrants, even legal ones, from being counted.
“Their actions can produce a census that leaves out many of the people they don’t want counted for political representation,” Ms. Lowenthal said. “And there will be consequences, perhaps, well beyond what immigration hard-liners believe will only be reduced numbers in selected states.”
Tyler Blint-Welsh contributed reporting from New York.
*******************************
Read the complete article at the link.
These guys are totally disgusting. Sessions’s “we’ve gotta enforce the law” blather has always been totally bogo. Sessions is interested in enforcing only those laws that happen to support his racist, White Nationalist agenda. Even then, he lies, twists the meaning, and intentionally misuses statistics to support his perverted Jim Crow outlook.
My question is why the DOJ attorneys presenting these obviously untrue and dishonest positions in Federal Court haven’t been referred to their state bars for disciplinary proceedings and possible revocation of their law licenses? And, why isn’t our biased “chief lawyer” Jeff Sessions the subject of ethics and disciplinary procedures given his clear record of bias against people of color and his pushing of unlawful political/racial agendas based on lies before the Federal Courts?
Private attorneys who conducted themselves the way Sessions and his DOJ crew do before Federal Courts would be in deep trouble by now? Why are they getting away with it?
Henry Gass reports for the Christian Science Monitor:
In a federal courtroom in the border city of McAllen, Texas, two weeks ago, 74 migrants waited as Judge J. Scott Thacker confirmed their names and countries of origin. Tired and nervous, the migrants were wearing the clothes they had been arrested in, translation headsets, and ankle chains that clinked as some of them fidgeted.
After having their rights and potential punishments explained to them to them, Judge Thacker asked the seven rows of migrants – mostly from Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala – how they wanted to plead. “Culpable,” they all answered. Judge Hacker sentenced almost all of them, row by row, to time already served and a $10 fine.
At one point, a man from Honduras separated from his son explained why they had traveled to the United States. Thacker listened, then addressed the whole room.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a [specialist] immigration judge; I am not in the immigration system,” he said. “Once you enter the immigration system you can explain your situation to them.”
In immigration court in San Antonio, a few hours north, Judge Charles McCullough is working through cases from the summer of 2017.
Over three hours, he moves smoothly through hearings for a dozen people. One man accepts voluntary departure to Mexico, but then things get complicated. One case has to be postponed because of irregular paperwork. Another sparks a brief debate over whether a US Supreme Court decision last year means it can be thrown out. His final hearing is a mother and two children from Colombia, accused of overstaying their visas. He schedules their next hearing for September.
Staff shortages and an ever-increasing caseload have been problems for years, compounded by successive administrations using the courts to achieve political and policy goals. Cognizant of the burden the immigration court system is under, and the additional strain its stated goal of having zero unauthorized immigration into the US would represent, the Trump administration is going to great lengths to try and streamline immigration court proceedings.
Unlike every other court in the country, immigration courts are part of the executive, not judicial, branch. And the judges who staff those courts are not judges in the common sense, but are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a wing of the Justice Department. Thus, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has significant authority to reshape how the courts operate.
The changes the Trump administration is engineering, however, have experts and former immigration judges concerned that the immigration court system could be even more burdened.
“All those weaknesses, those weak points, are being highlighted by the measures this administration is taking,” says Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”
One example of how that system is being strained further is the estimated 3,000 children still separated from the their families by the “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Trump administration officials told a judge Friday they couldn’t comply with a June court order to reunite children under 5 with their families by Tuesday. (Children over 5 are to be reunited by July 26.) At least 19 parents of those children already have been deported without them, according to reports.
“[A] guy that shows up here every day and does this every day has to find hope somewhere…. I’m hoping that maybe the moral outrage associated with what’s happened will be the thing that finally — the catalyst that finally makes us look hard at this immigration system that we all agree needs to be fixed,” Judge Robert Brack of the US District Court of New Mexico told “PBS Newshour.”
720,000-case backlog
On the day he retired, June 30, 2016, Paul Schmidt was scheduling cases through the end of 2022. In a system with a roughly 720,000-case backlog, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse, it wasn’t an unusual situation. The backlog has been steadily growing for decades, something Mr. Schmidt blames on recent administrations using the courts to respond to urgent political crises.
For example: When thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central America traveled to the border in 2014, the Obama administration told immigration judges to prioritize those cases.
“Each administration comes in and moves their priority to the top of line and everything else goes to the back,” he says. “You have aimless docket reshuffling, and the whole system after a while loses credibility.”
The Trump administration is now doing the same thing, telling immigration courts to prioritize the cases of detained families. But what concerns Schmidt and other former immigration judges even more are changes Mr. Sessions is making to how immigration judges can hear and resolve the cases before them.
. . . .
*******************************************
Read the rest of Henry’s article at the link. It contains quotes from my retired colleagues Judge Carol King, Judge Eliza Klein, and Judge Susan Roy, who are also key members of our “Gang of Retired Judges” who file amicus briefs in support of Due Process in the Immigration Courts.
This quote from Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) (I am a retired member), says it all:
“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”
Depressing fact: Far too many Article III Courts — particularly the U.S District Courts at the border participating in the “Kangaroo Court Operation Streamline” — are kowtowing to Sessions and failing to push back against his outrageous misuse of our legal process. Those “go along to get along” judges might discover that life tenure without integrity is a hollow benefit.
Only 54 children to be reunited by court deadline, but judges praises ‘progress’
By Tal Kopan and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
Roughly half of the children under 5 years old who were separated from their parents at the border will be back with their moms and dads by a court-imposed deadline Tuesday, but the Trump administration is still not sure when the rest will be reunified.
Still, at a court hearing on Monday, the federal judge who set the deadline for reunifications said he was “very encouraged” thus far.
“There’s no question that the parties are meeting and conferring,” District said. “This is real progress and I’m optimistic that many of these families will be reunited tomorrow, and then we’ll have a very clear understanding as to who has not been reunited, why not, and what time-frame will be in place.”
The hearing only covered the roughly 100 children under the age of 5 who were separated from their parents under the administration’s “zero tolerance” border prosecution policy. That group must be reunited by Tuesday under a deadline Sabraw set two weeks ago, when he first ordered the government to put the families back together.
The government still has thousands more children aged 5 and older in its custody that it will have to reunite by July 26 — but the hearing did not cover that group.
Attorneys for the government and the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the original lawsuit challenging family separations, said they worked together intensely over the weekend to identify the families affected by the deadline and to work out how to move forward.
Justice Department attorney Sarah Fabian provided the court with the most detailed data thus far on the 102 children under age 5 whom it identified as separated from their parents at the border.
Memo: “USCIS will issue an NTA where, upon issuance of an unfavorable decision on an application, petition, or benefit request, the alien is not lawfully present in the United States.” + “In cases involving the confidentiality protections at 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2), [U visas, T visas, VAWA, etc.] USCIS must follow the guidelines established in this PM, once the benefit request has been denied. 8 U.S.C. § 1367 does not preclude USCIS from serving an NTA upon the attorney of record or safe mailing address.” [For anyone not aware, previous policy was that NTAs would not be issued in these denials since that would undermine the purpose of these protections by discouraging people from reporting crimes.] See also: A quiet change in US policy threatens immigrants who apply for a change in status
NPR: John W. Richardson, the judge at the Phoenix courthouse, said he was “embarrassed to ask” if the defendant understood the proceedings. “I don’t know who you would explain it to, unless you think that a 1-year-old could learn immigration law,” he told Johan’s attorney. The boy had been separated from his father, who left the United States for their country of Honduras under the impression that his son would go with him, Johan’s lawyer said.
ABC: [Today], the court will try to curb the caseload by assigning a judge to oversee misdemeanor immigration cases and holding large, group hearings that critics call assembly-line justice. The move puts California in line with other border states, and it captures the strain that zero tolerance has put on federal courts, particularly in the nation’s most populous state, which has long resisted mass hearings for illegal border crossing.
NBC: A Mexican family from Brooklyn says they were headed upstate to Fort Drum to celebrate Independence Day with an Army sergeant family member when border patrol agents questioned their parents’ New York City IDs, and then took them to a detention facility hundreds of miles away.
AP: The AP was unable to quantify how many men and women who enlisted through the special recruitment program have been booted from the Army, but immigration attorneys say they know of more than 40 who have been discharged or whose status has become questionable, jeopardizing their futures.
LA Times: The notebook became a way for the immigrants to keep track of who is next in line. The book’s guardian — always an asylum seeker — scrawls each person’s name and country of origin in blue ink. The names of those who already entered the port of entry to make their case for refuge are highlighted in yellow or pink.
AIC: The immigration court system will begin to roll out an electronic filing pilot program in six immigration courts on July 16 this year, representing an important advancement for these courts that still heavily rely on paper documentation.
DHS OIG found that neither the inspections nor the onsite monitoring of ICE’s 200 detention facilities ensure consistent compliance with detention standards, nor do they promote comprehensive deficiency corrections. OIG issued five recommendations and proposed steps and ICE concurred. AILA Doc. No. 18070263
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that data, current through May 2018, revealed a three-fold difference across immigration courts in the median bond amount set. The highest median bond amounts were required by the Tacoma, WA Immigration Court and the Hartford, CT Immigration Court. AILA Doc. No. 18070233
ImmProf: The Supreme Court decided four core immigration cases in the 2017 Term. The travel ban case was significant but there was much more. Interestingly, immigrants won as much as the Trump administration.
A U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, ordering the U.S. government to immediately release or grant hearings to more than 1,000 asylum seekers held at five ICE field offices. (Damus, et. al., v. Nielsen, 7/2/18) AILA Doc. No. 18070331
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, ending a policy of the ORR Director Scott Lloyd personally reviewing and approving the release of any detained immigrant child who is or has ever been in a heightened supervision placement while in ORR custody. (L.V.M v. Lloyd, 6/27/18) AILA Doc. No. 18022262
This ICE form may be used by detained alien parents with administratively final orders of removal who are class members in the Ms. L. v. I.C.E., No. 18-0428, (S.D. Cal. Filed Feb. 26, 2018) lawsuit. AILA Doc. No. 18070532
The American Immigration Council, along with partners, filed a lawsuit involving a Mexican national who feared persecution based on sexual orientation. Border Patrol officers deprived him of an opportunity to articulate his fear of return. (Cagnant v. U.S., 6/7/18) AILA Doc. No. 18070535
The plaintiff filed a complaint in district court arguing that his purported discharge order violated Army regulations, DOD regulations, and the fundamental requirements of due process. He was recruited by and enlisted through the MAVNI program. (Calixto v. Department of the Army, 6/28/18) AILA Doc. No. 18070900
ImmProf: In an order dated July 4, 2018, U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez (E.D. Cal.) ruled on the U.S. government’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring implementation of various California “sanctuary laws.” In a 60 page order, the court declined to enjoin large portions of three California laws aimed at limiting state and local agencies’ cooperation with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement.
The court denied the petition for review, finding that the petitioner did not show that the record compels the conclusion that he is entitled to deferral of removal and that evidence of official acquiescence in torture was too speculative. (Morris v. Sessions, 5/30/18) AILA Doc. No. 18070264
DHS announced the extension of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Yemen for 18 months, effective through 3/3/20. There are approximately 1,250 Yemeni TPS beneficiaries. Additional information will be published in the Federal Register. AILA Doc. No. 18070602
ICE provided a quarterly report with information on those individuals who have been assisted as a direct result of their call to the VOICE Office. From April to September 2017, 4,602 calls came into the hotline, with 2,515 categorized as “other (commentary or unrelated).” AILA Doc. No. 18070330
DHS released its semiannual regulatory agenda providing a summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of DHS and its components. (83 FR 27138, 6/11/18) AILA Doc. No. 18070630
9/26/18Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2018: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices
************************************************
Many thanks, Elizabeth!
Item 1 shows how under Trump & Sessions, USCIS is moving away from its traditional Congressionally authorized role to become yet another part of the Administration’s racist, xenophobic and counterproductive immigration enforcement mechanism.
Once we get some much-needed “regime change,” the entire role of DHS and how it has been perverted and misdirected under Trump & Sessions must be reexamined.
(CNN)A federal judge in California on Monday flatly rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to modify a decades-old settlement agreement that limits the length of time and conditions under which US officials may detain immigrant children.
The Justice Department had asked US District Judge Dolly Gee to modify what’s known as the Flores settlement to give the Trump administration maximum flexibility to detain families not only until their criminal proceedings conclude, but also through the end of any asylum proceedings, which could drag on for many months.
In a strongly worded order, Gee added that there was no basis for the change, calling it “procedurally improper and wholly without merit.”
“It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying well-established principles of law.
“Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount,” Gee wrote.
Gee said that “absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion.”
CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
A federal judge on Monday dismissed most of the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking to knock down a series of California immigration laws, delivering a major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to crack down on so-called sanctuary states.
U.S. District Judge John Mendez tossed out the part of the lawsuit seeking to invalidate Senate Bill 54, which limits cooperation between local and state law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. He also dismissed an effort to block another law — Assembly Bill 103 — which allows the California attorney general to review and report on immigrant detention facilities.
Mendez also tossed out part of the lawsuit against Assembly Bill 405, which sought to limit private employers’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Mendez’s dismissals mean that California will be able to continue limiting its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In dismissing the Justice Department’s case against the two laws, Mendez rejected the Trump administration’s argument that only the federal government has the final say on immigration enforcement and regulation under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
“[T]he Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders,” Mendez wrote.
The Justice Department first brought the lawsuit against California in March, arguing that the sanctuary laws effectively hindered federal efforts to enforce immigration policies.
But Mendez rejected that argument, writing in his rejection of the Trump administration’s injunction request last week that “refusing to help is not the same as impeding.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office is charged with defending the state against the lawsuit, celebrated the dismissals on Monday, saying that it upheld California’s right to determine how best to protect its residents’ privacy and security.
“Today’s decision is a victory for our State’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all of our people,” he said in a statement. “Though the Trump Administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law.”
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
*************************************
My question: When are Federal Judges going to start holding Sessions and his ethically challenged gang of scofflaw lawyers from the DOJ in contempt and referring them for bar disciplinary proceedings for continuously abusing their offices by burdening the Federal Courts with meritless, largely frivolous litigation? Even worse, the litigation is driven by racism — an inherently objectionable basis!
Surprised by vehement public reaction, President Donald Trump has decreed an end to the policy of separating arriving asylum seekers from their children. But what now? Not what will Trump do — his latest pronouncements simply up the ante on mean-spiritedness, with little clarity on a specific policy direction. But what asylum reforms should progressives push for to build a humane, workable, and sustainable program?
The policy problem is real. The flow of asylum seekers from Central America has not noticeably abated even during the administration’s imposition of cruelties. The current adjudication system has been overwhelmed — both the asylum officers in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the immigration judges in the Department of Justice (DOJ). Claims in both venues, from all nationalities, have seen sharp rises over the past five years, and backlogs have mushroomed.
DHS, which was keeping up with asylum claims as recently as 2011, now has more than 300,000 pending cases. Immigration judges, whose ranks number roughly 350 at present, have an astounding backlog of 700,000 cases. The resulting picture of dysfunction provides continual fodder for anti-immigration demagogues.
Progressives need to pay close attention to that last observation, because we are in danger of overplaying the righteous reaction to the horrors of child separation. Our nation needs to remain firmly committed to the institution of political asylum. But opportunistic or abusive claims are unfortunately numerous in the current caseload, particularly among people who seek asylum after having been in the United States for a while.
And any realistic migration management regime will have to keep in its toolbox the selective detention of asylum seekers, especially in times of high influx. We need to figure out what form our detention and release system will take.
So, yes, we need to call attention to the cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies. But we also need to bring the system back under control. Control is a precondition for regaining durable public support for the institution of political asylum in a world characterized by unprecedented migration pressures. Extreme-right politicians are exaggerating the scale of illegal immigration and unwarranted asylum seeking, and not just in the US. Getting this right will help take away from the authoritarians one of their most potent rhetorical weapons: immigration alarmism.
A precedent for a solution
Fortunately, we do have a solid model for how to repair our system: Today’s overload is surprisingly similar to an administrative meltdown faced in the early 1990s. Regulatory and operational reforms in 1995 brought that asylum situation under control, while preserving due process and avoiding widespread detention. The result was 15 years of reasonably efficient operation and blessedly few hot political controversies over asylum. We can rebuild that system; doing so won’t resolve all the problems we face, but it is an indispensable ingredient.
We still face some tough questions — notably about how far our asylum system can go in protecting against private violence in Central America, including from gangs and abusive family members. As a polity with a proud history of providing refuge, we face some hard choices. But however those choices are resolved, we can and should immediately expand aid designed to reduce violence in the source countries. That would go some way toward reducing refugee flows.
How our two-track asylum system works
To understand the history of reform successes and failures, we need first a map of the rather complex structure of agencies involved in asylum processing, and of the two primary pipelines by which applications are received. Bear with me, because the differences, though technical, are important as we think about reforms.
A person already in the United States, legally or illegally, who fears persecution back in the home country, can file for asylum directly with the Department of Homeland Security. These “affirmative claims,” so-called because the person takes the initiative to file without any enforcement action pending, are initially heard in an office interview conducted by expert asylum officers, housed in eight regional offices.
Based on the completed application and a nonadversarial office interview, asylum officers can grant or deny asylum, but when asylum is denied, they have no authority to issue a removal order.
That step requires an immigration judge — a specially selected DOJ attorney, appointed by the attorney general, who conducts removal proceedings. Until 1995, there was no routine for putting unsuccessful affirmative applicants into immigration court. It was up to the district field office of the immigration agency to file charges; many offices didn’t see these cases as a priority, at a time when the enforcement system had far lower funding than today. If the district office did serve a charging document, the person could renew the asylum claim in immigration court, and the judge would decide it afresh.
Now for the second main pipeline. People who are already in removal proceedings when they first seek asylum — people apprehended after crossing the border, for instance, or picked up by DHS after a local arrest for disorderly conduct — cannot file with the asylum office. Instead, they present their applications directly to the immigration court. A successful claim there constitutes a defense to removal; hence these applications are known as “defensive claims.”
For both defensive claimants and those affirmative claimants who have renewed their claims in court, the immigration judge considers the case through a formal courtroom procedure. He or she can grant asylum, but if asylum is denied, the judge normally issues a removal order — the kind of document needed for DHS to put the applicant on a bus or plane home (though appeal opportunities exist).
Border cases, as mentioned, are almost all heard as defensive claims, assuming applicants pass an initial, speedy “credible fear” screening done by an asylum officer, which is meant to weed out clearly meritless cases. (Over the past eight years, between 15 and 30 percent have been screened out this way.)
In the 1990s the system was also overwhelmed. We brought it back under control.
Back to the dysfunction I mentioned in the early 1990s. The expert corps of asylum officers, which had been created only in 1990, was overwhelmed by an accelerating volume of asylum claims, many of them containing near-identical boilerplate stories about threats, mostly crafted by high-volume “immigration consultants.” At the time, the regulations provided that nearly all asylum applicants received authorization to work in the US shortly after filing.
That created an incentive to file a false asylum claim — as did the slim chance, during that period, that an applicant would end up in immigration court. The system’s obvious disorder and vulnerability to escalating fraud worried refugee assistance organizations, who rightly feared that Congress, then beginning to consider tough immigration enforcement bills (ultimately enacted in 1996), would impose draconian limitations on asylum unless the administration brought the situation under control.
Government agencies worked closely with NGOs to analyze the situation and draw up a balanced solution. (I worked on the design and implementation of the reforms as a consultant to the Justice Department and later as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a.k.a. INS.) Two key changes in asylum regulations were the result. The first made it virtually automatic that affirmative asylum claimants whose claims were rejected by the asylum officer would be placed into removal proceedings.
Under the 1995 regs, when applicants return to the asylum office a few weeks after their interview to get the result, nearly all receive either an asylum grant or a fully effective charging document placing them in removal proceedings, normally with a specific date to appear in immigration court.
Second, the reform decoupled the act of filing for asylum from work authorization. The applicant would get that benefit from the asylum officer only if granted asylum. Those applicants who failed and were referred on to immigration court would similarly have to prove their asylum claim on the merits to gain permission to work.
But as a mechanism to minimize hardship and induce timely decisions, applicants would also receive work authorization if the immigration judge did not resolve the case within six months of the initial filing. (Applicants could also request delays, for example to gather more evidence, but such a request would suspend the running of the “asylum clock” and thus extend the six-month deadline for the issuance of work authorization).
To meet that processing deadline, the Clinton administration secured funding to double the number of immigration judges, from roughly 100 to 200, and also built up the asylum officer corps. New target timetables were established, and the new system met them with few exceptions: An asylum officer decision within 60 days, and an immigration judge decision within six months from initial filing (the latter also applies to purely defensive claims).
Finally, to maximize the immediate impact, the asylum offices and immigration courts adopted a last-in, first-out scheduling policy for judging claims. That sent the signal that new bogus claims would not slip through and get work authorization under the six-month rule, simply because of case backlogs. The older filers, already carrying a work authorization card, would take lower priority.
These reforms dramatically changed the calculus of potential affirmative applicants. Weak or opportunistic filings would no longer lead to work authorization; additionally, they would mean a quick trip to immigration court and a likely removal order. People responded to the new incentives. Asylum filings with the immigration authorities declined from more than 140,000 in 1993 to a level between 27,000 and 50,000 for virtually every year from 1998 through 2013. That annual filing rate was a manageable level, logistically and politically.
Congress had been poised to crack down on asylum in 1996 as part of a general tightening of immigration laws but, impressed by the already visible reductions, rejected most of the restrictive asylum proposals and instead made the administrative changes permanent by enacting them into law.
The seeds of the current crisis were planted around 2012, in a period of budgetary contraction. Neither Congress nor the executive branch appreciated how crucial it was to reach decisions in immigration court within six months and thereby prevent work authorization to unqualified asylum applicants. That had been the system’s main (and highly effective) deterrent to opportunistic, weak, or bogus claims. Hiring slowed even as caseloads and duties expanded, including the beginnings of the Central American surge. As more and more applicants began to receive work authorization without an asylum grant on the merits, affirmative applications poured in.
With the added filings, immigration court docketing fell further behind, reaching four-year delays in some locations. Much as in 1993, it was a vicious circle. Unscrupulous “consultants” could once again guarantee work authorization to their clients based just on filing, albeit after six months, with no immigration judge hearing expected for years. In 2017, affirmative filings with the asylum office climbed back above 140,000.
A 1995-style fix today would help us mainly to deter weak affirmative asylum claims. But it would still be quite relevant to the Central American applicants reaching our borders, even though they will normally file defensively. This is because so much of the paralyzing immigration court backlog stems from the massive increase in affirmative applicant numbers over the past five years. Reducing overall intake is central to getting both tracks of the asylum process under control.
Concrete steps to fix the problems
Undocumented immigrants released in El Paso, Texas pending an asylum hearing, June 24. All had been separated from their children.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
There are four primary components in a realistic strategy to restore our asylum machinery to health. We should:
1) Rebuild the capacity for prompt asylum decisions by strategically deploying existing staff and urgently adding more. It is obvious that the system needs a major influx of new asylum officers and immigration judges. Hiring is underway and budgets are growing significantly, though not fast enough. The administration still feels a need for more dramatic immediate deterrents, apparently believing that a full catch-up to the existing caseload will take years.
But a here-and-now impact can be had by following the last-in, first-out rule that served the US so well in 1995. Rejection of new filers is more important as a deterrent than processing old cases. In fact, DHS’s asylum office returned to last-in, first-outscheduling five months ago, and affirmative claims have already dropped by 30 percent.
This excellent change will not have the needed impact until the immigration courts complete comparable revisions to their scheduling system and thus assure the six-month decision timetable. We also need to be systematic about removing unsuccessful asylum seekers with a final order.
This would return us to a system where prompt denial on the merits after a fair hearing, not cruelty to applicants, serves as the main deterrent to weak or abusive claims.
2) Make smart use of detention, including family detention as needed, plus alternative measures to avoid flight. Some critics hope that the public revulsion against child separation will lead to ending virtually all detention of asylum seekers. Others theorize that Trump’s planners adopted the separation strategy just to get courts to end constraints they now impose on family detention — because family detention would look so much kinder than separation.
Detention, however, is an inescapable part of the immigration enforcement process, at least when people first arrive at the border and claim asylum. (It’s also essential later, to facilitate or carry out removals of those with a final order.) The judicious use of detention can help reassure skittish publics in times of truly high flow of asylum seekers.
In such times, centralized facilities housing asylum seekers also hold other potential benefits, as was recognized in a 1981 report by a blue-ribbon commission on immigration reform, chaired by Father Theodore Hesburgh from the University of Notre Dame. (The Hesburgh commission issued its report a year after the Mariel boatlift from Cuba brought 125,000 asylum seekers to US shores within a few months.)
Such facilities provide a centralized location for prompt asylum interviews and court hearings. Run properly, which requires constant and committed monitoring, they also can facilitate regular and efficient ongoing access to counsel — particularly when, as is typical in a high-influx situation, most representation comes from organized pro-bono efforts.
The Trump administration has sent unclear and confusing signals about its overall plans while now trying to persuade courts to allow more room for family detention. As a matter of policy, we need to keep family detention available in the toolbox but we should not see it as an early or primary option — especially since the administration has not exhausted other methods, and the Central American flow is not as massive as officials paint it.
Critics today often argue that detention is unnecessary, pointing to high attendance rates by asylum seekers at court hearings. That observation is true, but incomplete. A well-functioning system needs released respondents to show up not just for hearings where a good thing might happen, but also for removal if they lose their asylum cases.
Good data are not available, but intermittent government snapshot reports tend to find that fewer than a sixth of the nondetained are actually removed after the issuance of a final removal order. Policymakers and advocates who want to reduce the use of detention need to attend to that latter statistic, and improve it.
To be sure, detention should not be used routinely. Alternatives to detention — such as intensive release supervision or ankle-bracelet monitoring — are generally more cost-effective. When actual detention is employed, conditions of confinement must be humane and must fully accommodate access to counsel. The Obama administration made headway toward those ends, including creating better family facilities.
3) Think hard about the realistic range of refugee protection, and be more rigorous about “internal protection alternatives.” Advocates for asylum claimants from Central America today have been working to expand the conceptual boundaries of protected refugee classes. Few of those applicants are claiming classic forms of persecution — by an oppressive government, based on the target’s race or religion or political opinion.
A great many claims today are based on domestic violence or risks from murderous criminal gangs, in the context of ineffectual government. Our whole system faces a challenge to determine whether and how such claims fit within the refugee laws and treaties.
The asylum seekers’ cases are highly sympathetic, but they also prompt concerns about figuring out workable boundary lines on any such protection commitment. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a highly restrictive ruling in June. It held that private crimes, including gang retribution and domestic violence, can rarely serve as the basis for a valid asylum claim. Expect a wide variety of reactions from reviewing courts over coming months and years.
But while that interpretive struggle proceeds, an immediate practical step can be taken to alleviate the dilemma. Adjudicators need to pay more systematic attention to the availability of what are known as “internal protection alternatives.” Asylum applicants who can find reasonable safety within the home country, even at the cost of moving to a new city or region — for example, because that region has a good network of domestic violence shelters — should be required to return to those regions, rather than relocate to the US.
Though this “internal protection alternatives” concept is already part of US and international law, it is understandable why many people balk at taking a firm line on it. The applicant would almost surely face lower risks in the United States than back in the home country, and real hardships can be incurred by moving to a new city where the person may not know anyone.
But that objection has to be kept in perspective. We are talking about protection in another part of one’s homeland, for someone who has already shown the resourcefulness to venture thousands of miles to a distant country, with an unfamiliar culture and language. Asylum should not be thought of as a prize for a person who has endured harm or threats, no matter how much sympathy or admiration he or she may deserve for weathering that past. Asylum is a forward-looking last-resort type of measure to shelter those who cannot find adequate protection other ways.
US Vice-President Mike Pence (L) and Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales at a joint press conference in Guatemala City on June 28 — a stop on the vice president’s recent Central American trip. The asylum crisis was high on the agenda.Orlando Estrada/AFP/Getty Images
4) Work with other countries to address root causes and expand potential refuge elsewhere. This brings us directly to the fourth primary measure, of particular relevance to the Central American crisis. The United States should greatly expand assistance, through bilateral aid, multilateral efforts, or the funding of NGO initiatives, toward reducing the violence that sends people in search of protection.
It’s easier in theory to address root causes when the threat is private violence, since the US can expect support rather than resistance from the government. But real effectiveness on the ground demands ongoing diplomacy, implementation skill, vigilance against corruption, and, above all, consistent funding year to year.
In Central America, past US assistance has had some visible impact in helping to reduce gang violence and murder rates. The Central American Regional Security Initiative has provided more than $1.4 billion to this effort since its start in 2008. The Trump administration, with typical short-sightedness, is moving to cut this funding. And Vice President Mike Pence’s meeting with heads of state in Guatemala City last week was a giant missed opportunity. According to press accounts, he basically just badgered those governments to stop sending people.
That message would have been so much more effective toward changing conditions on the ground if it had been joined with significantly increased aid for the security initiative. We should also expand funding to enhance police responsiveness to domestic violence in Central America and to support shelter networks.
These steps are obviously worthy in their own right, helping potential victims of all sorts, not just potential migrants. But they also can reduce the felt need to migrate and generate a more extensive menu of “internal protection alternatives” to be considered by adjudicators ruling on asylum claims.
The Obama administration also had some success in working with Mexico to discourage dangerous unauthorized travel, through information campaigns and interdiction — and to open up a modest possibility that Central Americans could find refuge in Mexico itself. President Trump’s unending insults directed at our southern neighbor have torpedoed such cooperation, but a future administration should revive it.
Revulsion at the current administration’s border practices is fully deserved. And the current administration exaggerates the crisis. But in an era where tolerance for asylum protection has become a politically scarce resource, we still need realistic and determined asylum reform measures in order to restore public confidence that migration is subject to control.
Our country’s 1995 experience shows such a change is possible, while retaining a firm commitment to refugee protection. Repeating that success will require well-targeted funding and tough-minded administrative resourcefulness to succeed.
David A. Martin is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law. He served as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1995 through 1997, and as principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, 2009 through 2010.
MY RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DAVID A. MARTIN’S MOST RECENT ASYLUM PROPOSAL
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
As I tell my law students, my good friend Professor David A. Martin is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of our era. I first met David in the Carter Administration when I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS,” and he was the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Patt Derian. David, Alex Aleinikoff, who then was in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the late Jack Perkins, who was then Legislative Counsel at the DOJ, the late Jerry Tinker, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Ted Kennedy, and I, along with many others, worked closely together on the development and passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.
David and I have remained friends and kept in close touch ever since. Later, during the Clinton Administration, David appeared before me in the famous Kasinga case when I was Chair of the BIA. He invited me to be a guest lecturer at his class at UVA Law on a number of occasions, and I used the textbook that he, Alex, and others authored for my Refugee Law and Policy Class at Georgetown Law.
David has been a “life saver,” particularly for refugee women. The position that he took for the INS in Kasinga helped me bring a near unanimous Board to protect women who faced the horror of female genital mutilation (“FGM”).
Later, the famous “Martin brief,” written while David was serving as the Deputy General Counsel of DHS in the Obama Administration, urged the recognition of domestic abuse as a form of gender-based persecution. It saved numerous lives of some of the most deserving asylum applicants ever. It also supported those of us in the Immigration Judiciary who had been granting such cases ever since the BIA’s atrociously wrong majority decision in Matter of R-A-was vacated by Attorney General Reno.
The “Martin brief,” of course was the forerunner of Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing domestic violence as a form of gender based- persecution. Sadly, as noted by many commentators, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recently attacked refugee women by overruling Matter of A-R-C-G-and reinstating the long-discredited bogus reasoning of the R-A-majority!
With that bit of history in mind, Here are my reactions to David’s proposal for another “bureaucratic rescue” of the asylum system.
Don’t Blame The Victims.
With acknowledgement and credit to my good friend retired Judge Carol King, we need to stop blaming the refugees who are fleeing the human rights disaster in the Northern Triangle (that we helped cause). They are actually the victims. There is no “crisis” except the one caused by the cruel and incompetent policies of the Trump Administration directed at refugees compounded by the gross mismanagement of the U.S. Immigration Court system over the last three Administrations including, of course, this Administration.
Let Judges Run The Courts.
The idea that bureaucrats sitting in Washington and Falls Church, no matter how well-intentioned (and I’m not accusing anyone in the Trump Administration of being “well-intentioned”) can keep redesigning the Immigration Court System and manipulating dockets without any meaningful input from the judges actually hearing the cases is absurd. It’s a big part of the reason that the Immigration Court system is basically in free fall today. The key to running any good court system is to have judges in charge of the system and their own dockets. Judges should hire bureaucrats, when necessary, to work for the judges and help them, not the other way around. A court system run as a government agency, such as EOIR, is “designed to fail.” And, not surprisingly, it is failing.
Protection Not Rejection.
Refugee and asylum laws are there to protect individuals in harm’s way. But, you wouldn’t know it from most recent BIA asylum precedents and the disingenuously xenophobic and racist statements of this Administration. No, from the BIA and the bureaucrats one would think that the purpose of asylum law was to develop ever more creatively inane and nonsensical ways NOT to protect those in need – hyper-technical, often incomprehensible requirements for “particular social groups;” bogus “nexus” tests that ignore or pervert normal rules of causation; “adverse credibility” findings that are more like a game of “gotcha” than a legitimate evaluation of an applicant’s testimony in context; denial of representation; coercive use of detention; politicized “country reports” often designed to obscure the real problems; misuse of the in absentia process; hiring judges who have little or no understanding of asylum law from an applicant’s standpoint; intentionally unrealistic and overwhelming evidentiary standards; misapplications of the one-year deadline; cultural insensitivity, etc. That’s not the direction the Supreme Court was pointing us to when they set forth a generous interpretation of the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca back in 1987.
Gender-Based Claims Fit Squarely Within “Classic” Refugee Law.
No, claims based on domestic violence and/or resistance to gangs aren’t “non-traditional.” What might be “non-traditional” is for largely male-dominated bureaucracies, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement authorities to recognize the true situation of women. In fact, gender is clearly immutable/fundamental to identity, particularized, and socially distinct. Moreover, there is a clear political element to gender-based violence in patriarchal societies. And in countries like those of the Northern Triangle where gangs have infiltrated and intimidated the governments and in many areas are the “de facto” government, of course resistance to gangs is going to be viewed as a political statement with harsh consequences. As Sessions recently proved in Matter of A-B-and the Third Circuit confirmed in S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., it takes pages and pages of legal gobbledygook and linguistic nonsense to avoid the obvious truths about gender-based violence and how it is, in fact, a “classic” form of persecution well within international protections.
Detention Isn’t The Answer.
Civil immigration detention is the problem, not the answer. How perverse is this: Under Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy, hapless asylum applicants are “prosecuted” for “misdemeanor illegal entry.” The “criminal penalty?” One or two days in jail.
Then, they can apply for asylum as they are legally entitled to do under our laws. The civil penalty for exercising their legal rights? Potentially indefinite detention in substandard conditions that in many cases would be illegal if they were applied to convicted criminals.
I’ve been involved with immigration detention for most of my professional career, primarily from the Government side. I’ve witnessed first-hand its coercive, de-humanizing effect on those detained, mostly non-criminals.
But, that’s not all. Immigration detention also corrodes, corrupts, and diminishes the humanity of those officials who participate in and enable the process. It also is wasteful, expensive, and ineffective as deterrent (which it’s not supposed to be used for anyway). It diminishes us as a nation. It’s time to put an end to “civil” immigration detention in all but the most unusual cases.
No, I Don’t Have All the Answers.
But, I do know that it’s time for us as a country to begin living up to our national, international, and moral obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. We owe these fellow human beings a humane reception, a fair processing and adjudication system that complies completely with Due Process, a fair and generous application of our protection laws, and thoughtful and respectful treatment regardless of outcome. We haven’t even begun to exhaust our capacity for accepting refugees and asylees. Studies show that refugees are good for the United States and vice versa.
But, if we really don’t want many more here, then we had better get busy working with UNHCR and other countries that are signatories to the 1952 Refugee Convention to solve the problems driving refugee flows and to provide durable refuge in various safe locations. And, a great start would be to reprogram the huge amounts of money we now waste on purposeless, ineffective, and inhumane immigration enforcement, needless immigration detention, inappropriate prosecutions, scores of government lawyers defending these counterproductive policies, and more bureaucratic “silver bullet” schemes that won’t solve the problem. We could put that money to far better use assisting and resettling more refugees and developing constructive solutions to the problems that cause refugees in the first place.
It’s high time to put an end to “same old, same old,” repeating and doubling down on the proven failures of the past, and “go along to get along” bureaucracy and judging. We need a “brave new regime” (obviously the polar opposite of the present one) focused on the overall good and improvement of humanity, not promoting the biased and selfish interests of the few! And, who knows? We might find out that by working collectively and cooperatively and looking out for the common interests, we’ll also be improving our own prospects.
IN LATE June, Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, assured migrant parents whose children had been snatched away by U.S. border officials that there was “no reason” they could not find their toddlers, tweeners and teenagers. Then it turned out that Mr. Azar’s department, which is in charge of the children’s placements and welfare, doesn’t have a firm idea of how many of those children it has under its purview. Or where all their parents are (or even whether they remain in custody). Or how parents and children might find each other, or be rejoined.
On Thursday Mr. Azar was back with more rosy assurances, this time that the government would meet a court-imposed deadline to reunite those children with their parents — by Tuesday in the case of 100 or so kids under the age of 5, and by July 26 for older minors. A day later it turned out the government was begging the court for more time.
Mr. Azar blamed the judiciary for setting what he called an “extreme” deadline to reunify families. Yet as details emerged of the chaotic scramble undertaken by Trump administration officials to reunify families, it is apparent that what is really “extreme” is the government’s bungling in the handling of separated families — a classic example of radical estrangement between the bureaucracy’s left and right hands.
A jaw-dropping report in the New York Times detailed how officials at U.S. Customs and Border Protection deleted records that would have enabled officials to connect parents with the children that had been removed from them. No apparent malice impelled their decision; rather, it was an act of administrative convenience, or incompetence, that led them to believe that, since parents and children were separated, they should be assigned separate case file numbers — with nothing to connect them.
The result is Third World-style government dysfunction that combines the original sin of an unspeakably cruel policy with the follow-on ineptitude of uncoordinated agencies unable to foresee the predictable consequences of their decisions — in this case, the inevitability that children and parents, once sundered, would need at some point to be reconnected.
Now, faced with the deadline for reuniting parents and children set June 26 by Judge Dana Sabraw of U.S. District Court in San Diego, hundreds of government employees were set to work through the weekend poring over records to fix what the Trump administration broke by its sudden and heedless proclamation in May of “zero tolerance” for undocumented immigrants, and the family separations that immediately followed.
Mr. Azar, following the White House’s lead, insisted any “confusion” was the fault of the courts and a “broken immigration system.” In fact, the confusion was entirely of the administration’s own making. The secretary expressed concern in the event officials lacked time to vet the adults to whom it would turn over children. Yet there was no such concern about the children’s welfare, nor the lasting psychological harm they would suffer, when the government callously tore them away from their parents.
****************************************
Is this really happening in the United States of America in 2018? Are racist-inspired, cruel, human rights atrocities how we want to be remembered as a nation at this point in our history? Did we learn nothing from the death of Dr. King and seemingly (but apparently not really) moving by the “Jim Crow Era?” What excuse could we possibly have for allowing 21st Century “Jim Crows” like Trump, Sessions, & Miller to run our country when we should know better?
It’s interesting and somewhat satisfying to see that the “mainstream media” are now picking up the descriptive terms for the Trump Administration and their overt racism, unnecessary cruelty, and incompetence that “bloggers” like Jason Dzubow (“The Asylumist”), Hon. Jeffrey Chase (jeffreyschase.com), and me have been using for some time now!
The most important task right now: Hold this cruel, racist, and irresponsible Administration accountable for the unconscionable mess they have manufactured!
Don’t let them blame the victims!
Don’t let them blame the courts!
Don’t let them blame asylum laws!
Don’t let them blame lawyers!
Don’t let them blame Democrats!
Don’t let them blame Obama!
Don’t let them blame International Treaties!
Hold the Trump Administration & Its Minions Fully Accountable For Their Actions!
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631193/GettyImages_983050074.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631215/GettyImages_986622846.jpg)