May 2019 – Page 4 – immigrationcourtside.com

NY TIMES: Trump Mocks & Dehumanizes Vulnerable Refugees & His Administration Claims It’s OK To Return Them to Honduras; BUT The Facts Say The Opposite: Honduras Is An Armed Conflict Zone Where Gangs Exercise Quasi-Governmental Control & Those Who Resist Are Severely Punished, Often Maimed, Tortured Or Killed!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/04/world/americas/honduras-gang-violence.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Azam Ahmed Reports for the NY Times:

. . . .

Shootouts, armed raids and last-minute pleas to stop the bloodshed formed the central threads of their stories. MS-13 wanted the neighborhood to sell drugs. The other gangs wanted it to extort and steal. But the members of Casa Blanca had promised never to let their neighborhood fall prey to that again. And they would die for it, if they had to.

Almost no one was trying to stop the coming war — not the police, not the government, not even the young men themselves. The only person working to prevent it was a part-time pastor who had no church of his own and bounced around the neighborhood in a beat-up yellow hatchback, risking his life to calm the warring factions.

“I’m not in favor of any gang,” said the pastor, Daniel Pacheco, rushing to the Casa Blanca members after the shooting. “I’m in favor of life.”

The struggle to protect the neighborhood — roughly four blocks of single-story houses, overgrown lots and a few stores selling chips and soda — encapsulates the inescapable violence that entraps and expels millions of people across Latin America.

Since the turn of this century, more than 2.5 million people have been killed in the homicide crisis gripping Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Igarapé Institute, a research group that tracks violence worldwide.

The region accounts for just 8 percent of the global population, yet 38 percent of the world’s murders. It has 17 of the 20 deadliest nations on earth.

And in just seven Latin American countries — Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Venezuela — violence has killed more people than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen combined.

Most of the world’s most dangerous
cities are in Latin America

Latin America

Africa

U.S.

Other

SAFER CITIES

MORE DANGEROUS

Cancún,

Mexico

Kingston,

Jamaica

San Pedro Sula,

Honduras

San Salvador

London

Los Angeles

Paris

Tokyo

Istanbul

Los Cabos,

Mexico

Tijuana,

Mexico

Bogotá,

Colombia

St. Louis

Moscow

New Orleans

6.2 global avg.

0

40

60

80

100

120

Average homicide rate per 100k people

By Allison McCann

Source: Igarapé Institute and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Cities include the 50 highest homicide rates in the world and a group of prominent others for comparison, all with populations of at least 250,000. Average homicide rates are from 2016-2018 or the latest data available.

The violence is all the more striking because the civil wars and military dictatorships that once seized Latin America have almost all ended — decades ago, in many cases. Most of the region has trudged, often very successfully, along the prescribed path to democracy. Yet the killings continue at a staggering rate.

They come in many forms: state-sanctioned deaths by overzealous armed forces; the murder of women in domestic disputes, a consequence of pervasive gender inequality; the ceaseless exchange of drugs and guns with the United States.

Underpinning nearly every killing is a climate of impunity that, in some countries, leaves more than 95 percent of homicides unsolved. And the state is a guarantor of the phenomenon — governments hollowed out by corruption are either incapable or unwilling to apply the rule of law, enabling criminal networks to dictate the lives of millions.

For the masses fleeing violence and poverty in Central America, the United States is both a cause and solution — the author of countless woes and a chance to escape them.

Frustrated with the stream of migrants treading north, President Trump has vowed to cut aid to the most violent Central American nations, threatening hundreds of millions of dollars meant to address the roots of the exodus.

But the surviving members of Casa Blanca, who once numbered in the dozens, do not want to flee, like tens of thousands of their countrymen have. They say they have jobs to keep, children to feed, families, neighbors and loved ones to protect.

“There is only one way for this to end,” said Reinaldo. “Either they kill us or we kill them.”

. . . .

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

For the full version of Azam’s report and a much better chart graphic, go to the above link!

Trump’s complete lack of humanity, empathy, and his constant racist-inspired lies and misrepresentations about refugees and asylum seekers are truly reprehensible.

But, he and his henchmen like Stephen Miller are by no means the entire problem.

Every day in U.S. Immigration Court, DHS attorneys make demonstrably false representations minimizing the truly horrible conditions in the Northern Triangle, particularly for women. Every day, some U.S. Immigration Judges betray their oaths of office by accepting those false representations and using them, along with an unfairly skewed anti-asylum view of the law, to deny asylum cases that should be granted.

And, perhaps worst of all, every day some life-tenured Article III Circuit Judges turn a blind eye to the legal travesty and due process disaster taking place throughout our corrupted Immigration Courts by rubber stamping results that would be totally unacceptable in any other type of litigation and which don’t even pass the “straight face test.” I guess “out of sight is out of mind,” and the wrongfully deported are “out of sight” (or maybe dead, in hiding, or duressed into joining or cooperating with gangs after the U.S. failed to protect them)

But, there are folks our there resisting this malfeasance and dereliction of duty. Among other things, they are memorializing what is happening and making a record of where the “modern day Jim Crows” and their enablers stand and what they have done to their fellow human beings in the name of “expedience” and an “Alfred E. Neuman (“What Me Worry”)” view of the law and our legal system.

Donald Trump is horrible. But, his racism and infliction of lasting damage on our country and on humanity depend on too many judges and other supposedly responsible public officials supporting, acquiescing, enabling, or minimizing his inhumane, dishonest, counterproductive, and often illegal actions.

An appropriate response by an honest, competent Administration with integrity would be:

Establish legal precedents recognizing those fleeing politicized gang violence, domestic violence, and violence directed at famnilies as refugees;
Establish precedents incorporating the Article III decisions emphasizing the concept of “mixed motive” in determining “nexus” under asylum and withholding of removal laws;
Establish precedents granting temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) to those who face torture at the hands of the gangs or Northern Triangle governments (or both), but who can’t establish the convoluted “nexus” for asylum, with a rebuttable presumption that the countries of the Northern Triangle will “acquiesce” in the torture;
Liberally use Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for nationals from Northern Triangle countries which perhaps would make large-scale asylum adjudication less of a priority and allow most cases to be dealt with in due course through the Asylum Offices rather than clogging Immigration Court dockets;
Work to insure that applicants for protection have assistance of counsel in developing and presenting their claims (which would also dramatically increase fairness and efficiency).

PWS

05-05-19

LA TIMES: SEN. FEINSTEIN (D-CA) CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION INTO BORDER PATROL’S DEADLY, YET REMARKABLY UNPRODUCTIVE, CHASE TACTICS!

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-border-patrol-pursuits-investigation-feinstein-20190503-story.html

By JAMES QUEALLY, BRITTNY MEJIA and KAVITHA SURANA

MAY 03, 2019 | 5:00 PM

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is asking U.S. Border Patrol to review its policies regarding high-speed car chases. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Friday called on the U.S. Border Patrol to review its actions during high-speed car chases, weeks after an investigation by ProPublica and the Los Angeles Times found the agency’s pursuit tactics and policies were long out of date and had grown increasingly deadly in recent years.

In a letter sent to John Sanders, acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Feinstein said the agency’s policy “offers insufficient protection against possible injuries and fatalities, either to bystander members of the public or occupants of a pursued vehicle.”

“This has led to catastrophic and unwarranted results,” she wrote.

Feinstein (D-Calif.) cited the fact that Border Patrol chases have resulted in 22 deaths and 250 injuries from 2015 to 2018, figures first revealed as part of an analysis published by ProPublica and The Times on April 4.

Reporters from both publications mined more than 9,000 federal criminal complaints filed against suspected human smugglers from 2015 to 2018 to build a database about Border Patrol pursuits and tactics. The documents described agents’ reasons for initiating a pursuit, whether there was a crash and how it happened. The database is almost certainly an undercount, as it does not include cases in which the driver got away or died, because the complaints are filed only after arrests.

In those four years, Border Patrol agents engaged in more than 500 pursuits in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Of those, 1 in 3 ended in a crash. The number of people hurt in Border Patrol chases increased by 42% during President Trump’s first two years in office, compared with the final two years of the Obama administration.

The deadly trend has continued into 2019. Two people died and six others were injured in a pair of Border Patrol chases that took place on the same night near San Diego in February. Last week, another Border Patrol chase left one person dead and four others hospitalized near Chula Vista, authorities said.

In her letter, Feinstein cited three chases that left seven people, including a child, dead in San Diego County in 2017 and 2018. She also asked Sanders whether Border Patrol’s pursuit policies are in line with what the U.S. Department of Justice considers to be best practices regarding car chases.

Many major American policing agencies have tightened restrictions on when their officers can engage in pursuits, while some have invested in technology that is likely to reduce the risk of injury during a chase.

ProPublica and The Times reviewed the pursuit policies of police departments in the five largest cities in the U.S., as well as a dozen jurisdictions in the states that touch the border. All but one policy were more restrictive than the Border Patrol’s.

The analysis found agents repeatedly deployed spike strips against vehicles fleeing at extremely high speeds, a tactic heavily criticized by experts on high-speed pursuits. Geoff Alpert, a criminal justice professor at the University of South Carolina who has authored national reports on pursuit tactics, previously said he was asked to help reform the agency’s pursuit policies during the Obama administration, but his warnings went unheeded. He has questioned the agency’s habit of engaging in potentially deadly car chases solely on the basis of a suspected immigration violation.

The Border Patrol did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Times spoke earlier this year with Border Patrol agents in El Centro who said agents feel compelled to chase vehicles suspected of smuggling for fear of what those vehicles might contain.

But in the cases examined as part of the analysis, agents never recovered caches of weapons and only rarely found drugs. In 504 pursuits over four years, agents found drugs in nine cases and personal guns in four.

Surana is a former ProPublica staff writer.

WASHPOST: PROFESSOR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS OF UDC LAW & JOAN HODGES WU OF THE ASYLUM SEEKERS ASSISTANCE PROJECT (“ASAP”) SPEAK OUT AGAINST TRUMP’S LATEST CRUEL & COUNTERPRODUCTIVE ATTACK ON VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/01/asylum-seekers-leave-everything-behind-theres-no-way-they-can-pay-trumps-fee/?utm_term=.f48b5ca8c238

Lindsay & Joan write:

On Monday evening, President Trump issued a memointended to make life more difficult for those seeking asylum in the United States. The memo calls for regulations that, among other things, require asylum seekers to pay a fee to apply for asylum and their first work permit, and denies work permits to immigrants who entered the United States without inspection, or “illegally.”

Since the creation of our asylum system, after the United States signed the Protocol to the Refugee Convention in 1968 and enacted its own Refugee Act in 1980, there has never been a fee to apply for asylum. Filing for asylum is free for a reason under U.S. law and in the vast majority of other countries: Seeking asylum is a human right.

There are already plenty of obstacles and limits to that right in our existing immigration system. For instance, asylum seekers have to wait to receive permission to legally work in the United States. Congress codified a waiting period for work permits for asylum seekers in 1996. Asylum seekers can apply for a work permit 150 days after they have submitted an application for asylum. The work permit is issued sometime after 180 days.

In reality, given the time needed to find and complete the 12-page English-only asylum application and often to find legal assistance to do so, asylum seekers are already waiting nine to 12 months to receive lawful permission to work. That first work permit is currently free to asylum seekers and valid for two years. Requiring a filing fee for the initial work permit and denying work permits to those who enter the United States without inspection adds another significant impediment to lawful authorization, which asylum seekers need to support themselves and their families and contribute to our national economy.

Introducing a fee to apply for asylum and to apply for the first work permit not only is cruel but also goes against common sense and U.S. economic interests. Asylum seekers typically cannot afford to pay even a nominal fee. Trump’s memo does not specify the fee amount, only that it would “cover the cost of adjudication.” But even the rumored $50 fee would be too high for any of our clients. All individuals present in the United States have a legal right to apply for asylum, and that legal right should not depend on ability to pay. Many asylum seekers flee their countries with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and the cash in their pockets. Other asylum seekers come with their life savings, which are often quickly depleted as they pay for living expenses awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims.

Years ago, one of us worked with one client who was homeless and lived in her car while she waited for her day in court. One of our current clients lives in a public storage locker because he cannot afford to pay rent. We have asylum-seeking clients who go hungry so that their children can eat, or who drink water to “feel full.” Other clients go without medication to treat chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure because they lack health insurance and money to pay out of pocket for their medications. Asylum seekers are not a population with an ability to pay extraneous fees.

[Trump’s attack on asylum is based entirely on false claims]

This new fee would also put asylum seekers further at risk of being exploited, or even physically harmed, abused or trafficked within the United States. Asylum seekers are already vulnerable to such predatory behavior. For example, years ago, one of us worked with a young woman from Niger who fled a forced marriage and female genital mutilation. As an asylum seeker in the United States, she had no way to provide for herself and found herself passed from one abusive situation to another. By the time she filed her asylum application, she had been repeatedly raped, held captive and forced to work in various homes. She was providing free child-care in exchange for lodging but forbidden from leaving the house.

And contrary to some misconceptions among the public (and the Trump administration), asylum seekers are generally ineligible for any form of federal or state aid. Indeed, even after they are granted asylum, they do not receive significant support from the government. Between paying for rent, food and other living expenses, and not being able to work for a significant period of time, how will asylum seekers pay the fee?

Banning asylum seekers from work will deprive the U.S. government of the taxes that asylum seekers, just like other immigrants, pay on the wages they receive. Asylum seekers do make real contributions to our communities. Among the asylum seekers we have worked with over the years are doctors, engineers, lawyers, nurses, computer scientists, teachers, professors and more. Also among those asylum seekers are cleaners, taxi drivers, factory workers, gardeners, child-care providers and elder-care specialists. All of them are generating tax revenue for the government, usually far more per year than whatever nominal fee Trump wants them to pay for their asylum application.

[Trump isn’t trying to solve border problems. He’s trying to make them look worse.]

Asylum seekers, who have lost everything and been forced to leave their countries and start over in ours, have a tremendous amount to give to our communities if given the chance. Take Constance, for example, one of our West African clients. In 2015, while she was seeking asylum, she commuted two hours by bus each way to a factory to cut fruit during a 12-hour overnight shift. She now works as a French language newscaster for a major news and radio outlet. Another client is a microbiologist who worked waiting tables until he found a job directing a lab at a hospital. As one of our clients said: “I know I’ve lost my country, but I haven’t lost my skills. I can still contribute.” Requiring these individuals to remain idle while jobs go unfilled and immigration court and asylum office backlogs persist could mean years in limbo and is a waste of talent, expertise and the hard work asylum seekers contribute.

Like so many of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies, these new requirements will do nothing to actually modernize our immigration system or make life better for Americans. Instead, the proposal would waste valuable human capital and talent that can be harnessed to truly make America great, and preys on those who have already lost everything and came to seek safety in the United States.

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

My good friends Lindsay and Joan are certainly two of the “good guys” — true role models for the “New Due Process Army.”

They have devoted their professional lives to making America a fairer and better place and helping the most vulnerable among us to have a fair shot at asylum and to contribute their full talents to our society. A terrific “win-win” for us and for asylum seekers. And they both work on “shoestring budgets” — giving much and asking little — just like the refugees they are helping!

What if we had a Government that recognized, honored, and worked with such talented folks to solve problems? Imagine what we could achieve with cooperation and positive efforts, involving real expertise from those who actually know and work with asylum seekers, and who therefore recognize asylum seekers as fellow human beings and great potential assets to our country?

PWS

05-03-19

SPLIT EN BANC BIA MOVES TO LIMIT SUPREME’S PEREIRA RULING: Matter of MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ CAPULA-CORTES 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019)

matter_of_mendoza-hernandez_capula-cortes_27_in_dec._520_bia_2019

Matter of MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ CAPULA-CORTES, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019)

HEADNOTE BY BIA STAFF:

A deficient notice to appear that does not include the time and place of an alien’s initial removal hearing is perfected by the subsequent service of a notice of hearing specifying that missing information, which satisfies the notice requirements of section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (2012), and triggers the “stop-time” rule of section 240A(d)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A) (2012). Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), followed.

BIA EN BANC:

MAJORITY OPINION: BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE GREER, JOINED BY NEAL, Chairman; MALPHRUS, WENDTLAND, MULLANE, MANN, O’CONNOR, LIEBOWITZ, and KELLY, APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES

DISSENTING OPINION: APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE GUENDELSBERGER, JOINED BY ADKINS-BLANCH, Vice Chairman; COLE, GRANT, CREPPY, KENDALL CLARK, APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

Congress, in section 240A(d)(1)(A) of the Act defined the event that triggers the “stop-time” rule as “service of a notice to appear under section 239(a).” The Court in Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2114–15, held that Congress’ reference to “service of a notice to appear under section 239(a),” means a “notice to appear” as defined in section 239(a)(1) of the Act. The Court also held that, “[b]ased on the plain language of the statute, it is clear that to trigger the stop-time rule, the Government must serve a notice to appear that, at the very least, ‘specif[ies]’ the ‘time and place’ of the removal proceedings.” Id. at 2114 (alteration in original) (quoting section 239(a)(1) of the Act). As the Court concluded, “At the end of the day, given the clarity of the plain language, we ‘apply the statute as it is written.’” Id. at 2119–20. The plain language of the Act leaves no room for the majority’s conclusion that a subsequent notice of hearing can cure a notice to appear that fails to specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing.

For these reasons, neither the service of the notice to appear nor the subsequent service of a notice of hearing on the respondents triggered the “stop-time” rule for purposes of cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Act. We therefore respectfully dissent.

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

It’s very unusual these days for the BIA to sit en banc. That means in most precedent cases we only know what the 3–Judge Panel thought and that at least 8 Judges on the en banc BIA agreed to publication (regardless of whether they agreed with the result).

This won”t happen at all under Barr’s new “Dumb Down the BIA Proposal.” The BIA will be diluted into “regional adjudication centers.” Any panel of three “Judges” (actually reduced to the role of DOJ adjudicators working for one of the Administration’s immigration enforcement politicos) could designate a precedent by majority vote. Thus, a two-Judge panel majority could create a precedent over the objection of a dissenting Judge and without dialogue with or approval of their many colleagues. Nice way to run the “railroad.”

Congrats to the six dissenting Judges who stood up for the better view of the law! It might not help your careers in today’s DOJ, but it is encouraging to know there is some internal resistance to Barr’s one-sided “deportation railway.”

If the dissenters are correct, the majority’s view could cause incredible additional disruption, “aimless docket reshuffling,” “do-overs,” and unfairness in an already dysfunctional system. That’s because tens of thousands of cases that would face summary denial for failure to meet the ten-year cutoff under the majority’s view would be entitled to full merits hearings on their cancellation of removal applications under the dissenters’ view.

Once again, lives will be in limbo while the Article III Courts work through all of the legal implications of EOIR’s acquiescence and participation in the DHS’s conscious decision to ignore the “Notice to Appear” requirements set forth by Congress in the INA.

PWS

05-03-19

THE GIBSON REPORT — 04-29-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

THE GIBSON REPORT — 04-29-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

TOP UPDATES

Court Rules Immigrant Activist Ravi Ragbir’s First Amendment Rights May Have Been Violated

Gothamist: A federal appeals court has found Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may have violated immigrant activist Ravi Ragbir’s First Amendment rights when it tried to deport him last year.

Judge accused of helping an undocumented immigrant escape an ICE officer

CNN: A Massachusetts judge and a former court officer are accused of helping a twice-deported undocumented defendant elude immigration authorities by slipping out a rear courthouse door…They face counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a federal proceeding, aiding and abetting, according to an indictment in US District Court in Boston. MacGregor was also charged with one count of perjury.

DHS: More than 1,600 migrants have been returned to Mexico

CNN: The individuals have been returned under the Migrant Protection Protocols policy, informally known as Remain in Mexico, that requires some asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until their immigration hearing.

DHS draft proposal would speed deportations

Politico: The Homeland Security Department is weighing a plan to bypass immigration courts and remove undocumented immigrants who cannot prove they’ve been present continuously in the U.S. for two years or more.

ICE Faces Migrant Detention Crunch as Border Chaos Spills Into Interior of the Country

NYT: Another idea, drafted in a memo from Mr. McAleenan in his new capacity as the acting homeland security secretary, would ask the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to dedicate most or all of its resources toward processing the cases of detained immigrants — temporarily pausing the court proceedings of anyone who has already been released into the country. The memo has not yet been sent, according to the official who disclosed it

Nations targeted by U.S. for high rates of visa overstays account for small number of violators

WaPo: Trump on Monday issued a presidential memo that declared visa overstay rates “unacceptably high” and calling them a “widespread problem.” … But some analysts say targeting these countries would have little impact on the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Using the percentage of overstays as a measure also disproportionately targets African nations — 13 of the 20 countries are in Africa — while avoiding political conflicts with larger and more powerful countries, such as China and India.

ICE is holding $204 million in bond money, and some immigrants might never get it back

WaPo: Numerous immigration attorneys said the system for reclaiming the funds is mystifying and nearly impossible to navigate without a lawyer or English-language proficiency, and some who pay the bonds are unlikely to see the money again.

Deported to the Wrong Country—For a Crime He May Not Have Committed

Daily Beast: A longtime legal resident of the United States may have been deported to the wrong country for a crime he didn’t commit—all due to what a foreign court has determined could be a case of mistaken identity.

Asylum seekers forced to stay in Mexico have been robbed, kidnapped, and beaten.

TXMonthly: The pace of MPP hearings in El Paso is expected to increase this week. Migrant advocates warn that the legal system isn’t prepared for what is coming.

HUD Proposes to Evict Citizens and Immigrants from Public Housing if They Have Undocumented Family Members

AIC: HUD’s new proposed regulation would make it so that any family currently receiving a public housing benefit or subsidy, including Section 8 vouchers, would automatically be ineligible for any housing benefit if even one member of their family living in the house is undocumented. Under the new system, every family member’s immigration status would be screened through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system if they are under the age of 62 and currently live in subsidized housing.

Polarized Florida Senate passes bill to ban ‘sanctuary cities’

Miami Herald: Under this bill, local law enforcement would be required to honor federal law enforcement’s request for an “immigration detainer,” meaning a request that another law enforcement agency detain a person based on probable cause to believe that the person is a “removable alien” under federal immigration law. The bill would essentially make the “request” a requirement.

Watchdogs hit a wall in accessing once-available immigration data

HCN: Since its creation in 1989, journalists, members of Congress, government agencies and researchers have seen Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) as a vital tool for watchdogging the federal government…But in early April, the organization hit a wall: Its requests for information about asylum and immigration cases weren’t getting through.

Border Patrol expands fingerprinting of migrant children

AP: U.S. border authorities say they’ve started to increase the biometric data they take from children 13 years old and younger, including fingerprints, despite privacy concerns and government policy intended to restrict what can be collected from migrant youths.

US builds migrant tent city in Texas as Trump likens treatment to ‘Disneyland’

Guardian: The main frames of two large tents popped up last week. They are expected to hold up to 500 migrants amid a level of chaos at the border that has unfolded under the Trump administration’s immigration policies. See also Pentagon set to expand military role along southern border.

Asylum seekers released without CFIs

From the Listservs: Attorneys in Arizona and Texas indicate that many asylum seekers are being released without having had CFIs.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

CA2 Says Outspoken Critic of ICE May Challenge Imminent Deportation Through Writ of Habeas Corpus

The court held that the appellant stated a cognizable constitutional claim, and that although Congress intended to strip all courts of jurisdiction over his claim, the Suspension Clause requires that he can bring his challenge through the writ of habeas corpus. (Ragbir v. Homan, 4/25/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042607

CA2 Upholds Asylum Denial to Petitioner Convicted of First-Degree Assault in Connecticut [And Rejects Pereira Claim]

The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for first-degree assault in Connecticut was an aggravated felony, and that the invalidation of 18 USC §16(b) in Sessions v. Dimaya did not necessitate a remand to the BIA for consideration of this issue. (Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 4/23/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042600.

ALSO: “And lastly, we see no basis for reading Pereira—which dealt only with the “stop time” rule, see 138 S. Ct. at 2110, which is not relevant to this case—to divest an Immigration Court of jurisdiction whenever an NTA lacks information regarding a hearing’s time and date.    We thus join several of our sister circuits in allowing proceedings such as these to proceed.”

NWIRP Reaches Settlement with DOJ in EOIR Cease-and-Desist Letter Case

In a settlement agreement with NWIRP, DOJ agreed to issue a new rule clarifying that attorneys are not required to file a notice of appearance with EOIR when providing consultations and legal advice to unrepresented respondents in removal proceedings. (NWIRP v. Sessions, 4/17/19) AILA Doc. No. 17051834

District Court Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking Termination of TPS for Haiti

A district court judge issued a preliminary injunction finding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims and equal protection claim and enjoining the Trump administration from terminating TPS for Haiti, effective immediately. (Saget v. Trump, 4/11/19) AILA Doc. No. 19041530

CA3 Says That Disparate Treatment in INA §309 Is Rationally Related to Legitimate Government Interests

The court denied the petition for review, holding that INA §309, which treats adopted and biological children differently for automatic derivative citizenship purposes, is rationally related to advancing legitimate government interests. (Cabrera v. Att’y Gen., 4/19/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042571

CA3 Grants Motion to Reopen Where BIA Ignored Petitioner’s Evidence of Materially Changed Country Conditions

The court vacated the BIA’s order denying the motion to reopen and remanded, holding that the BIA abused its discretion when it failed to meaningfully consider evidence and arguments presented by the Christian Indonesian petitioner and to explain its conclusions. (Liem v. Att’y Gen., 4/19/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042570

CA5 Says 30-Day Filing Deadline in INA §242(b)(1) Applies to the Savings Provision in INA §242(a)(2)(D)

The court held it lacked jurisdiction under INA §242(a)(2)(D)’s savings provision to consider petitioner’s collateral attack on her reinstated in absentia removal order, because a petition for review of the underlying removal order was not filed within 30 days. (Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 4/22/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042601

CA7 Grants Asylum to Mexican Man Persecuted After Refusing to Allow Cartel Leader to “Possess” His Wife

The court found that the record compelled a finding that the torture and persecution the petitioner had suffered in the past and feared in the future were and would be because of his membership in the particular social group of his wife’s family. (Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr, 4/24/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042604

CA8 Says INA §236(a) Contains No Reasonableness Limitation on Pre-Removal Order Detention

The court reversed the district court’s order granting the habeas petition, finding that the district court erred when it concluded that pre-removal order detention under INA §236(a) is limited to “the period reasonably necessary to receive a removal decision.” (Ali v. Brott, 4/16/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042572

CA9 Upholds Most Provisions of California’s Sanctuary Laws

The court upheld California laws AB 450, which requires employers to alert employees prior to federal immigration inspections, and SB 54, which limits the cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. (United States v. State of California, 4/18/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042273

CA9 Vacates Nearly $1 Million Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Sexual Battery Lawsuit Against Asylum Officer

The court held that because the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger when it issued an award of attorneys’ fees, it failed to apply the appropriate legal framework in the case. (Lu v. United States, 4/17/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042501

CA9 Says Third-Degree Robbery in Oregon Is an Aggravated Felony

The court concluded that petitioner’s conviction for third-degree robbery under Oregon Revised Statutes §164.395 was a categorical theft offense, and thus found that the petitioner was removable for an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr, 4/23/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042602

CA11 Upholds Asylum Denial to Salvadoran Who Received Gang Threats, over Dissent

In an unpublished decision, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Atlanta Immigration Court (AIC) had denied her equal protection rights. The dissent noted that the petitioner’s statistics regarding the AIC merited further inquiry by the BIA. (Diaz-Rivas v. Att’y Gen., 4/18/19) AILA Doc. No. 19042436

USCIS Issues Policy Alert on Controlled Substance-Related Activity and Good Moral Character Determinations

USCIS issued guidance to clarify that violation of federal controlled substance law, including for marijuana, remains a conditional bar to establishing good moral character for naturalization even where that conduct would not be a state law offense. Effective 4/19/19. Comment period ends 5/2/19. AILA Doc. No. 19041930

Lawsuit Challenges Legality of USCIS Unlawful Presence Policy for Fs, Js, and Ms

Lawsuit challenging the legality of USCIS’s “Accrual of Unlawful Presence and F, J, and M Nonimmigrants” memo as contrary to the statutory unlawful presence provisions, and violative of the APA and the Due Process Clause. (Guilford College v. Neilsen, 10/23/18)

White House Issues Memo on Combating High Nonimmigrant Overstay Rates

The White House issued a memo on combating high nonimmigrant visa overstay rates. Among other things, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the AG and Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide recommendations of actions to take to reduce nonimmigrant overstay rates from certain countries. AILA Doc. No. 19042297

USCIS Announces Israeli Nationals Eligible for Treaty Investor Visas

USCIS announced that beginning 5/1/19, certain Israeli nationals who are lawfully present in the United States will be able to request a change of status to the E-2 treaty investor classification. AILA Doc. No. 19042272

White House Issues Memo on Combating High Nonimmigrant Overstay Rates

The White House issued a memo on combating high nonimmigrant visa overstay rates. Among other things, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the AG and Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide recommendations of actions to take to reduce nonimmigrant overstay rates from certain countries. AILA Doc. No. 19042297

RESOURCES

·         Practice Alert: Upcoming Elimination of Means-Tested Benefits as Basis for Fee Waiver Requests. See also Fee Waiver Community Alert.

·         NYC DA Offices U-visa Contact List (attached)

·         Practice Advisory: Asylum Seekers Stranded in Mexico Because of the Trump Administration’s Restrictive Policies: Firm Resettlement Considerations

·         Practice Pointer: Completing Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal

·         Why Is Your Case Taking So Long? USCIS Processing Delays Have Now Hit Crisis Levels

·         CRS Report on the Special Immigrant Visa Programs for Iraqis and Afghans

·         Ethical Questions in Representing Clients with Administratively Closed Removal Cases

·         Safeguarding the Integrity of Our Courts: The Impact of ICE Courthouse Operations in New York State

·         Web of Violence: Crime, corruption and displacement in Honduras

·         A Better Approach to “Unable or Unwilling” Analysis?

·         AILA Law Journal

·         Barred at the Border: Wait “Lists” Leave Asylum Seekers in Peril at Texas Ports of Entry

·         Estimates from the Center for Migration Studies Show Overstays Have Not Substantially Increased

EVENTS

4/30/19 Options for Clients with a Prior Removal Order Picked Up by ICE

5/1/19 May Day NYC: Workers + Immigrants, We Rise Together

5/1/19 Resiliency Working Group New Museum Visit and Workshop: the somatic toll of engaging with the immigration legal system

5/2/19 Revisiting the Child Status Protection Act

5/2/19 Roadblocks to Refuge: The Latest Developments on Barriers to Asylum

5/2/19 NYCBA: The Assault on Due Process and the Need for an Independent Immigration Court

5/3/19 Asylum Under Attack – Restrictions on Asylum at the Border and Beyond

5/6/19 NYCBA: The Courtroom: Performance and Conversation

5/7/19 Best Practices for Interacting with the National Visa Center

5/8/19 Ethics For Public Interest Lawyers In These Demanding Times

5/13/19 ACS New York: “Twelve Patients: Life and Death at Bellevue Hospital” with Eric Manheimer

5/21/19 Admissibility, Revocation, and Public Health: “Risky” Business

5/30/19 Understanding Denaturalization and its Impact on Your Clients

6/2/19 Introduction to Immigration Law Practice: A Course for New Practitioners

6/17/19 2019 AILA/GMS Annual Global Immigration Forum

8/4/19 Legal, Cultural, & Historical Approach to Understanding the Complex and Controversial Issue Dominating Our National Dialogue

ImmProf

Monday, April 29, 2019

·         Supreme Court oral argument discounts empirical studies predicting census undercount

Sunday, April 28, 2019

·         The Closure of Detention Centers in California

·         On the Other Side

·         Welcome Professor Ming Hsu Chen to the ImmigrationProf Blog!

·         “My Sick Idea”: President Trump on Sending Immigrants To Sanctuary Cities

·         Immigrants Who Use Legal Marijuana May Be Denied U.S. Citizenship for “Lacking Good Moral Character”

·         Sarah Rogerson Honored With M. Shanara Gilbert Award

·         HUD Proposes to Evict Citizens and Immigrants from Public Housing if They Have Undocumented Family Members

Saturday, April 27, 2019

·         U.S. Military on the Southern Border: What’s Their Proper Role?

·         Measles Misinformation Gets an Immigration Twist

·         ICE is holding $204 million in bond money, and some immigrants might never get it back

Friday, April 26, 2019

·         Trump Administration Indicts Massachusetts Judge, Court Office on Helping Immigrant Avoid ICE

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Global Migration Crisis by Amnon Rubinstein and Liav Orgad

Thursday, April 25, 2019

·         Proposal to Expand Expedited Removal

·         Inaugural Issue of AILA Law Journal

·         Presidential Memorandum on Combating High Nonimmigrant Overstay Rates

·         Slate: This Immigration Judge Has a Fix for Immigration Courts

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

·         Civilian Policing of The Southern Border

·         Promoting Pereira

·         Nearly 100,000 Unauthorized Immigrants Graduate from High School Every Year

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

·         A Life-Changing I-601A Waiver Experience

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

·         Austrian Politician Resigns After Publishing Poem Comparing Migrants to Rats

·         DACA Recipients Sue VMware Inc.

·         The Paradox of Patriot Acts and Muslim Bans

·         Naturalization and Overstay of Visas

·         On Birthright Citizenship

·         My 10 Steps to be Considered Human

·         Oral Arguments Before High Court in Two Immigration-Related Cases

Monday, April 22, 2019

·         Think or Swim: Community Activism

·         Teaching About Border Militias

·         Supreme Court Grants Cert in “Stop-Time Rule” Case

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

Thanks, Elizabeth!

PWS

05-02-19

WASHINGTON POST/ABC POLL: TRUMP’S “CRUEL, MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE” APPROACH TO ASYLUM HIGHLY UNPOPULAR & INEFFECTIVE: Dems Can Build Support By Strengthening Current Asylum System & Making It Work! — The “Real Face” Of “Border Security” Has Little Or Nothing To Do With Trump’s White Nationalist Rants & Barrage Of Lies!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/30/trumps-asylum-changes-are-even-less-desired-than-his-border-wall/

Aaron’s Blake reports for the Washington Post:

President Trump has made immigration crackdown a central focus of his presidency, and a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows a growing number of Republicans and Democrats agree that the worsening situation on the border is a “crisis.”

But Trump is offering a solution that relatively few Americans like. In fact, his newly announced decision to make it harder to seek asylum is even less popular than his border wall national emergency, according to the same poll.

The Post-ABC poll shows that 30 percent of Americans favor making it more difficult for those seeking asylum in the United States to obtain it. About as many — 27 percent — favor making it easier, while 34 percent want to leave the process as-is.

Even among Republicans, just 46 percent favor making it more difficult. Among the few groups where a majority support the idea are conservative Republicans (51 percent) and those who approve of Trump (53 percent). Even in the latter group, though, 29 percent say leave the system as-is, and 11 percent want to make it easier to seek asylum.

Late Monday, the White House announced that it was proposing a new fee for asylum seekers. It is also seeking to prevent those who cross the border illegally from obtaining work permits, and it set the ambitious goal of requiring asylum cases to be decided within 180 days.

The fee would put the United States out of step with most of the world, as the vast majority of countries do not require asylum seekers to pay any fee. Given the dire circumstances many asylum seekers come from, including economically, critics worry the fee would prove a barrier to those with legitimate claims.

There has been a huge uptick in the number of asylum seekers in recent months. More than 103,000 immigrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border last month, and 60 percent of them were Central American families who have requested asylum. The system has become overburdened, and even critics of Trump’s immigration approach acknowledge the situation must be addressed.

[The surge in migrants seeking asylum, explained]

But saying there’s a problem and saying this is the solution are two different things. Trump has repeatedly argued that asylum seekers are exploiting weak U.S. immigration and asylum laws and that many of them are criminals and gang members who are told to claim asylum even though they don’t need it. He has called the concept of asylum “a big con job.” Yet, even as the situation at the border is exacerbated by a growing number of asylum seekers, Americans are still clearly uncomfortable with increasing the burdens on them.

The proposed changes will likely take some time to implement, if they ever are. Attorney General William P. Barr has 90 days to come up with a plan, and the move will undoubtedly be challenged in court.

Because the poll was conducted before Trump’s announcement, it didn’t test the specific details of his proposal. A fresh debate about the specific proposals could feasibly change the levels of public support. But Trump has been pushing the idea that asylum seekers are exploiting the system for months, and it doesn’t seem to have led to a chorus of support within his base for tightening the rules.

The level of support is even less than the backing for his national emergency to build a border wall. The Post-ABC poll shows just 34 percent of Americans favor that, while 64 percent oppose it. But at least on that proposal, Trump’s base is strongly onboard. Seventy percent of Republicans back the border wall national emergency.

Trump’s overall approval on immigration stands at 39 percent, with 57 percent disapproving, according to The Post-ABC poll.

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

Bottom line: On asylum, the public essentially is split in thirds among 1) more generous; 2) less generous; and 3) current system. That means that neither radical retractions nor radical expansions of the current system are likely to be achievable at present. That opens the door for the Dems to put together a powerful coalition to strengthen and fairly and efficiently administer the current asylum system.

It’s not rocket science — more like basic governing competence. Here are the elements:

Establish an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court;
Invest in representation of asylum seekers;
Add more Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, and Port of Entry Inspectors;
Provide comprehensive basic and continuing training for all asylum adjudicators from experts in asylum law;
Use prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) to reduce Immigration Court backlogs to allow Immigration Judges to concentrate on timely hearings for recently arrived asylum cases;
Reduce immigration detention;
Hire more anti-smuggling, undercover, and anti-fraud agents for DHS;
Invest in improving conditions in “sending” countries in Central America.

It would 1) cost less than the money Trump is now squandering on “designed to fail” enforcement and detention efforts; 2) create a political constituency for funding and future improvements; 3) protect human rights; and 4) give the U.S the substantial benefits of integrating asylees and their talents into our society and economy through the legal system. Those found ineligible could also be removed in a humane and timely manner after receiving due process.

Not surprisingly, we just learned today that Trump’s “Malicious Incompetence Program” at the border has run out of money and is requesting another $4.5 billion from Congress. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-asks-congress-for-45-billion-in-emergency-spending-for-border/2019/05/01/725e2864-6c23-11e9-8f44-e8d8bb1df986_story.html

Now is the time for House Dems to hang tough on demanding some real border security for the money — in plain terms, require the money to be spent in exactly the ways described above, not on more of Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist, anti-asylum schemes and gimmicks.

Additionally, there should be specific prohibitions on: 1) wall and barrier building beyond what Congress has already authorized; 2) any additional spending for detention of non-criminal asylum applicants beyond the time needed to give them credible fear interviews; 3) family detention; 4) “tent cities;’ 5) “Remain in Mexico,” 6) “metering” of asylum applicants at Ports of Entry; 6) charging fees for asylum applications; 7) denial of work authorization for non-frivolous asylum applicants; 8) denial of reasonable bond to asylum applicants unless individually determined to be “threats to the community;” and 9) use of the military except to assist in providing humanitarian aid. There should also be a specific mechanism for accounting and constant Congressional oversight on how the Administration spends the extra funding.

PWS

05-01-19

Most of the world’s most dangerouscities are in Latin America

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Most of the world’s most dangerous
cities are in Latin America