May 2022 – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️😎GARLAND REVERSES BIA: Mental Health Evidence SHOULD Be Considered In “Particularly Serious Crime” Determination! — Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 563 (A.G. 2022)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1504486/download

Matter of B-Z-R-, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General May 9, 2022

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

(1) Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), is overruled.

(2) Immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); see id § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii).

***************************************
Notably, the problem with the BIA’s poor decision-making here goes back to the Obama Administration. Their indolent, tone-deaf approach to EOIR helped “set the table” for the later weaponization and abuses by the Trump DOJ!

As A.G. Garland, and several Circuits, point out, there was no discernible rationale for the BIA’s wrong-headed decision to exclude mental health evidence from the case-by-case determination.

What’s the cost of poor decision making by the BIA?

8 years of wrongly decided cases;
Unnecessary circuit splits;
Avoidable remands;
Lack of uniformity;
Wasteful and unnecessary litigation;
Wrongful deportations.

What if the BIA were composed of experts, committed to due process and best interpretations? Wouldn’t the whole system work better?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05–10-22

DISSENTING VIEW: LET THE SUN SHINE IN!☀️ — Unaccountable, Anti-Democracy, Out-Of-Touch Righty Supremes Need & Deserve Public Scrutiny Of Decision-Making! — The “Leak” Was “All Good” 😎 — The Retrograde Substance Of Alito’s “Draft,” Not So Much! 🤮

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Supreme-Court-leaks-are-good-actually-Let-s-17154277.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

Edward Wasserman writes in the SF Chron:

. . . .

No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.

That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.

But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.

To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.

But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.

So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”

At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.

That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.

Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.

And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.

Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.

Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.

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

Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.

He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.

Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-22

“CROCK”-ODILE 🐊 TEARS 😂: Incredibly, Thomas Bemoans Lack Of Respect For Institutions That He, Ginny, & Their Far-Right Extremist Buddies Helped Destroy!🤮 — “[T]his is a guy who has spent a lifetime trying to take a battering ram to all the Supreme Court major precedents!”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarence-thomas-accept-roe-v-wade-bullied-live-with-critics_n_6276e62ce4b0b7c8f084fe16

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

Critics were stunned Saturday after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas scolded Americans for not accepting controversial rulings — after his own wife battled against the results of a legitimate presidential election.

Thomas chided a distraught public in comments Friday at a judicial conference in Atlanta following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would gut Roe v. Wade and a half-century of the right to an abortion.

He complained that Americans are “addicted” to results they want — while “not living with” rulings they oppose. He warned that the court will not be “bullied” in the face of protest. Declining respect for the law and institutions, Thomas warned, “bodes ill for a free society.”

Thomas detractors were agog. Not only has his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, refused to “live with” the presidential election, he was the sole Supreme Court justice to vote that former President Donald Trump should not have to release his White House documents to the House committee investigating last year’s insurrection.

Thomas has also repeatedly attempted to rip up legal precedence set by the court.

“The irony is so thick you wonder if it’s maybe a Clarence Thomas impersonator,” former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said on MSNBC Saturday.

“Among other things, this is a guy who has spent a lifetime trying to take a battering ram to all the Supreme Court major precedents” of law, Litman added. “He’s now saying people don’t respect the law enough. That’s even leaving aside all the controversies he has engendered, as has his wife. It’s just … remarkable.”

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

There is no end to the hypocrisy and subversiveness of the Thomas Clan and the far-right.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-22

🙁“CAT-ASTROPHE” — GARLAND’S EOIR FLUNKS “CAT 101” — Coast-to-Coast Failures in 9th and 1st Cir Show A “Judiciary” With Life or Death ☠️ Authority Lacking In Basic Legal Skills & Competence!🤮

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php

When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.

Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.

The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.

That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.

“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.

Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.

“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.

. . . . .

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

Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.

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

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf

. . . .

The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ

10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.

– 30 –

regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11

Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she

11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.

– 31 –

witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.

. . . .

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

These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.

By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!

If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!

One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?

I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!

⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

⚖️🗽NDPA: PAULINA VERA AMONG HEADLINERS AT GW LAW “SOCIAL IMPACT SHOWCASE”

Registration link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/immigration-lawyers-saving-lives-and-reuniting-families-registration-317886315527

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

Congrats to all concerned!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

🗽⚖️ CALLING VETERANS, FRONT LINE WORKERS, OTHER ADVOCATES FOR AGHAN REFUGEES! — Gary Sampliner & Evacuate our Allies Coalition Need Your Help By COB May 9!

The Evacuate our Allies Coalition of faith, veterans’, and human rights groups has been advocating for an Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA), to allow our Afghan evacuees (many of whom have only been admitted as “parolees” whose status will expire 1 or 2 years from entry) to be treated equivalently to “refugees,” and thereby made eligible to apply for permanent residence in the U.S. after 1 year here (with the requisite vetting). We now have a good shot to have AAA language passed by Congress, as part of the Ukraine Supplemental appropriation now being sought by President Biden. The AAA has solid Democratic support as well as notable and increasing Republican support, but proponents can use assurances of additional Republican support to assure that AAA language remains in a bill that gets passed by Congress.

If any of you are veterans, can characterize yourself as front line workers with Afghans resettling in the U.S., or are constituents of the Republican Senators you’ll see listed in this toolkit (or have friends who fall into these categories that you can circulate this message to), we urge that you make calls to any of the listed Senators (by cob May 9), at the numbers indicated, using the script you’ll also see in the toolkit, Thanks very much for your help!

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

This message comes from Gary Sampliner, an executive director of JAMAAT — Jews and Muslims and Allies Acting Together, a DC area organization that is a member of the Evacuate our Allies Coalition. Thank you Gary, for all that you, the veterans in AfghanEvac, and the Evacuate our Allies Coalition does for America and humanity!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

🗽CORNELL IMMIGRATION CLINIC PROVES “THE ASYLUMIST’S” POINT: Lots Of Potential “Winners” Out There Lost In Garland’s Backlogged, Dysfunctional, Unfair EOIR!

Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer
Assistant Clinical Professor
Cornell Law

Professor Steve Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law writes:

Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo.This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc

Search

ADMISSIONS

ACADEMICS

FACULTY & RESEARCH

CAREERS

LIFE AT CORNELL LAW

Information for:
Current Students
Alumni

GIVE TODAY

News

1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case

By Law School staff

April 27, 2022

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Email

Paul: My colleague Jakki Kelley-Widmer, who runs a 1L immigration clinic at Cornell Law, just won a difficult asylum case before an IJ in Buffalo. This article summarizes the case and mentions all the students who worked on the case over the last few years: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/news/1l-immigration-law-clinic-wins-high-stakes-case/?fbclid=IwAR05sriR0Z4lII65_xNMBtGE40f_JOudKSI78qvcIiLQxR3JmbyscmYz9Hc

Search

ADMISSIONS
ACADEMICS
FACULTY & RESEARCH
CAREERS
LIFE AT CORNELL LAW
Information for: Current Students  Alumni
GIVE TODAY

News
1L Immigration Law Clinic Wins High-Stakes Case

By Law School staff

April 27, 2022
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Email

On March 31, The Cornell Law School’s 1L Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic won a long-fought, difficult case in the Buffalo Immigration Court for a mother and her young children living on a farm in upstate New York, ensuring that the family will be able to live safely in the United States.
The client had arrived in 2019 from Mexico with three children under ten, including a baby. She was fleeing an abusive husband, to whom she had been forcibly married as a teenager, as well as direct threats of gang violence in her home country, whose government offered her no protection.
Immigration authorities detained her for several weeks in the winter of 2019 before releasing her with a notice to appear in court. She went to her first two court dates unrepresented, because few attorneys in upstate New York take this kind of case. Another nonprofit had already declined to represent her when she contacted Cornell Law’s Immigration Clinic.
“Asylum cases are incredibly difficult to win,” says clinic director Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer. “The process is onerous and takes tremendous resources. My students estimate that, across all the law students involved in the case, interpreters we used, law professors who contributed, volunteers who helped care for the client’s children, and administrative staff who assisted with filing and other logistics, this case took us about 1,000 collective hours over 14 months.”
She adds that the clinic was also partially basing its case on a novel argument related to the client’s marriage, which occurred while she was still a child. “The law students came up with this creative solution and found a path forward to make the claim, including by seeking multiple expert witnesses and researching country conditions to contextualize the client’s story.”
The core team of Jared Flanery ’23 and Tori Staley ’23 (who started as 1Ls) and Gaby Pico ’22 and Rachel Skene ’22 (who started as 2Ls) stayed with it for three semesters. They worked closely with the client, completely in Spanish and almost entirely remotely due to the pandemic and the client’s rural location.
The students conducted extensive research, drafted witness declarations, and wrote the briefing, involving three separate legal arguments. They also took on the trial, including direct examination of multiple witnesses, presentation of evidence, and closing arguments.
“Most importantly, the client herself has been her own best advocate,” says Kelley-Widmer. “We’ve laughed with her, we’ve cried with her, and together we celebrated this win for her long-term safety.”

**************************
Folks, these are “first year law students” in the NDPA who, with inspiration and guidance from some of the “best and brightest in American law,” (like Professor Jakki Kelly-Widmer) are running circles around Garland’s “stuck in reverse” DOJ and Mayorkas’s DHS.

I recently featured commentary from Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow about the egregiously horrible effects of EOIR’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that continues unabated under Garland.
https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/05/04/%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%aeaimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-garlands-eoir-screws-%f0%9f%94%a9asylum-seekers-with-long-pending-slam-dunk/

One of Jason’s many salient points was that there are lots of potentially “winnable” cases mired in Garland’s backlog that should be granted if they could only get a merits hearing before a fair judge.

As I have said repeatedly, the things necessary to transform EOIR into a “hotbed of due process” rather than it’s current state of “dysfunctional disaster” are NOT rocket 🚀 science:

More and better representation;
Fair, expert judges with practical experience;
Uniform, nationwide guidance on how to properly grant asylum and other relief in many worthy cases from a BIA of true experts and “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights;
Dockets that prioritize, expedite, and reward well-prepared, well-documented, grantable cases for asylum and other relief.

Those are the items that should have been “day one” priorities at DOJ and EOIR for Garland and his team. (Just what, if anything, has he accomplished in his time in office in ANY significant area of the law or policy?)

Instead, Garland has responded with:

Arbitrary and capricious, deterrence-driven “expedited dockets” that lead to more “ADR” and bigger backlogs;
“User unfriendly,” unilateral actions that have cost him support from the pro bono bar and experts would could have helped straighten out EOIR;
Maintaining a judiciary and “management” structure largely “designed and staffed” to “deny and deport” by his overtly nativist predecessors;
Wasting time, resources, and squandering goodwill by defending Title 42 and other indefensible policies left behind by the Trump-Miller regime.

These mistakes are NOT “small potatoes” 🥔 as Garland and some other misguided Dems seem to think. They have cost the Dems “big time” in the one overarching area where they had complete control and could have made necessary progressive changes for the common good without “60 votes” in the Senate. How many immigration bills did the Trump regime pass on their way to obliterating the law and human rights?

They have also cost the Dems a nearly unprecedented chance to show how sound legal and constitutional policies, equal justice, racial equity, and enlightened progressive humanitarianism can work to reaffirm and re-energize the essential contribution of immigration to America’s greatness and to disprove the racist, nativist, false myths about immigrants and people of color that have become a staple of modern day Republicanism.

Enlightened immigration policies could have materially helped solve or prevent some of the economic woes facing American today. They could have “beefed up” everything from the supply chain to essential workers to needed investments in rural America to the housing shortage.

Some of the “reddest” states in American are among those that could benefit most from immigrants — many of whom have faced and overcome in their lives some of the same problems frustrating rural America. But, migrants who are being illegally rejected at the border, unlawfully imprisoned, and/or then orbited to death or oblivion in failed countries can’t help themselves or anyone else. What a waste of human potential and opportunities to show what immigrants can achieve in and for America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-22

🥊EOIR PUMMELED, AGAIN! — Normally “DHS Friendly” 5th Cir. Rejects More Defective NTAs, As EOIR Continues To Reel Under Garland!

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60617.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/defective-nta-remand-at-ca5-urbina-urbina-v-garland#

“This is a consolidated petition seeking review of three orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming decisions from an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ motions to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the BIA decision and REMAND for reconsideration. … Statutory notice is the central issue in this case. All three family members argued before the BIA that they did not receive proper notice of the removal hearing, and thus that they should not have been removed in absentia. … The reasoning relied on by the BIA in its holding is now foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. In Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021), we held that “in the in absentia context,” an NTA must consist of “a single document containing the required information” regarding the removal hearing. Id. at 355. Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case because here, as in Rodriguez, the initial NTAs did not contain the date and time of the removal hearings. Id. And here, just as in Rodriguez, the BIA concluded that the deficiency was cured by a “subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information.” Id. The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021. … Accordingly, we VACATE the three BIA decisions and REMAND the three cases for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).”

[Hats off, yet again, to Raed Gonzalez!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to fearless NDPA Superstar 🌟 Raed Gonzalez!

Is this just the “tip of the iceberg” 🧊 for rebukes of EOIR’s lousy “jurisprudence” that continues to be an ungodly mess under Garland?

Count on it! As Raed tells me:

Lots out there, and IJ’s keep on issuing in absentias with defective NTA’s. More lawsuits will be coming soon because of the fake dates and times in an attempt to go around Pereira and Chavez. Can’t wait!

It’s what happens when Dem Administrations mindlessly put the wrong folks in charge and and fail to give potential progressive judicial talent — brilliant, practical minds committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — a chance to straighten out the law and bring order, consistency, and integrity to what certainly is the most important (and currently most dysfunctional) “retail level” judicial system in America!

Compare the available, spectacular progressive judicial talent Biden and Garland HAVEN’T appointed to the “Immigration Bench” with the out of bounds, far right, ignore the Constitution and the law, “turn back the clock” poppycock being spewed forth by Justice Alito and his radical right, GOP, Federalist Society trained buddies on the Supremes and elsewhere! The Biden Administration’s failure to bring long overdue, achievable, beneficial reforms and a wave of better judges to EOIR is a stunning “missed opportunity” that now threatens the very foundations of our democracy!

To put it bluntly: If folks like Raed and other “practical scholars and intellectual powerhouses” from the NDPA were in charge of EOIR and on the “Immigration Bench” these problems wouldn’t exist and real progress would be made in reducing the backlog while enhancing due process!

Folks coming before the Immigration Courts would be receiving justice — rather than blithering nonsense — and our country and the world would be better for it!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-22

⚖️ THE GIBSON REPORT — 05-02-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center: Will GOP Supremes Stop Biden From Governing, Abbott’s Racist “Invasion Hoax,” More “Migrant Kills” Anticipated, GOP’s Fabricated Voter Fraud Threat, Mayorkas Mindlessly Tells Refugees “Don’t Come” While Providing No Viable Alternatives!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

PRACTICE ALERTS

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE ALERTS

ICE Posted Additional Guidance on Prosecutorial Discretion

USCIS Stops Applying Certain EAD Provisions for Asylum Applicants (Updated)

NEWS

Remain in Mexico case in front of SCOTUS is also about whether Biden will be allowed to govern

Daily Kos: This case matters, not only because real lives are at stake, but because justices will be deciding whether an incumbent president has the power to legitimately end a predecessor’s flawed policy. See also ‘Remain In Mexico’ Case May Curb Courts’ Injunctive Power.

Abbott Threatens to Declare an ‘Invasion’ as Migrant Numbers Climb

NYT: Abbott is weighing whether to invoke actual war powers to seize much broader state authority on the border. He could do so, advocates inside and outside his administration argue, by officially declaring an “invasion” to comply with a clause in the U.S. Constitution that says states cannot engage in war except when “actually invaded.”

Biden admin struggles to calm the Democratic storm over immigration

Politico: Memo to the Biden administration: The written plan to handle a summertime migration surge at the border isn’t satisfying purple-state Democrats who were pointedly asking for one. See also Comprehensive Immigration Reform Has ‘Zero’ Chance This Year, Key Senate Democrat Reportedly Says; Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas testifies on Title 42 in Senate hearing.

G.O.P. Concocts Fake Threat: Voter Fraud by Undocumented Immigrants

NYT: Far from the U.S.-Mexico border, Ohio’s Senate primary shows how the Republican obsession with the fiction of a stolen election has spawned a new cause for fear of illegal immigration.

Thomson Reuters to review contracts, including for database used to track immigrants

WaPo: A Canadian trade union said it had scored a surprising victory Friday in its three-year tech battle with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the United States, successfully persuading the media conglomerate Thomson Reuters to reevaluate its work selling personal data that the agency had used to investigate immigrants.

Huge border influx brings fears of grim summer for migrant deaths

WaPo: A sharp increase in the number of people crossing into the United States through remote desert areas along the U.S.-Mexico border has officials and rights advocates worried that this summer will be especially lethal, with the potential for a spike in migrant deaths. See also DHS chief doubles down on request to migrants at southern border: ‘Do not come’; U.S.-Mexico migration talks ‘constructive,’ not ‘threatening’ -White House; Risking it all: migrants brave Darién Gap in pursuit of the American dream.

People continue to camp outside of Orlando immigration office, hoping to be seen on Monday

ABC: People in search of appointments with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Orlando have been waiting in line for days now and some have been coming back to this spot for more than a month.

House Members Urge Funding for Legal Representation to Indigent Adults in Removal Proceedings

AILA: Forty-seven members of the House of Representatives, led by Congresswoman Norma Torres (D-CA), sent a letter calling for funding for the Department of Justice to expand federally funded legal representation for indigent adults facing immigration court removal proceedings.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Matter of DANG, 28 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 2022)

BIA: Because misdemeanor domestic abuse battery with child endangerment under section 14:35.3(I) of the Louisiana Statutes extends to mere offensive touching, it is overbroad with respect to § 16(a) and therefore is not categorically a crime of domestic violence under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

2nd Circ. Turns Down Convention Against Torture Relief Claim

Law360: The Second Circuit on Wednesday ruled that it lacked the jurisdiction to review an Indian man’s deportation, saying a recent immigration judge’s denial of his application for relief, under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, was not a “final order” that triggers the 30 days available for appellate court review.

En Banc 9th Circ. To Reconsider Calif. Private Prison Ban

Law360: The Ninth Circuit vacated on Tuesday a split panel’s decision that a California law banning private immigration detention facilities and other private prisons does not pass legal muster because it would impede the federal government’s immigration enforcement, saying it will hold an en banc hearing.

Federal Court Rules that Government Actions Under Remain in Mexico are Subject to Orantes Injunction

NILC: On Wednesday, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that plaintiffs raised significant questions regarding the federal government’s compliance with a permanent injunction in the Orantes case and ordered the government to produce more information to determine whether Remain in Mexico violated the injunction’s terms.

La. Judge Orders Biden To Keep Enforcing Title 42

Law360: A Louisiana federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Biden administration from prematurely unwinding the Title 42 order used to quickly expel migrants arriving at the border, saying lifting the order ahead of schedule could force states to shoulder the financial burden of more migrants.

Arizona v. CDC Restraining Order

AILA: The judge in Arizona v. CDC granted the temporary restraining order. For the next 14 days, DHS is enjoined and restrained from implementing the termination order, “including increases (over pre-Termination Order levels) in processing of migrants from Northern Triangle countries through Title 8 proceedings rather than under the Title 42 Orders, and are further enjoined and restrained from reducing processing of migrants pursuant to Title 42.” DHS may still practice case-by-case discretion and engage in targeted expedited removal to detain and remove individuals who have crossed multiple times.

New NIJC litigation challenges a sham accountability process, misuse of funds, and egregiously neglectful conditions

NIJC: The litigation exposes how local officials in Indiana unlawfully misappropriate federal dollars meant for the care of immigrants detained in their jail to pad their own budgets. The lawsuit also sheds light on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s deeply flawed oversight that allows private companies and local jails like Clay County to misuse federal taxpayer dollars while non-citizens suffer in egregiously poor conditions.

Migrant Advocates Push For Cert. In Juvenile Work Permit Suit

Law360: Immigrant advocates have urged a California federal court to certify two classes of vulnerable juveniles waiting for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process their visa applications, saying new agency guidance for child abuse survivors doesn’t address their allegations.

Kariye v. Mayorkas, No. 2:22-CV-01916 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 24, 2022)

HoldCBPAccountable: On March 24, 2022, the ACLU, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and ACLU of Minnesota filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans, Abdirahman Aden Kariye, Mohamad Mouslli, and Hameem Shah, who have all been subjected to intrusive questioning from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officials about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Systemic Deficiencies at the Houston Asylum Office in Assessments of Credible and Reasonable Fear Cause Harm and Irreversible Damage to Asylum Seekers

NIPNLG: While many of the issues we raise have occurred in numerous asylum offices, the Houston Asylum Office has a particularly egregious record of conducting these screenings and we therefore ask that you investigate the Houston Asylum Office’s conduct.

Republican AGs Cry Foul Over Biden Asylum Policy

Law360: Over a dozen state attorneys general cried foul over President Joe Biden’s policy vesting asylum officers with greater power over asylum, filing lawsuits Thursday to block the rule, which they claim would force states to bear the cost of more migrants.

Texas Files Lawsuit Challenging Rule on Asylum Processing for Individuals Subject to Expedited Removal

AILA: On 4/28/22, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit challenging a DHS and DOJ interim final rule, issued on 3/29/22, and scheduled to take effect on 5/31/22. Texas argues the rule, which would change how individuals subject to expedited removal are processed for asylum, is unlawful.

DHS Notice of Implementation of Uniting for Ukraine Process

AILA: DHS notice of the implementation of the Uniting for Ukraine parole process, beginning 4/25/22. (87 FR 25040, 4/27/22)

DHS Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness

DHS: Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas transmitted a memorandum to interested parties to provide additional details on the Biden-Harris Administration’s comprehensive plan to manage increased encounters of noncitizens at our Southwest Border.

RESOURCES

ACLU National Prison Project: Litigating Immigration Detention Conditions: An Introductory Guide (attached)

AIC: Survey on EOIR Mitigation for Access to Counsel Obstacles

AILA: Client Flyer: Rescheduling Biometrics Appointments

AILA: 75th Edition of the AILA Law Journal

ASISTA COVID-19 Practice Pointer: COVID Testing & Vaccination Requirements for Travel to the United States (Updated April 2022)

CRS: U.S. Immigration Courts and the Pending Cases Backlog

DHS OIG: Violations of ICE Detention Standards at South Texas ICE Processing Center

DHS Coloring Book

DOS: Information for Nationals of Ukraine

NIJC/DWN: State and Local Records Request Resources & Template

NILA: Template EOIR Motions to Stay Removal for Individuals Seeking to Reopen Removal Proceedings

NILA: The Basics of Motions to Reopen EOIR-Issued Removal Orders

NILA: Arriving Noncitizens and Adjustment of Status

NIPNLG OPLA Memo Explainer

NIPNLG: Survey Re OPLA Motions to Dismiss Where the Respondent Does Not Want Dismissal

EVENTS

NIJC EVENTS

5/7/22 Ukrainian Immigration Options Workshop

5/10/22 Justice & Java: What It Will Take To Save Our Asylum System

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

6/28/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 1

6/30/22 Pro Bono Training: Asylum Pride Part 2

GENERAL EVENTS

5/3/22 The Family Visa Petition

5/3/22 Inaugural “Vicarious Trauma Check-in” for Immigration Attorneys & Legal Staff: Reflecting on Lawyering Under 4 Years of Trump + 1 Year of Biden and Looking Forward

5/4/22 California Pardons and Post-Conviction Relief

5/5/22 Stories from the Trenches: Tools for Dealing with Depression, Burnout, and Substance Abuse

5/5/22 Preventing & Mitigating Vicarious Trauma Among Immigration Legal Staff As An Immigration Attorney Supervisor or Manager

5/6/22 Preventing & Mitigating Vicarious Trauma Amidst Zealous Immigration Detention Lawyering & Organizing

5/6/22-5/13/22 NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People

5/10/22 2022 Consular Processing Updates: Strategies and Alternatives for NIV and IV Cases

5/11/22 EOIR/ICE Liaison Update: The Most Recent Information on the State of Prosecutorial Discretion

5/12/22 Advanced DACA Issues: What You Need to Know in 2022

5/12/22-5/13/22 T-Visa Conference

5/13/22 FBA Immigration Law Conference

5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings

5/18/22 Pro Bono Training: Representing Immigrant Survivors Eligible For U Visas

5/18/22 U Visa Webinar Series: Adjustment of Status

5/19/22 USCIS to Host Webinar on Filing Form I-821D For Individuals Who Previously Received DACA

5/19/22 Fighting Interpol Red Notices with guest speaker, Sara Grossman

5/19/22 Waivers in Removal Proceedings: Beyond the Basics

5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?

5/20/22 AILA Chicago 2022 Spring Ethics Conference

5/21/22 Spring Ethics Conference Agenda

5/24/22 Current Issues in Afghan Asylum Claims

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

5/24/22 Advanced FOIA Techniques

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/8/22 ASISTA: Immigration Practice & Policy for Survivors: What’s New & What’s Next

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

6/14/22-6/15/22 NIPNLG 2022 Annual Pre-AILA Crimes & Immigration Seminar

6/22/22 Introduction to Immigrant Visa Consular Processing

7/5/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

7/13/22 CGRS Using Universal Expert Declaration in Immigration Court

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/26/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Corrupt GOP nativist politicos grandstanding, inept Administration officials, experts ignored, human rights, Constitution, humanity trampled, killing migrants, empowering smugglers, lack of vision, disdain for the rule of law, moral cowardice.

The ugliness and futility of misguided, counterproductive, cruel, inhumane U.S. “enforcement only/deterrence” policies at border is in full display in this week’s report from Elizabeth!

Casey keeps asking the same question. Unhappily, nobody (except some members of the NDPA who are ignored except when creaming Garland in court) has “stepped up” with the answer!

“Can’t anybody here play this game?” — Casey Stengel
PHOTO: Rudi Reit
Creative Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-05-22

👎🏽🤮AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) @ GARLAND’S EOIR SCREWS 🔩ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH LONG-PENDING “SLAM DUNK” 🏀 CASES: “So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.”

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

https://www.asylumist.com/2022/04/27/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah/

Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.

We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.

For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.

“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”

The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.

Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.

Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.

After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.

For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!

I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.

The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.

I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.

As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.

What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.

While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.

So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.

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

Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!

Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.

This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.

Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.

Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”

EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.

As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!

At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️

Alfred E. Neumann — Merrick Garland: “What, me worry? I’ve spent my entire law career in the ‘ivory tower.’ What’s ‘aimless docket reshuffling?’ Who cares about asylum seekers?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-22

⚡️ZAPPED AGAIN: 4TH CIR. TELLS EOIR TARDY IS NOT ABSENT! — NDPA Superstar 🌟 Helen Parsonage, Esquire, Comes Up Big For The Good Guys, Again! — Salomao v. Garland

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201856.U.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-in-absentia-order-tardy-does-not-mean-absent—salomao-v-garland

“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”

[Hats off to Helen Parsonage!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Congrats, Helen!

Anybody have a guess as to how many of these “bogus in absentias” are out there right now? Haste makes waste!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-22

🤮 UGLY HISTORY OF RACISM & BIAS INFECTS U.S. REFUGEE RESPONSES!

Dr. Laura Alexander
Goldstein Family Chair in Human Rights
Assistant Professor
U. of Nebraska-Omaha
PHOTO: UNO

https://theconversation.com/how-race-and-religion-have-always-played-a-role-in-who-gets-refuge-in-the-us-181700?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2028%202022%20-%202276322632&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2028%202022%20-%202276322632+Version+B+CID_a6f7cc645a264986686de82dd759a5c6&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=How%20race%20and%20religion%20have%20always%20played%20a%20role%20in%20who%20gets%20refuge%20in%20the%20US

From The Conversation:

How race and religion have always played a role in who gets refuge in the US

Laura E. Alexander Published: April 28, 2022 8.21am EDT

Ukrainian refugees wait near the U.S. border in Tijuana, Mexico. AP Photo/Gregory Bull

In the weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians have fled the country as refugees. Hundreds of those refugees have now arrived at the southern border of the United States seeking asylum, after flying to Mexico on tourist visas.

At the border, Ukrainians, alongside thousands of other asylum seekers, must navigate two policies meant to keep people out. The first is the “Migrant Protection Protocols,” a U.S. government action initiated by the Trump administration in December 2018 and known informally as “Remain in Mexico.” The second is Title 42, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention directive crafted in 2020, ostensibly to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The directive expels all irregular immigrants (those without permanent residency or a visa in hand) and asylum seekers who try to enter the U.S. by land.

On March 11, 2022, however, the Biden administration provided guidance allowing Customs and Border Protection officers to exempt Ukrainians from Title 42 on a case-by-case basis, which has allowed many families to enter. However, this exception has not been granted to other asylum seekers, no matter what danger they are in. It is possible that the administration may lift Title 42 at the end of May 2022, but that plan has encountered fierce debates.

The different treatment of Ukrainian versus Central American, African, Haitian and other asylum seekers has prompted criticism that the administration is enforcing immigration policies in racist ways, favoring white, European, mostly Christian refugees over other groups.

This issue is not new. As scholars of religion, race, immigration, and racial and religious politics in the United States, we study both historical and current immigration policy. We argue that U.S. refugee and asylum policy has long been racially and religiously discriminatory in practice.

Chinese asylum seekers

Race played a major role in who counted as a refugee during the early years of the Cold War. The displacement of millions fleeing communist regimes in Eastern Europe and East Asia created humanitarian crises in both places.

Under significant international pressure, Congress passed the 1953 Refugee Relief Act. According to historian Carl Bon Tempo, in the minds of President Dwight Eisenhower and most lawmakers, “refugee” meant “anticommunist European.” The text and implementation of the act reflected this. Of the 214,000 visas set aside for refugees, the law designated a quota of only 5,000 spots for Asians (2,000 for Chinese and 3,000 for “Far Eastern” refugees). Ultimately, approximately 9,000 Chinese (including 6,862 Chinese wives of U.S. citizens who came as nonquota migrants) were admitted under the 1953 refugee law, compared with nearly 200,000 southern and eastern Europeans, over the next three years.

Racial prejudice impacted the international response to refugees as well. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, United Nations officials had declared the displaced population in Europe a humanitarian crisis and appealed to the international community to relieve these pressures by accepting refugees. Over the next decade, Western nations including the U.S., France and Great Britain received millions of displaced Europeans as part of a larger Cold War public relations strategy to contain the Soviet Union and demonstrate the superiority of Western capitalist societies to life behind the Iron Curtain.

Millions of ethnic Chinese displaced by the 1949 Communist Revolution were not greeted so kindly. In the early 1950s, Hong Kong’s population tripled due to mainland Chinese fleeing civil war and communist rule, triggering a crisis. Most Western countries, however, continued to exclude Chinese and other Asians from immigrating and made few exceptions for refugees.

In the United States, exclusionary provisions that barred Asians from immigrating as “aliens ineligible to citizenship” would not be removed from immigration law until the 1965 Immigration Act.

Haitian asylum seekers

The first Haitian asylum seekers, who are overwhelmingly Black, attempted to reach the U.S. in boats in 1963 during the dictatorship of Francois Duvalier. It was a period of great economic inequality and severe violent repression of political opposition in Haiti.

Haitian refugees who were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard returning to Port-au-Prince after being repatriated in 1992. AP Photo/Daniel Morel

Between 1973 and 1991, more than 80,000 Haitians tried to seek asylum in the U.S. The U.S., however, consistently attempted to intercept and turn back boats carrying Haitian asylum seekers to avoid having to hear their cases.

In the 1980s and 1990s, nearly every single Haitian who tried to request asylum was either denied or turned away. Some disparities between asylum rates could be explained by political factors, particularly the U.S. government’s interest in prioritizing refugees from communist countries.

However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court both found, in Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti and Jean v. Nelson respectively, that racial discrimination could be the only reason for such strikingly different outcomes for Haitians. In Jean v. Nelson, the 11th Circuit heard evidence from plaintiffs that there was a less than two-in-1 billion chance that Haitians would be denied parole so consistently if immigration policies were applied in racially neutral ways. Both courts also noted the differences in outcomes of asylum claims between Cuban refugees, who were predominantly white, and Haitian refugees.

In the same time period, even while Black Haitian asylum seekers were being turned away, European immigrants, who were primarily white, received preference in the Diversity Visa system created by the Immigration Act of 1990. Northern Ireland, for example, was designated as a separate country from the United Kingdom, and 40% of “diversity transition” visas allocated during 1992 to 1994 were earmarked for Irish immigrants.

Similar accusations of racism and discriminatory treatment have surfaced over the last several months as Haitian asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border have been forced onto flights to Haiti and have faced degrading treatment.

Syrian refugees and the Muslim ban

Beginning in January 2017, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders described by many refugee advocates as the “Muslim Ban.” The ban suspended the entry of people from majority-Muslim countries, including Syrians, and limited the number of refugee admissions of several majority-Muslim countries.

Few Syrian refugees were allowed into the U.S. In this photo, Syrian refugees wait to be approved to get into Jordan. AP Photo/Raad Adayleh, File

Syrian refugees, most of whom fled the Syrian civil war that began in 2011 and violence by the Islamic State, were specifically targeted in the Muslim Ban.

A February 2017 version of the Muslim Ban claimed that Syrian refugees were “detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend[ed]” from admission, with few exceptions. This contributed to a significant decrease in the number of Syrian refugees – from 12,587 to 76 between financial year 2016 to 2018.

Research shows that religion, particularly Islam, is used to create symbolic boundaries of racial distinction in order to promote immigration enforcement goals. Specifically, the government attempted to justify an exclusionary refugee policy based on race and religion by implicating Muslims and refugees in terrorism, as Trump did in speeches, even calling Syrians the “trojan horse” for terrorism.

International agreements for refugees and asylum seekers clearly state that admissions should be based on need. In principle, U.S. law says this as well. But these key moments in United States history show how race, religion and other factors play a role in determining who is in, and who is out.

While refugees from the war in Ukraine deserve support from the United States and other countries, the contrast between the treatment of different groups of refugees shows that the process of gaining refuge in the United States is still far from equitable.

[Explore the intersection of faith, politics, arts and culture. Sign up for This Week in Religion.]

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

Yup!

And, the ongoing grotesque abuses of Title 42 to target refugees of color is Exhibit A! So, why are some “tone deaf” Democrats advocating this racist action?

Because the polls tell them is “politically expedient” to favor racism?
Because racism at the border and in the immigration system are thought to be “below the radar screen?”
Because dead refugees of color “don’t matter?”
Or, put another way, because the lives of refugees of color don’t matter?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-22

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Edward Wasserman writes in the SF Chron:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Registration link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/immigration-lawyers-saving-lives-and-reuniting-families-registration-317886315527

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Steve Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From The Conversation:

Related posts: