ICE Continues To Use Inaccurate Police Data To Dictate Arrests and Deportations

By: Sophia Barba

On February 18, 2021, DHS published a memorandum for all ICE employees to prioritize immigrants who have been recorded as having gang affiliation for deportation and removal. ICE’s practice of using police data to identify immigrants who have been listed as being gang affiliates is not new. In 2017, ICE came under fire for their FALCON system, which gathered information as far-ranging as local police reports, social media, criminal and civil asset forfeiture records, cell phone information and even data collected by the CIA and NSA. What’s more, the information used to identify immigrants as gang-affiliated is largely inaccurate, and often mistakenly identifies individuals without much oversight. Many critics have emphasized that these systems record people using racial markers, or loosely substantiated relationships or networks, which make overgeneralized speculations about potential gang members, rather than relying on more substantial evidence. Since this data cannot be easily accessed, people who are placed on these lists often have no recourse to contest the categorization until it is too late. As Max Rivlin-Nadler from The Appeal stated,

This ‘information imbalance’ that immigrants experience when facing deportation is immense — often they’re not told exactly what has qualified them as a “gang member,” nor given the opportunity to correct records that local or federal law enforcement might be keeping on them.” 

Human Rights Watch, and several other organizations, have publicly denounced the February 18 memo, stating that the practice does nothing more than to perpetuate a heavily racialized policy that significantly eats away at immigrants’ due process rights. 

Here is some more background: 

LA Times reports gang databases are filled with errors.

Oregonian reports gang databases include largely just minorities 

Lawsuits claimed that gang databases were being used to provide weak support for deportations

 

Community Organizations and Activists Unite for the #WelcomeWithDignity Campaign to Transform Asylum Policy

By: Sophia Barba

One of the most effective tools against unfair legal policies has always been the organization of like-minded, yet diverse, groups of interested parties into coalitions. Such coalitions place large-scale social pressure on lawmakers to acknowledge the positions of a broader network of people, including their own constituents.

Recently, around 30 public interest organizations from across the country have united to maintain awareness regarding draconian asylum policies, as well as encourage a shift toward dignity and fairness.

This movement, called Welcome with Dignity, is still in its early stages. Thus, it is critical to utilize our networks to spread the vision of this movement in order to support momentum. The Welcome with Dignity campaign reflects the potential for social movements to bolster the hard work that attorneys and other legal workers do every day.

More information about the campaign can be found here!

 

9th Circuit on Jim Route v. Merrick Garland– Elaborating on the term “Date of Admission” Regarding Removability Due to Crimes of Moral Turpitude

By: Sophia Barba

On May 6, 2021 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition to review the BIA’s decision in Jim Route v. Merrick Garland. The case had been argued and submitted on April 13, 2021.

The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had concluded that Jim Route, the petitioner, had been:

“removable for having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude (CIMT) within five years after the date of admission, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)”

At issue was the interpretation of Route’s “date of admission.” Namely, if a noncitizen has multiple dates of admission, which one shall apply for purposes of deciding the date of admission when analyzing removability for committing a CIMT? The BIA had relied on its prior decision under Matter of Alyazji, 25 I. & N. Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) which stated that “date of admission,” in the context of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), refers to the “date of the admission by virtue of which the alien was present in the United States when he committed his crime.”

The Circuit Court had concluded that the Route case was eligible for
deference under Chevron, and had determined that under a Chevron analysis, that the BIA’s interpretation through Alyazji was a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

The petitioner’s argument rested primarily on the fact that the BIA’s reliance of the Alyazji interpretation ignored the Compact of Free Association governing the relationship between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The panel rejected Route’s contention, explaining that the text of the Compact clearly subjects Micronesian citizens to the removability grounds of
§ 1227(a).

Jim Route, the petitioner, is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia. Route entered the United States in November 2005 as a nonimmigrant. He lived and worked in Hawai‘i. In 2015, Route returned to Micronesia for a vacation with his children; they stayed for less than two months. In June 2015, Route returned to the United States and was again admitted as a nonimmigrant. In June 2018, Route was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, a class C felony in Hawai’i. Route was sentenced to 68 days’ imprisonment and four years’ probation.

For cultural context, the noncitizens from Micronesia make up a significant portion of the labor force in Hawai’i.  According to local advocates in Hawai’i, “There are an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Micronesians in Hawaii, who began migrating here in bigger numbers in the 1990s in search of economic and educational opportunities.” (Crux)

Part of the Petitioner’s argument rested on the unique international agreement called the Compact of Free Association, which “allows citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau to live and work freely in the United States in exchange for allowing the U.S. military to control strategic land and water areas in the region.” (Crux)

According to many people living in Hawai’i, Micronesians often face hardship being treated as outsiders and targeted by locals as being unwanted laborers who allegedly take away economic opportunities from them. Some Micronesians in Hawai’i have even expressed that they experience high incidences of violence and are more targeted by police. Two days after the Ninth Circuit published its opinion declining to review the BIA’s opinion, a 16-year old Micronesian boy was shot by police in Hawai’i after allegedly committing a spree of crimes in Honolulu. Hawai’ian social media was flooded with comments that touted anti-Micronesian sentiment, illuminated a microcosm of xenophobia that is similar to sentiments carried by many on the mainland. (KCTV Channel 5)

The anti-Micronesian sentiment in Hawai’i can be compared to the treatment of Latin-American noncitizens in the contiguous territories of the United States, or even the sentiments many Europeans carry against African or Middle-Eastern migrants. The sentiment that noncitizens who arrive for economic opportunity contribute to blight, crime, and siphon opportunity from others is an oft-told narrative no matter the region. 

You can find the full opinion and summary that was published by the 9th Circuit here

⚠️The Saga of Surveillance Capitalism Continues: LexisNexis’s Contract With ICE Foretells a Bleak Era of Data Policing Immigrants, Intercept Writes

Sophia Barba  04/07/2021

On April 2, 2021, The Intercept published a damning article revealing that the oft-used legal research giant, LexisNexis, has contracted with ICE to provide the agency access to its massive data bank. 

According to Sam Biddle from The Intercept, “[LexisNexis] also caters to the immensely lucrative ‘risk’ industry, providing, it says, 10,000 different data points on hundreds of millions of people to companies like financial institutions and insurance companies who want to, say, flag individuals with a history of fraud. LexisNexis Risk Solutions is also marketed to law enforcement agencies, offering ‘advanced analytics to generate quality investigative leads, produce actionable intelligence and drive informed decisions’ — in other words, to find and arrest people.” 

The unholy marriage between the research tool-turned-Palantir and ICE is not a new development. Several years ago, LexisNexis had already begun courting ICE with similar data-exchange deals along with the other legal research titan, WestLaw. Prior talks had prompted members of the legal community to express obvious displeasure for the ethical dilemma that was being forced upon them. Most notably, Sarah Lamdan, professor and librarian at CUNY School of Law, published an authoritative article in the N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change that provided insight into the developing relationship between ICE and both legal research companies. This article came at the cusp of what is now an incredibly normalized occurrence. You know, a private company that offers an essential tool branches out into the lucrative data surveillance industry, you’ve probably seen it before. 

It is impossible for most people to hear about these partnerships without getting a bad taste in their mouth. Unfortunately, our society’s dependence on tech has left us largely unable to divest or otherwise eschew these tools with much success. This dependence is the reason many of these companies don’t even try to hide how incestuous their relationships to government agencies like ICE really are

The Intercept article should be read and taken as a clarion call to action for immigration advocates. The playing field is being skewed in favor of an omniscient government, leaving attorneys and those they represent more eggshells to avoid as they tread lightly around unseen information landmines. The façade of neutrality touted by Big Data and Big Tech is being torn down by the very companies who worked so hard to create it. What’s worse, the tech industry itself is the outfit that created the narrative that the internet, and all that comes with it, is a strictly neutral medium existing between the two groups allegedly existing in perpetual struggle: the masses and the government. (Don’t believe me? Don’t worry, someone already wrote an article about it here) This news should encourage more fervent use of alternative channels of informational support among those who represent non-citizens. Likewise, more collaborative efforts should also be made to place organized pressure on brazen unions such as that of LexisNexis and ICE. As it stands, it may even be advisable for many of us in the legal community to return to antiquated means of record-keeping and information-gathering if one can help it. After all, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t after you!

 

Some more interesting reading, some already linked above:

LEXISNEXIS TO PROVIDE GIANT DATABASE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION TO ICE, The Intercept

LAWYERS AND SCHOLARS TO LEXISNEXIS, THOMSON REUTERS: STOP HELPING ICE DEPORT PEOPLE, The Intercept

THOMSON REUTERS DEFENDS ITS WORK FOR ICE, PROVIDING “IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION OF ALIENS”, The Intercept

LexisNexis Page Advertising its ‘Risk Solution’ Services

How ICE Picks Its Targets in the Surveillance Age, The New York Times Magazine

ICE investigators used a private utility database covering millions to pursue immigration violations, The Washington Post

Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists, NBC News

A notice posted on the General Services Administration government website that foretells what the data may be used for

WHEN WESTLAW FUELS ICE SURVEILLANCE: LEGAL ETHICS IN THE ERA OF BIG DATA POLICING, by Sarah Lamdan published in the N.Y.U Review of Law and Social Change

THE MYTH OF PLATFORM NEUTRALITY, by Anupam Chander and Vivek Krishnamurthy for the Georgetown Law Technology Review