Credible Fear – Page 15 – immigrationcourtside.com

COLBY KING @ WASHPOST: The “Original Dreamers” Were Disenfranchised African Americans! — “That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-black-men-of-the-civil-war-were-americas-original-dreamers/2019/02/15/8c00088e-30a8-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

Colby King writes in WashPost:

Today, a wall looms large in my thoughts. It isn’t the structure President Trump has in mind for our southern border. I’m thinking of the Wall of Honor at the African American Civil War Memorial, located at Vermont Avenue and U Street NW.

Listed on the wall are the names of 209,145 U.S. Colored Troops who fought during the Civil War. One of those names is that of Isaiah King, my great-grandfather.

I think of those courageous black men as America’s original “dreamers.”

Today’s dreamers are in their teens and 20s, having arrived in this country as children. King’s generation of dreamers were former slaves or descendants of slaves brought to these shores against their will.

However, the black men who fought in the Civil War had the same status as today’s dreamers: noncitizens without a discernable path to citizenship.

Like dreamers of today, those black soldiers and sailors also had families and attended churches; some were enrolled in schools. They could dream of a future, anchored in the rights and privileges that come with democracy. But they had no legal claim to an existence within America’s borders.

My great-grandfather was born in the slave-holding city of Washington in 1848, but his mother was a freed woman. She moved the family to New Bedford, Mass., when he was 4. Around the time of his 17th birthday, Isaiah King enlistedin the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry (Colored), thinking, “I would have it easier riding than walking,” he told the New Bedford Evening Standard in an interview on the eve of Memorial Day services in 1932.

Black men such as my great-grandfather signed on to fight for a Union in which the right to citizenship was reserved for white people. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, that black people were not citizens of the United States. Putting it bluntly, the high court said black people were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

And even then, they started their service to the United States one step behind.

In his book “The Fifth Massachusetts Colored Cavalry in the Civil War,” Steven M. LaBarre cited the first disparity: It was enshrined in the Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862, which authorized recruitment of black men into the Union army. The law stated that a “person of African descent [of any rank] . . . shall receive ten dollars per month . . . three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.” White privates at the time received $13 per month plus a $3.50 clothing allowance. It wasn’t until July 15, 1864, that Congress granted equal pay to black soldiers.

Yet, serve they did.

As evidence of the regard in which they were held, LaBarre quoted Massachusetts Gov. John Albion Andrew’s commendation of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry when it was launched: “In this hour of hope for our common country and for themselves; at a time when they hold the destiny of their race in their own grasp; and when its certain emancipation from prejudice, as well as slavery, is in the hands of those now invited to unite in the final blow which will annihilate the rebel power, let no brave and strong man hesitate. One cannot exaggerate the call sounding in the ears of all men, in whose veins flows the blood of Africa, and whose color has been the badge of slavery. It offers the opportunity of years, crowded into an hour.”

Volunteering was a start. They still had something to prove.

According to National Archives, by the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men were serving as soldiers — 10 percent of the Union army — and 19,000 served in the Union navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war — 30,000 of infection or disease. By war’s end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor .

King came back to the capital in May 1864 as a private with the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry to defend the city against attack by Confederate troops. His unit participated in the Siege of Petersburg. They guarded Confederate prisoners at Point Lookout, Md. And his unit was among the first Union regiments to enter Richmond, capital of the dying Confederacy, on April 3, 1865.

The Civil War ended, but not his service. Three months later, the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry was sent to Texas to defend against threats from Mexico. (Sound familiar?) He was mustered out of service on Oct. 31, 1865, at Clarksville, Tex. — still not a citizen of the United States.

It wasn’t until 1868 that the threat of removal from the United States was lifted by the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in this country, including former slaves.

The men with names on the African American Civil War Memorial’s Wall of Honor fought and died to end two centuries of slavery, without being able to count democracy as their own.

For their descendants, the fight for full rights, for full participation in every part of our democracy, goes on.

That fight must continue on behalf of today’s dreamers, the disenfranchised, the demeaned and left out, and all freedom-loving people in this nation.

Read more from Colbert King’s archive.

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

Thanks, Colby, for putting the current plight of “Dreamers” (and I might add refugees and other migrants who are serving, contributing, and building our society despite their disenfranchisement and the government-sponsored dehumanization being inflicted upon them) in the historical context of the fight for civil rights and human dignity in America.

That’s why the “21st Century Jim Crows” like Trump, Sessions, Stephen Miller, Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Steve King, and others (largely associated with the GOP) are so pernicious. Like the “Jim Crows of the past,” these guys use degrading racial stereotypes, intentionally false narratives, and bogus “rule of law” arguments to generate hate and bias, sow division, and use the law to suppress and violate rights rather than advancing them.

While sycophant DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen does not appear to be an “ideological racist,” her mindless and disingenuous parroting of the Trump White Nationalist “party lies” and “enforcement” (read “de-humanization”) agenda certainly makes her a “functional racist.”

It’s quite outrageous and dangerous that individuals with these types of views have been elevated to powerful public offices in the modern era, after the death of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

PWS

02-16-19

“’DUH’ ARTICLE OF DA DAY” – Former FBI Acting Director McCabe Says “then–Attorney General Sessions [was] a Trump-like idiot and racist” – Gee, Seems Like That Was What Liz, Corey, & The Black Caucus Told Us – But McConnell Silenced The Truth & He & His GOP Cronies Subjected America To Perhaps The Worst & Least Qualified Attorney General In U.S. History!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/andrew-mccabe-book-jeff-sessions-irishmen.html

Molly Olmstead reports for Slate:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s new book, which details his frustrations with President’s Trump administration, has made it clear that his “disdain for Trump is rivaled only by his contempt for [Jeff] Sessions,” according to an assessment from Washington Post reporter Greg Miller.

According to Miller’s review of the book, McCabe saw then–Attorney General Sessions as a Trump-like idiot and racist who had “trouble focusing, particularly when topics of conversation strayed from a small number of issues,” failed to read intelligence reports, and jumbled classified material with publicly reported news.

The strangest detail from the book, though, had to do with Sessions’ thoughts on the FBI’s hiring practices. According to the Post:

The FBI was better off when “you all only hired Irishmen,” Sessions said in one diatribe about the bureau’s workforce. “They were drunks but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos — who knows what they’re doing?”

According to a Wall Street Journal review of the book, McCabe wrote in his book that Sessions was only interested in immigration issues. He obsessed over the connection between crime and immigration, and he believed that Islam was an inherently violent religion, according to the Post. When presented with a counterterrorism case, he would first ask where the suspect was born or where the suspect’s parents were from. “He blamed immigrants for nearly every societal problem and uttered racist sentiments with shocking callousness,” Miller concluded from McCabe’s book.

McCabe’s assessment is surprising in only that it comes so bluntly from a man who once was acting head of the FBI but now seems intent on speaking out against the men who made his professional and personal life so difficult for 10 months (before he was fired just hours before his planned retirement, blocking him from receiving his full pension benefits). Sessions has a long, long history of making racist and anti-immigrant comments, while also implementing racist and anti-immigrant policies. A non-exhaustive list includes: allegedly warning a black lawyer to “be careful how you talk to white folks”; calling the NAACP “un-American”; reportedly joking that he used to think the KKK was “OK” until he discovered some smoked marijuana; praising an 1924 immigration act promoted by Nazi-style eugenics; denigrating a judge in Hawaii as “sitting on an island in the Pacific”; fondly remembered George Wallace, America’s most famous segregationist politician, as “one of the most formidable third-party candidates in this century; and lauding “the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.”

As for actions, in Alabama, Sessions punished black activists, defended voter suppression tactics, and kept black judges off the federal bench. He opposed sentencing reform over the crack-cocaine disparity. He has opposed hate crime protections and defended the official display of the Confederate flag. He has regularly attended events hosted by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim groups, which he maintains a close relationship with. He touted falsehoods about DACA and immigrants in general. And of course, he pushed, relentlessly, for deportations and prosecutions of undocumented immigrants and even refugees fleeing domestic and gang violence.

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

Sessions is a living example of how someone can spend a lifetime “on the dole” as a so-called “public servant” without providing any meaningful positive service or contributions to the public good.

Compare this “life not so well lived” with the “real world” contributions of the many decent, hard-working, honest, and dedicated civil servants who were screwed over by Trump’s shutdown. Or, compare Sessions’s squandered, anti-social life with the significant “real life” contributions of many of the immigrants, both documented and undocumented, who came before me in Immigration Court over 13 years.

I’m not sure even the worst of the aggravated felons that I ordered deported did as much lasting damage to our nation and its future as did Sessions! He was a child abuser on a grand scale, and someone who used knowingly false narratives to send deserving refugees, particularly abused women, back to torture or even death in the countries from which they had fled. He was the architect of both family separation and the unbridled expansion of the “New American Gulag.”

He promoted hate, intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, bias, and intolerance of all kinds, and was an avowed enemy of kindness and human compassion. He even had the absolute audacity to cite the Christian Bible, the compassionate, merciful, inclusive, and forgiving teachings of one of the world’s greatest “outcasts,” in support of his own perverted, bias-driven, and totally un-Christian world view.

Oh yeah, and he had no management qualifications going into the job and proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he couldn’t manage his way out of a paper bag. Seldom in modern times has there been a more demoralized, mission-less, and dysfunctional mess than today’s Department of Justice. Even Watergate didn’t do as much institutional damage.

Sessions’s only real contribution to justice, due process, and the public good was the day he walked out of the U.S. Department of Justice for the last time. But, it will take years, if not generations, to repair the damage he has inflicted on the rule of law, our Constitution, honest government, and humane values.

Truly, Liz was right! This was one supremely unqualified dude!

PWS

02-16-19

ACLU & SPLC SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ON “MIGRANT REJECTION PROTOCOLS!”

https://www.bustle.com/p/this-update-on-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy-means-its-about-to-face-a-challenge-15956331

Kavitha George reports for Bustle:

Two weeks ago, immigration authorities began to enforce a new policy that requires some asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are being processed. NPR and The Washington Post have already reported on migrant families being returned across the border by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials. But a new update on Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy means it’s about to face a legal challenge.

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) teamed up, filing a lawsuit to address the matter in Northern California’s District Court. The suit names DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, as well as numerous Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. Nielsen has described the policy, officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols as “a huge step forward in bringing order to chaotic migration flows, restoring the rule of law and the integrity of the United States immigration system.” Bustle has reached out to DHS and ICE for comment.

However, some civil rights organizations disagree with that characterization. “Immigration authorities are forcing asylum seekers at the southern border of the United States to return to Mexico — to regions experiencing record levels of violence,” the lawsuit reads. “By placing them in such danger, and under conditions that make if difficult if not impossible for them to prepare their cases, Defendants are depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to seek asylum.”

In its statement, the ACLU rejected the administration’s claims of an immigration crisis at the border.

Before the implementation of the new return policy, asylum-seekers would legally enter the country through a port of entry along the border, and remain in detention while they waited for a “credible fear” assessment. If they were approved, migrants could remain in the country until a future court hearing. However in 2018, CBS News reported, the Trump administration hit a record high in asylum denials, rejecting some 65 percent of applicants.

In a December statement, Nielsen described the “catch and return” policy as a way to prevent migrants trying to “game the system” by obtaining entry and then “disappear[ing] into the United States, where many skip their court dates.” In fact, according to the Department of Justice’s own data from the 2017 fiscal year, some 89 percent of asylum-seekers released into the country return for their court dates.

Under the new plan, CBS reported, migrants crossing at the San Ysidro checkpoint in San Diego, are processed and returned across the border to Tijuana with a toll-free phone number to check on their claim status. Immigration rights activists argue that this system defeats the purpose of an asylum claim for people trying to escape violence and political unrest in Central America.

“They’re just spending their time just trying to survive in Tijuana,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an analyst for the American Immigration Council, told CBS. “We know that there are people who have been turned away from the border who have then been kidnapped, raped. There are likely people who have been murdered.”

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

Everybody expected this, including the Trumpsters. Stay tuned for the results.

One problem that I see right off the bat for the DHS is counsel. The immigration law guarantees individuals in removal proceedings the right to be represented by counsel of their own choice at no expense to the Government.

Not only did the Administration put these “Protocols” into operation without consulting with NGOs and pro bono groups on both sides of the border, but there have been credible reports of DHS actually harassing and impeding American lawyers going back and forth to Mexico in an attempt to provide the representation guaranteed by statute (and probably also by Due Process).

Additionally, contrary to Nielsen’s lies and misrepresentations, there really was no coordination with the Mexican Government of what steps would be taken to guarantee U.S. lawyers reasonable access to clients in Mexico. There have also been credible reports that the Mexican authorities have been uncooperative and have placed roadblocks in the way of attorneys representing asylum seekers. Add that to the fact that like Trump himself, Nielsen and DHS are well-known for lying, evading, and misrepresenting to Congress, the Federal Courts, the press, and the American people, and we have the makings for yet another in the series of “failed restrictionist initiatives” taken by the Trumpsters.

PWS

02-15-18

HON JEFFREY S. CHASE: Trump’s Disingenuously Named “Migrant Protection Protocols” Are Anti-American – “As the late Arthur Helton wrote more than 25 years ago, ‘A basic measure of a civilized society is the way it treats strangers.’”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/2/10/wait-in-mexico-policy-access-to-counsel-amp-crime

Feb 10 Wait in Mexico Policy, Access to Counsel, & Crime

A February 1, 2019 article in the L.A. Timesreported that two American attorneys who work for the immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, which has sent attorneys to Tijuana to offer advice to Central American refugees seeking to apply for asylum in the U.S., were stopped by Mexican immigration officials while attempting to enter that country. The attorneys were detained and questioned, and eventually denied entry because their passports had been “flagged.” One of the lawyers was actually traveling to Mexico on a family vacation, and was separated from her husband and 7-year-old daughter at the airport and taken to a separate room where she was interrogated. Her crying daughter was eventually allowed to join her; the two were held for 9 hours and forced to sleep on a cold floor without food or water before being sent back to the U.S. Two journalists who had been covering the issue of refugees seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border suffered the same experience. The Mexican government denied responsibility for the “flagging;” one of the journalists was told “the Americans” were responsible.

One of my first reactionsto the remain in Mexico policy was the impact it would have on access to counsel. I have heard disturbing first-hand reports from individuals who have traveled to Tijuana to provide legal assistance to refugees there. When crossing back to the U.S., American citizens identified by Customs and Border Patrol officers as “activists” have been harassed by being sent to secondary inspection, where they have been questioned and, remarkably, have had the contents of their electronic devices accessed by DHS agents. A means of avoiding such treatment was to fly directly to Mexico. However, the reported policy of flagging the passports of attorneys engaged in such work has undermined that route as well. Thus, attorneys are being treated like criminals for the “crime” of doing their job of providing legal assistance to asylum seekers.

While DHS focuses on such imaginary “crime,” it willfully ignores the actual crime to which those asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico are exposed. In a letterto DHS Secretary Kirsjen M. Nielsen, the American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network reported that 90.3% of asylum seekers surveyed said that do not feel safe in Mexico; 46% stated that either themself or their child had suffered harm in Mexico, and 38.1% reported mistreatment at the hands of the Mexican police. Female asylum seekers accompanied by their minor children reported suffering crimes in Mexico including rape, sexual assault, kidnaping, extortion, and death threats.

Keep in mind that the Administration has shamelessly named its wait-in-Mexico policy the “Migrant Protection Protocols.” Instead, the policy exposes asylum seekers (including vulnerable unaccompanied children and families) to crime and police harassment, while restricting their access to counsel.

Access to counsel is increasingly critical to Central American asylum seekers, many of whose claims require proving that their fear is on account of their membership in a particular social group. Where fear is of non-governmental persecutors, applicants must further establish that the government is unable or unwilling to control such actors, and that internal relocation to another part of the country was not reasonable. Meeting these criteria requires an applicant to offer complex legal theories, and to support such claims with affidavits, reports, and articles from one or more experts. Without legal assistance, this is a daunting task for refugees (some of whom are families or children) living under difficult conditions (including the above-mentioned exposure to crime and government harassment) on the Mexico side of the border. Under present BIA precedent, an asylum seeker who is just a little off in formulating their particular social group (even if they included one word too many or too few) is stuck with such formulation, and may not amend it should they be fortunate enough to obtain counsel to assist them with their appeal. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018).

The Trump Administration’s policies towards Central American asylum seekers has consistently run counter to our country’s international treaty obligations. The Administration has tried to argue that those fleeing to our country are not truly refugees, falsely painting them (in the words of a Human Rights First release) as “frauds, security threats, and dangerous criminals.”

By undertaking efforts on so many fronts to make it increasingly more difficult for such claimants to succeed in their asylum applications, the Administration seeks to paint the resulting drop in grant rates as “proof” that such claims are “fraudulent.” In criminally prosecuting those who eventually try to cross the border when they are no longer to endure the conditions under which refugees are forced to wait in Mexico, the Administration cites such convictions as “proof” that the refugees are “criminals.” The Administration seems to view the flight to the U.S. as a choice, and believes that its deterrence policies might convince refugees to simply return to their home countries.

Such view is at odds with reality. This December articleby Prof. Karen Musalo in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminismadds further corroboration to the many reports detailing the horrible violence Central American refugees are fleeing. And the World Migration Project at the Columbia Univ. School of Journalism continues to track those who have suffered harm (including death) following their deportation from the U.S.; its findings also counter the Administration’s position that those fleeing are not truly refugees, and that repatriation is a viable option.

As the late Arthur Helton wrote more than 25 years ago, “A basic measure of a civilized society is the way it treats strangers.” Similarly, Jorge Ramosrecently wrote in Timemagazine that “countries are judged by the way they treat the most vulnerable, not the rich and powerful.” Our government’s policies towards asylum seekers (including its most recent efforts to interfere with that population’s ability to retain counsel), and its willingness to expose such a vulnerable population to harm (including murder and rape) shames us all.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog Archive Contact

Powered by Squarespace

Newsletter

Feb 10 All The World’s A Stage (including the 2d Cir.!)

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

As Jeffrey and I have pointed out a number of times before, a “bona fide Administration” could resolve the “self-created non-crisis” at the Southern Border simply by:

Following existing asylum laws;
Generously granting asylum in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA’s precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the Handbook;
Working with NGOs, pro bono groups, bar associations, “Big Law,” the religious community, and affected states and localities to provide easy access to counsel and achieve universal representation of asylum seekers, which, in turn:
- has a proven strong correlation to court appearances;
- makes most detention unnecessary, and most important,
- safeguards Due Process and the rule of law.

Clearly, these measures could be accomplished more quickly and for far less than the $5.7 billion that Trump so desperately wants to waste on his Wall. And, other than perhaps a few “tweaks” to allow some U.S. Government funding of pro bono and “low bono” representation projects, they would not require a major rewrite of current statues.

By sharply reducing unnecessary and wasteful “civil immigration detention” (a/k/a the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) and the many legal challenges it generates, the money and litigation time, on both sides, could be redirected at actually solving the problems, rather than making them worse.

PWS

02-11-19

EXPOSED: In Matter of A-B-, Sessions & An Immigration Judge Found That The Government Of El Salvador Offered “Reasonable Protection” To Persecuted Women & That Internal Relocation Appeared “Reasonably Available” To A Severely Battered & Threatened Woman — They Lied!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/el-salvador-votes-for-president-as-the-country-seeks-a-new-way-to-deal-with-gangs/2019/02/02/1ce34c1e-2288-11e9-b5b4-1d18dfb7b084_story.html

Anna-Catherine Brigida reports on the recent El Salvadoran presidential election for the Washington Post:

. . . ..

“The ultimate actor who determines whether you have more or less homicides tomorrow or right now or in a week is not the government. It’s the gangs,” said José Miguel Cruz, an expert on Salvadoran gangs at Florida International University. “They do it for political purposes as a bargaining tool to improve their position vis-a-vis the government or vis-a-vis the society.”

. . . .

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

Read Anna’s complete article at the link. This is a “must read” for members of the NDPA or anyone else handling El Salvadoran asylum cases in this “Post-Matter of A-B- Era.”

Fact is, the gangs are in many practical ways the “de facto government” in El Salvador. That makes Sessions’s suggestion that persecuted individuals can get reasonable protection from the government or avoid persecution in a tiny, totally gang-infested country absurdly disingenuous. It also calls into question the judicial integrity of those U.S. Immigration Judges who mindlessly “parrot” Sessions’s “parallel universe” dicta regarding conditions in El Salvador. Indeed, it has been reported elsewhere that gangs are actually the largest employer in El Salvador, exercising far more power over politics and the economy than the government! https://www.newsweek.com/ms-13-barrio-18-gangs-employ-more-people-el-salvador-largest-employers-1200029

Also, this article illustrates the absurdity of the position often taken by the BIA and some Immigration Judges that resistance to gangs is not a “political act.” In a country where gangs and government are inextricably intertwined, and gangs actually control more of the country than does the national government, of course resisting or publicly standing up against gangs is an expression of political opposition to those in power. And, it’s a political statement for which the consequences all too often can be deadly.

Matter of A-B- has yet to be tested in a Court of Appeals. But, it spectacularly “flunked” its initial judicial test before Judge Sullivan in Grace v. Whitaker. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3rd Judge Sullivan clearly saw through many of Sessions’s biased conclusions that contradict not only the history and purpose of he Refugee Act, but also well established case law. Although A-B- was an Immigration Court case, and many of Sullivan’s conclusions would apply in Immigration Court proceedings, EOIR saw fit to construe Grace narrowly as applying solely in “Credible Fear Reviews.” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3BE

It’s important for advocates to press all challenges to Matter of A-B- in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. If appellate judges agree with Judge Sullivan, all of the erroneous “summary denials” of asylum based on A-B- will come back to Immigration Court for rehearings, thus further adding to the Administration-created mess in America’s most dysfunctional and fundamentally unjust court system, where Due Process for asylum seekers has become a bad joke rather than the watchword.

PWS

02-04-19

BUZZFEED NEWS: “Our Gang” Leader Judge Jeffrey Chase Blasts Nielsen’s Latest Disingenuous Attack On Legal Asylum Seekers — “Outrageous Move”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/the-trump-administration-will-start-sending-some-asylum

Hamed Aleaziz reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — Central American migrants seeking asylum at the US–Mexico border will be forced to remain in Mexico while their cases in the US are being processed, the Trump administration said Thursday.

The unprecedented policy change will take effect on Friday with the return of the first group of migrants at the border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, according to Vox.

The policy, titled the Migrant Protection Protocols, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to discourage migrants, including asylum-seekers, from trying to enter the United States. Previous attempts, such as banning asylum for those who crossed without authorization, were blocked by the courts, and this effort also is likely to face a challenge in court.

Under the policy, certain migrants at the border will receive a “notice to appear” in US immigration court and will be returned to Mexico until their hearing, according to a Department of Homeland Security fact sheet. The Mexican government, according to the agency, has provided the ability for those individuals to stay in the country until their court dates in the US. On the day of their hearing, migrants will be taken to US immigration courts for their cases to be heard.

Unaccompanied children will be excluded from the policy and those from “vulnerable populations” may be excluded on a case-by-case basis.

“We have implemented an unprecedented action that will address the ongoing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. “For far too long, our immigration system has been exploited by smugglers, traffickers, and those who have no legal right to remain in the United States. The Migrant Protection Protocols represent a methodical commonsense approach to exercising our statutory authority to require certain individuals to await their court proceedings in Mexico.”

A US official close to the process who is critical of the policy told BuzzFeed News it would lead migrants to “revert to sneaking in rather than going to ports of entry” and cause “more deaths in the desert.”

The Trump administration informed the Mexican government that it was going to be enacting the policy based on a statute stating that certain individuals can be sent back to the contiguous country they arrived from.

BuzzFeed News first reported that the administration was considering such a policy back in November.

Trump administration officials have accused asylum-seekers of gaming the US system, requesting asylum that they know they won’t qualify for so that they can remain in the country for months or years while immigration courts hear their cases.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, said the policy was a circumvention of the country’s immigration laws.

“Today’s announcement creates more questions than answers. Even putting aside the unlawfulness of this action, we do not know where these asylum-seekers will be held, who will be responsible for their safety, how and where their hearings will take place, or how access to counsel will be handled,” she said in a statement Thursday.

Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge, said the move was outrageous.

“We should be allowing asylum-seekers to enter and pursue their claims according to the international legal norms,” he said. “It will obviously be much more difficult for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel and to meaningfully participate in increasingly complex legal claims from outside the country.”

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

Right on, Jeffrey! Thanks for expressing our outrage in the dishonest, deceitful, inhumane, and counterproductive actions of shallow Trump sycophant Nielsen. Another mess is sure to follow. Despite her claims, and Nielsen is an established liar, everything I’ve read indicates that Mexico is unready to implement this if it involves more than a few hundred individuals. And, if the program were that small, it wouldn’t be worth doing. The Trump Administration of incompetents has yet to carry out any major new program without screwups.

What if Trump, Nielsen, DOJ, and EOIR just did their jobs by generously and efficiently granting asylum as mandated by the Refugee Act, the Supremes in Cardoza–Fonseca, and, ironically, the BIA’s own well-established but seldom enforced precedent Mogharrabi?

What if we took 50,000 refugees directly from the Northern Triangle, as we easily could and should do?

What if the Administration worked with, rather than against, pro bono groups and NGOs so that asylum seekers could fairly and efficiently move through the system consistent with Due Process?

What if DHS enforcement actually concentrated on potential “bad guys” rather than getting sidetracked by treating refugee families like criminals?

What if Trump treated refugees like the deserving and productive human beings that they have been throughout our history and welcomed and integrated them into our society?

What if he stopped using false narratives and restrictionist White Nationalist racist lies to make policy?

What if he cut the often illegal, always “built to fail,” and grossly fiscally wasteful gimmicks, smoke, mirrors, and job avoidance and just got the job done?

We’d actually be on the way to making America great again. Too bad that neither the Trump Administration nor the GOP seems interested in doing the real work of making government function within the law and advancing the real general public interests!

PWS

01-25-19

JUDGE SULLIVAN STUFFS TRUMP’S REQUEST TO KEEP ON VIOLATING ASYLUM LAW PENDING APPEAL — Stay Denied In Grace v. Whitaker!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/sullivan-asylum-ruling/index.html

Dan Berman reports for CNN:

Washington (CNN)Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan on Friday rejected a Justice Department request to stay his earlier ruling blocking the Trump administration’s policy that makes it difficult for victims fleeing domestic and gang violence to qualify for asylum in the United States.

Last month, Sullivan agreed with a group of women and children who said the policy imposed a heightened standard in reviewing their claims, concluding that the administration must stop deporting migrants currently in the US “without first providing credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”

Friday, he wrote: “The government now requests a stay, pending appeal of the Court’s Order, to enable the unlawful policies to continue to apply in all expedited removal cases, except the plaintiffs. … Defendants’ motion for stay is DENIED.”

The attorney general has full authority over the immigration courts — a separate court system which operates under the Justice Department.

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

We have an Administration without shame, human decency, or, obviously, the will and skill to govern. And, a DOJ where lawyers act not as legal guardians of the people’s rights, but continue to defend the indefensible, ill serves the American people.

PWS

01-25-19

THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/cgrs-and-hrw-release-video-call-government-restore-protections-domestic-violence-survivors

Professor Karen Musalo

CGRS and HRW Release Video, Call on Government to Restore Protections for Domestic Violence Survivors

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

The United States government should uphold refugee protections for survivors of domestic violence, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) and Human Rights Watch said today.

In December 2018, a federal judge delivered a sharp rebuke to the Trump Administration’s most significant attempt to undermine asylum protections for domestic violence survivors. A June decision by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a case involving a woman whose initials were A.B. attempted to place a sweeping ban on domestic violence claims. Following a lawsuit filed by CGRS and the American Civil Liberties Union over the summer, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Administration could not impose such a ban and that people who make domestic violence claims must have a fair opportunity to apply for asylum.

But despite Sullivan’s favorable ruling, Ms. A.B.’s case remains in limbo. Until Sessions’ decision is overturned, she and thousands of women like her will continue to face an uphill battle in the courts.

Today CGRS and HRW released a video in which Ms. A.B. shares her story of abuse in El Salvador, the impossibility of finding protection in her home country, and her quest to find safety in the U.S.

“Ms. A.B. suffered brutal physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and every time she sought protection from the Salvadoran authorities, the police would not protect her,” said Karen Musalo, one of the woman’s attorneys and director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. “In denying her asylum, the former attorney general not only overturned clearly established case law recognizing the right to asylum for survivors of domestic violence, but also repudiated the well-accepted principle that women’s rights are human rights.”

The incoming attorney general should rescind Sessions’ decision, the groups said. If not, Congress should enact legislation that protects the right to asylum for domestic violence survivors and others whose claims have been undermined by the ruling in Ms. A.B.’s case.

Sessions’ administrative decision denying Ms. A.B. asylum overruled the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling in a seminal 2014 case, Matter of A-R-C-G-, which recognized that domestic violence survivors may qualify for asylum. Under U.S. and international law, to be eligible for asylum, a person must show a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Domestic violence survivors who are unable to secure protection in their home countries have been able to obtain asylum on the ground of membership in a particular social group, among others.

In his December ruling, Judge Sullivan struck down many of the new policies to carry out Sessions’ decision, writing that there is “no legal basis for an effective categorical ban on domestic violence and gang-related claims.”

Under international law, governments have a clear obligation to prevent domestic violence, as well as to protect, support, and ensure access to justice and services for victims. But around the world, in Central America and elsewhere, women struggle to have governments ensure, or in some cases recognize, their right to protection. In some countries, criminal law does not adequately address domestic violence. More often, domestic violence is outlawed but rates of domestic violence, including violence that ends in homicide, remains high as authorities fail to ensure justice.

“This is absolutely the case in El Salvador, where the government’s utter failure to protect Ms. A.B. forced her to flee for her life,” said Andrés López, her co-counsel.

The Trump Administration’s move to severely limit asylum eligibility for domestic violence survivors is consistent with other regressive actions it has taken in recognizing violence against women as a human rights issue. The State Department’s annual human rights country reports since 2017 have excluded detailed analysis of violence against women, as well as reporting on women’s and girls’ reproductive health care.

“The Trump Administration’s fallacious view that domestic violence is a matter between private actors fails to recognize the systemic abuse of women’s rights in countries where authorities cannot or do not protect women threatened with domestic violence,” said Grace Meng, senior US researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The serious and persistent problem of domestic violence cannot be eliminated unless the U.S. and other countries recognize domestic violence, and the related acts or omissions of the government, as violations of women’s basic human rights.”

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

Please check out the great 4 minute video at the link in the press release!

As noted in the press release, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan recently found that much of Session’s twisted and biased ruling in A-B-‘s case violated the Refugee Act, international norms, and directly contradicted Congressional intent.

This is but an example of the egregious attacks on the rule of law and the rights of asylum seekers being carried out by the scofflaw Trump Administration and its minions on a daily basis.

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight to restore the rule of law, human decency, Due Process, and a “guarantee of fairness and Due Process for all” to our broken, captive, and often lawless U.S. Immigration Courts!

PWS

01-25-19

Julia Edwards Ainsley @ NBC: DHS Set To Launch “Wait in Mexico” Program For Asylum Seekers — Expect Another Disaster!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/dhs-plans-begin-turning-asylum-seekers-back-mexico-await-court-n962401

Julia Ainsley

Julia reports:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to begin turning asylum-seekers back across the southern border on Friday to wait in Mexico under a new policy designed to crack down on immigration by Central American families, according to three Department of Homeland Security officials familiar with the matter.

Customs and Border Protection officers will begin returning asylum-seekers trying to enter at the San Ysidro port of entry in California from Tijuana, Mexico, where thousands of migrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are already waiting in poor conditions.

Under current policy, immigrants who pass an initial “credible fear” interview are allowed to remain in the U.S. while they wait for immigration judges to decide their cases. Single adults are detained while they await their hearing, but a federal court decision in 2015 mandates that families with children be detained no longer than 20 days.

The Trump administration has blamed that court decision, known as the Flores settlement, for being a magnet that is driving record numbers of immigrant families to apply for asylum at the southern border. Last summer under the “zero tolerance” policy, DHS separated asylum-seeking parents from their children at the border, sparking international outcry.

Overall numbers of undocumented immigrants apprehended or stopped from legally entering the United States are lower than the historic highs reached in the early 2000s.

Children who travel without a guardian, immigrants who appear ill as well as other “vulnerable populations” will be exempt from the policy and allowed to wait in the U.S. for an immigration hearing.

Immigrant and civil rights organizations have threatened to sue the Trump administration over the policy, known as Migration Protection Policy, which Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced was coming in her congressional testimony in December.

The policy is a unilateral move by the U.S. and not part of an agreement with Mexico, two officials said, though Mexico has agreed to care for immigrants who are waiting to apply. The Lopez Obrador administration in Mexico has been vocal about its opposition to the policy in the past.

Beginning Friday, the asylum-seekers who come to the San Ysidro port of entry will be sent back to Tijuana with a notice to appear in court in San Diego. On their court dates, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will provide transportation from the port of entry to immigration court. Asylum-seekers will also be given a 24-hour hotline to call for the status of their asylum cases.

SHUTDOWN HAS FURLOUGHED IMMIGRATION COURT JUDGES

Due to a backlog in U.S. immigration courts of more than 800,000 cases, asylum-seekers currently have to wait months or even years to see a judge. DHS has asked the Justice Department to expedite the cases of immigrants waiting in Mexico, and two officials said they expect the asylum-seekers affected by the new policy to wait no more than a year.

Agents fire tear gas at migrants at the border

NOV. 26, 201802:26

The partial government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s plan for a border wall has furloughed immigration judges, however, so the backlog of cases is expected to rise.I

Conditions for Central Americans waiting in Tijuana are already poor. CBP officers on the U.S. side are practicing “metering” where they let in somewhere from 40 to 100 immigrants per day. Shelters for families and children in Tijuana are overcrowded and many are struggling to meet migrants’ basic needs.

They also face backlash from Tijuana residents who do not want their city overrun with Central Americans. Two boys were lured out of a camp and murdered late last year.

Human rights organizations have warned that turning back the small number of immigrants who are allowed to cross into the U.S. to claim asylum will only worsen the problem and force asylum-seekers to either wait in poor conditions or resort to dangerous routes to cross illegally.

Two children died in the custody of U.S. Border Protection in December after traveling with their parents through rough terrain in remote areas.

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

With the Trump Administration, what they say is seldom what you get. Remember sycophant and “frequent liar” Nielsen falsely claiming that there was “no family separation policy.”

So, I would be surprised if officials on either side of the border actually are prepared to carry this out without major problems. Indeed, almost every major restrictionist immigration initiative announced by the Trump Administration has proved to be 1) wholly illegal; 2) partially illegal; and/or 3) incompetently administered, as well as dumb and in many cases intentionally cruel. An Administration of Clowns doesn’t turn into a troupe of trapeze artists overnight. The question really isn’t whether DHS will screw this up, but rather how.

First, it’s not clear what provisions have been made for attorney access. And, of course processing all cases at a few ports of entry, rather than distributing them across the U.S., could limit the pool of available, mostly pro bono, attorneys.

On the flip side, concentrating cases at a limited number of ports of entry might make it more possible for NGOs and pro bono organizations to concentrate resources and create representation programs. Still, a real asylum project carried out by a Government legitimately interested in complying with the law and Due Process would not be implemented without working with pro bono groups in advance to set up a representation and access system. Clearly, the failure to do that shows bad faith on the part of the Administration. Because individuals are entitled to representation (but not appointed counsel) in removal proceedings that, in and of itself, ought to be a reason for enjoining the program on statutory and Due Process grounds until there is a realistic plan for giving reasonable access to counsel.

The second thing that jumps out at me as unlikely is the promise that ICE will “taxi” individuals from the border to their hearings and back. One might wonder why a supposed law enforcement agency is operating a “taxi service.” Beyond that, my experience on the detained docket in Immigration Court was that ICE sometimes struggled to get detainees to court on time when they were residing in the same facility as the courtroom. It seems unlikely that ICE will be able to produce individuals from the Mexican border in a timely manner for their court hearings. And remember folks, these are the clowns who don’t even know how many children they have in their custody and where they all are!

Third, if these cases are “prioritized” by the toadies at EOIR, at the demand of DHS, it will lead to yet another round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and arbitrary delays in the captive and already failed Immigration Court System which the Trump Administration essentially has destroyed and ground into the dirt.

Fourth, since the Administration has already had detainees die in the U.S., and has also allowed individuals to die in Mexico while awaiting intentionally delayed interviews, I hope that advocacy groups are preparing civil suits to hold Nielsen and other officials personally liable for very predictable unconstitutional harm inflicted on individual asylum applicants.

A major recurring problem with running a White Nationalist regime is that policy is built upon false narratives, outright lies, and racist-inspired myths. So instead of working with folks with real expertise to solve problems, they waste our taxpayer money on endless gimmicks and illegal schemes. All are “built to fail” and many are proven failures. But, that’s what a Kakistocracy does.

At some point, Nielsen’s disgraceful record of dishonesty, sycophancy, and incompetence is likely to come back to haunt her. She truly is a “Child of the Kakistocracy.”

PWS

01-24-19

CHASE, SCHMIDT, & THE REST OF “OUR GANG” READY TO “STEP UP” TO TEACH ASYLUM LAW FOR FURLOUGHED U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES! – Read The Latest From Hon. Jeffrey Chase On How Asylum Law Can Be Properly Interpreted To Save Lives (What It’s Supposed To Do) & “Move” Dockets Without Curtailing Anyone’s Rights!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/1/20/ijs-grant-gender-based-asylum-claims

Jan 20 IJs Grant Gender-Based Asylum Claims

As my friend Paul Schmidt announced on his excellent blog immigrationcourtside.com, immigration judges in San Francisco and Arlington, VA recently issued written decisions granting asylum to victims of domestic violence. Notably, the decisions concluded that “Mexican females” and “women in Honduras” constituted cognizable particular social groups under applicable case law, including the former Attorney General’s decision in Matter of A-B-.

Asylum advocates have sought for many years to have the Board of Immigration Appeals recognize a particular social group defined by gender alone. However, the BIA has declined to consider the issue.1 The need for such guidance from the Board has increased significantly since the issuance of Matter of A-B- last June. Even under the holdings of that decision, gender continues to meet all of the criteria for a cognizable particular social group, as gender is an immutable characteristic fundamental to one’s identity, is sufficiently particular to provide a clear benchmark for inclusion, is socially distinct in all societies, and is not defined by the harm which gives rise to the applicant’s fear of persecution.

In the seven months since Matter of A-B- was issued, the BIA has yet to respond with a precedent decision affirming the continued viability of domestic violence-based asylum claims. Nor has the BIA affirmed that gender alone may constitute a cognizable particular social group for the above reasons, in spite of the fact that its members have had years to consider the issue, and could rely on so many outstanding legal sources on the topic. The BIA showed an ability to respond quickly in issuing a precedent decision in only two months time following the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions. So the present silence should be interpreted as a specific choice by the BIA to remain silent, likely motivated by its fear of upsetting its higher-ups in the present administration.

In the absence of guidance from the BIA, and while waiting for appeals to work their way through the circuit courts (I am aware of appeals relating to this issue currently pending in the First and Fourth Circuits), the two recent immigration judge decisions are encouraging. In the San Francisco case, Judge Miriam Hayward (who has since retired from the bench) found “Mexican females” to constitute a cognizable particular social group. In Arlington, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Deepali Nadkarni made the same finding for the group consisting of “women in Honduras.” Redacted copies of their written decisions may be read here: http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF-IJ-Hayward-DV-PSG-grant.pdf; http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Nadkarni-Grant-Women-in-Honduras-PSG.pdf

In addition to their particular social group analysis, both decisions conclude that at least one central reason for the persecution suffered was the asylum applicant’s membership in the gender-defined group. For example, in the San Francisco case, Judge Hayward found such nexus was established by a combination of specific statements made by the male persecutor (i.e. “a woman’s only job was to shut up and obey her husband,” and “I’m the man and you’re going to do what I say”); a report of an expert on domestic violence citing gender as a motivating factor for domestic violence; and a statement in a multi-agency report that violence against women in Mexico “is perpetrated, in most cases, to conserve and reproduce the submission and subordination of them derived from relationships of power.”

In her decision, Judge Nadkarni held that the size of the group defined by gender does not prevent it from being defined with particularity, and noted that the BIA “has routinely recognized large groups as defined with particularity.” It also bears mentioning that the ICE prosecutor in Judge Nadkarni’s case “conceded that the Honduran police was unable or unwilling to protect the respondent…” Without such concession in her case, Judge Hayward found that country reports and Mexican law itself were sufficient to establish that the government was unable or unwilling to protect the respondent even under the heightened standard expressed by the former AG in Matter of A-B-.

As I stated in an earlier article, immigration judges have received no guidance or training from EOIR in analyzing domestic violence claims in the aftermath of Matter of A-B-. As a result, some immigration judges remain uncertain as to whether the law allows them to grant such claims at present. It is hoped that these decisions will serve as a useful template for judges. It seems particularly instructive that one such decision was issued by Judge Nadkarni, a management-level judge who supervises all immigration judges sitting in the Arlington, Batavia, Buffalo, and Charlotte Immigration Courts, as well as the Headquarters court which hears cases remotely by televideo. Judge Nadkarni is the direct boss of V. Stuart Couch, the Charlotte-based immigration judge whose refusal to grant asylum as directed by the BIA in Matter of A-B- led to the former Attorney General’s certifying that case to himself.

Congratulations to attorneys Kelly Engel Wells of Delores Street Community Services and Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC for successfully representing the asylum applicants.

In light of these decisions, and in the absence of guidance from EOIR, our group of former immigration judges and BIA members would be happy to provide sitting judges with outside training and resources on this topic. Interested judges may contact me, and perhaps we can set up group training sessions for furloughed judged during the present shutdown.

Notes:

See, e.g. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388, 395, n. 16, acknowledging the argument of amici “that gender alone should be enough to constitute a particular social group in this matter,” but declining to reach the issue.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

EOIR would do much better if it were to lose the venomous “(junior) partner of DHS Enforcement, no sympathy, compassion, or kindness for the most vulnerable among us, and scofflaw” persona that it acquired under White Nationalist AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and act more like a real court of law (or at least a fair and impartial quasi-judicial tribunal) again.

While there is zero chance of it happening, soon to be AG Bill Barr (who grotesquely has painted himself as a great admirer of his biased and incompetent predecessor) would do himself and our country a great and lasting service if he hired a retired Federal Judge with a strong record in (positive) humanitarian law, individual due process, and court administration (e.g., a “reincarnation” of the late Judge Patricia Wald) to run and rebuild EOIR with a Due Process, independent adjudication, and judicial efficiency focus, and kept the politicos out of the process, no matter how much they might complain or not like fair results on the “deportation railway.” But, not going to happen till we get “regime change.”

Viewing “law enforcement” as a solemn responsibility to insure that individuals’ rights are protected, individuals are treated fairly regardless of status, creed, gender, or race, and that life-saving protection is generously granted whenever legally possible is as much a part of the Attorney General’s Constitutional responsibility as booting folks out of the country. It’s sad, disturbing, and very damaging to our country, that so few Attorneys General have taken this responsibility seriously, particularly in recent years.

PWS

01-21-18

TRUMP’S “OFFER” MIGHT WELL BE A STUNT – BUT, IT’S ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEMS TO STEP UP, SAVE LIVES, AND GOVERN RESPONSIBLY – They Should Make A Counterproposal – Here’s The “SMARTS Act Of 2019!”

There are opposing “schools of thought” on Trump’s latest immigration statement. For example, the LA Times says it another “Trump stunt to shift blame” that the Dems should resist. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-shutdown-daca-20190119-story.html

Makes sense.

On the other hand, the Washington Post says that notwithstanding Trump’s annoying tactics, it’s an opportunity to reopen the Government and save the Dreamers that the Dems should pursue. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/make-a-deal-to-help-the-real-people-behind-the-rhetoric/2019/01/19/f5b18866-1c17-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.5b08d589dfa9

Also makes sense.

I understand the Dems reluctance to enable Trump’s “hostage taking” strategy. But, I doubt they can solve that with Trump and the GOP controlling two of the three political arms of Government.

Indeed, a better idea would be for Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader McConnell to get together “when the smoke clears” and see what they can do jointly to take back and fix the bipartisan Congressional budget process and protect it from overreach by Executives of both parties. For two of the major legislative “gurus” of our age in the twilight of their careers, that would be a great “bipartisan legacy.”

But, for the time being, folks are suffering, and lives are in danger: Government employees, those that depend on Government, asylum applicants, Dreamers, TPSers, those in Immigration Court, and the families of all of the foregoing. So, I think the Dems should make a “robust” counterproposal that gives Trump at least part of his “Wall,” but also includes other important reforms and improvements that will diminish the impact of border migration issues in the future. Most important, almost everything in this proposal would save or improve some human lives and benefit America in the short and long run.

So, here’s my outline of the “SECURITY, MIGRATION ASSISTANCE RENEWAL, & TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ACT (“SMARTS ACT”) OF 2019”

SECURITY, MIGRATION ASSISTANCE RENEWAL, & TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ACT (“SMARTS ACT”) OF 2019

Federal Employees
- Restart the Government
- Retroactive pay raise

Enhanced Border Security
- Fund half of “Trump’s Wall”
- Triple the number of USCIS Asylum Officers
- Double the number of U.S. Immigration Judges and Court Staff
- Additional Port of Entry (“POE”) Inspectors
- Improvements in POE infrastructure, technology, and technology between POEs
- Additional Intelligence, Anti-Smuggling, and Undercover Agents for DHS
- Anything else in the Senate Bill that both parties agree upon

Humanitarian Assistance
- Road to citizenship for a Dreamers & TPSers
- Prohibit family separation
- Funding for alternatives to detention
- Grants to NGOs for assisting arriving asylum applicants with temporary housing and resettlement issues
- Require re-establishment of U.S. Refugee Program in the Northern Triangle

Asylum Process
- Require Asylum Offices to consider in the first instance all asylum applications including those generated by the “credible fear” process as well as all so-called “defensive applications”

Immigration Court Improvements
- Grants and requirements that DHS & EOIR work with NGOs and the private bar with a goal of achieving 100% representation of asylum applicants
- Money to expand and encourage the training and certification of more non-attorneys as “accredited representatives” to represent asylum seekers pro bono before the Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts on behalf of approved NGOs
- Vacate Matter of A-B-and reinstate Matter of A-R-C-G-as the rule for domestic violence asylum applications
- Vacate Matter of Castro-Tumand reinstate Matter of Avetisyan to allow Immigration Judges to control dockets by administratively closing certain “low priority” cases
- Eliminate Attorney General’s authority to interfere in Immigration Court proceedings through “certification”
- Re-establish weighing of interests of both parties consistent with Due Process as the standard for Immigration Court continuances
- Bar AG & EOIR Director from promulgating substantive or procedural rules for Immigration Courts — grant authority to BIA to promulgate procedural rules for Immigration Courts
- Authorize Immigration Courts to consider all Constitutional issues in proceedings
- Authorize DHS to appeal rulings of the BIA to Circuit Courts of Appeal
- Require EOIR to implement the statutory contempt authority of Immigration Judges, applicable equally to all parties before the courts, within 180 days
- Bar “performance quotas” and “performance work plans” for Immigration Judges and BIA Members
- Authorize the Immigration Court to set bonds in all cases coming within their jurisdiction
- Fund and require EOIR to implement a nationwide electronic filing system within one year
- Eliminate the annual 4,000 numerical cap on grants of “cancellation of removal” based on “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”
- Require the Asylum Office to adjudicate cancellation of removal applications with renewal in Immigration Court for those denied
- Require EOIR to establish a credible, transparent judicial discipline and continued tenure system within one year that must include: opportunity for participation by the complainant (whether Government or private) and the Immigration Judge; representation permitted for both parties; peer input; public input; DHS input; referral to an impartial decision maker for final decision; a transparent and consistent system of sanctions incorporating principles of rehabilitation and progressive discipline; appeal rights to the MSPB

International Cooperation
- Fund and require efforts to work with the UNHCR, Mexico, and other countries in the Hemisphere to improve asylum systems and encourage asylum seekers to exercise options besides the U.S.
- Fund efforts to improve conditions and the rule of law in the Northern Triangle

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

No, it wouldn’t solve all problems overnight. But, everything beyond “Trump’s Wall” would make a substantial improvement over our current situation that would benefit enforcement, border security, human rights, Due Process, humanitarian assistance, and America. Not a bad “deal” in my view!

PWS

01-20-19

NO, WE’RE NOT “OVERWHELMED” WITH ASYLUM SEEKERS – BUT TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN IS ADDING TO THE IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG, CREATING MORE “AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING” THAT HELPED CREATE THE BACKLOG IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND SCREWING ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH PENDING CASES! — We Won’t Be Able To Solve Immigration Until The Immigration Court is Removed From The Executive Branch & Becomes An Independent Court!

The latest TRAC IMMIGRATION report confirms what most of us familiar with the dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts already knew: Trump has already needlessly added 42,000 cases to the backlog and will have added at least 100,000 of the shutdown lasts through the end of January.

==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Since the beginning of the federal government shutdown, most Immigration Court hearings have been cancelled. As of January 11, the estimated number of cancellations reached 42,726. Each week the shutdown continues, cancelled hearings will likely grow by another 20,000. As many as 100,000 individuals awaiting their day in court may be impacted if the shutdown continues through the end of January.

Each week the shutdown continues the practical effect is to add thousands of cases back onto the active case backlog which had already topped eight-hundred thousand (809,041) as of the end of last November. Individuals impacted by these cancellations may have already being waiting two, three, or even four years for their day in court, and now may have to wait years more before their hearing can be rescheduled once the shutdown ends.

Immigration Courts in California have experienced the most hearing cancellations – an estimated 9,424 as of January 11. These and many more details are based on analyses of court records by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.

For state-by-state impacts, see the full report at:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/543

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through November 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

But, that’s not all folks!

Amy Taxin reports for NBC LA:

https://apple.news/AB_FhnUCjSkylre8-ue8cZQ

The partial government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s demand for a border wall is playing havoc with the nation’s already backlogged immigration courts, forcing the postponement of hearings for thousands of immigrants.

For some of those asking for asylum in the U.S., the impasse could mean years more of waiting — and prolonged separation from loved ones overseas — until they get a new court date.

But for those immigrants with little chance of winning their bids to stay in this country legally, the shutdown could help them stave off deportation that much longer — adding to the very delays the Trump administration has railed against.

“It is just dripping with irony,” said Sarah Pierce, policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. “This administration has put a lot of emphasis on speeding up court cases, and the shutdown obviously is just going to cause massive delays.”

The shutdown has furloughed hundreds of thousands of government employees and halted services that aren’t deemed essential, including, in many instances, the immigration courts overseen by the Justice Department.

Hearings involved detained immigrants are still going forward. But untold thousands of other proceedings have been postponed. No one knows for how long; it depends on when employees return to work and hearings can be reset.

Immigration experts said cases could be delayed months or years since the courts have more than 800,000 pending cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, and many courtrooms are tightly booked.

Immigration Judge Dana Marks, former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said she has at least 60 hearings a day in her San Francisco courtroom and no space on her docket for at least the next three years.

“The cases that are not being heard now — there is no readily available place to reschedule them until at least 2022 or beyond,” Marks said of her courtroom.

Immigration judges hear a wide range of complex cases from immigrants from across the world, some who have recently arrived in the United States, others who have lived in the country for years and the government is seeking to deport.

Immigration judges have long sought more staffing to handle the ballooning caseload, which has roughly doubled in five years following a surge in Central American children and families arriving at the southern border. The Trump administration has tried to speed up the courts by assigning immigration judges quotas and stopping them from shelving cases.

Some of the toughest cases immigration judges hear are claims for asylum, or protection from persecution. And long wait times can be especially difficult for asylum seekers, since they can’t bring spouses or children to join them in the United States unless their asylum requests are approved.

Reynold Finnegan, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles, said one of his Afghan clients hasn’t seen his wife or children in nearly nine years. After being kidnapped and tortured by the Taliban, the man left his homeland, traveled across the world and made his way to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum, Finnegan said.

He waited more than six years for his final hearing before an immigration judge, but it was canceled last week because of the shutdown, and he doesn’t know how much longer it will take.

“He is devastated,” Finnegan said. “He was really planning on seeing his wife later in the year when he got approved, and his children.”

Since the shutdown began in December, immigrants have had to prepare for their scheduled court hearings and in many cases travel to court, knowing the proceedings might be postponed. In Northern states, that can mean hourslong car trips through ice and snow and taking days off from work.

The delays are painful for many immigrants, especially those who have strong asylum claims or green card applications and want to get their lives on solid footing in the United States.

Those with the weakest asylum claims actually benefit from the delays, because they are able to remain in the U.S. in the meantime and hold out hope of qualifying for legal status by some other means down the road.

In the 2017 fiscal year, immigration courts decided more than 52,000 asylum cases. About 1 in 5 were approved, according to statistics from the courts.

Courts have been crippled by a government shutdown. More than 37,000 immigration hearings were delayed by one in 2013.

And it isn’t just immigration courts that are affected. Since Justice Department attorneys are allowed to work in limited circumstances only, some high-profile civil cases have been put on hold, including a lawsuit in Oregon by the widow of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, a man shot by police in 2016 after the takeover of a wildlife refuge.

Government attorneys have also sought to put on hold environmental cases, including challenges to logging projects and wild horse roundups in Montana and a lawsuit over the disposal in Oklahoma of toxic coal ash from power plants.

Most major criminal cases are expected to stay on track because of federal requirements for a speedy trial.

One aspect of immigration unaffected by the shutdown is the review of applications for green cards and citizenship. That’s because those tasks, which are handled by an agency in the Homeland Security Department, are paid for by application filing fees.

One asylum seeker, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of persecution in her home country, said the wait has been unbearable since her 2014 court date was twice delayed. It is now set for February.

“The past four years have been horrible enough, but this uncertainty, and my life being handled with such, I don’t know, no one cares, basically,” she said. “The process takes forever — just to get the date in front of the judge.”

Associated Press writers Dave Kolpack, Amy Forliti and Matthew Brown contributed to this report.

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

But, wait! That’s not all folks. There’s more!

Brittany Shoot @ Fortune writes that Immigration Court waiting times could double as a result of Trump’s shutdown!

https://apple.news/AEy1h1oc7RSux5Cdw1fo4PQ

The United States immigration courts are overburdened. Roughly 800,000 cases are portioned out between around 400 immigration judges, according to PBS NewsHour.And with the federal government shutdowncontinuing into its third week, applicants who have already waited years for their court date may now be shuttled to the back of the line, their hearings rescheduled as late as the 2022. This directly effects people’s everyday lives, as immigration status impacts basics such as the ability to get a work permit.

Focus on immigration enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security may be up, but the immigration courts, which fall under the Department of Justice, have not been given much attention despite the record-high demand for hearings that has been growing over the past decade. Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told NewsHour the effects of the shutdown are having a “devastating impact.” San Francisco-based Judge Marks says that her own caseload of nearly 4,000 dockets includes cases that are already several years old. With no scheduling slots available, she says those cases may be reset to another date several years in the future.

Non-detained immigrants make up about 90% of judges’ caseloads, and those cases can end up involving anything from asylum decisions to deportations. The other 10% of cases, those for immigrants who are detained by immigration officials, are the only ones that can be processed during the shutdown. And that’s why the vast majority of those waiting for a hearing will simply be moved to the back of the line again.

The effects of the record-long government shutdownare also touching the lives of everyone from private-sector contractorsto Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents and travelers. And if the shutdown continues for another two weeks, its cost to the economy will surpass $5.7 billion, the amount it would cost to build President Trump’s border wall.

Visit FORTUNE.com

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

Yeah, it’s going to continue to get worse until the shutdown ends and the Immigration Courts are removed from the DOJ.

Also, don’t let Trump, the DOJ, or any of their apologists in Congress or elsewhere “con” you into blaming the largely contrived “flood of asylum applicants” for this. We must stop “blaming the victims” for the lousy policies and gross incompetence of this Administration!

The Immigration Court has been in trouble and should have been fixed years ago. But, Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, and Miller intentionally have made things much, much worse—with no hope of improvement in sight.

Returning Due Process and fairness as the primary focus of these courts as well as placing them under professional court administration working for the Immigration Judges, not bureaucrats in Washington or Falls Church, wouldn’t solve the current immigration issues overnight. But, it certainly would be a head start and a beginning of a solution. That’s one heck of an improvement over the “downward spiral” promoted by this Administration. And, it wouldn’t cost $5.7 billion to fix, either!

PWS

01-15-19

EOIR & USCIS ISSUE COURT-REQUIRED NEW GUIDANCE ELIMINATING LARGE PORTIONS OF SESSIONS’S BOGUS GUIDANCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/GANG RELATED CASES — Advocates Should Be Pushing This At All Levels In All Forums!

Dear Colleagues,

Following up on U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan’s powerful decision in Grace v. Whitaker, which found major elements of Matter of A-B- and the related USCIS Policy Memorandum to be inconsistent with the law, we are pleased to share the instructions which the Court ordered USCIS and EOIR to provide asylum officers and immigration judges conducting credible fear interviews and reviews of negative credible fear findings.  This guidance takes immediate effect and should be relied upon and cited to by advocates.

The Court declared that the following policies contained in Matter of A-B- and the related USCIS Policy Memorandum are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of immigration law as applied to credible fear proceedings:

1.     The general rule against claims relating to domestic and gang violence.

2.     The requirement that a noncitizen whose claim involves non-governmental persecutors “show the government condoned the private actions or at least demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim.”

3.     The Policy Memorandum’s rule that domestic violence-based particular social group definitions that include “inability to leave” a relationship are impermissibly circular and therefore not cognizable.

4.     The Policy Memorandum’s requirement that individuals must delineate or identify any particular social group in order to satisfy credible fear based on the particular social group protected ground.

5.     The Policy Memorandum’s directive that asylum officers should apply federal circuit court case law only “to the extent that those cases are not inconsistent with Matter of A-B-.”

6.     The Policy Memorandum’s directive that asylum officers should apply only the case law of “the circuit” where the individual is “physically located during the credible fear interview.”

While the Court’s order is limited to credible fear interviews in the expedited removal process, we urge advocates to use the Court’s reasoning in merits hearings before the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court, and on review before the BIA and circuit courts. Of the six findings above, only (4) and (6) are specific to the nature of the credible fear process, which is intended to be a low screening standard, providing the applicant with the benefit of the most advantageous case law. The other four findings (1,2,3, and 5) are more broadly based on Judge Sullivan’s interpretation of key statutory terms of the refugee definition, and his reasoning should be adopted and argued in the merits context as well.

Best,

Karen

Karen Musalo

Bank of America Foundation Chair in International Law

Professor & Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

200 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

tel: 415 565-4720 fax 415 581-8824

musalok@uchastings.edu

SSRN Author Page:  http://ssrn.c

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

Thanks, Karen. The actual guidance memos can be found at the link in Karen’s e-mail.

The EOIR “guidance” asserts that it applies only in credible fear reviews. While technically true, as Karen more accurately points out, the rationale of Judge Sullivan’s findings 1, 2, 3, and 5 should apply equally in removal proceedings. Even if the “captive” BIA won’t listen the real, Article III Courts should. That’s why it’s critical to challenge all A-B- denials in the Circuits. And, as I noted before, no Circuit has yet had an opportunity to review A-B-.

Most, if not all, cases denied on the basis of Sessions’s flawed decision in Matter of A–B– should be subject to remand from the Article IIIs. Just another example of how Sessions continues to harm individuals who deserve Due Process, while contributing to the largely DOJ-made backlog and wasting the time of the Article III Courts.

PWS

01-13-19

THE ABSURDITY OF TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN & ITS DEVASTATING EFFECT ON OUR ALREADY CRUMBLING IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM DETAILED IN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS BY NAIJ PRESIDENT, HON. A. ASHLEY TABADDOR

01092019senate

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES
President A. Ashley Tabaddor c/o Immigration Court 606 S. Olive Street, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 534-4491
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ January 9, 2019
Dear Senator,
As has been widely reported, the current government shutdown over U.S. immigration policy has placed an unmanageable burden on our nation’s Immigration Courts. As an Immigration Judge in Los Angeles presently on furlough and as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), I am acutely aware of the impact of the current government shut down on our Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges and the parties who appear before us.
There is currently a backlog of more than 800,000 pending immigration cases (an increase of 200,000 cases in less than two years, in spite of the largest growth in the number of judges in recent history – from under 300 to over 400 U.S. Immigration Judges). We, as Immigration Judges, are responsible for determining whether claimants can remain in the United States or must be deported or detained.
Because of the crushing backlog of cases, our individual court calendars are booked, morning and afternoon, every day of the week, multiple years in advance. Some days our judges have more than 80 cases on their dockets. Every day that our courts are closed, thousands of cases are cancelled and have to be rescheduled. However, the likely re-scheduling option is – as Washington Post editorial writers suggest – plucked from a New Yorker cartoon: “Never. Does never work for you?” While this is hyperbole, it is not far from the truth. Since it is impossible to predict when these cases can reasonably be rescheduled, it might as well be “never.”
The concept of “never” cannot be accepted and does not work for the United States. It is unacceptable to prevent those who should be deported to remain here indefinitely or to prevent those who are eligible for relief from being granted relief and receive the benefit they deserve. When a hearing is delayed for years as a result of a government shutdown, individuals with pending cases can lose track of witnesses, their qualifying relatives can die or age-out and evidence already presented becomes stale. Those with strong cases, who might receive a legal
1

immigration status, see their cases become weaker. Meanwhile, those with weak cases – who should be deported sooner rather than later – benefit greatly from an indefinite delay.
Judges, as public servants, along with our fellow federal employees and people across the country, are also being asked to carry the burden of a government shut-down. Every Immigration Judge across the country is currently in a “no-pay” status. Those who have been furloughed are anxious about having been prevented from continuing to work and earn their living. The judges who have been deemed as “excepted” are serving the American people without pay and doing so with added unnecessary pressures, including the Department’s recent announcement that most hearings will no longer be accompanied with in-person interpreters, and that the judges’ previous compressed work schedules and administrative time to review cases has been cancelled. On behalf of the NAIJ, I urge you to bring a rapid end to the current shutdown.
The root cause, however, of an increasing backlog of cases, the delays, uncertainty and unfairness in U.S. Immigration Courts is that our Immigration Court and judges are directly accountable to the U.S. Attorney General, the federal government’s lead prosecutor. This underlying structural flaw has led to repeated violations of the basic tenants of our American judicial principles, that of an independent and impartial judge and court. While we are grateful to Congress for the recent allocation of additional funding to our resource starved courts, such as added Immigration Judge teams, history has proven that the issues plaguing our Immigration Courts will not be corrected simply through more funding. The enduring solution, which has been publicly supported by multiple prominent legal organizations and scholars, is to remove the Immigration Court from the Justice Department and afford it with the true independence it needs and deserves. It is long past time to vest U.S. Immigration Judges – like our counterparts in U.S. tax and bankruptcy courts – with full judicial independence under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
We are available at your convenience to discuss these critical issues. Sincerely,
Hon. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National Association of Immigration Judges
2

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

Wow! Trump is taking “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — the REAL primary cause of the unmanageable court backlog — to new heights.

And, Judge Tabaddor isn’t even counting the 300,000 or so already closed cases that EOIR Director McHenry includes in his backlog count (undoubtedly on orders from his DOJ “handlers”)!

Nor does she include more than 300,000 Central Americans and Haitians that the Administration is mindlessly (and perhaps illegally) trying to boot out of their current status. Of course, the vast majority of the TPSers would have strong claims for “Cancellation of Removal.” So, in truth, they are not going anywhere except into the Court’s backlog. Trump will be long gone before the Immigration Courts even get to,the first of those cases!

Running hearings without in person interpreters! That’s almost a prima facie Due Process violation. I can virtually guarantee that it will result in many inadequate or disputed translations, meaning remands by the BIA and the Article IIIs for “redos.” Haste makes waste!

What if we actually invested in a system that “does Due Process right” the first time around? Certainly, it would make the system fairer and more efficient. It wouldn’t cost $5.7 billion either. Indeed some of that money could be spent on providing universal representation for asylum seekers. Or how about a functioning e-filing system which almost all other high volume courts in America also have?

Could it get any dumber than Trump shutting down the Immigration Courts, essential to immigration administration and enforcement, over immigration enforcement? No, it couldn’t!

PWS

01-12-19

THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS TRUMP HAS THE WRONG “BORDER CRISIS”

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/424893-there-is-a-border-crisis-its-just-not-quite-what-the-president-said-it-is

Nolan writes, in part:

. . . .

Unfortunately, Trump has made it easier for them by basing his request on claims about who is crossing the border that can be disputed readily, such as that many of them are terrorists or criminals.

He should base his otherwise correct argument instead on the numbers — on the fact that the sheer number of illegal crossings has overwhelmed our immigration courts, creating a backlog crisis that has made it virtually impossible to enforce our immigration laws, and that the border cannot be secured when illegal crossers are allowed to remain here indefinitely.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.

Democrats aren’t destroying Trump’s credibility; he’s doing that himself with his constant lies and false narratives; this is just the latest and one of the most egregious examples;
By all reliable counts, illegal border crossings at the Southern Border are down substantially;
What is “up” are crossings by unaccompanied children and families from the Northern Triangle seeking asylum;
Such individuals present a humanitarian situation arising from a crisis in the Northern Triangle; but, they are not a “security threat” to the US; almost all turn themselves in at ports of entry or shortly after entering to apply for asylum under our legal system as they are entitled to do;
Those (other than unaccompanied children) who don’t establish a “credible fear” can be returned immediately without ever getting to the Immigration Courts (except for brief “credible fear reviews” before Immigration Judges);
The vast majority have a “credible fear” and should be referred to Immigration Court for full hearings on their claims in accordance with the law and our Constitution;
When matched with pro bono lawyers, given a clear understanding of the requirements, and time to prepare and document a claim, they appear for court hearings almost all the time;
Even with the Trump Administration’s “anti-asylum campaign” directed primarily at applicants from the Northern Triangle, and the lack of representation in approximately 25% of the cases, asylum claims from the Northern Triangle succeed at a rate of approximately 20%, https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3oo;
Undoubtedly, there is a “crisis” in our U.S. Immigration Courts — a Due Process and mismanagement crisis;
But, the Trump Administration with its often illegal actions and gross mismanagement, has actually managed to artificially increase the Immigration Court Backlog from just over 500,000 to more than 1.1 million in less than two years — despite having at least 100 additional Immigration Judges on duty, https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3qN;
Indeed, Trump’s shutdown is unnecessarily “ratcheting up” the Immigration Court backlog and initiating a new round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” right now;
In addition to not understanding the true complexities of the immigration system, the Administration’s incompetent administration of the Immigration Courts is another reason why Trump might choose to shift attention elsewhere.;
Somebody will have to address the Due Process and administrative mess in the Immigration Courts in a constructive manner, starting with an independent, apolitical, court structure; but it won’t be the Trump Administration.

PWS

01-10-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Feb 10 Wait in Mexico Policy, Access to Counsel, & Crime

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

CGRS and HRW Release Video, Call on Government to Restore Protections for Domestic Violence Survivors

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight to restore the rule of law, human decency, Due Process, and a “guarantee of fairness and Due Process for all” to our broken, captive, and often lawless U.S. Immigration Courts!

PWS

01-25-19

Related posts:

SHUTDOWN HAS FURLOUGHED IMMIGRATION COURT JUDGES

Related posts:

Jan 20 IJs Grant Gender-Based Asylum Claims

Related posts:

Related posts:

The latest TRAC IMMIGRATION report confirms what most of us familiar with the dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts already knew: Trump has already needlessly added 42,000 cases to the backlog and will have added at least 100,000 of the shutdown lasts through the end of January.

But, that’s not all folks!

But, wait! That’s not all folks. There’s more!

Brittany Shoot @ Fortune writes that Immigration Court waiting times could double as a result of Trump’s shutdown!

Yeah, it’s going to continue to get worse until the shutdown ends and the Immigration Courts are removed from the DOJ.

Also, don’t let Trump, the DOJ, or any of their apologists in Congress or elsewhere “con” you into blaming the largely contrived “flood of asylum applicants” for this. We must stop “blaming the victims” for the lousy policies and gross incompetence of this Administration!

The Immigration Court has been in trouble and should have been fixed years ago. But, Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, and Miller intentionally have made things much, much worse—with no hope of improvement in sight.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: