"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Being An Immigration Judge Was Their Dream. Under Trump, It Became Untenable.
“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”
Former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil in Fremont, California, on Dec. 28, 2018.
SAN FRANCISCO — Rebecca Jamil was sitting in a nondescript hotel ballroom in suburban Virginia when she realized that her dream job — being an immigration judge — was no longer tenable. It was June 11, 2018, and then–attorney general Jeff Sessions, her boss, was speaking to a room packed with immigration judges, running through his list of usual complaints over what was, in his estimation, a broken asylum system.
Toward the end of the speech, Sessions let slip some big news: He had decided whether domestic abuse and gang victims could be granted asylum in the US. Advocates, attorneys, and judges had been waiting months to see what Sessions, who in his role as attorney general had the power to review cases, would do. After all, it would determine the fate of thousands of asylum-seekers, many fleeing dangerous situations in Central America.
Sessions didn’t reveal to the room the details of his ruling but Jamil, based in San Francisco since she was appointed in 2016, learned later that day that the attorney general had decided to dramatically restrict asylum protections for domestic abuse victims.
“I’d seen the faces of these families,” the 43-year-old judge said. “They weren’t abstractions to me.”
Eric Risberg / AP
Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a US immigration office with numerous courtrooms in San Francisco.
Jamil, a mother of two young daughters, had been shaken by the images and sounds that came as a result of the Trump administration’s policy to separate families at the border. As a judge who oversaw primarily cases of women and children fleeing abuse and dangers abroad, this was the last straw.
Soon after, she stepped down from the court.
“I can’t do this anymore,” she told friends. “I felt that I couldn’t be ‘Rebecca Jamil, representative of the attorney general’ while these things were going on.”
In many ways, her resignation underscores the tenuous position of immigration judges, who are overseen by the attorney general and susceptible to the shifting winds of each administration. To avoid potential conflicts, the union that represents the judges has long called for its court to be an independent body, separate from the Department of Justice.
The Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges, which total around 400 across the country, work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, ending their ability to indefinitely suspend certain cases, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets.
In the meantime, the case backlog has jumped to more than 800,000 under the administration and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.
The quotas in particular have made judges feel as if they were cogs in a deportation machine, as opposed to neutral arbiters given time to thoughtfully analyze the merits of each case.
“The job has become exceedingly more difficult as the court has veered even farther away from being administered as a court rather than a law enforcement bureaucracy,” said Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing around 350 judges.
And it’s not just Jamil who has departed because of the massive changes to the court undertaken by the Trump administration, according to observers within the Department of Justice and those on the outside. While some, like Jamil, have resigned, others have retired early in large part because of the policies instituted under Trump, they said.
For those remaining at the immigration court, the mood is bleak.
Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a news conference on Oct. 16, 2018.
“It has become so emotionally brutal and exhausting that many people I know are leaving or talking about finding an exit strategy,” said one immigration judge who declined to be named. “Morale has never, ever been lower.”
Another Justice Department official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told BuzzFeed News, “It is exhausting when you feel undervalued by the people at the top of your organization, especially when they are motivated by partisanship and have not spent their careers doing the job that you do.”
Tabaddor, the head of the union, said that her group has noticed a higher rate of retirements and resignations than in the past because of the way judges have been treated under Trump.
Some have been bold in their timing. John Richardson, a former immigration judge in Phoenix, stepped down on Sep. 30, 2018 — the day before the administration instituted a quota for the number of cases to be completed by judges.
“The timing of my retirement was a direct result of the draconian policies of the Administration, the relegation of [judges] to the status of ‘action officers’ who deport as many people as possible as soon as possible with only token due process, and blaming [judges] for the immigration crisis caused by decades of neglect and under funding of the Immigration Courts,” he said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
Another judge who resigned from the bench in September told staff members in a goodbye email, “I know things are getting difficult for you at [the Executive Office for Immigration Review], but I believe all you will ‘ride through the storm’ and ‘come out with a smile.’”
There have long been work challenges for immigration judges, including heavy caseloads and assignments, leading to comparatively high burnout rates. Justice Department officials told BuzzFeed News that concerns over retirements were nothing new.
“In 2015, 2013, and 2011, the National Association of IJs [immigration judges] raised the same concerns. In 2011, the NAIJ said that ‘stress on judges has reached unbearable levels … a large contributing factor to retirement at the earliest possible opportunity,’” said Steven Stafford, a Justice Department spokesperson. “What is actually new is that we are hiring more and more IJs and doing so faster than ever before. Today we have 68.9 percent more IJs than we did in 2010, and that number is only rising.”
According to the agency, from the beginning of fiscal year 2014 through Feb. 12, 2019, 94 immigration judges have retired, separated, or died. More than a third of those judges, 32, have left since Oct. 1, 2017. The agency does not track why judges leave their positions.
To those within the court and others who have recently retired, the situation has worsened to an unprecedented level. Richardson, the former judge in Phoenix, said he would have continued presiding over immigration cases if the status quo had remained.
“Yes, I was 75 years old with over 50 years of honorable federal service with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, but had no plans for retirement as long as I was treated with respect, appreciated, and provided adequate support,” he said. “I had 28 years as an IJ and very much enjoyed my job, even with the poor funding and lack of support by Congress and the White House during that 28 years.”
Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge who stepped down years ago and who speaks regularly with others who’ve left the bench, was blunt in his characterization.
“The fastest growth industry is former immigration judges,” Chase said. Those still on the bench have told him, “It’s horrible. Whatever you think it is, it is much, much worse.”
In the meantime, the Trump administration has hired more than 100 judges to not only fill the vacancies of those who’ve retired but to add numbers to the bench. It’s a rehauling of the courts that could “have a drastic impact,” according to Chase.
Many of the judges retiring in recent months are experienced jurists, hired by the Clinton administration in the mid to late ’90s, he said. These judges, Chase said, were more willing to push back on claims made in court by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or to allow immigrants extended time to make their cases in what could otherwise be a rushed procedure.
In their place, Chase said, are judges hired by the new administration with case completion quotas, a two-year probation period, and a mandate to avoid showing sympathy for the people appearing before them.
“Even if it doesn’t show up on the sheet, just the level of humanity, that makes a huge difference — that’s what this administration is trying to remove from the immigration judge corps,” he said.
Constanza Hevia for BuzzFeed News
Rebecca Jamil holds her immigration judge certificate.
For her part, Jamil wanted to become an immigration judge from the earliest moments of her legal career. After working as a staff attorney at the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals, she joined the government as a prosecutor with ICE in 2011, where she was able to use discretion to focus deportation efforts on those with serious criminal backgrounds. Under the Trump administration, ICE attorneys have been told that nearly all undocumented immigrants are priorities for deportation.
In 2014, Jamil took a chance to fulfill her dream: She applied to become an immigration judge. It was a 17-month process, full of drawn-out interviews in Washington, DC, but finally, in 2015 she received a phone call informing her that she got the job.
“I thought, and I must have told most people I know, that this is the last job that I would ever have. It’s all I wanted to do,” she said.
Jamil dedicated herself to the exhausting career. She oversaw a docket made up primarily of families and regularly heard cases in which women and children applied for asylum based on abuse that they had experienced by partners and family members abroad.
Day in and day out, Jamil heard intense testimony of physical and sexual violence against women and children.
“You’re sitting in a windowless room and people tell you the very worst parts of their life and you have to decide if it is enough to stay in the US,” she said. “That is very tiring day after day to be the person who makes that decision.”
Then, under the Trump administration, things started to change. In 2018, Sessions instituted a new policy, severely limiting when judges could suspend certain cases. Suddenly, her docket expanded and she wasn’t allowed to decide which cases deserved to remain in court and which didn’t.
Jamil and fellow immigration judges were in attendance at the Virginia conference where Sessions spoke for annual trainings on courtroom procedure. The year before, jurists heard substantive legal updates and trainings on bias in the courtroom.
This version of the training, however, felt different.
“The entire conference was profoundly disturbing. Do things as fast as possible. There was an overarching theme of disbelieving aliens and their claims and how to remove people faster,” Jamil said. “That is not what I saw my job as an immigration judge to be. I was not trained to do that.”
Soon after she returned home, Jamil put in her resignation. Her colleagues fretted, probing her about whether she had considered the type of judge that could fill her spot on the bench and the impact that could have.
She didn’t have an answer, but she knew that she couldn’t do it any longer.
“Family separations; Sessions making his own case law on asylum; when we could continue cases — I could no longer sit below the seal of the Department of Justice and represent the Department of Justice at that point,” Jamil said. “They just chipped away at our authority on a daily basis. It felt like we weren’t really judges. It was frustrating and demoralizing.”
A former colleague, Laura Ramirez, worked for years as an immigration judge in San Francisco. In December, she retired at the earliest date possible, five days after she turned 60.
The changes put in place by the Trump administration, especially the case quotas, and the politicization of her job, became too much to handle.
The loss of judges like Jamil and others could be immeasurable to both immigrants and Department of Homeland Security attorneys, Ramirez said.
“For the system of justice, there’s these highly qualified, fair, thoughtful people who are being squeezed out of the system for political reasons, basically,” she said. “If people like her are squeezed out, it’s a loss to people who appear before her. The system can’t be fair if good people like her are pushed out.”
***********************************************
Forcing the “best, brightest, and fairest” out. Reinforcing “worst practices.” Enabling judges with well-established records of anti-asylum, nationality-based, and misogynistic bias. Attacking those private attorneys who steadfastly defended legal and Constitutional rights that were being systematically undermined by the Administration. Blaming others for his own incompetence and lack of scholarship. That’s what the “Sessions program” was all about.
The only good news: folks like Judge Jamil, Judge Ramirez, Judge Richardson, and Judge Chase are now part of the ever-growing “Our Gang” of retired Immigraton Judges helping others to fight the injustices and destruction of Due Process being pushed by the Trump Administration and a DOJ that has abandoned its mission in favor of a White Nationalist political agenda. Our voices are being heard in support of the efforts of the “New Due Process Army.”
And, while I doubt that anyone outside of Trump and Miller can match the viscous lies, racism, and knowingly false narratives of Sessions, I wouldn’t expect much improvement under Barr. Barr thought Sessions was “the greatest thing since sliced bread.” That, more than the Mueller investigation, should have caused all Democrats to vote against his confirmation. He’ll just “lose” some of the overtly racist and inflammatory lingo of the White Nationalist restrictionists and attack immigrants on the basis of bogus “strict enforcement” platitudes.
Every American who believes in our Constitution and thinks that America is different from the “Banana Republics” we often criticize will be threatened by this development. Malicious harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all; and the collapse of one of the “building blocks” at the “retail level” of the American justice system will adversely affect everybody’s ability to get justice with fairness and impartiality.
Many of us don’t think we will need fair, independent, and impartial courts until we do. Once the Trump Administration destroys them, they won’t easily be rebuilt.
Who will defend your rights when the time comes if you stand by and watch the rights of others being trampled?
Our asylum laws have some gaping holes. These gaps endanger many groups, but none more so than women and girls who are fleeing domestic violence, honor killings, mass rape in wartime, gang rape by criminal gangs, and other gender-related violence. Congress must explicitly recognize gender-based persecution as a potential asylum ground.
Asylum requires a “well-founded” fear of being persecuted. But not just any persecution will do. The persecution has to occur for one of five specific reasons — your race, your religion, your nationality, your political opinion, or what the law calls your “particular social group.” Gender is notably missing from this list.
That omission is not surprising. U.S. asylum laws, like those of most other western countries, track the language of an international refugee convention that was adopted in 1951. Gender-related violence was simply not on the public radar at that time.
But it is now 2019. The historical excuse will no longer wash. With women’s marches, the MeToo movement, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process and women’s stunning midterm electoral successes, gender-related violence is now part of our national consciousness.
Without specific congressional recognition of gender-based persecution, women and girls fleeing the most horrific violence imaginable have had to argue that they will be persecuted because of their “particular social group.” Today that is easier said than done. The nation’s highest administrative tribunal that decides asylum claims — the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals — has been adding more andmore roadblocks to asylum claims that are based on “particular social group.”
This was not always the case. In 1985, the board defined “particular social group” as one in which membership is “immutable.” Gender, of course, meets that definition.
The immutability test makes perfect sense. If you will be persecuted only because of an innocuous characteristic that you can easily change, then you don’t need asylum. But if that characteristic cannot be changed, you have no other practical way to protect yourself. The immutability test thus allows asylum for those who need it and withholds it from those who don’t.
Justice constraints are harmful, irrational
But the board could not leave well enough alone. Along the way it invented two additional requirements. One is “social distinction.” If you claim persecution because of your membership in a “particular social group,” you must now prove that your home society describes that class of individuals as a “group.” Second, you must now prove what the board calls “particularity.” By this it means you must prove that your home society can figure out whether hypothetical other individuals are members of the group.
There are only four problems with those requirements: The board has no convincing legal authority to impose them. No one really understands what they mean. They are nearly impossible to prove. And they make no policy sense: why should the U.S. decision whether to grant asylum to someone depend on whether her home society thinks of the particular class as a “group,” or on whether the home society can tell which other individuals belong to that “group”?
Last June, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions made this bad situation worse. Overruling board precedent, he announced that, henceforth, anyone fleeing domestic violence (or, for that matter anyone fleeing gang violence) will “generally” be unable to prove either social distinction or particularity and therefore should be denied asylum. Although a federal court has blocked that decision for now, the Supreme Court will likely determine its ultimate fate.
But the problems go beyond that specific case. First, the artificial constraints that the board has imposed for all claims based on “particular social group” are both harmful and irrational. Second, it is only because gender is not on Congress’s list of specifically protected grounds that women and girls have had to fit their claims into “particular social group” in the first place.
Women would still prove need for asylum
What arguments could possibly be made for protecting people from racial or religious persecution but not from gender persecution?
Perhaps the fear is that domestic violence is too endemic, that allowing asylum would open the floodgates. We need not worry, for a woman or girl fleeing domestic violence has multiple legal burdens that minimize the numbers: She must prove that her fear is both genuine and well-founded, that the harm she fears is severe, that her government is unable or unwilling to protect her, that no place anywhere in her country would be safe, and — even if gender is added to the list — that the persecution will be inflicted because of her gender. These are all high bars, and proof requires meticulous, persuasive documentation. Canada has recognized domestic violence asylum claims since the 1990s, and no floodgates have opened.
The U.S. cannot singlehandedly eradicate all violence against women and girls — even here at home. But we can at least avoid being an accomplice. When women and girls arrive at our shores asking only that they not be beaten, raped or murdered, delivering them to their tormentors is not an option. Congress should restore the original meaning of “particular social group,” and it should recognize that gender, like race and religion, belongs in the list of specifically protected grounds.
Stephen Legomsky is a professor emeritus at the Washington University School of Law, the principal author of “Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy,” and the former Chief Counsel of US Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama Administration.
**********************************************
Steve is absolutely right! This needs a legislative solution. And, while they are at it, Congress also needs to insulate the Immigration Court against future bureaucratic and political shenanigans by creating an independent Article I Immigration Court with a merit-based judicial selection system.
Not coincidentally, the BIA added the intentionally unduly restrictive “particularity” and “social distinction” (formerly “social visibility”) requirements (remarkably, without dissent or even full en banc treatment) only after a group of BIA Judges, including me, who understood both asylum law and women’s rights, and weren’t afraid to vote accordingly, had been removed by Attorney General Ashcroft in a bogus and disingenuous politically motivated “downsizing” following the election of President George W. Bush in 2000. Since then, asylum seekers generally have had a hard time finding justice at the “captive” and politically controlled BIA.
And, the situation has become critical following the tenure of the White Nationalist, misogynist political hack Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Sessions abandoned even the pretense of fairness, deliberation, impartiality, and judicial temperament in his anti-asylum, anti-Due-Process, anti-women campaign to rewrite the law to fit his preconceived White Nationalist xenophobic agenda — one that he (understandably & fortunately) never was able to push through Congress during his tenure as a Senator.
WHY NIELSEN’S LATEST ATTACK ON REFUGEES COULD BACKFIRE
“The Devil is in the Details.” Typical for this group of incompetents, nobody at DHS or in the Mexican Government actually appears to be ready to implement this “historic change.”
Expect chaos. After all, the ink wasn’t even dry on Judge Sullivan’s order in Grace v. Whitaker for USCIS to rewrite its credible fear “Policy Memorandum” to comply with law. Want to bet on whether the “credible fear” interviews in Mexico or at the border will be lawful? How about the reaction of Judge Sullivan if they ignore his order? (Nielsen and her fellow scofflaws might want to consult with Gen. Flynn on that one. This is one judge with limited patience for high level Government officials who run roughshod over the law, are in contempt of court, or perjure themselves.)
By screwing around with procedures, the Administration opens itself up for systemic challenges in more U.S. District Courts instead of being able to limit litigation to Courts of Appeals on petitions to review individual removal orders.
Every “panic attack” by this Administration on the rule of law and the most vulnerable energizes more legal opposition. And, it’s not just within the immigration bar and NGOs any more. “Big Law” and many of the brightest recent graduates of top law schools across the country are getting involved in the “New Due Process Army.”
By concentrating asylum applicants at a limited number of ports of entry, pro bono legal groups could actually find it easier to represent almost all applicants.
Representation of asylum seekers generally improves results, sometimes by as much as 5X.
It could be easier for individuals who are free and authorized to work in Mexico to obtain counsel and prepare their cases than it is for individuals detained in substandard conditions in obscure locations in the U.S.
Freed of the intentionally coercive and demoralizing effects of DHS detention, more applicants will be willing to fully litigate their claims, including taking available administrative and judicial appeals.
As more cases reach the Courts of Appeals (primarily in the 5th & 9th Circuits) more “real” Article III Judges will “have their eyes opened” to the absolute travesty that passes for “justice” and “due process” in the Immigration Courts under Trump.
Shoddily reasoned “precedents” from the BIA and the AG are already failing in the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Three “bit the dust” just within the last week. Expect this trend to accelerate.
The 5th and 9th Circuits will find their dockets overwhelmed with Not Quite Ready For Prime Time (“NQRFPT”) cases “dumped” on them by DOJ and EOIR and are likely to react accordingly.
The last massive assault on Due Process in Immigration Court by the DOJ under Ashcroft basically caused a “mini-rebellion” in the Article III Courts. There were numerous “remands for redos” and Circuit Court rulings harshly reversing and publicly criticizing overly restrictive treatment of asylum cases by Immigration Judges and the BIA, particularly in the area of credibility determinations. Expect the Circuit Courts to “reverse and revise” many of the current anti-asylum precedents from the BIA and the AG.
With almost universal representation, a level playing field supervised by Article III Courts, and all Immigration Judges actually forced to fairly apply the generous standards for asylum enunciated by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and by the BIA in the (oft cited but seldom actually applied) Matter of Mogharrabi, I wouldn’t be surprised to see grant rates for Northern Triangle applicants exceed 50% (where most experts believe they belong).
Overall, there’s a respectable chance that the end result of this ill-conceived policy will be an exposure of the rampant fraud, intellectual dishonesty, and disregard for the true rule of law in this Administration’s treatment of bona fide asylum seekers.
Inevitably, however, asylum seekers will continue to die in Mexico while awaiting hearings. DHS politicos probably will find themselves on a regular basis before enraged House Committees attempting to justify their deadly, cruel, and incompetent policies. This will be a “culture shock” for those used to the “hear no evil, see no evil” attitude of the GOP House.
The Administration appears to have “designed” another of their “built to fail” systems. If they shift the necessary Immigration Judges to the border, the 1.1 million backlog elsewhere will continue to mushroom. If they work on the backlog, the “border waiting line” will grow, causing extreme pressure from the Mexican Government, Congress, and perhaps the Article III Courts. Every death of an asylum seeker (there were three just within the last week or so) will be laid at DHS’s feet.
NOTE TO THE NDPA:
The outstanding historical analysis by Judge Emmet Sullivan in Grace v. Whitaker illustrates what we already know: For years, the Executive Branch through EOIR has been intentionally applying “unduly restrictive standards” to asylum seekers to artificially reduce the number of grants in violation of both the Refugee Act of 1980 and our international obligations. This disingenuous treatment has particularly targeted bona fide asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, those asserting claims based on a “particular social group,” unrepresented individuals, women, and children.
Worse yet, this totally cynical and disingenuous Administration is using the intentionally and unlawfully “skewed system” and “illegal denials” as well as just downright fabricated statistics and knowingly false narratives to paint a bogus picture of asylum seekers and their lawyers as the “abusers” and the Government as the “defenders of the rule of law.” What poppycock, when we all know the exact opposite is the real truth! Only courageous (mostly pro bono) lawyers and some conscientious judges at both the Immigration Court and Article III levels are standing up for the real rule of law against a scofflaw Administration and its outrageous plan to send genuine refugees back into harm’s way.
Nowhere in the racially charged xenophobic actions and rhetoric of Trump, Sessions, and Whitaker, nor in the intentionally derogatory and demonstrably dishonest rhetoric of Nielsen, nor in the crabbed, intentionally overly restrictive interpretations of asylum law by today’s BIA is there even a hint of the generous humanitarian letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or the “non-narrow” interpretation of “particular social group” so well described and documented by Judge Sullivan. On the contrary, we can well imagine folks like this gleefully and self-righteously pushing the refugee vessel St. Louis out to sea or happily slamming the door in the face of desperate Jewish refugees from Europe who would later die in the Holocaust.
Now is the time to force the Article III Courts and Congress to confront this Administration’s daily violations of law and human rights. We can develop favorable case precedents in the Article III Courts, block unethical and intentionally illegal interference by the Attorney General with Due Process in Immigration Court, and advocate changes in the law and procedures that will finally require the Executive Branch and the Immigration Courts to live up to the abandoned but still valid promise of “becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all.” And, the “all” certainly includes the most vulnerable among us: refugees claiming asylum!
In the end, through a combination of the ballot box, Congress, the Article III Courts, and informed public opinion we will be able to thwart the rancid White Nationalist immigration agenda of this Administration and return honest, reasonable Government that works within the Constitution and governs in the overall best interests of our country to the United States.
Thanks for all you do! Keep fighting the “good fight!”
Go for it!
Due Process Forever! Scofflaw Administration Never!
The House GOP’s near-total abdication of any oversight role has done more than just shield President Trump on matters involving his finances and Russian collusion. It has also resulted in almost no serious scrutiny of the true depths of cruelty, inhumanity and bad-faith rationalization driving important aspects of Trump’s policyagenda — in particular, on his signature issue of immigration.
That’s about to change.
In an interview with me, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee vowed that when Democrats take over in January, they will undertake thorough and wide-ranging scrutiny of the justifications behind — and executions of — the top items in Trump’s immigration agenda, from the family separations, to the thinly veiled Muslim ban, to the handling of the current turmoil involving migrants at the border.
“We will visit the border,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who is expected to chair the committee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, told me. “We will hold hearings in committee on any and all aspects of DHS. … We will not back off of this issue.”
This oversight — which could result in calling for testimony from Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigration agenda — will include scrutiny of the administration’s justifications for its policies. Importantly, Thompson tells me Democrats will seek to grill officials on what went into Trump’s public statements on various aspects of the issue, many of which are falsehoods.
Migrant caravan crisis escalates with tear gas at border fence
U.S. authorities fired tear gas at members of a Central American migrant caravan who had rushed the fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico on Nov. 25.(Video: Drea Cornejo , Blair Guild/Photo: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters/The Washington Post)
To be clear, Trump has used these rationales to justify actual policies with real-world impact, such as the effort to cruelly restrict asylum-applications to only official points of entry. Trump has also threatened a total border shutdown. Hearings could reveal that the justifications are nonsense, and spotlight their true arbitrary and cruel nature (putting aside for now that their real motive is ethno-nationalism).
“All this innuendo we hear about criminals coming in the caravan, we just want to know, how did you validate this?” Thompson told me, adding that DHS officials would be called on in hearings to account for Trump’s claims. “Policy has to be backed up with evidence. So we will do rigorous oversight.”
This will also include a look at the recent tear-gassing of migrants, and the administration’s public statements about it and justifications, Thompson said. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has defended the fact that tear gas appears to have impacted children by claiming they were used as “human shields.”
The use of the military as a prop
Thompson said such scrutiny could dovetail with an examination of Trump’s use of the military at the border as campaign propaganda, though that might involve the House Armed Services Committee. “We have to get full disclosure in a public setting or a classified setting,” Thompson said. “Under no circumstances will we not get information.”
The overall goal, Thompson said, will be this: “As a nation of immigrants ourselves, we want to make sure that our process of immigration that includes asylum-seekers is constitutional and represents American values.”
Family separations and the travel ban
Thompson told me the committee would also look at the process leading up to the travel ban, which proceeded despite the fact that two internal Homeland Security analyses undercut its national security rationale.
Democrats can demand that DHS officials justify that policy. “What did you use to come up with this travel ban? How did you select these countries?” Thompson said, previewing the inquiry and vowing subpoenas if necessary. “We will ask for any written documentation that went towards putting the ban in place, what individuals were consulted, and what the process consisted of.”
Thompson also said the run-up to the implementation of the family separation policy and its rationale would receive similar scrutiny, as well as at the conditions under which children have been held, such as the reported Texas “tent city.” “Somebody is going to have to come in and tell us, ‘Is this the most efficient way to manage the situation?’” Thompson said. But also: “How did we get here in the first place?”
What can Democrats do?
One big question: What will House Democrats do legislatively against such policies? Thompson told me the goal is to secure cooperation with DHS, but in cases where the agency continues policies that Democrats deem terribly misguided or serious abuses, they can try to legislate against them. That would run headlong into Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate, at which point one could see discussion of targeted defunding of certain policies, though whether that will happen or what that might look like remains to be seen.
“As far as I’m concerned, no option is off the table,” Thompson said. Some more moderate House Democrats who won tougher districts might balk at such a stance, but Thompson said: “Every committee has responsibilities, and we have to carry them out.”
The big story here is that Trump has relied on the outright dismissal of his own administration’s factual determinations to justify many policies, not just on immigration, but also with his drive to weaken efforts to combat global warming despite the big report warning of the dire threats it poses.
The administration will strenuously resist Democratic oversight, and I don’t want to overstate what it can accomplish. But House Democrats must at least try to get into the fight against Trump’s war on facts and empiricism wherever possible. And when it comes to the humanitarian crises Trump has wrought on immigration, this is particularly urgent.
*********************************
Finally, some much-needed, long-overdue accountability, fact-finding, and truth about Trump’s intentionally cruel and usually lawless immigration policies and those sycophants and toadies who implement them and egg him on. No, it won’t necessarily change things overnight. But, having some “pushback” and setting the factual record straight for further action is an important first step. And, I hope that the absolutely avoidable politically created mess in the U.S. Immigration Courts, and their disgraceful abandonment of Due Process as their sole focus, is high on the oversight list!
Sophia Genovese, Sept. 10, 2018 – “US asylum law is nuanced, at times contradictory, and ever-changing. As brief background, in order to be granted asylum, applicants must show that they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and that they are unable or unwilling to return to, or avail themselves of the protection of, their country of origin owing to such persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) & (2). Attorneys constantly grapple with the ins and outs of asylum law, especially in light of recent, dramatic changes to asylum adjudication.
Even with legal representation, the chances of being granted asylum are slim. In FY 2017, only 45% asylum-seekers who had an attorney were ultimately granted asylum. Imagine, then, an asylum-seeker fleeing persecution, suffering from severe trauma, and arriving in a foreign land where he or she suddenly has to become a legal expert in order to avoid being sent back to certain death. For most, this is nearly impossible, where in FY 2017, only 10% of those unrepresented successfully obtained asylum.
It is important to remember that while asylum-seekers have a right to obtain counsel at their own expense, they are not entitled to government-appointed counsel. INA § 240(b)(4)(A). Access to legal representation is critical for asylum-seekers. However, most asylum-seekers, especially those in detention, go largely unrepresented in their asylum proceedings, where only 15% of all detained immigrants have access to an attorney. For those detained in remote areas, that percentage is even lower.
Given this inequity, I felt compelled to travel to a remote detention facility in Folkston, GA and provide pro bono legal assistance to detained asylum-seekers in their bond and parole proceedings. I travelled along with former supervisors turned mentors, Jessica Greenberg and Deirdre Stradone, Staff Attorneys at African Services Committee(ASC)/Immigrant Community Law Center (ICLC), along with Lucia della Paolera, a volunteer interpreter. Our program was organized and led by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI). SIFI currently only represents detained asylum-seekers in their bond and parole proceedings in order to assist as many folks as possible in obtaining release. Their rationale is that since bond and parole representation take up substantially less time than asylum representation, that they can have a far greater impact in successfully obtaining release for several hundred asylum-seekers, who can hopefully thereafter obtain counsel to represent them in their asylum proceedings.
Folkston is extremely remote. It is about 50 miles northwest of Jacksonville, FL, and nearly 300 miles from Atlanta, GA, where the cases from the Folkston ICE Processing Center are heard. Instead of transporting detained asylum-seekers and migrants to their hearings at the Atlanta Immigration Court, Immigration Judges (IJs) appear via teleconference. These proceedings lack any semblance to due process. Rather, through assembly-line adjudication, IJs hear several dozens of cases within the span of a few hours. On court days, I witnessed about twenty men get shuffled into a small conference room to speak with the IJ in front of a small camera. The IJ only spends a few minutes on each case, and then the next twenty men get shuffled into the same room. While IJs may spend a bit more time with detainees during their bond or merits hearings, the time spent is often inadequate, frequently leading to unjust results.
Even with the tireless efforts of the Staff Attorneys and volunteers at SIFI, there are simply too few attorneys to help every detainee at the Folkston ICE Processing Center, which houses almost 900 immigrants at any given time, leaving hundreds stranded to navigate the confusing waters of immigration court alone.
During initial screenings, I encountered numerous individuals who filled out their asylum applications on their own. These folks try their best using the internet in the library to translate the application into their native language, translate their answers into English, and then hand in their I-589s to the IJ. But as any practitioner will tell you, so much more goes into an asylum application than the Form I-589. While these asylum seekers are smart and resourceful, it is nearly impossible for one to successfully pursue one’s own asylum claim. To make matters worse, if these asylum-seekers do not obtain release from detention ahead of their merits hearing where an IJ will adjudicate their asylum claim, they will be left to argue their claims in the Atlanta Immigration Court, where 95%-98% of all asylum claims are denied. For those detained and/or unrepresented, that number is nearly 100%.
Despite the Attorney General’s most recent comments that lawyers are not following the letter of the law when advocating on behalf of asylum-seekers, it is clear that it is the IJs, [tasked with fairly applying the law, and DHS officials, tasked with enforcing the law,] who are the ones seeking to circumvent the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Throughout the Trump era, immigration attorneys have faithfully upheld asylum law and have had to hold the government accountable in its failure to apply the law fairly. Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day to vindicate the rights of their clients pursuant to the INA, contrary to Sessions’ assertions.
But more importantly, asylum-seekers have suffered from serious human rights abuses and merit protection under our laws. Their cases are not denied because they are not bona fide. Their cases are not denied because they do not qualify as refugees under the INA. Indeed, most of these asylum-seekers were found to possess a credible fear of return upon their initial apprehension. Through a combination of lack of access to counsel, unfair and uneven adjudication by IJs, and impermissible interference by the Attorney General, credible and bona fide cases are frequently denied.
We’ve previously blogged about the due process concerns in immigration courts under Sessions’ tenure. Instead, I want to highlight the stories of some of the asylum-seekers I met in Folkston. If these individuals do not obtain counsel for the bond or parole proceedings, and/or if they are denied release, they will be forced to adjudicate their claims in the Atlanta Immigration Court where they will almost certainly be ordered removed. It is important that we understand who it is that we’re actually deporting. Through sharing their stories, I want to demonstrate to others just how unfair our asylum system is. Asylum was meant to protect these people. Instead, we treat them as criminals by detaining them, do not provide them with adequate access to legal representation, and summarily remove them from the United States. Below are their stories:
Twenty-Five Year Old From Honduras Who Had Been Sexually Assaulted on Account of His Sexual Orientation
At the end of my first day in Folkston, I was asked to inform an individual, Mr. J-, that SIFI would be representing him in his bond proceedings. He’s been in detention since March 2018 and cried when I told him that we were going to try and get him out on bond.
Mr. J- looks like he’s about sixteen, and maybe weighs about 100 pounds. Back home in Honduras, he was frequently ridiculed because of his sexual orientation. Because he is rather small, this ridicule often turned into physical assault by other members of his community, including the police. One day when Mr. J- was returning from the store, he was stopped by five men from his neighborhood who started berating him on account of his sexual orientation. These men proceeded to sexually assault him, one by one, until he passed out. These men warned Mr. J- not to go to the police, or else they would find him and kill him. Mr. J- knew that the police would not help him even if he did report the incident. These men later tracked down Mr. J-’s cellphone number, and continued to harass and threaten him. Fearing for his life, Mr. J- fled to the United States.
Mr. J-’s asylum claim is textbook and ought to be readily granted. However, given Sessions’ recent unilateral change in asylum law based on private acts of violence, Mr. J- will have to fight an uphill battle to ultimately prevail. See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). If released on bond, Mr. J- plans to move in with his uncle, a US citizen, who resides in Florida. Mr. J-’s case will then be transferred to the immigration court in Miami. Although the Immigration Court in Miami similarly has high denial rates, where nearly 90% of all asylum claims are ultimately denied, Mr. J- will at least have a better chance of prevailing there than he would in Atlanta.
Indigenous Mayan from Guatemala Who Was Targeted on Account of His Success as a Businessman
During my second day, I met with an indigenous Mayan from Guatemala, Mr. S-. He holds a Master’s degree in Education, owned a restaurant back home, and was the minister at his local church. He had previously worked in agriculture pursuant to an H-2B visa in Iowa, and then returned to Guatemala when the visa expired to open his business.
He fled Guatemala earlier this year on account of his membership in a particular social group. One night after closing his restaurant, he was thrown off his motorcycle by several men who believes were part of a local gang. They beat him and threatened to kill him and his family if he did not give them a large sum of money. They specifically targeted Mr. S- because he was a successful businessman. They warned him not to go to the police or else they would find out and kill him. The client knew that the police would not protect him from this harm on account of his ethnic background as an indigenous Mayan. The day of the extortionists’ deadline to pay, Mr. S- didn’t have the money to pay them off, and was forced to flee or face a certain death.
Mr. S- has been in immigration detention since March. The day I met with him at the end of August was the first time he had been able to speak to an attorney.
Mr. S-’s prospects for success are uncertain. Even prior to the recent decision in Matter of A-B-, asylum claims based on the particular social group of “wealthy businessmen” were seldom granted. See, e.g., Lopez v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2017); Dominguez-Pulido v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 837, 845 (7th Cir. 2016) (“wealth, standing alone, is not an immutable characteristic of a cognizable social group”); but see, Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) (confirming that although wealth standing alone is not an immutable characteristic, the Respondent’s combined attributes of wealth, education status, and cattle rancher, satisfied the particular social group requirements). However, if Mr. S- can show that he was also targeted on account of his indigenous Mayan ancestry, he can perhaps also raise an asylum claim based on his ethnicity. The combination of his particular social group and ethnicity may be enough to entitle him to relief. See, e.g., Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 760 F.3d 80, 90 (1st Cir. 2014) (Respondent demonstrated that his “Mayan Quiché identity was ‘at least one central reason’ why he” was persecuted).
As business immigration attorneys may also point out, if Mr. S- can somehow locate an employer in the US to sponsor him, he may be eligible for employment-based relief based on his Master’s degree, prior experience working in agriculture, and/or his business acumen on account of his successful restaurant management. Especially if Mr. S- is not released on bond and forced to adjudicate his claims in the Atlanta Immigration Court where asylum denial rates are high, his future attorney may also want to explore these unorthodox strategies.
Indigenous Mam-Speaking Guatemalan Persecuted on Account of His Race, Religion, and Particular Social Group
My third day, I met with Mr. G-, an indigenous Mam from Guatemala. Mr. G- is an incredibly devout Evangelical Christian and one of the purest souls I have ever met. He has resisted recruitment by rival gangs in his town and has been severely beaten because of his resistance. He says his belief in God and being a good person is why he has resisted recruitment. He did not want to be responsible for others’ suffering. The local gangs constantly assaulted Mr. G- due to his Mam heritage, his religion, and his resistance of them. He fled to the US to escape this persecution.
Mr. G- only speaks Mam, an ancient Mayan dialect. He does not speak Spanish. Because of this, he was unable to communicate with immigration officials about his credible fear of return to his country upon his initial arrival in November 2017. Fortunately, the USCIS asylum officer deferred Mr. G-’s credible fear interview until they could locate a Mam translator. However, one was never located, and he has been in immigration detention ever since.
August 29, 2018, nine months into his detention, was the first time he was able to speak to an attorney through an interpreter that spoke his language. Mr. G- was so out of the loop with what was going on, that he did not even know what the word “asylum” meant. For nine months, Mr. G- had to wait to find out what was going on and why he was in detention. My colleague, Jessica, and I, spoke with him for almost three hours. We could not provide him with satisfactory answers about whether SIFI would be able to take his case, and when or if he would be let out of detention. Given recent changes in the law, we couldn’t tell him if his asylum claim would ultimately prevail.
Mr. G- firmly stated that he will be killed if he was forced to go back to Guatemala. He said that if his asylum claim is denied, he will have to put his faith in God to protect him from what is a certain death. He said God is all he has.
Even without answers, this client thanked us until he was blue in the face. He said he did not have any money to pay us but wanted us to know how grateful he was for our help and that he would pray for us. Despite the fact that his life was hanging in the balance, he was more concerned about our time and expense helping him. He went on and on for several minutes about his gratitude. It was difficult for us to hold back tears.
Mr. G- is the reason asylum exists, but under our current framework, he will almost certainly be deported, especially if he cannot locate an attorney. Mr. G- has an arguable claim under Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, on account of his Mam heritage, and an arguable claim on account of his Evangelical Christianity, given that Mr. G-’s persecution was compounded by his visible Mam ethnicity and vocal Evangelical beliefs. His resistance to gang participation will be difficult to overcome, though, as the case law on the subject is primarily negative. See, e.g., Bueso-Avila v. Holder, 663 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding insufficient evidence that MS-13 targeted Petitioner on account of his Christian beliefs, finding instead that the evidence supported the conclusion that the threats were based on his refusal to join the gang, which is not a protected ground). Mr. G-’s low prospects of success are particularly heart-wrenching. When we as a country fail to protect those seeking refuge from persecution, especially those fleeing religious persecution, we destroy the very ideals upon which this country was founded.
Twenty-Year Old Political Activist From Honduras, Assaulted by Military Police on Account of His Political Opinion
I also assisted in the drafting of a bond motion for a 20 year-old political activist from Honduras, Mr. O-, who had been severely beaten by the military police on account of his political opinion and activism.
Mr. O- was a prominent and vocal member of an opposition political group in Honduras. During the November 2017 Honduran presidential elections, Mr. O- assisted members of his community to travel to the polling stations. When election officials closed the polls too early, Mr. O- reached out to military police patrolling the area to demand that they re-open the polling stations so Hondurans could rightfully cast their votes. The military police became angry with Mr. O-’s insistence and began to beat him by stomping and kicking him, leaving him severely wounded. Mr. O- reported the incident to the police, but was told there was nothing they could do.
A few weeks later, Mr. O- was specifically targeted again by the military police when he was on his way home from a political meeting. The police pulled him from his car and began to beat him, accusing him of being a rioter. He was told to leave the country or else he would be killed. He was also warned that if he went to the national police, that he would be killed. Fearing for his life, Mr. O- fled to the US in April 2018 and has been in detention ever since.
SIFI was able to take on his bond case in August, and by the end of my trip, the SIFI team had submitted his request for bond. Since Mr. O-’s asylum claim is particularly strong, and because he has family in the US, it is highly likely that his bond will be granted. From there, we can only hope that he encounters an IJ that appropriately follows the law and will grant him asylum.”
(The author thanks Jessica Greenberg and Deirdre Stradone for their constant mentorship as well as providing the author the opportunity to go to Folkston. The author also thanks Lucia della Paolera for her advocacy, passion, and critical interpretation assistance. Finally, the author expresses the utmost gratitude to the team at SIFI, who work day in and day out to provide excellent representation to the detained migrants and asylum-seekers detained at Folkston ICE Processing Center.)
Photos from my trip to Folkston, GA:
The Folkston ICE Processing Center.
Downtown Folkston, GA.
Volunteers from Left to Right: Sophia Genovese (author), Deirdre Stradone (Staff Attorney at African Services Committee), Jessica Greenberg (Staff Attorney at ASC/ICLC), and Lucia della Paolera (volunteer interpreter).
Many thanks to the incomparable Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for forwarding this terrific and timely piece! These are the kinds of individuals that Jeff Sessions would like Immigration Judges to sentence to death or serious harm without Due Process and contrary to asylum and protection law.
As Sophia cogently points out, since the beginning of this Administration it has been private lawyers, most serving pro bono or “low bono,” who have been courageously fighting to uphold our Constitution and the rule of law from the cowardly scofflaw White Nationalist attacks by Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, and the rest of the outlaws. In a significant number of cases, the Article III Federal Courts have agreed and held the scofflaws at least legally (if not yet personally) accountable.
Like any bully, Sessions resents having to follow the law and having higher authorities tell him what to do. He has repeatedly made contemptuous, disingenuous legal arguments and presented factual misrepresentations in support of his lawless behavior and only grudgingly complied with court orders. He has disrespectfully and condescendingly lectured the courts about his authority and their limited role in assuring that the Constitution and the law are upheld. That’s why he loves lording it over the US Immigration Courts where he is simultaneously legislator, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, appellate court, and executioner in violation of common sense and all rules of legal ethics.
But, Sessions will be long gone before most of you new US Immigration Judges will be. He and his “go along to get along enablers” certainly will be condemned by history as the “21st Century Jim Crows.” Is that how you want to be remembered — as part of a White Nationalist movement that essentially is committed to intentional cruelty, undermining our Constitution, and disrespecting the legal and human rights and monumental contributions to our country of people of color and other vulnerable groups?
Every US Immigration Judge has a chance to stand up and be part of the solution rather than the problem. Do you have the courage to follow the law and the Constitution and to treat asylum applicants and other migrants fairly and impartially, giving asylum applicants the benefit of the doubt as intended by the framers of the Convention? Will you take the necessary time to carefully consider, research, deliberate, and explain each decision to get it right (whether or not it meets Sessions’s bogus “quota system”)? Will you properly factor in all of the difficulties and roadblocks intentionally thrown up by this Administration to disadvantage and improperly deter asylum seekers? Will you treat all individuals coming before you with dignity, kindness, patience, and respect regardless of the ultimate disposition of their cases. This is the “real stuff of genuine judging,” not just being an “employee.”
Or will you, as Sessions urges, treat migrants as “fish in a barrel” or “easy numbers,” unfairly denying their claims for refuge without ever giving them a real chance. Will you prejudge their claims and make false imputations of fraud, with no evidence, as he has? Will you give fair hearings and the granting of relief under our laws the same urgency that Sessions touts for churning out more removal orders. Will you resist Sessions’s disingenuous attempt to shift the blame for the existing mess in the Immigration Courts from himself, his predecessors, the DHS, and Congress, where it belongs, to the individuals and their attorneys coming before you in search of justice (and also, of course, to you for not working hard enough to deny more continuances, cut more corners, and churn out more rote removal orders)?
How will history judge you and your actions, humanity, compassion, understanding, scholarship, attention to detail, willingness to stand up for the rights of the unpopular, and values, in a time of existential crisis for our nation and our world?
Your choice. Choose wisely. Good luck. Do great things!
IN THE 1990s, the United States was among the first countries to start granting sanctuary to LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution stemming from their sexual orientation or gender identity in their home countries. Now the Trump administration, intent on turning back the clock on almost every major facet of immigration policy, is increasingly complicit in their mistreatment.
As administration officials have intensified their efforts to hollow out the asylum system — narrowing eligibility criteria, creating bottlenecks for would-be asylum seekers at legal ports of entry and tearing apart families as a means of deterring future applicants — LGBTQ individuals have suffered inordinately. That is particularly true in the case of those from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Central America where sexual and gender-based violence is pervasive.
There are no statistics to indicate that LGBTQ asylum seekers are refused admittance to the United States more (or less) frequently than other applicants, though the rate at which migrants of all sorts are granted asylum seems to be plummeting because of the administration’s policies. However, sending LGBTQ migrants back across the southwestern border to Mexico subjects them to heightened risks: According to the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees, two-thirds of such individuals reported that they had suffered sexual or gender-based violence in Mexico after entering that country.
In the case of those deported to their countries of origin in the Northern Triangle, their fates are often even worse. A report last year from the rights group Amnesty International said LGBTQ deportees were effectively “sent back to hell,” based on the horrific conditions from which they fled in the first place. The UNHCR reported that 88 percent of LGBTQ asylum seekers had been victims of sexual and gender-based violence in their countries of origin.
Police and other law enforcement authorities in Central America and Mexico are often indifferent, and frequently overtly hostile, to the fate of LGBTQ individuals. A 34-year-old transgender woman interviewed by Amnesty International said she had fled El Salvador after receiving threats from a police officer who lived near her; when she tried to report him, she said, “the response was that they were going to lock me and my partner up.” She finally fled to Mexico, where she was harassed and abused by officials before finally being granted refugee status.
Another Salvadoran transgender woman interviewed by Amnesty International said that after reaching the United States, she was detained for more than three months in a cell with men — “they never took account of my sexuality or that I was trans.” (Immigration and Customs Enforcement sometimes, but not always, detains transgender women in a dedicated facility whose capacity is 60 beds.)
To qualify for asylum in the United States, migrants must prove they are subject to persecution in their home countries based on specific criteria, including identification with a particular social group, and that the government is either complicit in their mistreatment or powerless to stop it. By any reasonable assessment, many or most LGBTQ asylum seekers meet those criteria.
*******************************************
The qualification of LGBTQ individuals for asylum was established more than two decades ago by the BIA’s decision in Matter of Tobaso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. 819 (BIA 1990, 1994).
Since then, scores of well-documented LGBTQ asylum cases have been granted by the USCIS Asylum Office and in Immigration Court. Indeed, in the Arlington Immigration Court the cases were so well-documented by the counsel for the respondents that most could be “pre-tried” between the Assistant Chief Counsel and respondent’s counsel and placed on the Immigration Court’s “short docket” for brief hearings and granting of asylum.
Like refugees fleeing domestic violence, I found these cases to involve some of the most badly abused, most deserving, most grateful, and potentially most productive refugees that I dealt with over my many decades of involvement in t he U.S. refugee and asylum systems.
Once again, the biased, racist, White Nationalism of Trump, Sessions and their cronies have taken a well-working part of the asylum system and made it problematic.
Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a sweeping ruling that threatened to radically narrow the standards by which people fleeing domestic or gang violence could claim asylum in the US — or even be allowed to stay in the country to plead their case.
But an internal memo sent to the people actually responsible for implementing Sessions’s ruling at the border, and obtained exclusively by Vox, indicates that Sessions’s revolution isn’t as radical as it seemed — at least not yet.
That could be very good news for parents separated from their children, who will have to face an asylum screening to be allowed to stay in the US in immigration detention after they are criminally charged and convicted under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy.
The memo obtained by Vox was written by John L. Lafferty, the head of the Asylum Division for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, on Wednesday, June 13, two days after Sessions’s ruling in Matter of A- B- was released. It’s labeled “Interim Guidance” for asylum officers — the people in charge of conducting interviews for asylum and “credible fear” screening interviews for migrants at the border that determine whether they’ll be allowed to stay in the US and pursue an asylum claim.
As the “Interim” label suggests, Lafferty’s memo makes it clear that USCIS will be issuing more directives to asylum officers as it continues to analyze Sessions’s ruling. But in the meantime, it doesn’t dictate sweeping changes to asylum standards.
Michael Bars, a spokesperson for USCIS, told Vox, “Asylum and credible fear claims have skyrocketed across the board in recent years largely because individuals know they can exploit a broken system to enter the U.S., avoid removal, and remain in the country. This exacerbates delays and undermines those with legitimate claims. USCIS is carefully reviewing proposed changes to asylum and credible fear processing whereby every legal means is being considered to protect the integrity of our immigration system from fraudulent claims — the Attorney General’s decision will be implemented as soon as possible.”
But the initial implementation doesn’t appear to be quite as aggressive as that rhetoric implies.
“While the Attorney General made some very sweeping assertions in Matter of A-B-, including as to what he thinks would happen to the claims of different kinds of asylum seekers under this ruling, the legal holding of this case is considerably narrower,” said Anwen Hughes, a lawyer for the advocacy group Human Rights First, when sent the text of the memo. “This guidance focuses on what the AG’s decision actually held.”
Sessions’s ruling declared, “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.” That language isn’t replicated in the memo — which urges officers to deal with claims on a case-by-case basis.
The only specific change the memo mandates to asylum policy is for officers to stop citing a past Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, Matter of A-R-C-G-, which found that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” constituted a particular social group — allowing some domestic violence victims to claim asylum based on their persecution as members of that group.
But while A-R-C-G- was the only precedent Sessions explicitly overturned, his ruling also said that “any other” precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals was also moot if it had defined “particular social group” more broadly than Sessions did last week.
The initial implementation memo from USCIS doesn’t mention any such rulings. It emphasizes that officers should make decisions based on two precedents Sessions held up as gooddecisions — both of which denied asylum claims based on gang violence — but doesn’t identify any decisions that are too broad under Sessions’s standards.
That means that for the moment, at least, asylum officers would be able to determine that a victim of domestic or gang violence still deserves asylum — or deserves to plead her asylum case — if there’s another precedent decision that they think fits the case.
The USCIS memo does emphasize that people seeking asylum based on gang violence or any other “private crime” need to demonstrate that the government in their home country “condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim.”
Before Sessions’s ruling, immigrants could claim asylum if they were persecuted by a nonstate group and the government was “unable or unwilling” to prevent it. Technically, that’s still the standard. But Sessions’s formulation about condoning or “complete helplessness” could set the bar higher for what counts as unable or unwilling — especially because his ruling emphasized (in a passage quoted by the implementation memo) that police ignoring crime reports doesn’t mean they’re unable or unwilling to help the victim.
This guidance could be very good news for parents separated from children
The implementation of Sessions’s asylum ruling has real and immediate impacts for asylum seekers — including the thousands of parents who have been separated from their children at the border and prosecuted in recent weeks.
After being prosecuted and sentenced (usually to “time served”), asylum seekers are returned to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. They face “expedited” deportation, without a full immigration court hearing, unless they can demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of persecution and should stay in the US to pursue an asylum claim.
At the moment, the overwhelming majority of people are passing their “credible fear” screenings. Sessions sees this as a sign of widespread fraud and lax standards, and his ruling last week was explicitly written to raise the bar not only for eventual approvals or denials of asylum, but for the initial screenings as well.
If Sessions’s ruling were being interpreted as broadly as possible by USCIS, many parents would likely find it impossible to pass their screening interviews, and would find themselves deported without their children and with little time to locate or contact them. But because USCIS appears to be relatively cautious in its implementation, parents in custody — at least for the moment — appear to have a better shot of staying in the US to pursue their asylum case and reunite with their children.
Of course, asylum claims and initial screenings are both partly up to the discretion of individual asylum officers. It’s totally possible that some asylum offices will interpret this memo as an instruction to get much harsher. But the memo doesn’t force them to do that, at least in its interim form.
The text of the memo obtained by Vox is below.
From: Lafferty, John L
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:20 PM
To: [redacted by Vox]
Subject: Asylum Division Interim Guidance – Matter of A- B-, 27I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018)
Asylum Division colleagues:
I’m sure that most of you have heard and/or read about the decision issued by Attorney General Sessions on Monday in Matter of A- B-, 27I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
Below is our Office of Chief Counsel’s summary of the AG’s decision, which is followed by Asylum’s summaries of two 2014 decisions – Matter of M-E-V-G and Matter of W-G-R- – that were cited by the AG in support of his decision. While we continue to work with our OCC colleagues on final guidance for the field, we are issuing the following interim guidance on how to proceed with decision-making on asylum cases and CF/RF [credible fear/reasonable fear] screening determinations:
Matter of A-R-C-G- has been overruled and can no longer be cited to or relied upon as supporting your decision-making on an asylum case or in a CF/RF determination.
Effective upon issuance of this guidance, no affirmative grant of asylum or positive CF/RF screening determination should be signed off on by a supervisor as legally sufficient, or issued as a final decision/determination, that specifically cites to or relies upon Matter of A-R-C-G- as justification for the result. Instead, it should be returned to the author for reconsideration consistent with the next bullet.
All pending and future asylum decisions and CF/RF screening determinations finding that the individual has shown persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group must require that the applicant meet the relevant standard by producing evidence that establishes ALL of the following:
A cognizable particular social group that is 1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic; 2) defined with particularity, and 3) socially distinct within the society in question;
Membership in that PSG;
That membership in the PSG was or is a central reason for the past and/or future persecution; and
The harm was and/or will be inflicted by the government or by non-governmental actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.
When the harm is at the hands of a non-governmental actor, the applicant must show that the government condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim. This new decision stresses that, in applying this standard, “[t]he fact that the local police have not acted on a particular report of an individual crime does not necessarily mean that the government is unwilling or unable to control crime, any more than it would in the United States. There may be many reasons why a particular crime is not successfully investigated and prosecuted. Applicants must show not just that the crime has gone unpunished, but that the government is unwilling or unable to prevent it.” A-B- at 337-338. (See RAIO Lesson Plan – Definition of Persecution and Eligibility Based on Past Persecution, Section 4.2 “Entity the Government Is Unable or Unwilling to Control”, for further guidance).
The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.
Every asylum decision and CF/RF screening determination must consider and analyze whether internal relocation would be reasonable, as provided for at 8 CFR 208.
If you have questions on this interim guidance, please raise them up your local chain of command so that they can be brought to the attention of HQ Asylum QA Branch.
Sure, the BIA has worked hard to reject almost every gang-related formulation in the past. But, that’s often 1) without effective representation; 2) without the respondent presenting the necessary specific and voluminous evidence; and 3) by intentionally misconstruing facts — more or less along the lines of Sessions in A-B-.
Keep it simple:
“Women in El Salvador” actually fits well within the BIA’s three PSG criteria and is “at least one central for persecution” in many cases.
“Public opponents of gangs in X Country” also should be a pretty straightforward fit with a proper factual record and specific legal arguments. It also fits the “political” ground if the accurate factual basis is presented and documented effectively.
The reality is that gender is a major reason for persecution all over the world — one of the largest, in fact — and is well within the 1952 Convention’s ambit!Likewise, in countries where all real experts say gangs have infiltrated or in many cases are actually acting in concert with the Government, public opposition represents fundamental values that are limited to a readily identifiable segment of the population for which the punishment is immediate and severe. Likewise, it’s a rather clear case of political persecution, just like “whistleblowers” and “union activists.”
For years, the advocacy community has been willing to cooperate with the Government’s highly restrictive “incremental approach” to protection, because it was showing signs of real, if slow, progress and other viable alternatives such as “prosecutorial discretion” and “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status” were often available. Now, Sessions has intentionally reversed almost all of that progress and “returned us to the Dark Ages” as one expert put it.
So, no more “Mr. Nice Guy!” If it’s war that Sessions & Co. want, why not give it to them? Now is the time to simply “blow the roof off” of the Executive’s overly restrictive, unjustifiable, often disingenuous, confusing, contradictory, and clearly biased misinterpretation of what’s really happening in the Northern Triangle and elsewhere and how international protection laws must and should be applied if they are to have any meaning in the 21st century.
And, forget the bogus “floodgates” arguments. “Christians,” Jews,” “Muslims,” “Blacks,” “Pentecostals” are all potentially huge groups that have been recognized for asylum purposes.
Sure, maybe if forced to interpret the asylum and CAT laws properly Congress with withdraw from all of our international obligations so that nobody gets in. I doubt it. But if it happens, it happens.
At least it will then be out in the open that we are a “bogus” democracy that spreads false myths about our values, but won’t actually live up to them when the going gets tough (which, incidentally and not surprisingly, is also a symptom of “False Christianity”).
Then, maybe when folks figure out that “we aren’t who we say we are,” they will stop coming! Or, we could simply set up machine gun nests along the border and gun down all the unwanted women and children before they can become a burden on our “justice” system. In the end, the results of that might not be lots different from using our asylum and “court” systems as a “deterrent” to those fleeing for their lives. Just more honest about who we really are deep down, when it counts.
This isn’t the first time The Board of Immigration Appeals has considered domestic violence and rejected victims of domestic violence as a particular social group. The Board did it in “Matter of R-A-” in 1999.
The Board held that R-A- was not eligible for asylum for two reasons. First, her claimed social group — “Guatemalan women who have been involved intimately with Guatemalan male companions, who believe that women are to live under male domination” — did not qualify as a “particular social group” for asylum purposes.
And second, that she has not established that her husband abused her because he perceived her to be a member of this group.
Attorney General Janet Reno intervened and vacated that decision — rendered it void — so it could be reconsidered in light of a proposed regulation that would clarify some of these concepts, but no final rule was ever promulgated.
The case was resolved without further consideration by the Board when R-A- and DHS jointly stipulated that she was eligible for asylum. Nevertheless, the Board and the federal courts continued to treat the R-A- analysis as persuasive.
In a later case, “Matter of A-R-C-G-”, the Board abandoned the reasoning from the R-A- analysis and held that depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes. But the finding was based primarily on government concessions, as opposed to basing it on an application of Board precedent.
Sessions found that the Board decided A-R-C-G-’s case without performing the rigorous analysis required by Board precedents by basing its decision on concessions from the DHS attorney that the respondent had suffered past persecution, that she was a member of a qualifying particular social group, and that her membership in that group was a central reason for her persecution instead of adjudicating these issues.
Sessions concluded therefore that A-R-C-G-’s case was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision. Accordingly, he overruled it.
Having overruled A-R-C-G-’s case, he had to vacate the Board’s decision in the A-B- case too. The Board’s cursory analysis of the respondent’s “particular social group” in that case consisted mainly of a general citation to A-R-C-G-’s case and country condition reports.
He remanded the case to the immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, reiterating that an applicant for asylum on account of membership in a particular social group must demonstrate:
Membership in a particular social group that is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct;
That membership in that group is a central reason for the alleged persecution; and
That the alleged harm is inflicted by the government of her home country or by persons that the government is unwilling or unable to control.
The Board decisions applying asylum to domestic abuse victims may be morally correct, but they are legally indefensible.
************************
Read Nolan’s complete article over at The Hill at the above link.
I respectfully dissent. See Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 922 (BIA 1999) (Judge Guendelsberger, dissenting, joined by Schmidt, Chairman, and Judges Rosenberg, Villageliu, Moscato). The “Gang of Five” had it right then and continue to be right today.
I’ve been one of those fighting the battle for a correct interpretation of asylum law, particularly as it applies to abused women and other vulnerable groups, for two decades. It’s discouraging to have to re-fight a war we already won once. But, we’re all going to hang in there until justice and the humane, protective values behind the 1952 Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 prevail. And, after we’re gone, members of the New Due Process Army will continue the fight until justice for the most vulnerable among us prevails.
Michael Scherer & Josh Dawsey report for the Washington Post:
President Trump has calculated that he will gain political leverage in congressional negotiations by continuing to enforce a policy he claims to hate — separating immigrant parents from their young children at the southern border, according to White House officials.
On Friday, Trump suggested he would not change the policy unless Democrats agreed to his other immigration demands, which include funding a border wall, tightening the rules for border enforcement and curbing legal entry. He also is intent on pushing members of his party to vote for a compromise measure that would achieve those long-standing priorities.
Trump’s public acknowledgment that he was willing to let the policy continue as he pursued his political goals came as the president once again blamed Democrats for a policy enacted and touted by his own administration.
“The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda,” he tweeted. After listing his demands in any immigration bill, he added, “Go for it! WIN!”
The attempt to gain advantage from a practice the American Academy of Pediatrics describes as causing children “irreparable harm” sets up a high-stakes gambit for Trump, whose political career has long benefited from harsh rhetoric on immigration.
Democrats have latched onto the issue and vowed to fight in the court of public opinion, with leaders planning trips to the border to highlight the stories of separated families, already the focus of news media attention. Democratic candidates running for vulnerable Republican seats also have begun to make the harsh treatment of children a centerpiece of their campaigns.
The policy has cracked Trump’s usually united conservative base, with a wide array of religious leaders and groups denouncing it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention issued statements critical of the practice.
The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who delivered a prayer at Trump’s inauguration, signed a letter calling the practice “horrible.” Pastor Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse, a vocal supporter of the president’s who has brushed aside past Trump controversies, called it “terrible” and “disgraceful.”
Besides increasing the odds of a broader immigration bill, senior Trump strategists believe that the child separation policy will deter the flow of migrant families across the border. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The figure is the only one released by the goverment.
“The president has told folks that in lieu of the laws being fixed, he wants to use the enforcement mechanisms that we have,” a White House official said. “The thinking in the building is to force people to the table.”
Trump reinforced that notion Friday morning at the White House when he suggested Democrats alone had the power to alter the policy.
“I hate the children being taken away,” Trump said.
The president used a similar strategy last year as he sought to gain approval for his immigration demands by using the lure of protection for young immigrants brought to the United States as children. That effort, which ran counter to Trump’s earlier promise to sign a bipartisan bill protecting the young immigrants, foundered in Congress.
. . . .
The current policy resulted from a decision made in April by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute all migrants who cross the border, including those with young children. Those migrants had avoided detention during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Because of a 1997 court settlement that bars children from being imprisoned with parents, Justice Department officials now say they have no choice but to isolate the children.
Sessions and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders have defended the policy as a sound, and biblical, decision to enforce the law.
“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute illegal aliens who entered the country with children,” Sessions said Thursday in Fort Wayne, Ind., citing biblical advice to follow laws. “It was de facto open borders.”
The biblical underpinnings have been challenged by religious leaders.
“There’s definitely a groundswell of opposition from virtually every corner of the Christian community,” said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. “People are able to understand immediately the drive of parents to protect their child and to understand the horror of splitting up vulnerable children from their parents.”
Yet several key Trump administration officials support the family separation policy, including Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and senior adviser Stephen Miller, a vocal supporter of stricter immigration laws.
Some senior officials think Democrats will be pressured by the policy to cut an immigration deal.
“If they aren’t going to cooperate, we are going to look to utilize the laws as hard as we can,” said a second White House official.
Others have argued that the main benefit of the policy is deterrence. Miller has said internally that the child separations will bring the numbers down at the border, a goal that Trump wants to achieve. Miller and Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, have argued that immigration legislation is unlikely to pass this summer, officials said.
“The side effect of zero tolerance is that fewer people will come up illegally, and fewer minors would be put in danger,” said a third senior administration official. “What is more dangerous to a minor, the 4,000-mile journey to America or the short-term detention of their parents?”
. . . .
*********************************************
Please read the complete article at the link.
So, the choice is ““What is more dangerous to a minor, the 4,000-mile journey to America or the short-term detention of their parents?” Not really!
The real choices are 1) a dangerous 4,000 mile journey to a place where you might be able to save your life and that of your loved ones; or 2) the much more dangerous option of remaining in a place where you will likely be beaten, raped, extorted, tortured, impressed against your will, or killed by gangs, who are not just “street criminals” (as falsely portrayed by Sessions and other restrictionists) but who exercise quasi-governmental authority with the knowing acquiescence of the recognized governments.
Realistically, folks are going to opt for #1. We could recognize them as refugees; screen them abroad to weed out gang members and criminals and to take the danger out of the 4,000 mile journey; work with the UNHCR and other countries to distribute the flow; open more paths to legal immigration for those who want to leave but might not fit easily within the refugee definition; and encourage those who still arrive at our borders without documents seeking protection to go to a port of entry where they will be treated respectfully, humanely, and be given a prompt but full opportunity to present their cases for protection with access to counsel in a system that satisfies all the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, with the additional understanding that if they lose they will have to return to their home country.
Alternatively, we could double down on our current failed policies of detention, deterrence, and lawless and immoral Governmental behavior; send the message that folks shouldn’t bother using our legal system because it’s a fraud that has intentionally been fixed against them; encourage the use of smugglers who will charge ever higher fees for developing new and more dangerous means of entry; and send the message that if folks rally want to survive, they should pay a smuggler to get them into the interior of our country where they have at least a fighting chance of blending in, hiding out from immigration enforcement, behaving themselves, and working hard until they are caught and removed, die, conditions improve and they leave voluntarily for their country of origin, or we finally give them some type of legal recognition.
My first alternative could likely be established and operated for a fraction of what we are now spending on failed immigration enforcement, useless and unnecessarily cruel detention, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and a broken Immigration Court system.
Plus, at a time of low birth rate and low unemployment, it would give us a significant economic boost by bringing a highly motivated, hard-working, family oriented, and appreciative workforce into our society. It might also inspire other stable democratic nations to join us in an effort to save lives (which also happens to fit in well with religious values), resettle individuals, and, over time, address the horrible situation in the Northern Triangle that is creating this flow.
Alternative two, which is basically a variation on what we already are doing, will guarantee a continuing “black market flow”of migrants, some of whom will be apprehended and removed at significant financial and societal costs, while most will continue to live in an underground society, subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and law enforcement, underutilizing their skills, and not being given the opportunity to integrate fully into our society.
The thing we will not be able to do is to halt human migration solely by law enforcement actions taken at “our end” of the chain. That is, unless we wish to establish a “Stalinist type state” that is so grim and repressive that nobody wants to come any more.
Kids as human pawns. Child abuse as policy. Dreamers as hostages. Jesus told us to do it. It’s the Democrats fault. I really hate to let Jeff abuse children, but I have no choice. Refugee women fleeing gang controlled states reduced to human scum who should just accept their beatings and rape and get in the non-existent line for legal immigration that we want to eliminate. That is, if they actually live long enough to get in the non-existent line, which is unlikely. Biased judges cheering the chance to sign death warrants for the most vulnerable among us. Courts clogged with refugees being prosecuted for seeking refuge while being pressured by seizure of their children into giving up rights.
Once again, I’ve been proved right: We are actively diminishing ourselves as a nation every day; but, it isn’t stopping, and won’t in the long run stop, human migration. Sure, there is a natural ebb and flow that responds in some minor ways to our futile attempts to stop it. Sort of like throwing up man-made sand bars to stop beach erosion. Works for a few months or even years, but eventually the inevitable forces of nature win out. It sure seems to me that it would be smarter to work with the flow of the river and turn it to our advantage, rather than trying to make it reverse course — an exercise in futility that only serves to diminish the humanity of each of us.
Here’s a wonderful response to Sessions by Kansas City Attorney Andrea C. Martinez:
The “Christian” B.S. Litmus Test By , Andrea C. Martinez, Esq.
To my amazing friends who are atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian. To the good-willed and the pissed-off. To the people who are genuinely confused as to how Jefferson Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders can use the Bible as a justification for abhorrent policies such as the separation of immigrant children from their parents at the border or the persecution of vulnerable asylum seekers, I am a Jesus-follower with a Bible degree from a Christian college and I GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO CALL B.S.
Please join me in calling B.S. whenever you hear people use the Bible to justify the oppression of others. Especially when they misuse and cite Romans 13 to justify their mistreatment. While Romans 13:4 calls us to submit to government authorities because “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good” it does not require us to submit to an unjust law. If the government authority is not acting in a way that reflects God’s law, which is the loving treatment of others, Jesus invites us to participate in civil disobedience. Remember when Jesus healed a man’s hand on the Sabbath in violation of the Jewish law (Mark 3:1-6) and says, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” Matthew 3:4. Then he goes ahead and heals the man. There are numerous other examples in the Bible of civil disobedience that I would be happy to analyze with you at a different time (like the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego).
We must look first and foremost to Jesus Himself and His words when deciding whether a law is just and therefore should be followed. Jesus gave us a “Greatest Commandment” litmus test for determining which actions are really done in his name: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Luke 6:31. And Jesus provided us a pretty simple “B.S. Litmus Test” (my words, not Jesus’!) to determine whether an action or law reflects His heart. The B.S. Litmus Test is this: “is this law/action/policy treating others as I would like to be treated?” (Matthew 7:12). And a second question would be, “does this law reflect love or fear?” If the latter, it is not from God. Because “perfect love casts out fear.” 1 John 4:18.
Regarding Jesus’ exact instructions on the treatment of immigrants, read Matthew 25: 34-46. Jesus refers to the immigrant/refugee/foreigner as “the stranger” and says, “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger (refugee/immigrant/foreigner) and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” -JESUS
PLEASE BE ON GUARD: when you hear a government official use a passage like Romans 13 to try to justify actions that contradict the commandments of Jesus Himself, it is akin to a lawyer trying to convince a judge that a policy or regulation should be followed even though a statute or the Constitution of the United States itself prohibits it. Oh wait, that is exactly what is happening in the Jeff Sessions video above. The United States has ratified international refugee treaties legally obliging our nation to consider the claims of each asylum-seeker on its own merit and the Attorney General has now created his own self-indulging policy persecuting asylum seekers as a “deterrent” to seeking the protection they are legally entitled to. Laws trump policies in the hierarchy of authority, and Jesus’ words trump unjust government action in the spiritual context.
So please join me in calling BS on policies that oppress the immigrant, the refugee, and the foreigner. No citation to Romans 13 can ever trump Jesus’ calling to love the immigrant in Matthew 25. I stand with Jesus-followers and non-Christians alike in the disgusted renunciation of any attempt to cite Holy Scripture as a justification to oppress the weak or the vulnerable. I proudly stand with Jesus and will continue to defend the “stranger” in my law practice as an act of worship to my Jesus who I know loves and cares for them even more than I do.
I call B.S. But, then most of what Sessions says is B.S.
***********************************
Here’s another from JRube in the WashPost:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions displayed an appalling lack of appreciation for the religious establishment clause, not to mention simple human dignity. Speaking to a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and in the wake of the Church’s condemnation of the barbaric policy of separating children from their parents at the border, Sessions proclaimed: “Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government, because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.” Later in the day, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeated his religious admonition to obey the law.
This is horrifically objectionable on multiple grounds. First, he is a public employee and must uphold the First Amendment’s establishment clause. If Sessions wants to justify a policy, he is obligated to give a secular policy justification. (Citing the Bible — inaptly — to Catholic bishops who exercise their religious conscience in speaking out against family separation may be the quintessential example of chutzpah.) Second, he is a policymaker, in a position tochange a position that is inconsistent with our deepest values, traditions and respect for human rights. Third, the bishops were not advocating civil disobedience; they were objecting to an unjust law. Sessions is trying to use the Bible to squelch dissent.
We should point out that invoking this Biblical passage has a long and sordid history in Sessions’s native South. It was oft-quoted by slave-owners and later segregationists to insist on following existing law institutionalizing slavery (“read as an unequivocal order for Christians to obey state authority, a reading that not only justified southern slavery but authoritarian rule in Nazi Germany and South African apartheid”).
I’m no expert in Christianity, but the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was when he drafted his letter from the Birmingham jail:
Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
Sessions perfectly exemplifies how religion should not be used. Pulling out a Bible or any other religious text to say it supports one’s view on a matter of public policy is rarely going to be effective, for it defines political opponents as heretics.
The bishops and other religious figures are speaking out as their religious conscience dictates, which they are morally obligated to do and are constitutionally protected in doing. A statement from the conference of bishops, to which Sessions objected, read in part:
At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence.
Reminding the administration of the meaning of family values, the bishops continued, “Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.”
The Catholics are not alone. The administration’s vile policy has alarmed a wide array of faith leaders. The Southern Baptist Convention issued their own statement. It is quoted at length because it is so powerful:
WHEREAS, Every man, woman, and child from every language, race, and nation is a special creation of God, made in His own image (Genesis 1:26–27); and
WHEREAS, Longings to protect one’s family from warfare, violence, disease, extreme poverty, and other destitute conditions are universal, driving millions of people to leave their homelands to seek a better life for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren; and
WHEREAS, Scripture is clear on the believer’s hospitality towards immigrants, stating that meeting the material needs of “strangers” is tantamount to serving the Lord Jesus Himself (Matthew 25:35–40; Hebrews 13:2); and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists affirm the value of the family, stating in The Baptist Faith and Message that “God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society” (Article XVIII), and Scripture makes clear that parents are uniquely responsible to raise their children “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). . . .
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 12–13, 2018, affirm the value and dignity of immigrants, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, culture, national origin, or legal status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we desire to see immigration reform include an emphasis on securing our borders and providing a pathway to legal status with appropriate restitutionary measures, maintaining the priority of family unity, resulting in an efficient immigration system that honors the value and dignity of those seeking a better life for themselves and their families; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we declare that any form of nativism, mistreatment, or exploitation is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage all elected officials, especially those who are members of Southern Baptist churches, to do everything in their power to advocate for a just and equitable immigration system, those in the professional community to seek ways to administer just and compassionate care for the immigrants in their community, and our Southern Baptist entities to provide resources that will equip and empower churches and church members to reach and serve immigrant communities. . . .
Rabbi David Wolpe dryly observed that “until 2018, I don’t believe any reader of the Bible has argued that separating families is rooted in the Bible, and if the Bible is about obeying the government, it is hard to understand what all those prophets were yelling at the kings about.” (Meanwhile, 26 Jewish organizations sent a letter condemning the policy to Sessions.)
Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively on the role of religion in politics. “I would say that this is just the most recent, but also one of the most egregious, ways that those who call themselves Christians are disfiguring and discrediting their faith. They are living in an inverted moral world, where the Bible is being invoked to advance cruelty,” he said. “Rather than owning up to what they are doing, they are trying to sacralize their inhumane policies. They are attempting to harm children and then dress it up as Christian ethics.”
He added: “This shows you the terrible damage that can be done to the Christian witness when the wrong people attain positions of power. They subordinate every good thing to their ideology, twisting and distorting everything they must to advance their political cause. In this case, it’s not simply that an authentic Christian ethic is subordinate to their inhumane politics; it is that it is being thoroughly corrupted, to the point that they are using the Bible to justify what is unjustifiable.”
If the administration is embarrassed by a policy they are trying to insist is required by law (that is untrue, and I know the prohibition against lying is very biblical) they should change it. Trump and his aides need to stop shifting blame to other politicians, and stop telling Christians what their obligations are. Frankly, the lack of outrage from Trump’s clique of evangelical supporters on this issue is not simply unusual given the near-universal outrage in faith-based communities, but is a reminder that leaders of “values voters” traded faith for the political game of power and access. As Wehner put it, “To watch the Christian faith be stained in this way by people like Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders is painful and quite a disturbing thing to watch. I don’t know whether they realize the defilement they’re engaging in, but that’s somewhat beside the point. The defilement is happening, and they are leading the effort. It’s shameful, and it’s heretical.”
****************************************
Remarkably, Sessions claims to be a Christian and a Methodist (although I can’t for the life of me find a speck of the actual kind, merciful, forgiving, teachings of Jesus Christ in any aspect of Sessions’s life, career, or actions). He’s one of the most “unChristian” people I’ve ever witnessed in American public life. And, I’ve seen some pretty bad actors, going all the way back to infamous Wisconsin GOP Senator Joe McCarthy! In his own way, Sessions is just as far removed from the true meaning of Christ’s teaching as his pagan, idolatrous boss, Trump.
At any rate, the Methodist Council of Bishops has joined other religious denominations in condemning Sessions’s policies of cruelty and child abuse.
Faith leaders’ statement on family separation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 7, 2018
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church is joining other faith organizations in a statement urging the U.S. government to stop its policy of separating immigrant families.
Below is the full statement signed by dozens of faith organizations. Bishop Kenneth H. Carter, president of the Council of Bishops, signed on behalf of the Council.
FAITH LEADERS’ STATEMENT ON FAMILY SEPARATION
Recently, the U.S. Administration announced that it will begin separating families and criminally prosecuting all people who enter the U.S. without previous authorization. As religious leaders representing diverse faith perspectives, united in our concern for the well-being of vulnerable migrants who cross our borders fleeing from danger and threats to their lives, we are deeply disappointed and pained to hear this news.
We affirm the family as a foundational societal structure to support human community and understand the household as an estate blessed by God. The security of the family provides critical mental, physical and emotional support to the development and wellbeing of children. Our congregations and agencies serve many migrant families that have recently arrived in the United States. Leaving their communities is often the only option they have to provide safety for their children and protect them from harm. Tearing children away from parents who have made a dangerous journey to provide a safe and sufficient life for them is unnecessarily cruel and detrimental to the well-being of parents and children.
As we continue to serve and love our neighbor, we pray for the children and families that will suffer due to this policy and urge the Administration to stop their policy of separating families.
His Eminence Archbishop Vicken Aykazian
Diocesan Legate and
Director of the Ecumenical Office
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
Mr. Azhar Azeez
President
Islamic Society of North America
The Most Rev. Joseph C. Bambera
Bishop of Scranton, PA
Chair, Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
Senior Bishop George E. Battle, Jr.
Presiding Prelate, Piedmont Episcopal District
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Bishop Kenneth H. Carter, Jr.
President, Council of Bishops
The United Methodist Church
The Most Rev. Michael B. Curry
Presiding Bishop
Episcopal Church (United States)
The Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
General Minister & President
United Church of Christ
The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
The Rev. David Guthrie
President, Provincial Elders’ Conference
Moravian Church Southern Province
Mr. Glen Guyton
Executive Director
Mennonite Church USA
The Rev. Teresa Hord Owens
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Rabbi Rick Jacobs
President
Union for Reform Judaism
Mr. Anwar Khan
President
Islamic Relief USA
The Rev. Dr. Betsy Miller
President, Provincial Elders’ Conference
Moravian Church Northern Province
The Rev. Dr. J. Herbert Nelson II
Stated Clerk
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Rabbi Jonah Pesner
Director
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
The Rev. Don Poest
Interim General Secretary The Rev. Eddy Alemán
Candidate for General Secretary
Reformed Church in America
Senior Bishop Lawrence Reddick III
Presiding Bishop, The 8th Episcopal District
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
The Rev. Phil Tom
Executive Director
International Council of Community Churches
Senior Bishop McKinley Young
Presiding Prelate, Third Episcopal District
African Methodist Episcopal Church
###
Media Contact:
Rev. Dr. Maidstone Mulenga
Director of Communications – Council of Bishops
The United Methodist Church mmulenga@umc-cob.org 202-748-5172
**********************************************
Ed Kilgore over at NY Magazine also nails Sessions’s noxious hypocrisy:
St. Paul would probably like Jeff Sessions to keep his name out of his mouth. Photo: Getty Images
When he spoke to a law enforcement group in Indiana today, the attorney general of the United States was clearly angry about religious objections to his administration’s immigration policies. He may have had in mind incidents like this very important one this week (as notedby the National Catholic Reporter):
The U.S. bishops began their annual spring assembly by condemning recent immigration policies from the Trump administration that have separated families at the U.S.-Mexico border and threatened to deny asylum for people fleeing violence.
The morning session here began with a statement, but by its end escalated to numerous bishops endorsing the idea of sending a delegation to the border to inspect the detention facilities where children are being kept and even floating the possibility of “canonical penalties” for those involved in carrying out the policies.
Being a Protestant and all, Sessions has no fear of the kind of “canonical penalties” Catholic bishops might levy. But perhaps he is aware of an official resolution passed by his own United Methodist Church in 2008 (and reaffirmed in 2016), which reads in part:
The fear and anguish so many migrants in the United States live under are due to federal raids, indefinite detention, and deportations which tear apart families and create an atmosphere of panic. Millions of immigrants are denied legal entry to the US due to quotas and race and class barriers, even as employers seek their labor. US policies, as well as economic and political conditions in their home countries, often force migrants to leave their homes. With the legal avenues closed, immigrants who come in order to support their families must live in the shadows and in intense exploitation and fear. In the face of these unjust laws and the systematic deportation of migrants instituted by the Department of Homeland Security, God’s people must stand in solidarity with the migrants in our midst.
So Sessions decided he’d smite all these ninny-faced liberal clerics with his own interpretation of the intersection of Christianity and immigration:
In his remarks, Sessions hit back at the “concerns raised by our church friends about separating families,” calling the criticism “not fair or logical” and quoting scripture in his defense of the administration’s tough policies.
“Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”
Those who are unacquainted with the Bible should be aware that the brief seven-verse portion of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans has been throughout the ages cited to oppose resistance to just about every unjust law or regime you can imagine. As the Atlantic’s Yoni Appelbaum quickly pointed out, it was especially popular among those opposing resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act in the run-up to the Civil War. It was reportedly Adolf Hitler’s favorite biblical passage. And it was used by defenders of South African Apartheid and of our own Jim Crow.
Sessions’s suggestion that Romans 13 represents some sort of absolute, inflexible rule for the universe has been refuted by religious authorities again and again, most quoting St. Augustine in saying that “an unjust law is no law at all,” and many drawing attention to the overall context of Paul’s epistle, which was in many respects the great charter of Christian liberty and the great rebuke to legalism in every form. Paul was pretty clearly rejecting a significant sentiment among Christians of his day: that civil authorities deserved no obedience in any circumstance.
Beyond that, even if taken literally, in Romans 13 Paul is the shepherd telling the sheep that just as they must love their enemies, they must also recognize that the wolf is part of a divinely established order. In today’s context, Jeff Sessions is the wolf, and no matter what you think of his policies, he is not entitled to quote the shepherd on his own behalf. Maybe those desperate women and men at the border should suck it up and accept their terrible lot in life and defer to Jeff Sessions’s idolatry toward those portions of secular immigration law that he and his president actually support. But for the sake of all that’s holy, don’t quote the Bible to make the Trump administration’s policies towards immigrant families sound godly. And keep St. Paul out of it.
**************************************
Last, but certainly not least among my favorite rebuttals to Sessions is this article from Marissa Martinelli at Slate incorporating a video clip from John Oliver which captures the smallness, meanness, and lack of humane values of Sessions perfectly:
There’s nothing funny about the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the border, which doesn’t make it an ideal topic for late night hosts. Stephen Colbert acknowledged that difficulty directly on The Late Show on Thursday night, explaining that he usually only addresses tragic stories on the show if everyone is already talking about them. But he’s willing to make an exception:
That’s my job: to give you my take on the conversation everyone’s already having. With any luck, my take is funnier than yours, or I would be watching you. But this story is different, because this is the conversation everybody should be having. Attorney General and man dreaming of legally changing his name to “Jim Crow” Jeff Sessions has instituted a new policy to separate immigrant kids from their parents at the border.
An estimated 1,358 children have been taken from their families so far, with some officials reportedly telling their parents that the children were being taken away for a bath, only to never return them. “Clearly, no decent human being could defend that,” said Colbert. “So Jeff Sessions did.”
Colbert, who is devoutly Catholic, especially took issue with Sessions quoting the bible—specifically, Romans 13, the same passage used to defend slavery in the 1840s—to justify the policy as morally acceptable. Colbert suggested that Sessions might want to go back and reread that bible, and quoted Romans 13:10 to him. “Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law,” he recited, before ripping into Sessions’s use of the bible as a smokescreen: “I’m not surprised Sessions didn’t read the whole thing. After all, Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me’ but I’m pretty sure all Sessions saw was the words children and suffer and said ‘I’m on it.’”
For I was hungry Jeff, and you gave me nothing to eat.
I was thirsty, Jeff, and you gave me nothing to drink.
I was a stranger seeking refuge, Jeff, and you did not invite me in.
I needed clothes, Jeff, and you clothed me only in the orange jumpsuit of a prisoner.
I was sick and in a foul prison you called “detention,” Jeff, and you mocked me and did not look after me.
I said “suffer the children to come unto me,” Jeff, and you made my children suffer.
In your arrogant ignorance, Jeff, you might ask when did I see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
But, Jeff, I was right there before you, in a caravan with my poor sisters, brothers, and children, having traveled far, seeking shelter and refuge from mistreatment and expecting mercy and justice under your laws. But, in your prejudice and ignorance, Jeff, you did not see me because I did not look like one of you. For you see, Jeff, as you did not show love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, and human compassion for the least of my children, you did not do for me.
And so, Jeff, unless you repent of your wasted life of sins, selfishness, meanness, taking my name and teachings in vain, and mistaking your often flawed view of man’s laws for my Father’s will, you must go away to eternal punishment. But, the poor, the vulnerable, the abused, and the children who travel with me and those who give us aid, compassion, justice, and mercy will accompany me to eternal life.
For in truth, Jeff, although you yourself might be immoral, none of God’s children is ever “illegal” to Him. Each time you spout such nonsense, you once again mock me and my Father by taking our names, teachings, and values in vain.
Those looking for legal analysis should read no further. The following is a cry from the heart.
The respondent’s personal nightmare began the year after her marriage. For the next 15 years, she was subjected to relentless physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
It is most apt that Donald Trump became president by beating a woman. His campaign historically provoked millions to march in angry protest of his denigration of women on his first full day in office.
“The violence inflicted on [her] took many forms. Her husband beat her repeatedly, bashing her against the wall and kicking her, including while she was pregnant. He raped her on countless occasions.”
On Monday, Trump’s Attorney General announced that women who are victims of domestic violence should no longer be deemed to merit protection from our government in the form of political asylum.
Sessions’ action was shockingly tone deaf. As the wonderful Rebecca Solnit wrote in her 2013 essay “The Longest War:” “We have an abundance of rape and violence against women in this country and on this Earth, though it’s almost never treated as a civil rights or human rights issue, or a crisis, or even a pattern. Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender.” The year after Solnit wrote those words, our Department of Justice took a step in the right direction. In recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum, our government was finally recognizing such gender-based abuse as a human rights issue, at least in the limited forum of immigration law.
“He also frequently threatened to kill her, at times holding a knife to her neck, and at other times brandishing a gun or, while she was pregnant, threatening to hang her from the ceiling by a rope.” The above were supported by sworn statements provided by the respondents’ neighbors.
It is only very recently that our society has begun to hold accountable those who commit gender-based abuses against women. #MeToo is a true civil rights movement, one that is so very long overdue. In opposing such movement, Jeff Sessions is casting himself as a modern day George Wallace. It bears repeating that no one, no one, was challenging the settled precedent that victims of domestic violence may be granted asylum as members of a particular social group. When the precedent case was before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security, i.e. the enforcement agency prosecuting the case, filed a brief in which it conceded that the group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” satisfied all of the legal criteria, and was therefore a proper particular social group under the law. No one has appealed or challenged that determination in the four years since. Who is Jeff Sessions, who has never practiced immigration law in his life, to just toss out such determination because he and only he disagrees?
The respondent’s “husband controlled, humiliated, and isolated her from others. He insulted her ‘constantly,’ calling her a ‘slut’ or ‘dog.’ He did not want her to work outside the house and believed ‘a woman’s place was in the home like a servant.’ When he came home in the middle of the night, he forced her out of bed to serve him food, saying things like ‘Bitch, feed me.”
Like Wallace before him, who in 1963 stood in front of the door of the University of Alabama trying in vain to block the entry of four black students, Sessions is trying to block a national movement whose time has come. As with Wallace and the Civil Rights Movement, justice will eventually prevail. But now as then, people deserving of his protection will die in the interim.
“Although [her] husband frequently slept with other women, he falsely accused her of infidelity, at times removing her undergarments to inspect her genitals. He also beat their children in front of her, causing her serious psychological damage.”
The AG’s decision was intentionally released during the first day of the Immigration Judges’ Training Conference. There have been ideological-based appointments of immigration judges under both the Trump and Bush administrations. Several persons present at the conference reported that when the decision was announced, some immigration judges cheered. It was definitely a minority; the majority of immigration judges are very decent, caring people. But it was more than a few; one of my sources described it as “many,” another as “a noteworthy minority.”
Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?
The respondent “believes her life will be in danger” if returned to her country, “where her ex-husband, supported by his police officer brother, has vowed to kill her. She does not believe there is anywhere” in her country “she could find safety.
Victims of domestic violence will continue to file applications for asylum. They will argue before immigration judges that their claims meet the legal criteria even under the AG’s recent decision. Unfortunately, some of those applicants will have their cases heard by immigration judges who, when they heard that the woman whose claim was described in the italicized sections was denied asylum by Jeff Sessions, and will now likely be deported to suffer more such abuse or death, cheered.
The sections in italics are the facts of the asylum-seeker in Matter of A-B-, (including quotes from her appeal brief) who was denied asylum on Monday by Jeff Sessions.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
“Group Leader” Hon. Jeffrey Chase forwards these items:
Samantha Schmidt (long-lost “Cousin Sam?” sadly, no, but I’d be happy to consider her an honorary member of the “Wauwatosa Branch” of the Wisconsin Schmidt Clan) writes for the Washington Post:
Aminta Cifuentes suffered weekly beatings at the hands of her husband. He broke her nose, burned her with paint thinner and raped her.
She called the police in her native Guatemala several times but was told they could not interfere in a domestic matter, according to a court ruling. When Cifuentes’s husband hit her in the head, leaving her bloody, police came to the home but refused to arrest him. He threatened to kill her if she called authorities again.
So in 2005, Cifuentes fled to the United States. “If I had stayed there, he would have killed me,” she told the Arizona Republic.
And after nearly a decade of waiting on an appeal, Cifuentes was granted asylum. The 2014 landmark decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals set the precedent that women fleeing domestic violence were eligible to apply for asylum. It established clarity in a long-running debate over whether asylum can be granted on the basis of violence perpetrated in the “private” sphere, according to Karen Musalo, director for the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.
But on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the precedent set in Cifuentes’s case, deciding that victims of domestic abuse and gang violence generally will not qualify for asylum under federal law. (Unlike the federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution, the immigration court system is part of the Justice Department.)
For critics, including former immigration judges, the unilateral decision undoes decades of carefully deliberated legal progress. For gender studies experts, such as Musalo, the move “basically throws us back to the Dark Ages, when we didn’t recognize that women’s rights were human rights.”
“If we say in the year 2018 that a woman has been beaten almost to death in a country that accepts that as almost the norm, and that we as a civilized society can deny her protection and send her to her death?” Musalo said. “I don’t see this as just an immigration issue … I see this as a women’s rights issue.”
. . . .
A group of 15 retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals wrote a letter in response to Sessions’s decision, calling it an “affront to the rule of law.”
The Cifuentes case, they wrote, “was the culmination of a 15 year process” through the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals. The issue was certified by three attorneys general, one Democrat and two Republican. The private bar and law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed with the final determination, the former judges wrote. The decision was also supported by asylum protections under international refugee treaties, they said.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote.
Courts and attorneys general have debated the definition of a “particular social group” since the mid-1990s, according to Musalo.
“It took the refugee area a while to catch up with the human rights area of law,” Musalo said.
A series of cases led up to the Cifuentes decision. In 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals established that women fleeing gender-based persecution could be eligible for asylum in the United States. The case, known as Matter of Kasinga, centered on a teenager who fled her home in Togo to escape female genital cutting and a forced polygamous marriage. Musalo was lead attorney in the case, which held that fear of female genital cutting could be used as a basis for asylum.
“Fundamentally the principle was the same,” as the one at stake in Sessions’s ruling, Musalo said. Female genital cutting, like domestic violence in the broader sense, generally takes place in the “private” sphere, inflicted behind closed doors by relatives of victims.
Musalo also represented Rody Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who fled extreme domestic abuse and, in 2009, won an important asylum case after a 14-year legal fight. Her victory broke ground for other women seeking asylum on the basis of domestic violence.
Then, after years of incremental decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals published its first precedent-setting opinion in the 2014 Cifuentes case, known as Matter of A-R-C-G.
“I actually thought that finally we had made some progress,” Musalo said. Although the impact wasn’t quite as pronounced as many experts had hoped, it was a step for women fleeing gender-based violence in Latin America and other parts of the world.
Now, Musalo says, Sessions is trying to undo all that and is doing so at a particularly monumental time for gender equality in the United States and worldwide.
“We’ve gone too far in society with the MeToo movement and all of the other advances in women’s rights to accept this principle,” Musalo said.
“It shows that there are these deeply entrenched attitudes toward gender and gender equality,” she added. “There are always those forces that are sort of the dying gasp of wanting to hold on to the way things were.”
. . . .
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, wrote on his blog that Sessions sought to encourage immigration judges to “just find a way to say no as quickly as possible.” (Schmidt authored the decision in the Kasinga case extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation.)
Sessions’s ruling is “likely to speed up the ‘deportation railway,’ ” Schmidt wrote. But it will also encourage immigration judges to “cut corners, and avoid having to analyze the entire case,” he argued.
“Sessions is likely to end up with sloppy work and lots of Circuit Court remands for ‘do overs,’ ” Schmidt wrote. “At a minimum, that’s going to add to the already out of control Immigration Court backlog.”
Picking on our most vulnerable and denying them hard-earned legal protections that had been gained incrementally over the years. Certainly, can’t get much lower than that!
Whether you agree with Sessions’s reasoning or not, nobody should cheer or minimize the misfortune of others as Sessions does! The only difference between Sessions or any Immigration Judge and a refugee applicant is luck. Not merit! I’ve met many refugees, and never found one who wanted to be a refugee or even thought they would have to become a refugee.
An Attorney General who lacks fundamental integrity, human values, and empathy does not belong at the head of this important judicial system.
In my career, I’ve probably had to return or sign off on returning more individuals to countries where they didn’t want to go than anybody involved in the current debate. Some were good guys we just couldn’t fit into a badly flawed and overly restrictive system; a few were bad guys who deserved to go; some, in between. But, I never gloried in, celebrated, or minimized anyone’s suffering, removal, or misfortune. Different views are one thing; overt bias and lack of empathy is another.
Advocates and many judges say that the decision is extraordinary, not only because the attorney general took steps to overrule the court’s’ prior rulings, but because the decision that victims of certain kinds of violence can qualify for asylum has been previously reviewed over the course of decades.
A group of 15 former immigration judges signed a letter on June 11 calling the decision “an affront to the rule of law.” They point out that the decision Sessions overturned, a precedent cited in the “Matter of A-B-” decision that he was reviewing, had been certified by three attorney generals before him: one Democrat and two Republicans.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the letter says. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”
In his decision, Sessions said “private criminal activity,” specifically being a victim of domestic violence, does not qualify migrants for asylum. Rather, victims have to show each time that they are part of some distinct social group (a category in international and US law that allows people to qualify for refugee status) and were harmed because they are part of that group — and not for “personal reasons.”
Sessions said US law “does not provide redress for all misfortune. It applies when persecution arises on the account of membership in a protected group and the victim may not find protection except by taking refuge in another country.”
“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-government actors will not qualify for asylum,” the decision reads. In a footnote, he also says that few of these cases would merit even being heard by judges in the first place because they would not pass the threshold of “credible fear.”
But attorney Karen Musalo says every case has to be decided individually. Muslao is the director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the UC Hastings College of the Law and has been representing women in immigration hearings for decades. She is concerned that some asylum officers will see this decision as a directive to turn people away from seeing a judge. “That’s patently wrong,” she says.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that conducts initial screenings for asylum cases (known as “credible fear interviews”) did not respond to a request for information about how the decision might change the work they do.
Musalo’s is among the attorneys representing A-B-, a Salvadoran woman identified only by her initials in court filings, whose case Sessions reviewed. Her center was part of a group that submitted a brief of over 700 pages in the case; that brief was not cited in Sessions’ decision. The brief reviewed impunity in El Salvador, for example, for those who commit violence against women and also had specific evidence about A-B- and how local police failed to protect her from domestic violence.
“What’s surprising is how deficient and flawed his understanding of the law and his reasoning is. The way he pronounces how certain concepts in refugee law should be understood and interpreted is sort of breath-taking,” says Musalo. “He was reaching for a result, so he was willing to distort legal principles and ignored the facts.”
To Musalo, this case is about more than asylum, though. She says it’s a surprising, damaging twist in the broader #MeToo movement. Sessions is “trying to turn back the clock on how we conceptualize protections for women and other individual,” she says. “In the bigger picture of ending violence against women, that’s just not an acceptable position for our country to take and we’re going to do everything we can to reverse that.”
That includes monitoring cases in the system now and making appeals in federal courts, which could overturn Sessions’ decision. Congress, Musalo says, could also take action.
Because Sessions controls the immigration courts, which are administrative courts that are part of the Department of Justice rather than part of the judiciary branch, immigration judges will have to follow his precedent in determining who qualifies for asylum. District court and other federal judges
Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said she was troubled by Sessions’ lack of explanation for why he intervened in this particular case.
The attorney general’s ability to “exercise veto power in our decision-making is an indication of why the court needs true independence” from the Justice Department, Tabaddor told the New York Times.
Immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks, the immigration judges association past president, says the group has been advocating for such independence for years.
“We have a political boss. The attorney general is our boss and political considerations allow him, under the current structure, to take certain cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals and to choose to rule on those cases in order to set policy and precedent,” she says. “Our organization for years has been arguing that … there’s a major flaw in this structure, that immigration courts are places where life and death cases are being heard.”
Therefore, she adds, they should be structured “like a traditional court.”
Sessions’ decision will have immediate implications for domestic violence victims currently seeking asylum in the US.
Naomi, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym because her case is pending in New York, is from Honduras. Her former boyfriend there threw hot oil at her, but hit her 4-year-old son instead. The boyfriend threatened them with a gun — she fled, ultimately coming to the US where she has some family. She told us that she tried to get the police to help, but they wouldn’t.
Naomi’s attorney, Heather Axford with Central American Legal Assistance in Brooklyn, said they might need to try a new argument to keep her client in the US.
“We need to come up with new ways to define a particular social group, we need to explore the possibility of when the facts lend themselves to a political opinion claim, and we need to make claims under the Convention Against Torture,” she told WNYC Monday. The US signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994.
Mary Hansel, deputy director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says the Sessions decision goes against US human rights obligations.
“An evolving body of international legal authorities indicates that a state’s failure to protect individuals (whether citizens or asylum seekers) from domestic violence may actually amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” Hansel writes in an email to PRI. In international human rights law, states need to protect individuals from harm. “Essentially, when women are forced to endure domestic violence without adequate redress, states are on the hook for allowing this to happen,”
Naomi’s story is horrific, but it is not unusual for women desperate to escape these situations to flee to the US. Many of these women had a high bar for winning an asylum case to begin with. They have to provide evidence that they were persecuted and documents to support their case. Sometimes, lawyers call expert witnesses to explain what is happening in their country of origin. Language barriers, lack of access to lawyers, contending with trauma and often being in detention during proceedings also contribute to making their cases exceptionally difficult.
Sessions’ decision will make it even harder.
In justifying tighter standards, Sessions often claims that there is fraud in the system and that asylum seekers have an easy time arguing their cases.
“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence, therefore they are entitled to enter the United States” Sessions told Phoenix radio station KTAR in May. “Well, that’s obviously false, but some judges have gone along with that.”
The Trump administration has taken several steps to clear the 700,000 cases pending in immigration court. At the end of May, Sessions instituted a quota system for immigration judges, requiring them to decide 700 cases each year and have fewer than 15 percent of cases be overturned on appeal.
Marks told NPR that the quota could hurt judicial independence. “The last thing on a judge’s mind should be pressure that you’re disappointing your boss or, even worse, risking discipline because you are not working fast enough,” she said.
According to TRAC, the courts decided more than 30,000 cases in the 2017 fiscal year compared to about 22,000 in 2016. Some 61.8 percent of these cases were denied; the agency does not report how many of the claims were due to domestic or gang violence, or for other reasons. For people from Central America, the denial rate is 75 to 80 percent. Ninety percent of those who don’t have attorneys lose their cases.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Sessions’ overturned a decision in the “Matter of A-B-.”
**************************************
Here’s another one from Bea Bischoff at Slate:
How the attorney general is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite legal precedent.
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Alex Wong/Getty Images, Library of Congress.
On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of immigration judges that while they are responsible for “ensur[ing] that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws,” Congress alone is responsible for rewriting those laws. Sessions then announced that he would be issuing a unilateral decision regarding asylum cases later in the day, a decision he told the judges would “provide more clarity” and help them “rule consistently and fairly.” The decision in Matter of A-B-, which came down shortly after his remarks, reverses asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and other persecution.
During his speech Sessions framed his decision in Matter of A-B- as a “correct interpretation of the law” that “advances the original intent” of our immigration statute. As a matter of law, Sessions’ decision is disturbing. It’s also alarming that this case ended up in front of the attorney general to begin with. Sessions is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite our immigration laws—a function the attorney general himself said should be reserved for Congress. His zealous self-referral of immigration cases has been devastatingly effective. Sessions is quietly gutting immigration law, and there’s nothing stopping him from continuing to use this loophole to implement more vindictive changes.
Normally, an immigration judge is the first to hear and decide an immigration case. If the case is appealed, it goes in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals before being heard by a federal circuit court. In a peculiarity of immigration law, however, the attorney general is permitted to pluck cases straight from the Board of Immigration Appeals for personal review and adjudication. Sessions, who was famously denied a federal judgeship in 1986 because of accusations that he’d made racist comments, now seems to be indulging a lingering judicial fantasy by exploiting this provision to the fullest. Since January 2018, Sessions has referred four immigration cases to himself for adjudication, putting him on track to be one of the most prolific users of the self-referral provision since 1956, when attorneys general stopped regularly reviewing and affirming BIA cases. By comparison, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch certified a total four cases between them during the Obama administration.
Sessions is not using these cases to resolve novel legal issues or to ease the workload of DHS attorneys or immigration judges. Instead, he is using the self-referral mechanism to adjudicate cases that have the most potential to limit the number of people granted legal status in the United States, and he’s disregarding the procedural requirements set up to control immigration appeals in the process.
A close look at the Matter of A-B- case shows exactly how far out of bounds Sessions is willing to go. Matter of A-B- began when Ms. A-B- arrived in the United States from El Salvador seeking asylum. Ms. A-B- had been the victim of extreme brutality at the hands of her husband in El Salvador, including violent attacks and threats on her life. The local police did nothing to protect her. When it became clear it was only a matter of time before her husband tried to hurt her again, Ms. A-B- fled to the United States. Upon her arrival at the U.S. border, Ms. A-B- was detained in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her asylum case was set to be heard by Judge Stuart Couch, a notoriously asylum-averse judge who is especially resentful of claims based on domestic violence.
During her trial, Ms. A-B- testified about the persecution she’d faced at the hands of her husband and provided additional evidence to corroborate her claims. Despite the extensive evidence, Judge Couch found Ms. A-B-’s story was not credible and rejected her asylum claim. Ms. A-B- then appealed her case to the BIA. There, the board unanimously found that Ms. A-B-’s testimony was in fact credible and that she met the requirements for asylum. Per their protocol, the BIA did not grant Ms. A-B- asylum itself but rather sent the case back down to Judge Couch, who was tasked with performing the required background checks on Ms. A-B- and then issuing a grant of asylum in accordance with their decision.
Judge Couch, however, did not issue Ms. A-B- a grant of asylum, even after the Department of Homeland Security completed her background checks. Instead, he improperly tried to send the case back to the BIA without issuing a new decision, apparently because he was personally unconvinced of the “legal validity” of asylum claims based on domestic violence. Before the BIA touched the case again, Attorney General Sessions decided he ought to adjudicate it himself.
Sessions trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerablewomen.
After taking the case, Sessions asked for amicus briefs on the question of “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum.” The question of whether private criminal activity like domestic violence can in some instances lead to a grant of asylum had not been at issue in Matter of A-B-. The issue raised in Ms. A-B-’s case was whether her claims were credible, not whether asylum was available for victims of private criminal activity. In fact, persecution at the hand of a private actor who the government cannot or will not control is contemplated in the asylum statute itself and has been recognized as a grounds for asylum for decades. The question of whether domestic violence could sometimes warrant asylum also appeared to be firmly settled in a 2014 case known as Matter of A-R-C-G-.
The question the attorney general was seeking to answer was actually so settled that the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for prosecuting immigration cases, submitted a timid brief to Sessions politely suggesting that he reconsider his decision to take on this case. “This matter does not appear to be in the best posture for the Attorney General’s review,” its brief argued, before outright acknowledging that the question of whether private criminal activity can form the basis of an asylum claim had already been clearly answered by the BIA. The attorney general, despite his alleged desire to simplify the jobs of immigration prosecutors and judges, ignored DHS’s concerns and denied the agency’s motion. “[BIA] precedent,” Sessions wrote in his denial, “does not bind my ultimate decision in this matter.” Sessions, in short, was going to rewrite asylum law whether DHS liked it or not.
Sessions not only ignored DHS concerns about the case but, as 16 former immigration judges pointed out in their amicus brief, trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerable women. First, he failed to require Couch, the original presiding judge, to make a final decision before sending the case back to the BIA. The regulations controlling immigration appeals allow an immigration judge to send a case to the BIA only after a decision has been issued by the original judge. Next, Sessions failed to wait for the BIA to adjudicate the case before snapping it up for his personal analysis. Even if Judge Couch hadn’t improperly sent the case back to the BIA, Sessions was obligated to wait for the BIA to decide the case before intervening. The self-referral provision permits the attorney general to review BIA decisions, not cases that are merely awaiting adjudication.
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the question Sessions sought to answer in this case, namely “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum” was not a question considered by any court in Matter of A-B-. Rather, it was one Sessions seemingly lifted directly from hardline immigration restrictionists, knowing that the answer had the potential to all but eliminate domestic violence–based asylum claims.
On June 11, after receiving 11 amicus briefs in support of asylum-seekers like Ms. A-B- and only one against, the attorney general ruled that private activity is not grounds for asylum, including in cases of domestic violence. Ms. A-B-’s case, in Sessions’ hands, became a vehicle by which to rewrite our asylum laws without waiting on Congress.
The attorney general’s other self-referred decisions are likewise plagued by questionable procedure. In Matter of E-F-H-L-, Sessions seized on a case from 2014 as an opportunity undo the longstanding requirement that asylum applicants be given the opportunity for a hearing. Like in Matter of A-B-, Sessions did procedural somersaults to insert himself into Matter of E-F-H-L-, using a recent decision by the immigration judge in the case to close the proceedings without deciding the asylum claim as grounds to toss out the original BIA ruling on the right to a hearing. Without so much as a single phone call to Congress, Sessions effectively rescinded the requirement that asylum seekers are entitled to full hearings. He also mandated that the judge reopen Mr. E-F-H-L-’s case years after he thought he was safe from deportation.
In Matter of Castro-Tum, a case Sessions referred to himself in January, he used his powers to make life more difficult for both immigrants and immigration judges by banning the use of “administrative closure” in removal proceedings. Administrative closure allowed immigration judges to choose to take cases off their dockets, indefinitely pausing removal proceedings. In Matter of Castro-Tum, Sessions made a new rule that sharply curtails the use of the practice and allows DHS prosecutors to ask that judges reschedule old closed cases. The result? The potential deportation of more than 350,000 immigrants whose cases were previously closed. In addition, judges now have so many hearings on their dockets that they are scheduling trials in 2020.
As CLINIC, an immigration advocacy group, pointed out, Sessions appeared be using his decision in Matter of Castro-Tum to improperly develop a new rule on when judges can administratively close immigration cases. Normally, such a new rule would need to go through a fraught bureaucratic process under the Administrative Procedures Act before being implemented. Instead of going through that lengthy process, however, Sessions simply decreed the new rule in his decision, bypassing all the usual procedural requirements.
The cases that Sessions has chosen to decide and the procedural leaps he’s taken to adjudicate them show that his goal is to ensure that fewer people are permitted to remain in the United States, Congress be damned. So far, his plan seems to be working. As a result of Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B-, thousands of women—including many of the women who are currently detained after having their children torn from their arms at our border—will be shut out of asylum proceedings and deported to their countries of origin to await death at the hands of their abusers.
While Sessions’ decisions trump BIA precedent, they do not override precedent set by the federal circuit courts on immigration matters, much of which contradicts the findings he’s made in his decisions. While immigration attorneys are scrambling to protect their clients with creative new advocacy strategies, the only real way to stop Sessions’ massacre is to listen to him when he says Congress needs to fix our immigration laws. In doing so, the legislative branch could not only revise our immigration system to offer meaningful paths to legal status for those currently shut out of the system, but could eliminate the needless attorney general review provision altogether and force Sessions to keep his hands out of immigration case law.
*****************************************
Sessions’s shameless abuses of our Constitution, Due Process, fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, international standards, common morality, and basic human values are beyond astounding.
I agree with Bea that this requires a legislative solution to 1) establish once and for all that gender based asylum fits squarely within the “particular social group” definition; and 2) establish a U.S. Immigration Court that is independent of the Executive Branch.
A few problems, though:
Not going to happen while the GOP is in control of all branches of Government. They can’t even get a “no brainer” like DACA relief done. Trump and his White Nationalist brigade including Sessions are now firmly in control.
If you don’t win elections, you don’t get to set the agenda. Trump’s popularity has consistently been below 50%. Yet the majority who want to preserve American Democracy and human decency have let the minority control the agenda. If good folks aren’t motivated to vote, the country will continue its descent into the abyss.
No more Obama Administrations, at least on immigration. The Dreamer fiasco, the implosion of the Immigration Courts, and the need for gender protections to be written into asylum law were all very well-known problems when Obama and the Dems swept into office with a brief, yet significant, veto proof Congress. The legislative fix was hardly rocket science. Yet, Obama’s leadership failed, his Cabinet was somewhere between weak and incompetent on immigration, and the Dems on the Hill diddled. As a result “Dreamers” have been left to dangle in the wind — a bargaining chip for the restrictionist agenda; children are being abused on a daily basis as a matter of official policy under Sessions; women and children are being returned to death and torture; and the U.S. Immigration Courts have abandoned Due Process and are imploding in their role as a “junior Border Patrol.” Political incompetence and malfeasance have “real life consequences.” And, they aren’t pretty!
There have been some bright spots for the Dems in recent races. But, the November outcome is still totally up for grabs. If the Trump led GOP continues its stranglehold on all branches of Government, not only will children suffer and women die, but there might not be enough of American Democracy left to save by 2020.
CORTEZ MASTO, COLLEAGUES CALL ON SESSIONS TO UPHOLD PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ ASYLUM SEEKERS FLEEING PERSECUTION
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Cortez (D-Nev) Masto joined Senators Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and other Senate Democrats in sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions urging that the Justice Department uphold a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that provides protections for LGBTQ asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution. In the letter, the senators highlight the increasing threat of violence LGBTQ individuals face in many parts of the world.
“LGBTQ individuals’ access to the U.S. asylum process has assumed increased urgency today as their persecution by both state and private actors is worsening in many parts of the world,” said the senators. “As of 2017, 72 countries worldwide effectively outlaw same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults. Eight apply the death penalty as a punishment for such relations. A majority of countries lack applicable hate crime laws and have law enforcement agencies that neither effectively investigate nor document hate-motivated private violence against LGBTQ individuals.”
The senators continued, “Altering the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B- to place additional roadblocks and burdens upon asylum seekers could potentially deprive deserving LGBTQ applicants with an opportunity to secure protection in the U.S. that would save their lives. Any increase in the burden of proof for LGBTQ asylum seekers experiencing private harm – additional evidence not now needed by either the immigration courts or asylum officers to fairly adjudicate claims – would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.”
In addition to Cortez Masto, Harris and Feinstein, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ).
We write to express our concerns about your pending review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018) and the adverse impact such a decision could have on vulnerable populations fleeing persecution and violence. We urge you to uphold the BIA’s decision, which reflects a well-settled matter of law that provides critical protections for vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ individuals subject to private persecution that foreign governments are unwilling or unable to control.
LGBTQ individuals’ access to the U.S. asylum process has assumed increased urgency today as their persecution by both state and private actors is worsening in many parts of the world. As of 2017, 72 countries worldwide effectively outlaw same-sex sexual relations between consenting adults. Eight apply the death penalty as a punishment for such relations. A majority of countries lack applicable hate crime laws and have law enforcement agencies that neither effectively investigate nor document hate-motivated private violence against LGBTQ individuals. As just two alarming examples of state sponsored anti-LGBTQ actions this past year, Russian authorities in Chechnya undertook an anti-gay purge that involved the alleged torture of dozens of men, and Egyptian authorities engaged in a campaign to target and incarcerate individuals solely based on their sexual orientation.
Your referral order for the Matter of A-B- – in which you aim to address, “Whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal” –has great import for the majority of LGBTQ asylum seekers who arrive in the United States fleeing persecution by private individuals. In the decades since this country first recognized LGBTQ status as a protected particular social group, it has been well established that LGBTQ individuals face grave risks in reporting private persecution or seeking governmental protection from such persecution abroad. Any change to this body of law would be a mistake.
In countries where government authorities engage in serious physical and sexual assaults of LGBTQ individuals, it is effectively impossible for them to seek protection from those same authorities when faced with private persecution. In some countries, simply asking for protection from state authorities can result in government-sponsored persecution. Even where state authorities are not active perpetrators of violence against LGBTQ individuals, they frequently turn a blind eye, emboldening private actors to engage in hate-motivated violence. U.S. State Department research highlights that foreign government retribution towards and lack of assistance for LGBTQ individuals who face private threats of persecution is commonplace, even when the population is not expressly criminalized. This chills the ability of LGBTQ individuals to report such persecution in their home countries.
Societal and familial considerations also often prevent LGBTQ victims of private persecution from coming forward to foreign authorities. They may be threatened with reprisals from their persecutors or coming forward would reveal their LGBTQ status and increase other persecution. In many countries, the act of reporting violence can have deadly consequences.
Altering the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B- to place additional roadblocks and burdens upon asylum seekers could potentially deprive deserving LGBTQ applicants with an opportunity to secure protection in the U.S. that would save their lives. Any increase in the burden of proof for LGBTQ asylum seekers experiencing private harm – additional evidence not now needed by either the immigration courts or asylum officers to fairly adjudicate claims – would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. As such, we strongly urge you to leave undisturbed the BIA’s decision in Matter of A-B-.
###
********************************************
The effort is likely to be futile. It’s hard to believe that Sessions, given his xenophobic record and anti-asylum rhetoric, certified the case to himself (actually over the objection of both the DHS and the Respondent) just to uphold and strengthen refugee protections for abused women and LGBTQ individuals. Indeed, Sessions has a clear record of anti-LGBTQ views and actions to go along with his anti-asylum bias.
But, the law favoring asylum protections for victims of DV and LGBTQ individuals who suffer harm at the hands of non-state-actors that governments are unwilling or unable to control is now well established. Therefore, Sessions’s likely “scofflaw” attempt to undo it and deny protections to such vulnerable refugees is likely to “muck up the system” and artificially increase the backlogs in the short run, while failing in the long run to achieve the perversion of justice and denial of Due Process for asylum seekers that he seeks to impose.
Surprisingly, the Article III (“real”) courts don’t allow the disgruntled prosecutor to “certify” results that he doesn’t like to himself and rewrite the law in his own favor! That’s why the facade of “courts” operating within the USDOJ must come to an end, sooner or later!
Briefs of the parties and amici have now been filed with the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-. Once again, a group of former immigration judges and BIA members, which this time numbered 16 (including myself) filed an amicus brief (which can be viewed here: http://www.aila.org/infonet/amicus-brief-matter-of-a-b- ).* The respondent’s brief was submitted by the outstanding legal team of Ben Winograd of IRAC; Karen Musalo, Blaine Bookey, and Eunice Lee of CGRS, and Charlotte attorney Andres Lopez. DHS’s brief was submitted by Michael P. Davis of ICE, whose reasoned positions are to be commended.
The issue in the case below involved the actions of immigration judge V. Stuart Couch in failing to abide by the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reversed Couch’s denial of asylum in a particularly strong claim involving a victim of severe domestic violence. The BIA reversed the judge’s decision, and remanded with instructions to grant asylum following the required updated security clearance by DHS. However, Couch took some nine months to schedule the case for a hearing. When at that hearing, DHS stated that the clearances had been completed, Judge Couch did not issue a new decision (as he was directed to do by the BIA). Instead, he stated that he was recertifying the case to the BIA, something that he lacked the authority to do without first issuing a new decision.
The case sat for another seven months, during which time it is not clear whether the record actually made its way back to the BIA. But before the Board could rule on the propriety of Judge Couch’s actions, the case was somehow plucked from wherever it had been by AG Jeff Sessions, who on his own transformed the case into a vehicle to answer a question that no one but himself seems to understand, namely, whether being the victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable particular social group for asylum purposes. (There is an interesting question of how Sessions even knew that this case existed.)
In response, the Department of Homeland Security appealed to reason. It requested the AG to hold off until the BIA ruled on the propriety of Couch’s attempted recertification. DHS also requested Sessions to provide further clarification of his question, and noted that “this question has already been answered, at least in part, by the Board and its prior precedent.” Sessions denied both requests, adding that he is not bound by BIA precedent, nor is he required to allow briefing on an issue before him on certification. It seems as if Sessions might be saying that as he’s bestowing the privilege of allowing briefs, he doesn’t further need to let everyone know what it is they are being asked to brief.
Depending on how Sessions is choosing to interpret the question, his decision might impact not only domestic violence claims, but any asylum claim based on a particular social group involving private criminal activity (which could include claims based on sexual orientation or sexual identity; as well as victims of female genital cutting, human trafficking, gang violence, blood feuds and honor killings). Or then again, maybe not. Because if Sessions is asking whether a particular social group delineated as “victims of private criminal activity” is cognizable, his answer wouldn’t impact the outcome of this case, as the respondent never claimed to be a member of such group. Nor would it matter to the outcome if Sessions is asking whether a group which includes the element of victimization by a criminal acting in a private capacity is cognizable, as no element of victimization is included in the respondent’s delineated group of “El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common.” Nowhere in the wording of such group is there a mention of being the victim of private criminal activity, nor is the respondent claiming that she was targeted for abuse because of her being a victim of private criminal activity.
But could Sessions be questioning whether any particular social group merits asylum where its members fear persecutors who are not government officials? If that’s his question, a decision in the negative would run counter to not only more than a half century of BIA precedent, but also to decisions of all eleven Federal circuit courts, and to international law, all of which universally agree that for asylum purposes, persecution may be by private actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.
Does Sessions himself understand the question he is asking? Let’s just assume that since this case involves a credible victim of severe domestic violence, and that her particular social group was found by the BIA to be substantially similar to the one it recognized as cognizable in its 2014 precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, that Sessions is considering invalidating that decision.
The purpose of courts and tribunals is to resolve disputes between the parties. The issue that Sessions now wishes to address has been settled, and is not being contested by either party. The Department of Homeland Security itself made this point to Sessions. Had this case been allowed to run its course and result in a grant of asylum, it is far from clear that such result would have been contested or appealed by DHS. In its brief to Sessions, DHS states more than once that it “generally supports the legal framework set out by the Board in Matter of A-R-C-G-.” DHS continued that the group in that case of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not defined by the respondent’s being subject to domestic violence. DHS specifically stated that like the BIA, it “understands ‘unable to leave a relationship’ to signify an inability to do so based on a potential range of ‘religious, cultural, or legal constraints…’” DHS continued that neither the PSG in A-R-C-G- nor the group offered by A-B- herself violate the principle that such group “must exist independently of the persecution suffered and/or feared.”
In refusing DHS’s request for clarification, Sessions claimed that “several Federal Article III courts have recently questioned whether victims of private violence may qualify for asylum” based on their membership in a particular social group. However, in responding to such statement in its subsequent brief, DHS noted that “none of the circuit court decision cited by the Immigration Judge questioned the underlying validity of A-R-C-G-.” In response to Sessions’ statement that he is not bound by the BIA’s precedent decisions, DHS recognized this, but “avers that the Attorney General should not directly or indirectly abrogate A-R-C-G-,” but should “rather…emphasize the importance of case and society-specific analysis.”
There is thus agreement between the parties of the validity of the Board’s holding in A-R-C-G-. In revisiting the issue, Sessions is not attempting to resolve a dispute, as no such dispute exists.
To me, the most shocking aspect of Sessions’ action is its timing. Case law concerning human rights (including the law of asylum) and civil rights does not develop in a vacuum. Much as courts have extended civil rights protections based on race, gender, and sexual orientation throughout the history of this country, the idea of what constitutes persecution and which of its victims are deserving of protection evolves along with the views of society. Sessions is choosing, unprompted, to challenge whether victims of domestic violence are deserving of asylum just as our society has undertaken a powerful, long-overdue, and much needed correction in the form of the #metoo movement. Many hundreds of thousands of us (“us” of course referring to people regardless of gender, as women’s rights are human rights) have filled the streets of cities all over America (and the world) the past two Januarys in a powerful, emotional rebuke to sexual assault and all forms of sexism. Powerful men who for years had engaged in all forms of sexual abuse and harassment are for the first time experiencing the consequences of their actions. And it is at this particular time that Sessions seeks to revoke protection to women who are domestic violence victims?
Briefs are good, but more is needed. The wonderful Tahirih Justice Center collected 60,000 signatures on a petition which it delivered to Sessions in March calling on him to uphold asylum protection for survivors of domestic violence: https://www.tahirih.org/news/tahirih-delivers-petition-on-asylum-for-domestic-violence-survivors-to-the-attorney-general/. More organizations need to follow Tahirih’s example. In addition to the briefs submitted, there needs to be a true public outcry addressed to Sessions on this issue. Asylum protection for victims of domestic violence is not just an immigration issue or a women’s issue. It is a human right, on which all of us should make ourselves heard.
*Heartfelt thanks to the law firm of Gibson Dunn (Megan Kiernan, Ronald Kirk, Chelsea Glover, Lalitha Madduri, and Amer Ahmed) for drafting the brief, and to former BIA member Lory D. Rosenberg for organizing and coordinating the effort.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
WASHINGTON — Central Americans who travel north to plead for entry at the U.S. border are taking their chances on an immigration system that is deeply divided on whether they can qualify for asylum if they are fleeing domestic violence or street crime, rather than persecution from the government.
The law in this area remains unclear, and the outcome of an asylum claim depends to a remarkable degree on the immigration judge who decides it.
And sitting atop the immigration court system is Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of much stricter limits on immigration who has recently taken an interest in reviewing asylum cases.
Lawyers say they are troubled by a legal system in which decisions turn so much on the views of individual judges.
Among the 34 immigration judges in Los Angeles, two granted fewer than 3% of the hundreds of asylum claims that came before them in the last five years, while another judge granted 71% of them. The disparity is even greater in San Francisco, where the judge’s rate of granting asylum claims ranged from 3% to 91%.
Overall, asylum seekers would do much better in San Francisco, where 32% were denied between 2012 and 2017, compared with a 68% denial rate in Los Angeles during the same period, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
This is not news to immigration lawyers. A decade ago, several law professors published a study called “Refugee Roulette” that revealed how asylum cases depend heavily on the views of individual judges. “The level of variation was shocking. And it hasn’t changed,” said Georgetown University professor Philip Schrag.
Judge Ashley Tabaddor from Los Angeles, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, discounts the statistics. “They’re not reliable,” she said, since judges may have very different caseloads. Some judges hear claims from people who have been detained for crimes, while others hear mostly claims from juveniles, she said.
“We are human. Different people can have different views about the same set of facts,” she said.
Several Los Angeles lawyers who have won or lost asylum cases in recent months said the identity of the judges played an important role. “It’s astounding how much variation there is from judge to judge. The system is in need of repair. It’s an embarrassment,” said Joseph D. Lee, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson.
He represented an El Salvador mother who fled north with her three children after gang members shot and killed her husband’s brother in front of her family and then threatened to do the same to her relatives.
“The Central American cases can be difficult to win. Some judges are pretty hostile to gang-related claims,” he said. His client’s claim was denied, and he plans to appeal. “Your chance of winning an asylum claim shouldn’t turn on the luck of the draw on which judge you get. But that is exactly how it works,” he said.
It may soon become much harder to win such claims. Under an unusual feature of the law, the attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, also oversees the immigration courts. He can overrule their decisions and announce new rules that are binding on them.
In March, Sessions announced he would review the question of whether women fleeing domestic violence or other “private criminal activity” can rely on this to win asylum.
Last fall, Sessions spoke to a meeting of immigration judges and complained America’s “generous asylum” system has become “overloaded with fake claims.… The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”
In the last week, the American Bar Assn., faith-based groups and a coalition of immigration law professors have submitted “friend of the court” briefs to Sessions urging him not to reverse years of precedent involving women fleeing abuse and terror.
But veteran immigration judges are not optimistic. Sessions “just wants more people to be removed,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a retired immigration judge from Virginia and an outspoken critic of the attorney general. “He will make it a lot harder for Central Americans to get asylum.”
The dispute begins with the words of the asylum law. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress adopted the United Nations standard and said people may seek asylum if they are “unable or unwilling to return” to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Under the law, asylum seekers are treated differently than, for example, refugees from a war-torn nation or immigrants seeking work.
Four of those terms in the asylum law are clear enough: race, religion, nationality and political opinion. But lawyers and judges have struggled to decide what counts as “membership in a particular social group.”
Courts have agreed that gays and lesbians can count as a social group, since they have suffered persecution in many societies. Some judges have also said women and girls fleeing sexual abuse and violence can seek asylum because their society views women as the property of men — and with no hope for protection from their government.
But the question becomes harder when considering the gang violence that has spread through some Central American countries. For example, people who testified against violent gangs or resisted them in other ways have sought asylum on the grounds they are members of a particularly endangered social group.
“These cases are challenging,” said Nareeneh Sohbatian, a Los Angeles lawyer at Winston & Strawn who supervises asylum claims. “We talk a lot about this. If they are targeted because of a gang, it can be difficult to show it was caused by their membership in a particular social group.”
Jenna Gilbert, managing attorney for Human Rights First in Los Angeles, said it is clear the asylum law does not protect people fleeing “generalized violence.” A claim “needs to be tied to the one of the protected categories,” she said. “The cases are very fact-dependent.”
But the odds of winning asylum are not good for Central Americans. In the last five years, China had the largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration courts, and only 20% of their claims were denied. Ethiopians did even better, with only 17% denied. By contrast, the highest denial rates arose from claims brought by natives of Jamaica (91%), the Philippines (90%), Mexico (88%), El Salvador (79%), Honduras (78%) and Guatemala (75%).
Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who works at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter enforcement, said it is not surprising that Sessions will reconsider rulings on asylum in cases of domestic violence. “Right now, the law is very unclear. The phrase ‘particular social group’ is vague. A lot of these claims are compelling, but that doesn’t mean it is ‘persecution’ under the law. If a gang wants to recruit me, that’s not persecution.”
Last month, Sessions criticized a caravan of Central American asylum seekers approaching the border as a “deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system. There is no right to demand entry without justification. Smugglers and traffickers and those who lie or commit fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
People who present an asylum claim at the border must only show they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were to return home. Most asylum seekers are allowed to stay and make their claim.
Sessions said he would send more prosecutors and judges to the border area to resolve these claims quickly, rather than let them linger for many months or years.
Meanwhile, lawyers are also rushing to represent the asylum seekers. “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has waged a yearlong campaign to undermine asylum seekers and demonize those who only wish to live in safety with the families,” said Gilbert of Human Rights First. “We’re proud to assist these individuals who are fleeing unspeakable horror as they try to rebuild their lives.”
*************************************
It’s really not that complex.
Under the BIA’s seminal precedent decision in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1985) resisting gang recruitment is undoubtedly a characteristic that is “fundamental to identity” therefore making an individual a member of a “particular social group” (“PSG”) for asylum purposes.
Undoubtedly, this conduct is threatening to a gang’s existence and power and is “at least one central reason” why forced recruitment and other forms of harm are used, among other things, to overcome this fundamental characteristic of the PSG.
Therefore, the vast majority of those fleeing the Northern Triangle over the years because of various forms of resistance to gangs should have qualified for asylum under the Acosta test.
However granting most of these cases might have been perceived as “opening the floodgates” and therefore career threatening to the BIA.
Following the “Ashcroft Purge,” which removed almost all of the Appellate Judges on the BIA who consistently stood up for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, the BIA came up with bogus requirements of “particularity” and “social visibility/social distinction” to facilitate the denial of most asylum grants to individuals from the Northern Triangle.
To do this, the BIA actually had to intentionally and disingenuously misapply criteria developed by the UNHCRto expand the protection available on the basis of a particular social group to instead restrict the group entitled to protection.
With the “due process” group of judges removed by Ashcroft, the BIA was able to get away with this with no visible internal resistance.
However even under the BIA’s new “bogus test” almost all experts agree that individuals resisting gang recruitment in countries where “go along to get along (and live)” is the norm would be both a well-defined “particularized” group and highly “socially distinct.”
Consequently, the BIA and a number of anti-asylum Immigration Judges simply resorted to intentionally misconstruing country conditions and making biased “no nexus” findings or largely bogus “adverse credibility rulings” to keep the Northern Triangle grant rate unrealistically low.
A great way to maximize denials is to hold individuals in detention or game the system so that they can’t obtain competent representation and/or “fail to appear” in Immigration Court thereby denying them the relief that the likely could win in a truly fair, unbiased system.
Remarkably, the article quotes a source who espouses one of the many DHS “enforcement myths” — that forced recruitment can’t be a basis for asylum.
This is nonsense. Even under BIA’s intentionally restrictive precedents, the factual reasons why the respondent is being recruited (“nexus”) are important.
But, as a practical matter, no detained, unrepresented applicant has any realistic chance of understanding the law and developing the factual record necessary to support relief.
Also, in the Northern Triangle gangs have infiltrated the system to the extent that it is almost impossible to separate “political motives” from supposedly “criminal ones/”
Individuals are forcibly recruited as punishment for a variety of reasons including family membership, having been witnesses against gangs, actual or imputed political opinion, and actual or imputed religious views.
With competent lawyers, time to prepare, and an attentive Court of Appeals, most credible gang-related cases should qualify for asylum.
Without lawyers or the chance to develop and document a case, the chances for success are almost nil.
Even though the system is already heavily rigged against bona fide asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he intends to further misconstrue the law to make it virtually impossible for refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle to qualify for asylum
Given the total corruption of the governments in the Northern Triangle and the serious infiltration by gangs, a fair process should result in a “blanket precedent” that would give almost everyone credibly fleeing gang threats in the Norther Triangle at least “temporary withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
No, the problem is not just that different Immigration Judges have different opinions. It’s that both the composition of the Immigration Court and the administrative case-law have been consciously “rigged” to deny those seeking protection from the Northern Triangle the protection to which they should be entitled under both U.S. and international law.
Yes, I of all people certainly agree that judges can and should have differing views and philosophies,
But, at some point, “differences” become “biases.”
There is no way that those judges whose grant rates are below 10% can actually be applying asylum law in the generous manner set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca or the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi.
Nor are they properly applying the “benefit of the doubt” as it’s supposed to be given according to the UNHCR in systems based on the 1952 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
No, I wouldn’t “fire” any current Immigration Judges (although I might over time make everyone re-compete for their jobs in a true merit-based selection system). But we do need:
An independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, free from the pernicious political influence that the DOJ has been applying for many years.
A real merit selection system for future Immigration Judges that emphasizes expertise in immigration and asylum law and proven ability to deal fairly, effectively, and objectively with the public and which utilizes panels with some members from outside the Federal Government who practice before the Immigration Courts.
An Appellate Division that functions like a true independent Appellate Court, with a diverse membership, that will rein in those judges who are biased against asylum seekers and not applying Cardoza-Fonseca.
As I’ve pointed out before, things simply can’t happen under the highly biased, xenophobic Jeff Sessions. He is the “perfect storm” of why the Immigration Judiciary must be removed from the DOJ.
As a historical aside, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come, the BIA actually misapplied their own “immutability/fundamental to identity” test to the facts in Acosta!
Of course “taxi drivers in San Salvador” were a PSG! Ask any New Yorker whether being a taxi driver is “fundamental to identity!”
Occupational identification, at all levels of society, is one of the most powerful indicators of self-identity and one that we seldom ask individuals to involuntarily change. Think that “truck drivers” aren’t a “PSG?” Just walk into the next Pilot Truck Stop you see on the Interstate in your little black judicial robe and shout that next to the Drivers” Lounge or rest rooms. I think you would find some “strong dissenters.”
Or how about going before a group of judges and telling them that being a judge isn’t “fundamental to identity!” I remember when a somewhat “tone-deaf” (but in retrospect, perhaps clairvoyant) invited speaker at one of our past Annual Immigration Judges’ Conferences referred to us as “just highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.” He barely got out alive!
The BIA ruling in Acosta was “doubly absurd” in the context of 1985. The U.S. was then actively engaged in supporting the Government of El Salvador against the guerrillas. The BIA suggested that the taxi drivers in San Salvador could merely quit their jobs en masse or participate in the guerrillas taxi strike called by the guerrillas. Both of which would have crippled the country of El Salvador and seriously undermined the government we were supporting!
In short, the BIA has a long ugly history of twisting the law and the facts against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly those from Latin America.
Jeff Sessions, well-known for his long history of xenophobia, racially charged attitudes and actions, and bias against nearly every non-White-male-straight-right-wing-Christian social group in America is on the cusp of making things even worse for vulnerable refugees entitled to our protection by abusing his power as AG and stripping the hard earned asylum rights from abused women — who had to labor through 15 years of wrong BIA decisions, outrageous political maneuvering at the DOJ, and task avoidance at the BIA to win their hard-earned rights in A-R-C-G- in the first place!
Only cowards pick on the vulnerable and the dispossessed!
Eventually, long after I’m gone, I’m sure the “truth will out.” However, that will be little help to those currently being railroaded through the travesty that passes for justice in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts or those who have been denied justice in the past.
