Central America – Page 2 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤮👎🏽WASHPOST SLAMS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FOR ABANDONING NEGOTIATIONS WITH FAMILIES WHO SUFFERED CHILD ABUSE BY SESSIONS & MILLER! — “Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.”

“Floaters” — So, what’s the “dollar value” of brown-skinned human lives to Biden, Harris, & Garland? We’re about to find out!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/05/president-biden-broke-his-promise-separated-migrant-families/

Opinion by the Editorial Board

January 5 at 2:18 PM ET

When the Trump administration wrenched migrant babies, toddlers and tweens from their parents as a means of frightening away prospective asylum seekers, it was guilty of emotionally torturing innocent children. Americans of every political leaning expressed revulsion toward the policy implemented in 2018, especially when it became clear that the government had kept no clear records linking parents with their children — in other words, no ready means to reunite the families.

President Biden, as a candidate and also once in office, made clear his own disgust at the so-called zero-tolerance policy, calling it “criminal.” He said, correctly, that it “violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”

Now the president, having explicitly endorsed government compensation that would address the suffering of separated migrant family members, has apparently had a change of heart — or political calculation. In mid-December, the Justice Department abruptly broke off negotiations aimed at a financial settlement with hundreds of affected families. Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.

The government has no means of alleviating the trauma inflicted by the previous president’s egregious treatment of those families. That is particularly true as regards the children, whose torment has been described and documented by medical professionals, advocates and journalists. The babies and toddlers who didn’t recognize their own mothers when they were finally reunited; the depression; the fear of further separations, even brief ones — the human aftershocks of Donald Trump’s heartlessness will linger for years, and for lifetimes in some cases.

The administration compounds the hurt by breaking off negotiations on compensating victims. The government must be held accountable; compensation is the most potent and credible vehicle for achieving that.

Granted, there may be a political price to pay. Republicans had a field day blasting the White House after media reports this fall suggested the government might pay $450,000 to separated family members — a settlement that could amount to $1 billion if applied to the several thousand affected migrants. Mr. Biden, apparently unaware of the status of negotiations at that time, said the reports, first published in the Wall Street Journal, were “garbage.” He later backed away from that remark, saying he did not know how much money would be suitable but that some amount was certainly due.

Now, it seems, all bets are off. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the government would enter into what would likely be years of costly litigation, in which Mr. Biden’s Justice Department would be in the awkward position of defending a policy that Mr. Biden himself — and most Americans — have condemned as evil. There is no predicting how individual judges or juries might react to documented accounts of harm done to children. No one should be surprised if some were to award enormous damages — conceivably in amounts that exceed the $450,000 contemplated in the now-stalled negotiations.

By walking away from the bargaining table, Mr. Biden has broken an explicit, repeated promise. Whatever the political calculus behind that decision, it is morally indefensible.

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

Garland fails to stand up for the rights of families of color — again. At the same time, he ties up resources on a frivolous DOJ defense of the indefensible!

“Replacement theory,” White Nationalism, and racism always have been and remain at the core of the GOP’s anti-democracy insurrection. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s plans to de-stabilize American democracy began with cowardly attacks on vulnerable migrants (enabled by a failed Supremes) and culminated in open insurrection.

The dots aren’t that hard to connect. But, Garland doesn’t seem to be able to do it!

If Garland can’t handle the “low hanging fruit” — like settling these cases and creating a progressive judiciary at EOIR who will stand up for the rights of all persons while using expertise and “practical scholarship” to replace dysfunction with efficiency, his pledge to hold the January insurrectionists and their leaders accountable rings hollow!

I’m not the only one to note and question Garland’s uninspiring performance as Attorney General at a time of existential crisis. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Merrick-Garland-isn-t-going-to-save-16752522.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

For those who read the LA Times, there was a “spot on” letter to the editors today accurately characterizing Garland as the “Attorney General for different era.”

As I’ve noted before, this is NOT Ed Levi’s, Griffin Bell’s, or Ben Civiletti’s DOJ. It isn’t even Janet Reno’s DOJ. (I ought to know, as I worked under each of the foregoing.)

It’s an organization that has become increasingly politicized over the last two decades (as it was during Watergate), and that allowed itself to be weaponized by Trump’s White Nationalist regime. EOIR, Executive Orders, and immigration litigation were perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, examples.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-07-22

☠️⚰️👎🏽🤮 SHAFTOLA! — RIGHTY JUDGES USE UNREPRESENTED CASE TO STICK IT TO FEMALE REFUGEES PERSECUTED BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! — America’s Worst Circuit Strikes Again! — Jaco v. Garland

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60081-CV0.pdf

PANEL: Jolly, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Jennifer Walker Elrod, Circuit Judge

KEY QOUTE:

We will start, as we did in Gonzales-Veliz, with the state of immigration law. In Matter of M-E-V-G-, the BIA synthesized prior BIA decisions addressing the definition of “particular social group.” 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 228 (BIA 2014). In doing so, it clarified that an applicant must show that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question. Id. at 237. Furthermore, there must

3 The Attorney General issued A-B-II to clarify questions arising from A-B-I. Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (A-B-II).

10

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

be a nexus between the particular social group and its persecution; the persecution must be “on account of” membership in the group. Id. at 242; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

In clarifying these requirements, the BIA carefully distinguished between the existence of a social group and the nexus between that social group and its persecution. As to the existence of a social group, drawing on the language of the statute, prior BIA decisions, and federal circuit court decisions, the BIA stated that the “social group must exist independently of the fact of persecution,” and that “this criterion is well established in our prior precedents and is already a part of the social group analysis.” M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 236 n.11 (citing Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, 74 (BIA 2007) and Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 172 (3d Cir. 2003)); see also id. at 242 (referencing the text and structure of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)).

This does not mean that past persecution is irrelevant. Rather, it means that the group must be sufficiently defined and particularized by characteristics other than persecution. See W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 216 (“Circuit courts have long recognized that a social group must have ‘defined boundaries’ or a ‘limiting characteristic,’ other than the risk of being persecuted, in order to be recognized.”). To illustrate, the BIA considered a hypothetical group of former employees of a country’s attorney general. M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 242–43. The employees’ shared experience of working for the attorney general satisfied the requirement of an immutable characteristic. And the group would also be sufficiently particularized. But the group, without more, may not be considered sufficiently distinct in its society. In this case, government persecution may “cataly[ze] the society to distinguish the former employees in a meaningful way and consider them a distinct group.” Id. at 243. But “the immutable characteristic of their shared past experience exists independent of the persecution.” Id.

11

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

In a decision released on the same day as M-E-V-G-, the BIA elaborated on the nexus requirement. W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). In W-G-R-, the BIA stated that “membership in a particular social group [must be] a central reason for [the] persecution.” Id. at 224. This common-sense definition highlights the importance of the distinction between the existence of a group and the persecution that it suffers. In the BIA’s words: “The structure of the Act supports preserving this distinction, which should not be blurred by defining a social group based solely on the perception of the persecutor.” Id. at 218. To define a social group by its persecution collapses the “particular social group” and “persecution on account of membership” inquiries into the same question, contrary to the structure of the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

Nevertheless, later in the same year the BIA decided A-R-C-G-. 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). In A-R-C-G-, the petitioner claimed that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” constituted a particular social group. Id. at 388–89. Whereas the IJ determined that the woman’s husband did not abuse her “on account of” her membership in this group, the BIA reversed on appeal. Professing to apply M-E-V-G-, it determined that the “immutable characteristics” of “gender,” “marital status,” and “the inability to leave the relationship” combined “to create a group with discrete and definable boundaries.” A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 393.

In 2018, however, the Attorney General overruled A-R-C-G- in A-B-I. 27 I. & N. Dec. at 316. After the BIA recognized the group “El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common [with their partners],” the Attorney General directed the BIA to refer the decision for his review. Id. at 316–17, 321; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i). Upon review, the Attorney General reversed. He reiterated that “[t]o be cognizable, a particular social group must ‘exist

12

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

independently’ of the harm asserted in an application for asylum or statutory withholding of removal.” Id. at 334 (citing M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 236 n.11, 243; W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 215; and a collection of federal circuit court cases). He reasoned that “[i]f a group is defined by the persecution of its members, then the definition of the group moots the need to establish actual persecution.” Id. at 335. For this reason, he concluded that “[g]enerally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.” Id. at 320.

A-B-I, however, was itself overruled by the Attorney General in 2021. On February 2, 2021, the President issued an executive order directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to address the definition of “a particular social group.” Exec. Order No. 14010, § 4(c)(ii), 86 Fed. Reg. 8267, 8271 (Feb. 2, 2021). Because A-B-I and A-B-II addressed that definition, the Attorney General vacated both decisions in anticipation of further rulemaking. He also instructed immigration judges and the BIA to follow “pre-A-B-I precedent, including A-R-C-G-.” A-B-III, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 307.

B.

Swept up in this flurry of overrulings is our decision in Gonzales-Veliz. In that case, we faced the question whether the group “Honduran women unable to leave their relationship”—defined identically to Jaco’s proposed social group—qualified as a particular social group. 938 F.3d at 223. Issued after A-B-I but before A-B-III, we relied in part on A-B-I in concluding that the group was not cognizable. Thus, keeping in mind our duty to exercise Chevron deference, we must determine whether the overruling of A-B-I gives us reason to depart from our decision in Gonzales-Veliz. We hold that it does not.

13

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

In holding that the group in Gonzales-Veliz was not cognizable, we relied in part on A-B-I. Yet we relied on A-B-I not out of deference to it but based on the quality of its reasoning. Indeed, our decision hinged on the inherent circularity involved in defining a particular social group by reference to the very persecution from which it flees. We held that the group was “impermissibly defined in a circular manner. The group is defined by, and does not exist independently of, the harm—i.e., the inability to leave.” Id. at 232. For this reason, we concluded that such an interpretation would “render the asylum statute unrecognizable.” Id. at 235.

In contrast, we recognized that the Attorney General’s “interpretation of the INA in [A-B-I] is . . . a much more faithful interpretation” of the statute. Id. This interpretation was, we said, “a return to the statutory text as Congress created it and as it had existed before the BIA’s A-R-C-G- decision.” Id. That our conclusion had support in the overwhelming weight of BIA precedents shows only that our reading of the statute was correct, not that A-B-I or any other decision was necessary for our conclusion.

Nor does Chevron deference affect our conclusion here. Although we review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, we grant Chevron deference to the BIA’s precedential decisions interpreting statutes that it administers. E.g., Rodriguez-Avalos v. Holder, 788 F.3d 444, 449 (5th Cir. 2015). Chevron entails a two-step process for determining whether deference is appropriate. First, the relevant statutory provision must be ambiguous. And second, the agency’s interpretation must be reasonable. E.g., Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149, 154 (5th Cir. 2013). Here, even assuming arguendo that the phrase “particular social group” is ambiguous and that A-R-C-G- requires upholding the cognizability of Jaco’s group, that interpretation would be unreasonable for the reasons we gave in Gonzales-Veliz. Relying on circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. An interpretation that renders circular a

14

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

statute’s reasoning is unreasonable and therefore unworthy of deference

under Chevron.4

In the alternative, we hold that even if Gonzales-Veliz were not good law, Jaco’s petition would still be denied.5 Following pre-A-B-I precedent, as A-B-III instructs, would not change the result. In A-B-III, the Attorney General instructed immigration judges and the BIA to follow “pre-A-B-I precedent, including [A-R-C-G-].” A-B-III, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 307. This was also the relevant law at the time of the IJ’s decision, and the IJ correctly distinguished Jaco’s case from that upheld in A-R-C-G-. Because A-R-C-G- is not clearly on point and did not overrule prior case law, we must

4 Our circuit has consistently refused to recognize particular social groups defined primarily by the persecution they suffer. This is true before and after both A-R-C-G- and Gonzales-Veliz. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518–19 (5th Cir. 2012); De Leon-Saj v. Holder, 583 F. App’x 429, 430–31 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam); Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1061 (5th Cir. 2020); Gomez-De Saravia v. Barr, 793 F. App’x 338, 339–40 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam); Serrano-de Portillo v. Barr, 792 F. App’x 341, 342 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam); Hercules v. Garland, 855 F. App’x 940, 942 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); Argueta-Luna v. Garland, 847 F. App’x 260, 261 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

This is true even after A-B-III. See Castillo-Martinez v. Garland, No. 20-60276, 2021 WL 4186411, at *2 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 2021) (per curiam); Santos-Palacios v. Garland, No. 20-60123, 2021 WL 3501985, at *1–2 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2021); Temaj-Augustin v. Garland, 854 F. App’x 631, 632 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

Some, but not all, of our sister circuits have agreed with this anti-circularity principle. Sanchez-Lopez v. Garland, No. 18-72221, 2021 WL 3912145, at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 2021); Del Carmen Amaya-De Sicaran v. Barr, 979 F.3d 210, 217–18 (4th Cir. 2020); Amezcua-Preciado v. United States Attorney General, 943 F.3d 1337, 1345–46 & n.3 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); but see Juan Antonio v. Barr, 959 F.3d 778, 789 n.2, 791–92 (6th Cir. 2020) (observing that “married indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” constitutes a cognizable particular social group); Corea v. Garland, No. 19-3537/20-3252, 2021 WL 2774260, at *3–4 (6th Cir. July 2, 2021) (remanding to the BIA to consider whether “Honduran women unable to leave their relationships” is a cognizable social group in light of A-B-III).

5 Alternative holdings are not dicta and are binding in this circuit. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 178 n.158 (5th Cir. 2015).

15

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

read it in light of prior BIA decisions, including M-E-V-G-. Cf. Gonzales- Veliz, 938 F.3d at 235 (“[A-B-I] did not alter [prior immigration law]; it simply restated established legal principles and overruled A-R-C-G- because A-R-C-G- deviated from those principles.”).

Indeed, multiple factors counsel toward reading A-R-C-G- narrowly, including (1) the fact that DHS had conceded the existence of a particular social group, and (2) A-R-C-G-’s own statement that “where concessions are not made and accepted as binding, these issues will be decided based on the particular facts and evidence on a case-by-case basis as addressed by the Immigration Judge in the first instance.” 26 I. & N. Dec. at 392–93, 395. For these reasons, Jaco’s group would not be recognized even if Gonzales-Veliz were not the law of this circuit.

We also reject Jaco’s argument that intervening BIA decisions since the time of the IJ’s decision require a remand of her case. A-R-C-G- was the relevant law at the time of the IJ’s decision. Now that A-R-C-G- has been revived, a remand would place Jaco back where she started. And her claims have already been correctly rejected under that standard. Alternatively, regardless of the controlling decision, only an unreasonable interpretation of the INA can support her proposed group.

A remand is also inappropriate because it would be futile. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (declining to remand where a remand would be futile); see also Villegas v. Stephens, 631 F. App’x 213, 214 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (same). Applicants for asylum or withholding of removal must show that the government “is unable or unwilling to control” the applicant’s persecution. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)). As the IJ held—and as the BIA affirmed in its first decision—Jaco failed to make this showing. Jaco received child support and

16

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

a restraining order from the Honduran government against her former partner. While her former partner appeared to violate the restraining order on at least two occasions, Jaco reported only one occasion to the judge, and never informed the police. Rather than being unable or unwilling to protect her, the record reflects that the government was responsive to her fears when apprised of them. Therefore, even if Jaco could show membership in a cognizable particular social group, a remand would be futile because it would not change the disposition of her case.6

In holding that Jaco’s proposed group is not cognizable, we do not hold that women who have suffered from domestic violence are categorically precluded from membership in a particular social group. We hold only that a particular social group’s immutable characteristics must make the group sufficiently particularized and socially distinct without reference to the very persecution from which its members flee. E.g., Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 61, 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (“A sufficiently distinct social group must exist independent of the persecution claimed to have been suffered by the alien and must have existed before the alleged persecution began.”); Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551, 556 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The individuals in the group must share a narrowing characteristic other than their risk of being persecuted.”).

Accordingly, even if Jaco’s group meets the immutable characteristic and nexus requirements, we still hold that her group is neither particularized nor socially distinct.7 In Gonzales-Veliz, we determined that—even as defined by the persecution that it suffers—the group “Honduran women unable to leave their relationships” lacked the requisite particularity and

6 See supra note 5. 7 See supra note 5.

17

Case: 20-60081 Document: 00516071113 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/27/2021

No. 20-60081

social distinction. 938 F.3d at 232; see also Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1061 (5th Cir. 2020); Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 521–22 (5th Cir. 2012). The same is true here. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that her group is neither particularized nor distinct. And without the illicit element of persecution, the group “Honduran women” is even less particularized. Jaco’s proposed group fails this test.

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

Judge Elrod’s opinion is as preposterous as it is intellectually dishonest and legally wrong. Of course “Honduran women” — whether in a relationship or not — are both socially distinct in society and “particularized” as it excludes men and women of other nationalities. And, there can be little doubt based on empirical reports about femicide and its causes that Honduran women suffer disproportionately.

Indeed, until the BIA went to work restricting the definition following the “Ashcroft Purge of ‘03” the “touchstone” for recognizing a particular social group was “immutability” (including “fundamental to identity”). See,e.g., Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).

Indeed, most refugee NGOs and experts view the BIA’s departure from the “immutability test” as both improper and intellectually dishonest. “Social visibility” actually was put forward by the UNHCR as a way of expanding the refugee coverage by insuring the inclusion of groups that strictly speaking might not be “immutable” or “fundamental to identity.”

Contrary to Judge Elrod’s claim, the 1951 Refugee Convention, upon which our Refugee Act of 1980 was modeled, was intended to protect, not reject, refugees to insure that there would be no repetition of the Western democracies’ disgraceful performance prior to and during the Holocaust!

The best comment I have seen so far is from my friend and immigration guru Dan Kowalski:

This is a travesty. For such an important case, the Court should have appointed counsel. I hope pro bono counsel will step in to petition for rehearing and/or en banc review.

“Travesties of justice” are what right wing Federal Judges and White Nationalist restrictionist politicos stand for. The only question is when, if ever, is Congress finally going to act to put an end to this continuing national disgrace that actually harms and kills refugees?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-27-21

🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏽RACE-BASED CHILD ABUSE & SEXUAL ABUSE OF KIDS MUST STOP — Demand An End To Scofflaw Behavior By Our Government!

Crimes Against Humanity — Thomas Cizauskas Crimes against humanity
Creative Commons License — The Biden Administration promised to stop these crimes committed by our Government, but hasn’t.

https://www.newsweek.com/we-fled-honduras-fearing-our-lives-immigration-officers-abused-my-child-opinion-1605760p

Daniel Paz writes in Newsweek:

“Welcome to hell.”

Those were the words I heard from an immigration officer not long after I entered the United States near El Paso, Texas in May 2018. I thought I had just reached safety with Angie, my 7-year-old daughter. I was wrong.

Once we arrived at the border, immigration officers processed me and my daughter at a detention facility, and led us to a crowded cell packed with 50 to 60 other families. It smelled terrible—like urine—and everything was gray. We were so cold. They didn’t even offer us one of the cellophane blankets you see on TV. I had to take my shirt off to wrap it around Angie and keep her warm. I was shivering.

The journey to this point had been excruciatingly painful. Fearing for our lives, we had to make the decision to flee. I had a good life in Honduras. I was a businessman and I owned my own home. I knew it would be hard to leave everything I worked so hard to build behind. Starting a new life in a new country with a different culture wouldn’t be easy. But desperate circumstances called for desperate measures. Hope of reaching a safe place for my family kept me going.

At the detention center, many fathers began hearing rumors that immigration officials were going to take our children away from us. Take them where? Take my daughter? To another cell? A new facility? On the inside I was panicking, but I knew I needed to show strength for my daughter. I needed to be brave and prepare her if the rumors were true. You will contact your grandparents in Ohio, I told Angie.

In the cell, we practiced memorizing their phone numbers, repeating them over and over. To be extra safe, I then wrote the numbers with a ball-point pen on my daughter’s arm, her belly, her foot and on the inside of her jeans hoping she’d have the chance to make a phone call before immigration officials washed off the ink.

Then my nightmare happened. They came to take our children. I witnessed pain, agonizing cries and a deep sense of helplessness. Some of the immigration officers joked as they handcuffed the parents. Others expressed a cruelty I never would have expected. Rather than trying to ease our pain, they were somehow enjoying their power. As if they believed their actions were the right thing to do. I don’t know how anyone believes separating a child from a parent is right.

. . . .

While being transferred to a detention facility for children, an immigration officer sexually abused her. When she fought back, the officer threatened her, saying if she told anyone she would never see her parents again. Then Angie witnessed the same officer sexually abuse two girls who were even younger than her. Angie stayed quiet about the experience even months after we were reunited.

We were reunited after several weeks, though the separation felt eternal. The Angie the U.S. government returned to me is not the same girl they took out of my arms in that detention center. She cannot forget what happened to her. And she wants me to share what happened to her because she is worried the officer who abused her is still an immigration official. We do not know the officer’s name—let alone whether the officer is still working in government.

“What if that officer is still hurting other kids?” Angie asked me.

As a father I want to tell Angie not to worry. That is why I am asking President Joe Biden to act. Reuniting families and making sure they have immigration status in the U.S. is critical—but it is not enough. The government can make a huge difference in the lives of thousands of asylum seekers who are being turned away at the border right now. All asylum seekers should be allowed to seek protection and refuge in the U.S. without fear.

The government must also investigate every allegation of sexual abuse and mistreatment by immigration officers. Those officers must immediately be identified and removed from their positions so they cannot hurt anyone else. President Biden, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice together have the ability to ensure that families like mine can begin to heal.

It is hell to leave your home and risk everything so your child can be safe. It shouldn’t be hell once you have reached what you thought would be a safe haven.

After entering the United States to seek safety, Daniel Paz and his daughter were separated for several weeks. Paz and his family were reunited in 2018 and have since won asylum. He is a committed advocate for other families who have faced similar trauma.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

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

Who would have thought that nearly six months into the Biden Administration our Government would still be abusing asylum seekers and ignoring the Constitution, mocking the rule of law, and degrading humanity?

So, how is it that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke intend to combat racism and unequal justice in America when they have failed to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the border and continue to run an unjust and grossly mismanaged “court system” @ EOIR filled with too many “Miller Lite” judges?

Tell the Biden Administration and Judge Garland that we need progressive reforms, now! EOIR would be a great starting place!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-06-21

⚠️🚸V.P. HARRIS IS GOING TO THE BORDER: SHE SHOULD TALK WITH THE REAL VICTIMS OF HER GOVERNMENT’S, ILLEGAL, WRONG-HEADED, IMMORAL, AND INEFFECTIVE BORDER DETERRENCE POLICIES — Avoid The CBP “Dog & Pony Show,” & The GOP’s Cowardly “Gunboat Cruz” — Cross Over The Border, View The Human Rights Catastrophe We Have Created, Understand People Have A Right To Seek Legal Refuge, & Fix The Legal Asylum System At Ports Of Entry & Immigration Courts With Humane, Practical Experts! — “The vice president seems to have bought into the… I can’t use another word, but the nativist party line, that somehow these immigrants are the cause of the problem when, in fact, they’re the victims of multiple problems in many cases.” — Stop Blaming, Shaming, & Dehumanizing The Victims & Start Fixing Our Asylum System & Solving The Problems That Force Them To Migrate!

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/06/17/vice-president-kamala-harris-us-mexico-border-immigration-unaccompanied

J.D. Long-Garcia writes in America Magazine:

Last week, Ms. Harris traveled to Guatemala to meet with President Alejandro Giammattei and expressed the Biden administration’s goal to “help Guatelmalans find hope at home.” During a press conference on June 7, she told Guatemalans thinking of making the journey north to the United States: “Do not come. Do not come.”

“O.K., that’s like saying, ‘Stay home and die,’” according to the Rev. Pat Murphy, a Scalabrini priest who runs the Casa del Migrante shelter in Tijuana, Baja California. “That message is falling on deaf ears.”

If Ms. Harris does travel to the border, Father Murphy said, she should be sure to make a visit to the Mexican side. “If she just stays on her side, she’s not going to find much,” he said.

In Tijuana, Ms. Harris would see a camp of 2,000 asylum seekers near the port of entry, Father Murphy said. “If she looked a little further, she would see the people who are victims of violence in Tijuana and Mexicali and other places,” he said. Migrants may be eager to escape bad situations in their home countries, Father Murphy said, but they often do not understand how difficult conditions at the border are “until they’re stuck in the middle of [a border city] with no place to go.”

“You can’t understand [border realities] by talking to government officials. You have to talk to the people who are working with migrants and hear about the suffering.”

At diminished capacity because of the pandemic, migrant shelters are full. The United States has started to accept some vulnerable people, like families with children with an illness or those being persecuted because of their sexual orientation, Father Murphy said. But there are also hundreds deported every day.

He believes if the vice president did decide to visit the border, it would be worth her while. “You can’t understand [border realities] by talking to government officials,” Father Murphy said. “You have to talk to the people who are working with migrants and hear about the suffering.”

. . . .

Donald M. Kerwin
Executive Director
Center for Migration Studies

Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Center for Migration Studies in New York, also noted that people have a right not to migrate—to stay in their home country. He sees immigration policy as an arena for a fruitful convergence of Catholic social teaching, international law and contemporary human rights principles.

The Biden administration’s recognition of the forces that drive migration should be applauded, but it can address root causes while re-establishing humane asylum policies at the border.

“States are responsible for ensuring that people can flourish at home,” he said. “But it’s an empty right at this point in many communities in the Northern Triangle countries. They’re facing impossible conditions, caused by natural disasters, climate change, gang violence and extraordinary poverty. So people have a right to flee those impossible conditions and seek lives that are worthy of human dignity. In some cases, that means leaving their countries.”

When they do leave their home countries, people have the right to seek protection wherever they can find it, Mr. Kerwin said. “The vice president seems to have bought into the… I can’t use another word, but the nativist party line, that somehow these immigrants are the cause of the problem when, in fact, they’re the victims of multiple problems in many cases.”

The United States needs a functioning refugee resettlement system, an asylum system and robust humanitarian programs to address the conditions in Central America that are driving people to migrate, he said. “They’re not in place right now,” Mr. Kerwin said, “and until they are in place, people will reluctantly, at a terrible cost…continue to migrate.”

If Ms. Harris visits the border, Mr. Kerwin suggested she speak with migrants that have entered the United States, starting with the children. “Find out why they’ve come, what drove them to the United States and also see what their situation is currently, in often overcrowded facilities,” he said. “At that point, it would be clear as day that these folks are not a problem. These folks fled terrible problems, but they themselves are not the problem.”

Earlier this month, more than 20 bishops, Vatican representatives and leaders of Catholic organizations met for an emergency immigration meeting at Mundelein Seminary, outside of Chicago. Mr. Kerwin, who attended the meeting, said organizers displayed notes written by immigrant children, often addressed to God.

“It’s clear from reading these notes that these are lovely children, who miss their parents and worry about them and are in difficult situations that are not of their own making. And that the United States should do right by them,” he said. “And the right thing is to protect them and reunify them with family members.”

Chloe Gunther, America intern, contributed to this story.

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

Read the full article at the link.

Politicians of both parties are averse to the truth. They don’t have the courage and backbone for it! But the truth is quite simple, if somewhat “inconvenient.”

Unless and until we can solve the problems driving refugees to flee the Northern Triangle, we will have to take more of them. We should welcome them through an orderly legal system, including a robust, properly staffed, and honestly administered legal refugee and asylum system.

Alternatively, we could continue our current policies of immorally and illegally killing some on the journey, “snuffing” some in the desert (where their bodies might never be found and “counted”), and enriching smugglers and cartels who will eventually get many determined survivors into the interior.

There, they will join our highly exploitable, yet politically expedient for both parties (for differing reasons), “extralegal population.” A limited number will be “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and be arbitrarily removed by ICE, usually at costs that far exceed any demonstrable benefits. Even fewer will commit misconduct leading to their arrest and removal.

But the bulk of them will blend in somehow and do what’s necessary for themselves and their families to survive, as has been happening for decades and generations. They will also enrich and improve our nation in ways both predictable and unpredictable. Some will eventually find it possible and advantageous to return to their nations of origin, most won’t.

It would be far better for both the migrants and our nation, not to mention humanity as a whole, if we included the bulk of those forced to come here in our legal immigration system. But, whether we are enlightened enough “to do it the right way” or not, they will come as long as the alternatives are starvation, death, unspeakable abuse, and unending despair.

Migration is both our oldest and most persistent human phenomenon and an essential survival skill for humanity. It’s going to take more than inane walls, cruel and illegal imprisonment in American Gulags, unworkable laws, mindless, yet expensive, enforcement, nativist rhetoric, bad judges, and cowardly politicians sending “don’t come” messages to make them “die in place.” Our politicians might be not be bright or brave enough to face reality — but, I guarantee that the forced migrants we like to dehumanize and look down upon are much smarter, braver, more aware, and far more creative, adaptable, and capable than we think!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-24-21

💡NOLAN RAPPAPORT @ THE HILL SAYS BIDEN DIDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH WITH HIS CENTRAL AMERICAN MINORS’ (“CAM”) PROGRAM — He’s Right!

Biden’s program for migrant children doesn’t go far enough

By Nolan Rappaport

Former President Barack Obama established the Central American Minors (CAM) Program in December 2014 to provide in-country refugee processing for children in the Northern Triangle Countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) as a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to them making the dangerous journey to the United States to apply for asylum.

But Obama only made the program available to Northern Triangle children who had a parent who was already physically present in the United States and had lawful status.

The Trump administration phased out the CAM program in fiscal 2018 because “the vast majority of individuals accessing the program were not eligible for refugee resettlement.”

On March 10, 2021, the Biden administration announced that it had restarted the CAM program to reunite children from the Northern Triangle countries with parents who are lawfully present in the United States. Biden also wants to save Northern Triangle children from having to make the dangerous journey to the United States in the hands of smugglers.

That’s a noble intent: The trip across the border is incredibly dangerous.

On June 15, 2021, Biden announced an expansion of the CAM program which specified that parents and legal guardians lawfully present in the United States may apply on behalf of the children — this now includes parents or legal guardians in the following legal status categories: Permanent Resident Status; Temporary Protected Status; Parole; Deferred Action; Deferred Enforced Departure; and Withholding of Removal.

According to David Bier, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, this is a great improvement over requiring children to come to the United States in the hands of smugglers; however, it remains to be seen whether it will dissuade families from sending their children here with smugglers.

Biden’s CAM program may be more generous than the Obama administration’s CAM program, but I think Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was right when he observed that illegal crossings were not reduced when the Obama administration tried this program years ago, and there’s no reason to think it will have that effect now.

Moreover, Biden should know that his revised CAM program is not going to be an effective alternative to making the dangerous journey with smugglers. His administration has acknowledged that only 40 percent of the children from the Northern Triangle who were apprehended at the border this year had a parent in the United States.

I don’t understand why he didn’t make it available to all Northern Triangle children who have a persecution claim. He didn’t have to limit the program to children who have parents or guardians in the United States.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/559334-bidens-program-for-northern-triangle-children-doesnt-go-far-enough

Published originally on The Hill.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com

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

Thanks, Nolan! Go on over to The Hill and read Nolan’s complete article.

Nolan’s proposal sure seems like good government and common sense to me. This expanded policy should be relatively non-controversial. Like Nolan, I don’t understand why the Biden Administration is “missing the obvious here.” Every step helps in better and more humanely managing Central American asylum applications. I’ll bet there are even qualified retired immigration officials from USCIS and Immigration Judges and BIA staff from DOJ who would be willing to return as “rehirees” and travel to Central America to work on a program like Nolan proposes.

Gotta “pick the low hanging fruit,” as Nolan suggests!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-21-21

🗽⚖️LEADING GENDER JUSTICE NGO RIPS HARRIS’S TONE-DEAF “DIE WHERE YOU ARE, WE DON’T CARE” MESSAGE TO NORTHERN TRIANGLE REFUGEES! — Whatever Happened To Biden Administration’s Promise To Restore The Rule of Law @ The Border? — US Is The Problem — USG Lawlessness, Dishonest, Wasteful Policies Go Unchecked By Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Dear colleagues,

Please find below and online CGRS’s bilingual statement in response to Vice President Harris’ remarks in Guatemala earlier this week.

—

*en español abajo*

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Brianna Krong, (415) 581-8835, krongbrianna@uchastings.edu

CGRS Urges V.P. Harris to Reject Short-Sighted Policies that Endanger Central Americans

San Francisco, CA (June 10, 2021) – This week Vice President Kamala Harris visited Guatemala and Mexico, meeting with government and civil society leaders to discuss issues of corruption, violence, and poverty. During a Monday press conference with Guatemalan president Alejandro Giammattei, Harris offered a callous and woefully misguided message to Central Americans. “I want to be clear to folks in the region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border,” Harris said. “Do not come. The United States will continue to enforce our laws … If you come to our border, you will be turned back.” These remarks reflect a deep misunderstanding of our laws and of the conditions forcing people to seek asylum at our border. The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) urges the vice president and the Biden-Harris administration to do better.

For people fleeing Central America it is no secret that the voyage north is dangerous, and that they will likely face hostility at the U.S. border. Yet thousands continue to make the treacherous journey because widespread violence, poverty, and disasters in their home countries leave them no other option. Vice President Harris and the Biden-Harris administration should understand this: People flee home because their lives, and the lives of their children, depend on it. The administration’s advice that Central Americans, Haitians, and others escaping grave dangers simply “not come” – as if they have any choice in the matter – is cruel and wildly out of touch. Moreover “enforcing our laws” should mean upholding the right to seek asylum, which is enshrined in both U.S. and international law. Turning people away without the slightest concern for the dangers they’ll face, as the Biden-Harris administration has continued to do under the illegal Title 42 policy, is a blatant violation of our laws.

“Our country has played a direct role in the dangerous conditions that plague Central America by bolstering oppressive regimes and contributing to the violence and instability driving refugee flight from the region,” CGRS Manager of Regional Initiatives Felipe Navarro Lux said today. “Instead of taking responsibility and addressing the harm we have caused, the United States time and time again has doubled down on ineffective and draconian policies that punish Central Americans and other refugees for seeking U.S. protection. We have a legal and moral obligation to do better.”

Our immigration and foreign policies should seek not to suppress migration, but to expand safe and orderly pathways to refugee protection and, in the long term, to make the region safer, so that migration is increasingly an option, rather than a necessity, for Central Americans. We can do so by:

Encouraging transparent and accountable governments that uphold the rights of their residents: The United States should stand with Central American civil society organizations (CSOs) working for change – not abusive or authoritarian governments – to combat corruption, advance the rule of law, and promote respect for human rights, particularly for vulnerable groups including youth, women, Indigenous, Black, and LGBTQ+ people.

Prioritizing humanitarian protection over deterrence. Pressuring countries in the region to increase migration enforcement and militarize their borders only forces people seeking protection to make more dangerous journeys, exposing them to increased human rights violations.

Expanding and developing new pathways for migrants and asylum seekers: We should expand protections those fleeing persecution, increase opportunities for family reunification, and address the needs of those displaced by climate change.

Designating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Guatemala, and re-designating TPS for Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua: TPS allows immigrant communities in the United States to live and work without fear of deportation, and to send remittances to family members in their home countries still recovering from the effects of back-to-back hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Click here to read CGRS’s recommendations for expanding access to protections for refugees and migrants in Central America and Mexico, with Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Church World Service, Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración, AC (IMUMI), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF), Washington Office on Latin America, and Women’s Refugee Commission.

—

CGRS urge a la vicepresidente Harris rechazar políticas miopes que ponen en peligro a los centroamericanos

San Francisco, CA (10 de junio de 2021) – Esta semana la vicepresidente Kamala Harris visitó Guatemala y México, reuniéndose con líderes de los gobiernos y la sociedad civil para discutir asuntos de corrupción, violencia, y pobreza. Durante una rueda de prensa junto con el presidente guatemalteco Alejandro Giammattei, Harris leofreció un mensaje cruel y tristemente equivocado a los centroamericanos. “Quiero ser clara con las personas en la región que están pensando en hacer el peligroso viaje a la frontera de Estados Unidos-México”, dijo Harris. “No vengan. Estados Unidos hará cumplir sus leyes… Si vienen a nuestra frontera, serán regresados”. Estas palabras relejan un profundo desconocimiento de nuestra legislación y de las condiciones que obligan a las personas a pedir asilo en nuestra frontera. El Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados (CGRS por sus siglas en inglés) urge a la vicepresidenta y al gobierno Biden-Harris a realizar un mejor trabajo.

Para las personas que huyen de Centroamérica no es un secreto que el viaje al norte es peligroso, y que muy seguramente serán recibidos con hostilidad en la frontera de EE. UU. Aun así, miles continúan migrando porque la violencia, pobreza, y desastres en sus países de origen no les dejan otra opción. La vicepresidente Harris y el gobierno Biden-Harris deben entender esto: Las personas huyen de sus hogares porque sus vidas, y las vidas de sus hijos, dependen de ello. El consejo que este gobierno le da a los centroamericanos, haitianos, y otros que escapan de graves peligros cuando les dice que “no vengan” – como si fuera una opción – es cruel y se aleja de la realidad. Mas aún, “hacer cumplir nuestras leyes” debería significar proteger el derecho a solicitar asilo, el cual se encuentra consagrado en la ley nacional e internacional. Retornar a personas en la frontera sin la menor preocupación por los peligros que puedan enfrentar, como el gobierno Biden-Harris continúa haciendo bajo la ilegal política del “Título 42”, es una violación descarada de nuestras leyes.

“Al apoyar gobiernos opresivos y contribuir a la violencia e inestabilidad en Centroamérica, nuestro país ha jugado un papel directo en la creación de los peligros que obligan a miles a huir”, dijo Felipe Navarro-Lux, Gerente de Iniciativas Regionales de CGRS. “En vez de asumir nuestra responsabilidad y aminorar el daño que hemos causado, una y otra vez Estados Unidos ha implementado políticas ineficientes y draconianas que castigan a los centroamericanos y otros refugiados por buscar protección en este país. Es hora de cumplir nuestras obligaciones legales y morales.”

En vez de buscar suprimir la migración, nuestras políticas exteriores y migratorias se deben enfocar en crear y ampliar opciones seguras y ordenadas de acceso a protección para refugiados y, a largo plazo, mejorar las condiciones en la región para que la migración sea cada vez más una opción, y no una necesidad, para los centroamericanos. Podemos hacer esto al:

Promover gobiernos que respeten los derechos de todos sus residentes, urgiendo transparencia y rendición de cuentas: Estados Unidos debe apoyar a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que trabajan para efectuar cambios – y no a gobiernos corruptos y autoritarios – para combatir la corrupción, reforzar el estado de derecho, y promover el respeto por los derechos humanos, particularmente para la juventud, mujeres, personas indígenas, negras y LGBTQ+.

Priorizar la protección humanitaria sobre la disuasión migratoria. Presionar a los países de la región a aumentar sus controles migratorios y militarizar sus fronteras solo obliga a las personas que buscan protección a tomar caminos más peligrosos, exponiéndolas a mayores violaciones de derechos humanos.

Ampliar y desarrollar nuevas oportunidades para migrantes y solicitantes de asilo: Debemos ofrecer más opciones para aquellos que huyen de la persecución, aumentar las oportunidades de reunificación familiar, y atender las necesidades de aquellos desplazados por el cambio climático.

Designar Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS, por sus siglas en inglés) para Guatemala, y re-designar TPS para Honduras, El Salvador, y Nicaragua: Con TPS, las comunidades inmigrantes en Estados Unidos pueden vivir y trabajar sin temor a ser deportadas, y enviar remesas a sus familias en sus países de origen, los cuales aún están sintiendo los devastadores efectos de huracanes y la pandemia COVID-19.

Haga click aquí para leer recomendaciones para ampliar el acceso a protección para refugiados y migrantes en Centro América y México, desarrolladas por CGRS, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Church World Service, Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración, AC (IMUMI), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF), Washington Office on Latin America, y Women’s Refugee Commission.

Brianna Krong | Communications and Advocacy Coordinator

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 581-8835 (Phone) | (415) 581-8824 (Fax)

krongbrianna@uchastings.edu

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Twitter | Facebook | Donate

Request Assistance or Report an Outcome in Your Asylum Case

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

Casey might ask:

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

When it comes to the Biden Administration on human rights, racial justice, gender justice, due process, immigration, border strategy, and cleaning up corruption, unhappily the answer is “No!”

🇺🇸🗽Due ProcessForever!

PWS

06-10-21

🏴‍☠️PERSECUTED TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUAL DIES ⚰️IN EL SALVADOR WHILE HARRIS, GARLAND, & MAYORKAS FAIL TO RE-ESTABLISH LEGAL ASYLUM SYSTEM, MAKE LONG OVERDUE REFORMS!☠️ — VEEP Apparently Can’t Grasp Why Refugees Refuse To Stay In Countries Where They Are Likely To Be Persecuted & Die — The “Easily Fixable” Part Of The Problem Is NOT Thousands Of Miles Away In Foreign Countries, But With Garland’s & Mayorkas’s Inexcusable Failures To Act On Progressive Reforms Of Our Existing Legal System For Asylum Seekers!

Grim Reaper — “This Dude loves the ‘Miller Lite’ approach to asylum by Garland and Mayorkas, as well as Harris’s latest tone-deaf ‘victim shaming.’” Keeps him (as well as human smugglers) in business! Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=25ce5cef-76d6-4701-9193-3d887d407397&v=sdk

Marcos Aleman reports or AP in the LA Times:

SAN MIGUEL, El Salvador — Rejected by her family, Zashy Zuley del Cid Velásquez fled her coastal village in 2014, the first of a series of forced displacements across El Salvador. She had hoped that in the larger city of San Miguel she could live as a transgender woman without discrimination and violence, but there she was threatened by a gang.

She moved away from San Miguel, then back again in a series of forced moves until the 27-year-old was shot to death April 25, sending shock waves through the close-knit LGBTQ community in San Miguel, the largest city in eastern El Salvador.

“Zashy was desperate; her family didn’t want her … and the gangsters had threatened her,” said Venus Nolasco, director of the San Miguel LGBTQ collective Pearls of the East. “She knew they were going to kill her. She wanted to flee the country, go to the United States, but they killed her with a shot through her lung.”

One day after Del Cid’s slaying, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris identified anti-LGBTQ violence in Central America as one of the root causes of migration in the region during a virtual meeting with the president of neighboring Guatemala, Alejandro Giammattei. She is visiting Guatemala and Mexico this week.

Transgender migrants were present in the Central American caravans that attempted to reach the United States border in recent years, fleeing harassment, gang extortion, violence and police indifference to crimes against them. Even in those large migrant movements, they say they faced harassment.

Things had been rough during Del Cid’s first stint in San Miguel. She had been living in a neighborhood where, as in many parts of the country, the MS-13 gang was the ultimate local authority. Gang members began to harass her, then brutally beat her, breaking her arm in 2015, Nolasco said.

“They warned her to leave, but she didn’t listen,” Nolasco said.

Del Cid moved in with Nolasco in the same neighborhood. One day, the gang grabbed Del Cid again.

“They took her, they wanted to kill her,” Nolasco said. “I begged them not to kill her, to let her go and she would leave the neighborhood.”

Del Cid moved back to her hometown, but her family rejected her again. She tried to please them, but she couldn’t, Nolasco said. Del Cid joined a church, got a girlfriend and had a baby girl, but could not maintain that life, she said.

She returned to San Miguel, where initially things seemed to go better. In 2020, Del Cid received humanitarian and housing support from COMCAVIS TRANS, a national LGBTQ rights organization, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Del Cid rented a home and opened a beauty salon there. She hired another woman to help her and was participating in an entrepreneurship program. She was preparing a business proposal to move the salon into its own space.

But Del Cid was shot in the back walking alone at night down the street. Passersby tried to help her and took her to a hospital, where she died. So far, police have made no arrests, and Nolasco believes that like other hate crimes in the country, “it will be forgotten; they’re not interested in what happens to us.”

Laura Almirall, UNHCR representative in El Salvador, said Del Cid’s killing frightened her community and saddened everyone who knew her.

“She was excited about her new plans and her new life. And unfortunately and tragically, everything came to an end,” she said.

Nolasco said that in San Miguel, some 70 miles east of the capital, the transgender community endures constant harassment from intolerant residents and gangs. They have rocks thrown at them, are beaten and are victims of extortion. If they go to police to make a report, they are insulted and demeaned. “Don’t come here to claim rights, because there are no rights for you,” police tell them, Nolasco said.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Despite some legal nonsense from EOIR and sometimes from uninformed Circuit Judges who have never represented asylum seekers and know little of actual conditions in the Northern Triangle, neither El Salvador nor the other Northern Triangle governments are “willing and able” to protect most individuals suffering gender-based and other forms of persecution. Decisions claiming otherwise are, in most cases, legally wrong and disingenuous to boot.

The U.S. asylum system needs expert Asylum Officers at DHS and progressive expert Immigration Judges at EOIR. Babbling (misleadingly) about “sealed borders” won’t take the place of telling Garland and Mayorkas to stop screwing around, bring in progressive experts, and fix the U.S. asylum system before more die! V.P. Harris could have taken the first necessary step toward “fixing the Southern Border” without even leaving DC.

How are we going to promote the rule of law in other nations when we ourselves are unwilling to exhibit honesty and follow the law with respect to the most vulnerable in the world seeking legal refuge at our borders?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-09-21

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, 🚀 BUT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION LACKS EXPERT PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP WHO “GETS IT” — Will VP Harris Be Able To Break Out Of The “Death Spiral” ☠️ Of “Proven, Guaranteed To Fail” Racist Immigration Deterrence? — “It’s Groundhog Day at the border, and Biden is mindlessly laying the foundation for more problems in a few years. We’ve watched it all play out before. Immigration deterrence doesn’t work.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/03/immigration-mexico-guatemala-kamala-harris-biden-border-reform/

Opinion by James Fredrick in WashPost

June 3 at 3:44 PM ET

James Fredrick is a multimedia journalist based in Mexico City and covers migration, crime, politics and sports.

. . . .

Obama tried deterring migrants with his characteristic lawyerly tact. Trump did it with his cruel, petty impulsiveness. Biden is doing it with his folksy toughness. The styles are different, but the results of immigration deterrence will always be the same.

We’re trapped in this cycle because the U.S. government refuses to listen to migrants. Having met hundreds of migrants during my years reporting in Mexico and Central America, it’s obvious why deterrence doesn’t work: What’s at home is worse than anything the United States could threaten. Most migrants don’t want to leave home. But they do because violent death or crippling destitution is all that’s left.

Failing to actually come up with a solution, we of the “greatest country on Earth” become tremendously feeble and defensive at the arrival of a few thousand immigrant children. But there is another way.

We must treat immigration as a civil and humanitarian issue, not a criminal one. Criminalizing people fleeing violence, persecution, climate change or economic hardship exacerbates these problems. So decriminalize border crossings and rebuild border facilities as welcome centers, not jails. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents at the border should be social workers, not cops.

If Trump’s family separation atrocity showed us anything, it’s that millions of Americans want to help immigrants in need. The United States should cooperate more with these groups. There are already large networks around the country that can provide housing, food, legal services, education and medical services to immigrants. Why rely on expensive armed border agents instead of willing, motivated humanitarian groups?

Immigration laws should also address the challenges of the 21st century. In addition to decriminalizing border crossings, our immigration laws rely on outdated quotas and corrupt, abusive worker programs. Asylum law is a relic of the Cold War and doesn’t reflect the world today.

Finally, Washington should stop making the problems worse with bad foreign policy. Despite numerous abuses, scandals and criminal allegations involving Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, the Biden administration refuses to denounce him, though many think he is responsible for the conditions Hondurans are fleeing. In fact, Biden administration officials are working with Hernández to try to prevent Hondurans from fleeing. He’s just one example in a long history of U.S. meddling to prop up corrupt, abusive, U.S.-friendly regimes. No amount of U.S. dollars in aid can make up for bad foreign policy.

President Biden can’t stop the crisis today. After all, he helped create it. But he can make sure this is the last “border crisis” we face.

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

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

Ah, “mindlessly” — one of my favorite terms, usually applied these days to Garland and his inept team at DOJ! Actually, Frederick isn’t the only one to figure this out!

The problem remains, as I have stated over and over, the toxic failure of the Biden Administration to bring progressive experts in immigration, human rights, civil rights, and “applied due process” into Government and empower them to solve the problems! It’s bizarrely compounded by the disgraceful unwillingness of those few in the Biden Administration, like Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, who actually know better, to speak up for racial justice, social justice, human rights, and human dignity at the DOJ!

Unless VP Harris wakes up, convinces her boss, and brings in the progressive experts, she’s headed for the abyss, taking thousands of vulnerable refugees and, perhaps, American democracy down with her!

Refusal to listen: to migrants, their representatives, experts, our “better angels,” and common sense! The same problems, over and over, Administration after Administration, decade after decade! The same “built to fail” policies repeated!

The truth is in front of the Biden Administration! But, like Garland, Mayorkas, and others leading the way over the cliff, Biden and Harris can’t see it! They appear to have “tuned out” those desperately trying to keep them from plunging over the precipice! So tragic, so unnecessary, so threatening to American democracy and the future of humanity!

🇺🇸🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-21

🇺🇸🗽⚖️GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE REPORT: GENDER VIOLENCE ☠️⚰️DRIVES CONTINUING REFUGEE FLOW TO U.S. — Dishonesty Of Sessions’s Misogynistic Attack In Matter Of A-B- 🤮 Exposed Again! — Yet, Garland Fails To Take Action To End Misogyny, Anti-Asylum Culture @ EOIR, Even As He Also Fails To Insist On The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law @ Our Borders! — WHY?🤯

Gender Violence in Central America — Gender Violence continues to to be endemic in Latin America! Yet, shockingly, its victims, refugee women of color, can expect little protection in Garland’s Immigration Courts still applying Jeff Sessions’s inaccurate, misogynistic precedent in Matter of A-B- and continuing to be staffed by too many “judges” selected or promoted by the Trump Administration because of their perceived willingness to support anti-asylum policies targeting many women of color! Recently Garland outraged progressives by appointing 17 “Miller/Barr Holdovers” to powerful, life or death, Immigration Judge positions while eschewing better-qualified progressive experts from the private sector who could bring diversity and gender and racial justice to his dysfunctional Immigration “Courts!”
PHOTO: UNHCR website

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/06/03/abuse-of-women-and-children-at-root-of-immigration-crisis/

Abused women at border — Migrant women carry children in the rain at an intake area after turning themselves in upon crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, late Tuesday, May 11, 2021, in La Joya, Texas. The U.S. government continues to report large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border with an increase in adult crossers. But families and unaccompanied children are still arriving in dramatic numbers despite the weather changing in the Rio Grande Valley registering hotter days and nights. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)(Gregory Bull)

By Natalie Gonnella-Platts and Jenny Villatoro In the Dallas Morning News:

When U.S. Border Patrol found him in the Texas desert, 10-year-old Wilton was crying, “they abandoned me.” Exhausted and alone, his image went viral — a poignant visual of the struggle faced by thousands seeking safety.

But Wilton’s story actually began in Nicaragua when his mother, Meylin, wasn’t able to get legal protection from an abusive partner. Mother and son fled to the United States, seeking asylum, but were expelled under a public health rule and sent to Mexico, where they were kidnapped, according to an account in El Pais. Meylin’s brother in Miami could pay only half the ransom — enough for Wilton alone to be released.

Although Meylin was ultimately released and reunited with her son, the tale that led to Wilton’s arrival at the border as an unaccompanied minor isn’t unique. It illustrates the fact that gender-based violence, revictimization and lack of justice affect children, families and communities thousands of miles away. It also highlights the importance of a safe and legal pathway into the United States for survivors of gender-based violence and other asylum-seekers. For many, arriving at the U.S. border seeking asylum is the only legal pathway available.

Immigration reform in the United States is essential to assuring that we have a secure and efficient border, a system flexible enough to handle changes in migrant flows, and the capacity to treat each migrant with dignity. But more needs to be done in the migrants’ home countries, too, so that they are not forced to flee for their safety in the first place.

Any comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform should address gender inequity and gender-based violence.

They are not siloed issues to acknowledge only when horrific stories of femicide and human trafficking force us to pay attention. Rather, they are deeply entangled with broader challenges of corruption and poverty. Proposed solutions shouldn’t overlook the impact of gender-based violence on migrant flows, economic development, education and health.

Fourteen of the 25 most dangerous places for women are in the Western Hemisphere, including countries within Central America. Patriarchy and gang violence subject women and girls to abhorrent actions of abuse and control.

Honduras and El Salvador saw some of the highest incidences of femicide within Latin America in 2019, at rates of 6.2 and 3.3 per 100,000, respectively. In Guatemala, adolescent girls are at a high risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.

COVID 19-related lockdowns are being exploited by gangs looking to strengthen control: El Salvador alone has seen a 70% increase in gender-based violence since the beginning of the pandemic. And lockdowns have forced vulnerable individuals to stay in close proximity to their perpetrators. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador reported an increase in intrafamily violence, with El Salvador reporting an increase in intrafamily femicides as well.

Justice systems and access to services need to be strengthened to ensure adequate protection for all under the law. Legal protections often are inhibited by weak institutions, corruption and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators.

According to a 2017 national survey, two-thirds of Salvadoran women over the age of 15 have experienced violence, but only 6% have ever reported it. While laws against child marriage exist across the region, in some countries about 1 in 3 young women are in a union before age 18. Post-trauma support and efforts that inform Central American women of their rights and agency are critical interventions that could help women like Meylin.

Females have been disproportionately affected by the devastating impact of hurricanes Eta and Iota, but the status of women and girls is chronically overlooked in response efforts, exacerbating the risk of violence.

Women and girls must be seen and heard. Greater focus on gender and age-disaggregated data collection and in tracking the effectiveness and efficiency of legal systems is crucial. And women and their lived experiences need to be more fully represented at all leadership levels.

Finally, direct outreach to local communities should be a priority for U.S. government and private sector-led programs. This includes resource and capacity support for advocates and organizations that serve as lifelines for those affected by violence, often at great personal risk. Engagement with men and boys is equally imperative.

How can anyone be expected to thrive when her day-to-day priority is simply to survive? The United States needs to recognize that gender-based violence and gender inequity drive migration.

Immigration reform must include strategies to address the root causes of migration from Central America in effective and lasting ways to prevent situations like Wilton’s and Meylin’s. Women and girls must be front and center in these solutions.

Natalie Gonnella-Platts serves as the director of the Women’s Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute.

Jenny Villatoro is an associate for the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative.

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

“Deterrents” and illegally abusing asylum seekers DON’T WORK! It’s not that difficult a concept. Indeed, these misguided attempts at deterrence have been failing consistently under Administrations of both parties for the past four decades. One would think that an “enlightened nation” would try a different approach rather than simply repeating the costly failures of the past in various forms.

What we need are functioning refugee and asylum systems, led and staffed by progressive experts, operating from INSIDE Government, that will grant status to qualified refugee women in a fair and timely manner and set favorable precedents even while separately addressing the endemic problems in the “refugee-sending countries.” Of course, it will result in more legal immigration of refugees and asylum seekers to the U.S. That’s a good thing for both us and those individuals, not something to be feared or unlawfully and dishonestly “deterred!”

With stagnating population growth, we should welcome and facilitate legal immigration of courageous, talented, dedicated refugee women from all countries and their children through the refugee, asylum, and a much more robust legal immigration system!

Thanks to NDPA warrior-queen Debi Sanders for sending in this item. This report should be great evidence for those litigating to halt the Garland misogyny mess at EOIR and, sadly, to some extent in U.S. Courts of Appeals that have chosen to sweep both reality of what’s happening in the Northern Triangle and the patent unconstitutionality of a system governed by bogus precedents entered or promoted by AG’s affiliated with DHS Enforcement who also packed and reshaped the immigration “judiciary” in the image of nativist restrictionists! However, compelling as it is, the report only adds to the existing body of documentation of the dishonest approach by Administrations of both parties to Latin American asylum claims, particularly those of women and children.

For Pete’s sake, first and second year law students know that the EOIR travesty is unconstitutional! Why are life-tenured Article III Judges covering it up? Hopefully, history will take note of their mal-performance on the bench! These guys are life-tenured! So, what’s their excuse for not upholding the Constitution against clear Congressional and Executive abuses?

Hard for me to say this. But, former President George W. Bush is doing more for human rights, gender rights, civil rights, and immigrants rights’ than Garland or anyone else at the Biden DOJ! At least he speaks out publicly for the humanity and contributions of migrants and for their fair and generous treatment, which is more than any member of the Biden Administration has done as they continue to mistake softening the rhetoric with taking firm action to reverse White Nationalist policies and replace them with readily achievable progressive ones.

Meanwhile, despite pleas from nearly every expert, progressive, human rights, immigrants’ rights, and gender rights group in the U.S., Garland continues to allow Sessions’s wrong, toxic, and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B – to remain in place and threaten the lives of female refugees while ignoring the misogynistic, anti-asylum, culture inculcated by Sessions and Barr at EOIR that continues to flourish and daily dish out abuse to migrants and their representatives without meaningful consequences.

Judge Merrick Garland — “ . . . while this guy continues to apply misogynistic precedents, eschew progressive experts, recycle failed ‘Aimless Docket Reshuffling’ gimmicks, and allow the Trump-era anti-asylum culture to continue to flourish at EOIR and DOJ?” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

What, indeed, is someone like AAG Vanita Gupta doing with herself at Garland’s anti-progressive, and anti-due-process mess at DOJ? Why are folks like her and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke there in the first place if they aren’t going to stand up to Garland’s tone-deaf, inept approach to gender rights, human rights, and racial justice @ EOIR? How, on earth, do you lead a “Civil Rights Division” while turning a blind eye to grotesque violations of civil and human rights going on daily in your “Boss’s” wholly owned “court” system that functions like no “real court” in America? What’s DAG Lisa Monaco doing presiding over a gender disaster at EOIR? It’s straight out of “Jim Crow!”

James “Jim” Crow
Symbol of American Racism, still right at home at Garland’s EOIR!

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — “Do Garland, Monaco, Gupta, & Clarke work in ‘sound-proofed offices’ where they can’t hear our tortured screams and moans? What’s wrong with those guys? We’re suffering and dying while they are fiddling and diddling!”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

And, I wouldn’t say that Vice President Harris is looking very good either, as she “swallows the whistle” on notorious scofflaw human rights violations that she was well aware of from her time in the Senate! Doesn’t anyone in the Biden Administration have the backbone to speak up for human rights, human decency, and restoring the rule of law? Is it REALLY our position that following the Constitution, our statutory laws, and the international treaties to which we are party is beyond the capabilities of the U.S. Government? If so, what, may I ask, is the difference between us an any third world dictatorship where laws have no meaning?

I can’t figure it out! But, I do know that Garland’s lousy stewardship at EOIR, failure to speak out for fundamental fairness, usher in progressive changes, and restore due process @ EOIR has reached “crisis proportions” affecting our entire justice system and threatening democracy!

Hopefully, progressive advocacy, human rights, and civil rights groups will keep up the pressure and demands for long, long, long overdue and readily achievable changes at EOIR: in leadership, precedents, culture, and administration of justice! (Get this: Garland just created yet another bogus “Dedicated Docket” without a functional e-filing system to make it work! That’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling 101,” as anyone who has actually had to deal with the mess in his Immigration Courts could tell him. But, he’s apparently not interested!) Right now, it’s an unmitigated “disaster zone” continuing to spiral downward!

There is a direct link between the “Dred Scottification of the other” that Garland countenances at EOIR and the overall failure of our justice system to deal effectively with institutionalized racism! The U.S. has a long, disreputable history of treating women and persons of color as “non persons” under the Constitution. Much of it traces to our immigration laws where “the others” are routinely dehumanized, stereotyped, demonized, and abused by those who falsely claim to be furthering the “rule of law!” We will NOT achieve racial justice for all in America until we deal with the festering wounds intentionally inflicted on women, children, and people of color in our immigration system, at EOIR, and illegally continuing at our borders!

By choice, Garland now “owns” the misogynistic, anti-due-process, anti-asylum disaster @ EOIR. Make him deal with it in a constructive way!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Garland’s continued tolerance of misogyny and the anti-due-process, anti-asylum culture at EOIR, NEVER! Stop Garland’s continuing misogynistic nonsense before more refugee women and people of color needlessly die! What’s it going to take finally to get some “real justice @ Justice?”

PWS

06-05-21

😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️: 9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-departure-bar-sua-sponte-reopening-balerio-rubalcaba-v-garland#

CA9 on Departure Bar, Sua Sponte Reopening: Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

“This case presents the question whether the departure bar limits an IJ’s ability to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we conclude that the departure bar does not apply in the context of sua sponte reopening. That is, an IJ’s discretion to reopen a case on his or her own motion is not limited by the fact that a noncitizen has previously been removed or has departed from the United States. Therefore, we grant the petition for review.”

[Hats off to Elsa Martinez!]

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

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201915091.pdf

KELLY SANCHEZ-CASTRO,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________

(June 1, 2021)

Petitioner,

Respondent.

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:

Kelly Sanchez-Castro, a native of El Salvador, petitions for our review after

she unsuccessfully sought relief from removal because a gang targeted her family based on the assumption that her father’s work in the United States made it

USCA11 Case: 19-15091 Date Filed: 06/01/2021 Page: 2 of 15

wealthy. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and substantial evidence supports its decision. Sanchez-Castro is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the gang that targeted her family did so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. And she is ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture because she has not established that any harm she will suffer if returned to her home country will come with at least the acquiescence of a government official. We deny Sanchez-Castro’s petition for review.

. . . .

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

To reach its incorrect and life-threatening endorsement of the BIA’s misconstruction of the nexus requirements (throwing out the normal rules of causation to achieve an anti-asylum-seeker result) the 11th Circuit panel eschewed a much better and more intellectually honest approach by the 4th Circuit in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

Notwithstanding Chief Judge Pryor’s cavalier attitude about sending Ms. Castro-Sanchez back to possible death or dismemberment at the hands of gangs who operate with relative impunity in El Salvador, these are not “academic exercises.” They are serious life or death matters involving bad law produced by a (non) “court” (the BIA) controlled by a law enforcement official (the Attorney General) that is not comprised of judges who are recognized experts in asylum and immigration laws and has over recent history construed the law against immigrants at almost every opportunity!

These two cases show the difference between this panel of the 9th Circuit that takes judicial review and what’s at stake seriously and the “indifferent to humanity” rubber-stamp approach applied by the 11th Circuit panel. We need better judges, progressives with expertise in due process, human rights, immigration, and racial justice at every level of our Federal Judiciary — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes! Circuits like the 5th and the 11th with long and disgraceful records of relative indifference to the rights and lives of migrants, mostly those of color, are long, long overdue for infusion of better qualified progressive “practical scholars” and advocates.

That makes the progressive outrage over Garland’s totally inappropriate “giveaway” of Immigration Judge positions he controls to Barr-selected, non progressive, candidates who applied under a flawed recruitment process designed to discourage diversity and exclude the best qualified expert candidates from the private sector, along with his failure to address skewed anti-asylum-seeker precedents like L-E-A- and A-B– all the more understandable! It also makes changes that will put more expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges who have experience representing individuals in court all the more urgent!

Cases like this wouldn’t get into the “Article III Life or Death Lottery” if Garland had dealt promptly and properly with L-E-A-, A-B-, and other Trump-era, anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process, misogynist precedents!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

PWS

06-04-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮

Dan Kowalski forwards these two 2d Circuit reversals on basic “bread and butter” issues: 1) mental competency (BIA unable or unwilling to follow own precedent); 2) credibility; 3) corroboration; 4) consideration of testimony and evidence:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85d225f1-0b15-44a9-8890-80f9027d12b5/3/doc/18-1083_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85d225f1-0b15-44a9-8890-80f9027d12b5/3/hilite/

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57161a21-b70c-4b36-9a38-ff6a88d12453/14/doc/19-1370_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57161a21-b70c-4b36-9a38-ff6a88d12453/14/hilite/

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

These aren’t “cases of first impression,” “Circuit splits,” complex questions involving state law, unusual Constitutional issues, or difficult applications of treaties or international law. No, these are the “basics” of fair, competent adjudication in Immigration Court. Things most law students would get correct that IJs and BIA Appellate Judges are getting wrong on a daily basis in their “race to deny.”

Don’t kid yourself! For every one of these “caught and outed” by Circuit Courts, dozens are wrongly railroaded out of America because they are unrepresented, can’t afford to pursue judicial review in the Article IIIs, or are duressed and demoralized by unconstitutional detention and other coercive methods applied by the “unethical partnership” between EOIR and ICE enforcement.

Others have the misfortune to be in the 5th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, or draw Circuit panels who are happy to “keep,the line moving” by indolently “rubber stamping” EOIR’s “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” After all, dead or deported (or both) migrants can’t complain and don’t exercise any societal power! “Dead/deported men or women don’t talk.”☠️⚰️ But, members of the NDPA will preserve and tell their stories of unnecessary human suffering and degradation for them! We will insure that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and others in the Biden Administration who ignored their desperate moans and tortured screams in their time of direst need are held accountable!🤮

Unfortunately, these decisions are unpublished. They should be published! It’s critically important that the daily gross miscarriages of justice @ EOIR be publicly documented, citable as precedent, and serve as a permanent record of perhaps the most unconstitutional and corrupt episode in modern American legal history.

It’s also essential to keep the pressure on Garland and his so far feckless lieutenants to fix the problem:

Remove the Trump/Miller holdovers @ EOIR;
Prune out the “go along to get along” deadwood;
Rescind the improper hiring of 17 “Billy the Bigot” judicial selections (including the one absurdist selection by “AG for a Day Monty Python” — talk about a “poke in the eyes with a sharp stick” to progressives);
Bring in top notch progressive practical scholars as leaders and REAL judges at both the appellate and trial levels of EOIR – NOW;
Make the “no brainer” changes to eradicate Trump-era unethical, xenophobic “precedents” and inane “rules” and establish due process and fundamental fairness, including, of course, racial and gender equity in decision making.

So far, Garland has pretended that the “Culture of Denial” flourishing under his nose at HIS EOIR doesn’t exist! It does exist — big time — and it continues to get worse, threaten more lives, and squander more resources every day!

Due process (not to mention simple human decency) requires bold, immediate ACTION. Garland’s continued dawdling and inaction raises the issue of what is the purpose of an Attorney General who allows his “delegees” (basically Stephen Miller’s “judges”) to violate due process every day! There is no more important issue facing the DOJ today. Garland’s silence and inaction raise serious questions about his suitability to serve as the American public’s top lawyer!

Garland, Monaco, and Gupta appear to be enjoying their “Miller Lite Happy Hour @ DOJ.” Those communities of color and women suffering from their indolence and inaction, not so much! — “Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color

🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-24-21

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA) JOINS CALL FOR GARLAND TO QUICKLY REVERSE TRUMP-ERA RACIST, MISOGYNIST, INCORRECT PRECEDENTS AIMED AT PUNISHING WOMEN REFUGEES FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE!

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Official Portrait

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=D36F6BAC-ADE5-4173-BE85-8CE83CD6FE09

Home News Room Press Releases

Feinstein to Garland: Reverse Trump-Era Asylum Eligibility Rules

May 14 2021

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to review decisions made by the Trump administration restricting asylum eligibility for victims of domestic and gang violence.

The Refugee Act of 1980 extended asylum protections to foreign nationals who fear to return to their home countries due to past persecution or fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Trump administration rejected established precedent by restricting asylum eligibility for victims of gang and domestic violence.

“As a result of these decisions, the United States denies humanitarian relief to asylum-seekers fleeing countries in which 95 percent of sexual violence cases are never investigated and in which gang-related killings and extortion are common practice. This is out of step with our nation’s reputation as a safe haven for those fleeing persecution,” wrote Senator Feinstein.

“I ask that you … consider vacating … those decisions and bring our asylum system back into alignment with the law and the values informing it,” Feinstein added.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

May 13, 2021

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Garland:

I write regarding two decisions issued by Attorneys General Session and Barr during the Trump administration in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), and Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), as well as other opinions based on these decisions. Enclosed are copies of letters I sent the Attorneys General on these decisions, which in my opinion, ignored precedent by eliminating asylum eligibility for many victims of domestic and gang violence. I am sure you share my belief that all who Congress made eligible for asylum should receive the law’s protections.

As a result of these decisions, the United States denies humanitarian relief to asylum-seekers fleeing countries in which 95 percent of sexual violence cases are never investigated and in which gang-related killings and extortion are common practice. This is out of step with our nation’s reputation as a safe haven for those fleeing persecution.

The Refugee Act of 1980 extends asylum to foreign nationals who are unwilling or unable to return their country of origin due to past persecution or fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). The Trump Administration rejected established precedent when it concluded that victims of domestic or gang violence ignored by their home countries could not claim the protections of asylum.

Accordingly, I ask that you, as part of your review of “precedential decisions … governing the adjudication of asylum claims” directed by President Biden in Executive Order No. 14,010, consider vacating Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, and subsequent opinions based on those decisions and bring our asylum system back into alignment with the law and the values informing it. This approach has been used before to provide timely relief in anticipation of formal rulemaking.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

###

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

It’s a very modest, straightforward, well-justified, and long overdue “ask” by Senator Feinstein and others.

It’s simply shocking that Garland continues to dither and “swallow the whistle” on “Basic Day 1 Immigration/Human Rights Stuff” while abused refugee women and their children continue to suffer and die on his watch. Meanwhile, their long suffering pro bono and “low bono” attorneys tear their hair out at Garland’s lack of attention to the horrible human rights, due process disaster in his Immigration “Courts.”

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-19-21

🛡⚔️👍🏼“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — Garland’s Immigration “Judges” Pull The Ol’ “Bait & Switch” — They Only Are “Judges” When “OIL” Is Trying To Convince Ethically & Legally Challenged Article III Courts To “Defer” To EOIR Decisions — Otherwise, They Are Expected To Act Like DOJ ”Grundoons” Mindlessly Carrying Out The Executive’s Agenda Cloaked In Quasi-Judicial Disguise!

Grundoon
From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo”
SOURCE: Pininterest

Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/4/29/the-dojs-contradictions

Contact

The DOJ’s Contradictions

In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.

The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:

Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.

Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.

The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2

The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?

As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.

Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).

The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”

The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”

The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.

So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.

In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:

immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4

This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, No. 17-2284, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir., Feb. 26, 2021).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-opening-remarks-investiture-31-newly.

E.D.N.Y. Docket No.: 20-CR-577 (JFB). The Department of Justice’s Press Release can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/ms-13-s-highest-ranking-leaders-charged-terrorism-offenses-united-states.

Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).

APRIL 29, 2021

Reprinted by permission.

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

As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.

At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!

Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.

Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!

A few historical notes:

I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.

Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!

Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”

EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”)
By Pieter Bruegel The Elder
Public Domain

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-01-21

⚖️🗽🏆NDPA NEWS: Superstar 🌟 Clinical Prof. Erin Barbato Named Clinical Teacher Of The Year @ U.W. Law!

Professor Erin Barbato
Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic
UW Law
Photo source: UW Law

ARD, BARBATO, AND COLLINS NAMED UW LAW SCHOOL TEACHERS OF THE YEAR

Each spring, UW Law School celebrates excellence in teaching through its Teacher of the Year awards. UW Law School’s annual teaching awards demonstrate the value placed on excellent teaching. Our faculty engage and inspire UW Law students through thoughtful pedagogy, and we are proud to honor them for this important work.

The honorees for outstanding classroom, clinical and adjunct instruction in 2020 include:

BJ Ard, Classroom Teacher of the Year. BJ Ard is an Assistant Professor of Law whose teaching and scholarship focusing on intellectual property, privacy, and technology. Ard earned his law degree and doctorate from Yale in 2017. He joined the UW Law School in 2018.

Erin M. Barbato, Clinical Teacher of the Year. Barbato is the director of UW Law School’s Immigrant Justice Clinic (IJC) and a Clinical Professor of Law. In 2013, she joined the Law School as an adjunct professor with a focus on immigration law before becoming the IJC director in 2018. Under her supervision, students learn how to represent individuals in removal proceedings and with humanitarian-based immigration relief. Barbato received her law degree from Marquette University Law School in 2006.

Susan Collins, Adjunct Teacher of the Year. Collins teaches an introduction for estate planning and drafting. Collins earned her law degree in 1995, graduating cum laude from UW Law. Collins worked for Associated Bank as a senior vice president and fiduciary law senior counsel until 2018.

Submitted by Law School News on April 15, 2021

This article appears in the categories: Articles, Faculty

Related employee profiles: BJ Ard, Erin Barbato, Susan Collins

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

Congratulations, Erin, my friend and colleague So very proud of you and all you have achieved at my alma mater. “Badgers changing the world, for the better!”

This is a “Big Deal!” As Erin tells me:

The award is based on votes and comments from students. It means a lot to me as I think it reflects that the students of UW Law recognize the importance of representing people in removal proceedings. They are future due process warriors.

Erin has been an inspirational role model for a new generation of law students, taking groups to the border to save lives, engaging in “retail level” litigation in Immigration Court that advances justice in the most meaningful way possible, and publicizing the seminal role that immigrant justice plays in social justice in America. She is also a thinker and scholar who sees due process, human rights, and racial justice issues with a clarity lacking in all too many of today’s out of touch politicians, policy makers, and judges.

Erin also was a guest lecturer in my Immigration Law & Policy course course at Georgetown Law. Her “stories and pictures from the border” brought home to my students the gross violations of human and constitutional rights going on in our dysfunctional Immigration Courts on a daily basis.

Erin is one of the many “practical scholars” out there who should be “on the inside” at EOIR, DHS, and the Article III Courts!

Congrats again, Erin, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-25-21

🌳CELEBRATING EARTH DAY: Hon.“Sir Jeffrey” Chase Joins Other Scholars In Exploring “Environmental Refugees” — “The White Paper explains that the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are particularly vulnerable to climate change issues, and that the U.S. bears some responsibility for this fact through its high levels of greenhouse emissions and its historical policies in Central America.”

America has a not so good history of dealing with climate migration.
“Migrant Mom”
PHOTO BY: Dorothea Lange
Public Realm

Kristin Hannah’s latest novel “The Four Winds” centers on the ordeal of a single Mom struggling to save her family during the “Great Migration” of the 1930’s.
PHOTO:WashPost.com

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/4/22/climate-change-and-asylum-law

Climate Change and Asylum Law

Today, Earth Day, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the University Network for Human Rights released an important White Paper on the issue of climate displacement and its intersection with U.S. immigration laws, including the law of asylum. The report, Shelter from the Storm: Policy Options to Address Climate Induced Migration from the Northern Triangle, is both a call to action by the Biden Administration, and a tribute to the adaptability of international refugee law to address a vast array of serious discriminatory harms, including those related to climate change.

Seventy years after its enactment, the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees has demonstrated its ability to provide protection to victims of domestic violence, female genital cutting, coercive family planning policies, and violence from third-generation gangs, which function in some areas as de facto governments. It has provided status to those targeted because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. It has served to afford protection to those suffering from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities.

Attention is now turning to those displaced by climate change. The Biden Administration has issued two Executive Orders devoted to the issue of climate change within days of taking office. The second of those, issued on February 4, included the topic of “planning for the impact of climate change on migration.” Section 6 of the order requires the issuance of a report on the topic within 180 days.

To present, the U.S. has responded in some instances to rapid onset climate events such as hurricanes and earthquakes by designating impacted countries for Temporary Protected Status. One of the interesting points raised in the White Paper involves the ordinarily overlooked issue of displacement caused by slow onset climate events. These include desertification, rising sea levels, salinization of farmland, and shifts in precipitation patterns. The issue lends itself to being addressed through an array of legal responses (such as TPS, Deferred Enforced Departure, humanitarian parole, and even the creation of a new climate visa), and the White Paper explains how each of these legal avenues can be employed to provide protection to those displaced by such events. But the White Paper’s discussion of the idea of analyzing some forms of climate-related harm under our asylum laws is particularly intriguing.

Development of the intellectual groundwork for climate change-based refugee law analysis is underway at the international level. As the White Paper notes, in October 2020, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees issued an important document setting forth “legal considerations regarding claims for international protections made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters.” This follows the 2020 publication of Matthew Scott’s Climate Change, Disasters, and the Refugee Convention, the first full-length treatise on the topic.

It is important to recognize that asylum is not a cure for all harms that arise in the world. As in the other examples cited above, asylum responds to serious human rights violations from which the state cannot or will not protect that discriminate based on the fundamental characteristics of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As one scholar has stated, “international standards generally require that the harm be severe and related to a core right as understood under evolving human rights norms.”1 But “the evaluation of persecution requires a universal but flexible standard, capable of evolving and responding to changing conditions and international norms.”2

In the climate change context, governments undertake projects that impact climate issues such as the availability of water, or the contamination of air or farmland, that may benefit one segment of the population at the expense of another. Governments also make politicized decisions whether to address slow-onset climate change (which may include decisions regarding whether to regulate non-state industries engaging in business activities with environmental consequences), and in the speed and scope of their relief efforts on behalf of victims of climate-related disasters. Where these decisions particularly impact a segment of the population in a severe way on account of one of the five statutorily protected grounds, the result may constitute persecution protected under our asylum law. While the impact of these policies may cause serious harm standing alone, it may alternatively serve as the “last straw” in triggering flight where the climate change factors accelerated the degree of harm already suffered on account of a protected ground such as gender or indigenous status.3

Furthermore, a government’s punishment of outspoken critics of its climate change policies or lack of adequate response to a disaster may constitute persecution on account of a political opinion, as that term is defined for asylum purposes.4

Climate change could also play a more indirect but still important role in asylum determinations. For example, an asylum applicant who has established a well-founded fear of persecution must also demonstrate that they could not evade persecution through internal relocation within their home country, provided such relocation would be reasonable under all of the circumstances.5 But in its October 2020 Legal Considerations, UNHCR cautions at paragraph 12 that the progressive effect of slow-onset climate change spreading throughout a country may make relocation “neither relevant nor reasonable.”6 Furthermore, where an applicant who has suffered past persecution is shown to have no future fear due to changed conditions, a grant of humanitarian asylum may be merited where the asylum applicant establishes a reasonable possibility of facing “other serious harm” upon return.7 Harm resulting upon return from climate change should arguably constitute “other serious harm” sufficient to meet this standard.8

The White Paper explains that the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are particularly vulnerable to climate change issues, and that the U.S. bears some responsibility for this fact through its high levels of greenhouse emissions and its historical policies in Central America.9 In the 1980s and 90s, the B.I.A. engaged in logical contortions to avoid providing those fleeing civil wars in the Northern Triangle with the asylum protections it willingly extended to those fleeing similar conditions in other parts of the world.10 And more recently, refugees from violence from third-generation gangs and domestic violence in the region have suffered setbacks to refugee protection through similarly bad precedent decisions of the Attorneys General and the B.I.A.11

As the international community addresses the question of refugee determinations involving factors relating to climate change, it is possible for the U.S. to be at the forefront. Hopefully, today’s White Paper will provide the present administration with useful guidance towards that goal.

This report was coordinated and written by teams from the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) and the HLS Immigration Project (HIP) at Harvard Law School (collectively “Harvard”) and the University Network for Human Rights, Yale Immigrant Justice Project, and Yale Environmental Law Association (collectively “University Network/Yale”). The coordinators/authors from Harvard were John Willshire Carrera and Deborah Anker. The coordinators/authors from University Network/Yale were Camila Bustos and Thomas Becker. I am greatly honored to be listed as a co-author for my work with the Harvard team.

The following fellows participated in researching and drafting the report: Yong Ho Song (Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Fellow at Greater Boston Legal Services) and Fabiola Alvelais (Harvard Law School Henigson Human Rights Fellow and University Network for Human Rights Fellow).

The following Harvard students participated in researching and drafting the report: Rachel Landry (HIRC), Grant Charness (HIRC), Justin Bogda (HIRC), Regina Paparo (HIRC), Mira Nasser (HIRC), Lily Cohen (HIRC), Kira Hessekiel (HIRC), Nicholas Dantzler (HIRC), Shaza Loutfi (HIRC), Ariel Sarandinaki (HIRC), Gabrielle Kim (HIRC), Katie Quigley (HIP), Gina Starfield (HIP).

The following students supervised by and in coordination with University Network for Human Rights participated in researching and drafting the report: Natasha Brunstein (Yale), Alisa White (Yale), Aaron Troncoso (Yale), Rubin Danberg Biggs (Yale), Ram Dolom (Yale), A.J. Hudson (Yale), Rekha Kennedy (Yale), Liz Jacob (Yale), Eleanor Runde (Yale), Eric Eisner (Yale), Juan Luna Leon (Yale), Karen Sung (Yale), Abby Sodie (Wesleyan), Ericka Ekhator (Wesleyan), Gabrielle Ouellette (Wesleyan), Jesse de la Bastide (Wesleyan), Stella Ramsey (Wesleyan), and Luis Martinez (Vanderbilt).

The report was edited by: Sabrineh Ardalan, James Cavallaro, Nancy Kelly, Ruhan Nagra, Gina Starfield, Katie Quigley, and Cindy Zapata.

Notes:

Deborah E. Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at § 4.4.

Id. at § 4.3.

White Paper at 35.

Id. at 35.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).

White Paper at 36-37.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i)(C).

See White Paper at 33; Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705, 714 (BIA 2012) (holding that “other serious harm” requires no nexus to a protected ground, and can be found in “situations where the claimant could experience severe mental or emotional harm or physical injury.”

White Paper at 4.

See, e.g., Matter of Maldonado-Cruz, 19 I&N Dec. 509 (BIA 1988); and cf., e.g. Matter of Vigil, 19 I&N Dec. 572 (BIA 1987) with Matter of Salim, 18 I&N Dec. 311 (BIA 1982)

See, e.g., Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020); Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019); Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&NM Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

Such important work! These are the folks who should be running Government policy, not just writing “White Papers,” no matter how brilliant.

In this NBC News video from yesterday, Hallie Jackson highlights upper class “climate migrants” already relocating from places like the Georgia coast to Asheville, NC, to insulate themselves from the worst effects of ongoing climate change and global warming. Things are going to get much more serious when Bangladesh and other sea-level nations and island nations (e.g., Indonesia) start going under water. Probably not so good for Florida either!

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/cities-prepare-for-future-influx-of-new-residents-fleeing-climate-change-110693957661

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-22-21

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Daniel Paz writes in Newsweek:

Tell the Biden Administration and Judge Garland that we need progressive reforms, now! EOIR would be a great starting place!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Biden’s program for migrant children doesn’t go far enough

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Casey might ask:

🇺🇸🗽Due ProcessForever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Opinion by James Fredrick in WashPost

🇺🇸🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Natalie Gonnella-Platts and Jenny Villatoro In the Dallas Morning News:

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

Related posts:

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Congrats again, Erin, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts: