Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) – Page 2 – immigrationcourtside.com

ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ LEADS THE CHARGE FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🤵🏾🇺🇸

Hon. Polly Webber
US Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Fiber Artist

Comments of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

Regarding the “Real Courts, Real Justice Act.”
January 3, 2021

This statement for the record is submitted by former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development of the Immigration Court from the 1980s up to present.

We hereby incorporate our Statement submitted to this Subcommittee on January 29, 2020, for its Hearing on “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.” The statement sets forth the many ways in which the lack of safeguards in the Immigration Court system, specifically by positioning it within the Department of Justice, has resulted in extreme overreach by the executive branch over a system that historically has been the purview of Congress through its plenary power.

We applaud the efforts of Congresswoman Lofgren and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for undertaking this historic task of creating an independent Immigration Court under Article 1 of the Constitution. Bringing together stakeholders and organizations with the proper expertise and foresight has resulted in a proposal with integrity and purpose, and a realistic possibility of long-needed reform.

The recognition that this Court needed to be independent from executive influence originated within the immigration judge corps as early as 1989. It took decades for the concept to mature to its current endorsement by nearly every important legal and social organization in the field, recognizing the importance of a system built on integrity and independence. Indeed, the creation of an Article 1 Immigration Court is finally a need recognized by the public at large.

The Time is Now

The Subcommittee is in a uniquely advantageous position to introduce this legislation at the inception of this historic session of Congress. There is nearly universal agreement that the whole immigration system needs a major overhaul. Beginning with the Immigration Court reflects a recognition that protection of the most vulnerable population, those appearing before the Court, should be addressed first.

The Round Table urges the Subcommittee to wrap up its due diligence and introduce this bill at the beginning of the new session. It is hoped that by submitting the bill, the Subcommittee will indicate that these issues are on its radar and the continuing executive rampages over the Court will cease.

DHS Rights of Appeal in an Article 1 Court System

Counsel to the Subcommittee specifically asked The Round Table to address whether under an Article 1 scenario the government should have the right to challenge determinations granting relief to immigrants in federal court. This question was presumably presented because under the present configuration, such appeals are disallowed. Our Round Table unanimously believes that given the independence the Court would enjoy under Article 1, both parties should have full right of appeal.

The historical inability of DHS to petition for review from Board grants of relief in part stems from the early days when Immigration Judges were still Special Inquiry Officers and the Court was part of INS, which in turn was part of DOJ. The Attorney General originally delegated only limited decision-making authority to the Board. All complex issues had to be referred to the Attorney General. INS could not appeal decisions made by AG delegates, who all worked for the same agency. Their recourse was to ask the AG to certify the appellate agency decision to himself/herself. The inability of the government to petition for review survived the reorganizations in 1983 and 2003. The difference we are seeking to make is removing the Court from the executive agency trappings. As a stand-alone Court, its parties should enjoy all the rights and duties that fall from that independence.

As INA § 242 is written, Judicial Review is limited to reviews of final orders of removal. Thus, the scope of review would need to be changed to allow the government to challenge grants of relief.

Contact with Questions or Concerns: Polly Webber, pawebber7250@gmail.com

Sincerely,

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Hon. Steven Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens (N.Y.) Wackenhut Immigration Courts, 1997-2013
Hon. Silvia Arellano, Immigration Judge, Florence and Phoenix, 2010-2019
Hon. Terry A. Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019
Hon. Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012
Hon. Teofilo Chapa, Immigration Judge, Miami, 1995-2018
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007 Hon. George T. Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2017
Hon. Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1980-2005
Hon. Lisa Dornell, Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Alison Daw, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles and San Francisco, 2006-2018
Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007
Hon. Noel Ferris, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2013
Hon. James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1990-2019
Hon. Gilbert Gembacz, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1996-2008
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr., Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013
Hon. Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004
Hon. Miriam Hayward, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and New York, 1995-2020
Hon. Rebecca Bowen Jamil, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 2016-2018
Hon. William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002
Hon. Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017
Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Donn L. Livingston, Immigration Judge, Denver and New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Margaret McManus, Immigration Judge, New York, 1991-2018
Hon. Charles Pazar, Immigration Judge, Memphis, 1998-2017
Hon. Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. John W. Richardson, Immigration Judge, Phoenix, 1990-2018
Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002
Hon. Susan G. Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, NJ 2008-2010
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt, Chair and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, and Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1995-2016
Hon. Patricia M.B. Sheppard, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1993-2006
Hon. Ilyce S. Shugall, Judge, San Francisco, 2017-2019
Hon. Helen Sichel, Immigration Judge, New York, 1997-2020
Hon. Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Andrea Hawkins Sloan, Immigration Judge, Portland, 2010-2017
Hon. Gustavo D. Villageliu, Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA, 1995-2003
Hon. Robert D. Vinikoor, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1984-2017
Hon. Polly A. Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016

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

Centuries of judicial experience represented here! As we say, “The
Time Is Now!”

Many thanks to Judge Polly Webber and her drafting team 🖋 for making this happen in such a timely manner!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

PWS

01-03-21

TAL KOPAN @ SF CHRON: 🏴‍☠️ Billy The Bigot’s DOJ Goes Full Racist, Cans Immigration Courts’ Diversity Training!

Honorable Mimi Tsankov
U.S. Immigration Judge
Eastern Region Vice President
National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Justice-Department-cancels-diversity-training-15635203.php

Justice Department cancels diversity training, including for immigration judges

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department has suspended all diversity and inclusion training and events for its employees, according to a memo obtained by The Chronicle, which would include judges in San Francisco and elsewhere hearing cases of immigrants seeking to avoid deportation.

The memo, dated Oct. 8, is in response to an executive order issued by President Trump last month that labeled racial bias training as “offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating.” It was issued by Lee Lofthus, the assistant attorney general for administration.

“To ensure compliance with requirements specific to Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) training for employees, DOJ Components are instructed to suspend all D&I related training, programs, activities, and events that employees are required or permitted to attend while on Government-paid time,” Lofthus wrote.

Any new diversity training must be approved by the federal Office of Personnel Management, Lofthus said. He offered no timeline for resuming training.

The suspension applies to all divisions of the Justice Department, but could be of particular importance to the immigration courts.

Unlike the independent federal judiciary, immigration judges who hear the cases of asylum seekers and others trying to stay in the U.S. are employees of the Justice Department, hired by the attorney general.

Those cases often include some of the most sensitive stories of trauma from around the world, including many from women who say they have been raped, trafficked or abused in countries that frequently do not punish men who commit such acts. Asylum seekers also include people who say they have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs and LGBTQ individuals from countries where such identities are criminalized.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who chairs the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, said the Justice Department, like other workplaces, “should always aim for more diversity, not less.”

“The suspension of this training will also apply to our nation‘s immigration courts and could lead to less inclusive and fair-minded judges,” Lofgren said in a statement to The Chronicle. “This is yet another reason why the immigration court system should be an independent body, separate from DOJ and free from the political whims of the Executive branch.”

The union that represents immigration judges noted that they interact with a diverse group of people in court, which it said makes such training important.

“The National Association of Immigration Judges values diversity and inclusion in the workplace as it ensures that the Immigration Judges can meet the needs of the diverse group of stakeholders with whom we interface.” Mimi Tsankov, the chair of the group’s committee on gender equity and a judge in New York, said in a statement. “Immigration Court workplace training on diversity and inclusion reflects a commitment to its importance and ensures a judicial bench ready to respond to the needs that our cases demand.”

President Trump’s attorneys general have paid particular attention to the immigration courts as part of their efforts to restrict immigration to the United States, by implementing policies that have reduced judges’ discretion and made it harder for immigrants to claim asylum.

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

Those with access should go to the above link for the full article. It also gives Tal a boost from the “hits.”

Glaring, intentional lack of diversity on the bench along with racial, gender, religious, and ethnic insensitivity have become an endemic problem at EOIR. But, given a regime and a DOJ that pride themselves on racism, misogyny, xenophobia, along with disdain for professionalism, expertise, ethics, humanity, and the Constitution, that’s not surprising.

Representative Lofgren and the NAIJ’s Judge Tsankov are absolutely correct. It’s time to put an end to the disgraceful abomination at EOIR and create a real, independent court system dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, and promoting human dignity!

Due Process Forever! Today’s Dysfunctional & Unfair EOIR, Never!

PWS

10-11-20

SUZANNE MONYK @ LAW360: Experts Say New Asylum Rule Unconstitutional Because It Guts Due Process🏴‍☠️, Effectively Repeals Asylum Statute, Will Result in Near 100% Denial Rate — While Denials & Illegal “Deportations to Death☠️” Will Soar, Asylum Seekers Not Likely to be Deterred From Coming, Meaning That Court Backlogs & Avoidable Litigation Will Continue to Mushroom!

Suzanne Monyak
Senior Reporter, Immigration
Law360

https://www.law360.com/articles/1282494/planned-asylum-overhaul-threatens-migrants-due-process

Analysis

Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process

By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT

The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.

The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.

“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.

The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”

Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”

In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.

These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.

“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.

But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.

This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.

“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.

Dree Collopy of Benach Collopy LLP, who chairs the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s asylum committee, told Law360 that she thought the pretermission authority was the most striking attack on due process in the proposal, noting that some immigration judges have asylum denial rates of 90% or higher.

“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”

The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”

Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.

The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.

“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.

Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.

When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.

. . . .

“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.

“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”

But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.

The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”

If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.

And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.

Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.

“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.

Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.

If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

–Editing by Kelly Duncan.

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

Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.

Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.

As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.

This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.

While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.

With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.

As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.

As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.

In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United. States acceded in 1968.

These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.

Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the Rio Grande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?

Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?

We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.

As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, and policy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

PWS

06-16-20

ARTICLE I: National Association of Women Judges (“NAWJ”) Advocates Independent U.S. Immigration Court

Round Table superstar Judge Joan Churchill reports:

The letter has been addressed to the Chairs and Ranking Members of both the Senate and HR Judiciary Committees, as well as to the HR Immigration Subcommittee, and to Senator Whitehouse of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who sent a letter last month to the AG, cosigned by several other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressing concerns about due process at the Immigration Courts. There are 7 letters, attached below for your records.

Because all seven letters are similar in content, I’m linking and reprinting only the one to Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren of the House Subcommittee on Immigration & Citizenship.

Zoe Lofgren, Chair, HR Immigration Subcommittee

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES

1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1138, Washington, D.C. 20036 T: (202) 393-0222 W: www.nawj.org

February 28, 2020

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren

1401 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Lofgren:

In your role as Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, the National Association of Women Judges [NAWJ] writes in support of the creation of an independent Immigration Court. We respectfully call on Congress to establish an Article I Immigration Court system that is independent of the Department of Justice, or any other prosecutorial agency, in order to guarantee due process and a fair hearing with justice for all.

Currently, the Immigration Courts are housed in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review [EOIR], which manages Immigration Courts at both the trial and appellate levels.

1

This structure presents an inherent conflict of interest. The Immigration Courts are adjudicatory bodies

tasked with providing due process hearings to respondents in removal proceedings. It is essential that its judges be neutral adjudicators who are not subject to the policy making chain of command of an executive agency, or to direction by a party to the cases before them.

NAWJ has been the leading voice of women jurists across the country for over forty years. Founded in 1979, our non-partisan membership includes over 1,000 judges, women and men, serving at all levels of the state and federal judiciary. Our membership includes judges on administrative, military, tribal, and other specialized courts, in addition to the regular state and federal courts. NAWJ has, since our founding, championed the advancement of women and minorities in the legal profession, the independence of the judiciary, and equal access to justice.

NAWJ’s support for an independent Immigration Court outside the Department of Justice is long standing. We adopted a resolution in support on April 16, 2002 stating that:

1 The appellate level of the Immigration Court system is known as the Board of Immigration Appeals or BIA.

Chair Zoe Lofgren Page Two

“The NAWJ supports an independent structure for the Immigration Courts (at both the trial and appellate levels) outside the Department of Justice, to assure fairness and equal access to justice, and to assure both the appearance and reality of impartiality.”

We followed up with another resolution adopted on October 18, 2008 stating:

“The National Association of Women Judges supports the enactment of federal immigration legislation that provides for full and fair administrative adjudication and review of deportation orders.”

We are pleased to hear that Congress is currently considering introduction of legislation on this important topic.

Due process by adjudicatory tribunals requires case by case adjudication in which a neutral decision maker, using his/her independent judgment, renders a decision based entirely on the record before him/her, the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and the governing law and regulations, without direction from above or consideration of outside (ex parte) influences. The current structure of the Immigration Courts, however, presents a systemic problem to neutral adjudication, as the structure allows:

(1) a supervisory role regarding the content of Immigration Judges’ rulings and

decisions, as a factor in their performance evaluations, and

(2) participation in the adjudicatory process by policy makers who are, in turn,

answerable to one of the parties, an executive agency of the Government.

We respectfully urge Congress to establish an independent Immigration Court system, under Article I of the United States Constitution, that would assure due process and judicial independence.

Thank you for consideration of our views. Sincerely,

The Honorable Bernadette D’Souza President

National Association of Women Judges

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

For those of you who don’t already know my long-time friend and colleague Judge Joan Churchill, here is a little background.

Joan and I worked together as Attorney Advisors at the BIA in the early 1970s. She was the leader of the movement to start an employees’ union at the BIA, largely to insure fair and respectful treatment of our support staff. I was a “charter member,” and Joan served as our first President.

Later, after becoming one of the first women Immigration Judges at the “Legacy INS,” Joan served as the President of the Immigration Judges’ Association, the predecessor to the National Association of Immigration Judges. Among her many accomplishments, Joan successfully, and almost single handedly, argued the “Due Process case” against an INS proposal to take asylum cases out of Immigration Court and assign them exclusively to the newly created Asylum Office.

Later in our careers, Joan and I were “reunited” as colleagues at the Arlington Immigration Court. I was the “keynote speaker” at her retirement ceremony.

Following retirement, Joan hasn’t missed a beat. She served as President of the NAWJ and has actively and effectively pressed the case for Article I status as a member of the ABA National Conference on the Administrative Judiciary (of which I also am a member). Undoubtedly, Joan’s efforts were a key factor in getting such strong support for the Article I proposal from the ABA.

All of us who served as Immigration Judges and believe in the fundamental value of Due Process under law owe a debt of gratitude to Joan for her courageous, effective, pioneering work and her continued involvement in fulfilling the one-time “EOIR vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals insuring fairness and due process for all.”

I might add, that it wasn’t always easy for Joan who has constantly demonstrated courage, an incredible work ethic, and “grace under fire.” But, that’s another story.

For now, I’m just thankful to be able to call Joan a friend and colleague and to continue to benefit from her wisdom, scholarship, and hard work in behalf of all of us in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.

Well done, my friend and colleague!

Due Process Forever; “Captive” Courts Never!

PWS

03-10-20

PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO @ LA TIMES: We Can Restore Legality & Humanity To U.S. Asylum Law — That’s Why The Refugee Protection Act Deserves Everyone’s Support — “The bill lays out a plan to allow women and girls fleeing gender-based violence the opportunity to obtain asylum, and bring our country back in line with its humanitarian commitments. It’s a vision that all members of Congress should be able to get behind, even at a time of bitter partisanship.”

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=55eeae6e-b617-4ffd-b041-a54c15a3ada7&v=sdk

Professor Musalo writes in the LA Times:

Every day, courageous women and girls arrive at our southern border seeking refuge from unimaginable violence. Under our laws, they have the right to apply for asylum and have their cases heard. But rather than offering protection, the Trump administration is determined to send them back to the countries they have fought so hard to escape.

On Thursday, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced the Refugee Protection Act. The bill lays out a plan to allow women and girls fleeing gender-based violence the opportunity to obtain asylum, and bring our country back in line with its humanitarian commitments. It’s a vision that all members of Congress should be able to get behind, even at a time of bitter partisanship.

It’s no secret that this administration is systematically dismantling our asylum law. Women and children have borne the brunt of the suffering — from the egregious policies of family separation and “Remain in Mexico,” to the quiet publication of decisions by the attorney general that have closed door after door to those seeking safety.

The Refugee Protection Act would rectify many of these inhumane actions, and includes language to reverse recent decisions that have made it nearly impossible for women fleeing domestic violence or gang brutality to qualify as refugees.

One of those decisions — known as Matter of A-B- — was handed down by then-Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions in 2018. That decision has been used to limit the legal definition of “refugee” in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of asylum in the U.S. for victims of domestic violence, sex trafficking and other gender-based human rights violations. Since then, we have seen asylum approval rates plummet for women, children and families arriving at our southern border.

The Matter of A-B- case involves a domestic violence survivor from El Salvador who fears she will be killed if she is sent back to her country. My organization, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, has represented A.B. in her asylum case for nearly two years.

In El Salvador, A.B., a courageous and resilient woman, endured over 15 years of beatings, rapes, death threats and psychological abuse at the hands of her husband. She secured a divorce and even moved to another part of El Salvador, desperate to escape her abuser. But no matter where she went, he tracked her down. When she requested a restraining order, the police provided her one — and told her to hand-deliver it to him. Fearing that he would make good on his threat to kill her, she fled to the United States.

In 2016, A.B. was granted asylum by the highest administrative tribunal in the immigration system, the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals. But in a highly unusual procedural move, Sessions seized upon A.B.’s case, overturned the grant of asylum, and used it to declare that the United States should no longer extend protection to domestic violence survivors.

A.B. has appealed Sessions’ action, but until a final decision is reached, she remains terrified that she will be deported. Countless other women who have made the arduous journey to the United States also face a hostile immigration system and, post-Matter of A-B-, an even harder legal battle.

Congress has an opportunity to correct this. The new bill would clarify legal requirements for asylum and provide clear guidance for cases involving gender-based violence. It would ensure that asylum seekers like A.B. get a fair opportunity to argue her claim before a judge.

The United States has a long history of giving refuge to people who’ve come to our shores. This measure would be a step toward restoring that tradition.

Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at UC Hastings College of the Law. She is also lead coauthor of “Refugee Law and Policy: An International and Comparative Approach (5th edition).”

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

Here’s a link to an ImmigrationProf Blog summary and the text of the Refugee Protection Act, a recently introduced bill:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/11/karen-musalo-restore-asylum-for-women-fleeing-abuse-and-death-.html

PWS

11-24-19

HON JEFFREY S. CHASE ON DOJ’S SCURRILOUS & FRIVOLOUS ATTACK ON THE NAIJ!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/8/22/dojs-latest-effort-to-undermine-impartial-immigration-bench

. . . .

The NAIJ has been particularly effective at arguing how such actions support the need for an independent Article I immigration court, outside of the control of the executive branch. The idea has been endorsed by numerous law groups, including the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association, and is now a common talking point among members of Congress. The move to decertify the NAIJ is clearly an effort to end such efforts.

A statement issued by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairs of the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, recognized the decertification petition as “blatant retaliation for this opposition and an obvious attempt to shield immigration court operations from public view.”

The congressional leaders continued that “the Administration’s attempt to silence immigration judges by engaging in frivolous union busting tactics underscores why we need an immigration court system that is separate and independent from the Executive Branch. In the coming months, the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings to explore the current state of the U.S. immigration court system and develop a foundation for legislation to create an independent immigration court.”

. . . .

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

Go on over to Jeff’s blog a the link to read the complete article, which originally appeared on Law360.

Under Trump, the Department of “Justice” clearly has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Under a future honest Administration, the DOJ is in need of a complete housecleaning and reorganization. We need some legislative safeguards to insure that the DOJ promotes, rather than undermines, the “rule of law.”

Of course, the problem starts — but doesn’t end — with corrupt leadership from folks like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Bill “Trump’s Toady” Barr. But, it also takes some “go along to get along” amoral so-called “career bureaucrats” at DOJ to carry out these invidious policies.

Obviously, the need for an independent Article I U.S. Immigration court becomes more clear and pressing every day that the current farce operating within the DOJ is allowed to continue!

PWS

09-10-11

HARD RIGHT TURN: Barr Appoints “Death Squad” Of New “Appellate Judges” Tasked To “Snuff Out” Any Last Remaining Pockets Of Due Process For Asylum Seekers & Send As Many As Possible Unlawfully Into Harm’s Way! — Judge Earle Wilson Has An Astounding 98.1% Asylum Denial Rate, But His New Colleagues Are Hot On His Tail! — TAL @ SF CHRON REPORTS!

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/AG-William-Barr-promotes-immigration-judges-with-14373344.php

AG William Barr promotes immigration judges with high asylum denial rates

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has promoted six judges to the immigration appeals court that sets binding policy for deportation cases — all whom have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims.

The six come from courts that have higher asylum-denial rates than the national average, including two from a court that has drawn complaints of unfair proceedings from immigration attorneys and advocates. A third has a long history of denying asylum to domestic violence victims, something the Justice Department has also sought to do.

The new appeals judges, who will now make up more than a quarter of the appellate board, were appointed as the administration works to speed up the immigration courts and narrow migrants’ use of asylum cases to come to the U.S. The six new appointees were sworn in Friday.

The hires are in a new role, in which judges will be allowed to continue serving at any immigration court in the country rather than having to move to suburban Falls Church, Va., where the appeals board’s headquarters are. The new appeals judges will also be allowed to serve as fill-in lower court immigration judges. Critics had suspected the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, created the new positions to pack the board with judges from courts with high rates of denying immigrants’ claims, who may otherwise not have wanted to move to D.C.

The board serves as the appellate body for the immigration court system, an entity separate from the federal courts.

As in the federal system, the immigration board has the power to overrule lower court decisions with three-judge panels. By a majority vote of all its 21 members, it can make those rulings binding on the nation’s nearly 400 immigration judges. Recently, Barr published a new regulation giving himself the power to make any appellate decision binding as well.

By law, the Justice Department is barred from considering political leanings when hiring judges. Agency officials say judges are selected based only on their qualifications for the job, and that their history of rulings is not taken into account.

According to data tracked by Syracuse University from 2013 through 2018, all the judges promoted Friday have records of denying asylum at much higher rates than immigration judges nationally. The Justice Department has in the past questioned Syracuse’s methodology, but does not provide statistics of its own.

Two of the new appeals judges were promoted by Barr from the Atlanta immigration court, which has one of the highest rates of asylum claim denials in the country. The court rejected 95.3% of claims from 2013 to 2018, compared with a national average of 57.6%, Syracuse found.

One of the two new appeals judges from Atlanta, William Cassidy, had a rejection rate of 95.8%, 22nd highest in the country.

Cassidy was also the subject of 11 complaints from immigration attorneys from 2010-2013, according to material obtained by the American Immigration Lawyers Association through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. That number of complaints was more than roughly 95% of all other immigration judges in that period, according to information from the lawsuit. Five of the 11 resulted in Cassidy being counseled by a superior on proper judicial behavior.

Also promoted by Barr from the Atlanta court was Earle Wilson, who denied 98.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018, according to Syracuse. That was more than all but five immigration judges in the U.S.

Wilson and Cassidy were also named in two complaints filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, in 2017 and 2018 that argued the Atlanta court was treating immigrants unfairly. The complaints said Wilson and Cassidy behaved in an intimidating fashion toward immigrants and their advocates.

It is not clear whether the Justice Department has responded to those complaints. The department said Friday it does not discuss personnel matters.

The other new appellate judges are:

• Keith Hunsucker, who has spent most of his time on the bench at the immigration court at the Port Isabel Detention Center in Texas. While there, he denied 81.6% of asylum cases, consistent with his court’s 81.1% average. Hunsucker is now in Cleveland.

• Deborah Goodwin, appointed from the Miami immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017, and through last year had a denial rate of 89.4%, above her court’s average of 79.6% in the 2013 to 2018 time frame measured by Syracuse.

• Stephanie Gorman, promoted from the Houston immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017 and has an 86.9% asylum denial rate, slightly below her court’s 89.3% average.

• Stuart Couch, who was appointed from Charlotte, N.C., denied 92.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018. That was above his court’s average of 88.2%.

Couch also authored a 2017 ruling denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman who was physically and emotionally abused and raped by her ex-husband, a decision that the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed. It was that appellate decision that Sessions overturned to align the law more closely with Couch’s interpretation, saying domestic violence was largely not grounds for asylum. A federal judge has blocked that ruling for now.

Couch’s original decision was one of 10 domestic violence-related cases in 2017 in which the Board of Immigration Appeals found his rulings were “clearly erroneous.” In all 10, Couch rejected the claims of Central American women who had been beaten, raped and otherwise abused by their husbands or partners. The cases were made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by immigration attorney Bryan Johnson.

The Justice Department stood behind all the judges.

“DOJ doesn’t track asylum approval and denial rates for individual immigration judges, and (Syracuse) uses its own methodologies in interpreting the data it receives, resulting in conclusions that we cannot verify,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “Collectively these judges combined, have nearly 120 years of immigration law combined, through multiple administrations. Advocates that attack their integrity and professionalism only undermine the entire system.”

Immigration attorneys fear the hires are part of an effort by the Trump administration to skew the courts against immigrants, who face deportation if their claims are denied.

“The board’s primary function is to ensure rule of law and impartiality, yet the department cherry-picked judges from the harshest jurisdictions with the lowest asylum grant rates in the nation,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “When we’re talking about asylum cases, these decisions are life or death for those seeking protection.”

Lynch’s group, along with the American Bar Association and national union for immigration judges, have called for the immigration courts to be removed from the Justice Department and made independent. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has pledged to pursue legislation that would do so through the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration she chairs in the House.

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

How many refugees will die or be subjected to additional torture and persecution because of thoroughly biased judges and a corrupt “judicial” system controlled by political hacks like Barr. Will Congress and the Article IIIs ever step in and restore some semblance of Due Process? Unless and until they do, the “blood of the innocents” will be on their hands.

Meanwhile, the complicit/complacent Article IIIs who have let this situation get out of control can look forward to being flooded with petitions for review, because the New Due Process Army will continue to fight this unconstitutional, fundamentally unfair, and evil perversion of American justice!

The idea that six Judges with asylum denial rates astronomically above the national average of 57.1% were the “best qualified” for these appellate jobs is simply absurd. Indeed, probably all of us in the Roundtable of Former Judges know of much better judicial candidates who were passed over so that Barr could install his “Death Squad.”

As Tal points out, unless piling up bar complaints, being cited by the public for rudeness, being reversed by their BIA, and denying an usually high number of asylum claims are among the “quality ranking factors” for these jobs, it’s hard to see how several of these judges would be considered even minimally qualified for promotion, let alone “best qualified.” It seems that a Congressional investigation into the selection process would be well warranted, including a look at the qualifications of candidates who were passed over.

Human lives are being trivialized by this White Nationalist regime and its enablers.

PWS

08-23-19

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY) INTRODUCES BILL TO PROVIDE ATTORNEYS FOR ASYUM SEEKERS – Other Dems Sign On

https://apple.news/AgrY1IyNUTySuACBpvrL_aQ

Veronica Stracqualursi
Politics Reporter
CNN

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand introduces new legislation that would provide asylum seekers with attorney

Veronica Stracqualursi

CNN

Updated 2:18 PM EDT August 2, 2019 Washington

2020 Democratic presidential candidate and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrandintroduced a bill Wednesday that would provide immigrants with an attorney as they seek asylum or other legal protections in the US as the Trump administration has been dramatically limiting the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum.

Immigrants, for example, have the right to counsel and may hire a lawyer themselves, but unlike in the criminal justice system, representation is not guaranteed.

Under Gillibrand’s proposed bill, legal counsel would be required for eligible groups facing removal proceedings — including children, individuals with disabilities, victims of abuse, torture, and violence, and individuals at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

The Funding Attorneys for Indigent Removal (FAIR) Proceedings Act “would ensure that some of the most vulnerable individuals in this process can be represented by an attorney,” Gillibrand said in a statement Friday.

“This would not only guarantee a more humane way to process asylum claims and other legal protections, but it would improve the efficiency of our immigration courts and help our country do a much better job of managing our immigration system,” Gillibrand said.

She accused the Trump administration of being “far too willing to fast-track deportation cases even when people have credible claims to asylum.”

Democratic Reps. Donald McEachin from Virginia and Zoe Lofgren from California have introduced a House companion to Gillibrand’s bill. Sens. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders, two other 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Richard Blumenthal have also signed onto the Senate bill as co-sponsors.

The Trump administration has worked to limit immigration and toughen the US asylum process amid overcrowded conditions at border facilities and a spike in apprehensions at the US-Mexico border over the recent months.

Last month, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security also rolled out an interim rule that would prohibit migrants who have resided or “transited en route” in a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants from Central America traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum and as a result, drastically limiting who’s eligible for asylum.

A federal judge blocked the asylum rulefrom going into effect, deeming it “likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

The Trump administration also moved to expanda procedure to speed up deportations to include undocumented immigrants anywhere in the US who cannot prove they’ve lived in the country continuously for two years or more.

The notice, filed in the Federal Register on July 22, casts a wider net of undocumented immigrants subject to the fast-track deportation procedure known as “expedited removal” which allows immigration authorities to remove an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge. The American Civil Liberties Union has said it will sue to block the policy.

© 2019 Cable News Network, Inc. A WarnerMedia Company. All Rights Reserved.

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

Competent lawyers have been beating the Trump Administration like a drum on immigration issues. That’s why corrupt officials like Trump, Barr, Miller, “Big Mac With Lies,” and “Cooch Cooch” are so desperate to railroad asylum applicants out of the country while unlawfully denying them access to even the limited number of pro bono lawyers available under current law.

The Federal Courts have also “tanked” on their constitutional duty to insure Due Process by requiring appointed counsel in immigration cases, something that should make the entire Article III judiciary hang their collective heads in shame. The Federal Courts have also been “asleep at the switch” by allowing the Trump Administration to use inhumane coercive detention in obscure places and other gimmicks intentionally designed to defeat asylum applicants’ right to counsel of their own choosing.

PWS

08-03-19

PARTY OF INFAMY AND GROSS INDECENCY: GOP’S WHITE NATIONALIST WING SEEKS TO DESTROY U.S. ASYLUM LAW, SCREW THE MOST VULNERABLE – Want To Turn America Into A “Rogue Nation” That Trashes Human Rights! – THEY MUST BE EXPOSED AND STOPPED!

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/trumps-immigration-proposal-could-make-it-radically-harder-to-get-asylum/

Noah Lanard reports for Mother Jones:

“When people arrive at the border seeking asylum from persecution, the United States gives them the benefit of the doubt. As long as they can show there’s a “significant possibility” that they deserve protection, they’re allowed to stay and make their case to an immigration judge. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress want to change that.

On Sunday, the Trump administration demanded that Congress overhaul the US asylum system as part of any legislation to protect the nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation. The White House’s asylum proposal, laid out in nine bullet-pointed items as part of the broader immigration plan, appears to be modeled on the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act, a bill that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee approved in July. The bill, which has not been passed by the full House, would make it easier for the Department of Homeland Security to quickly reject asylum claims and force most asylum seekers to remain in detention while their cases are decided. The overall effect would be to transform a system for protecting persecuted people, created in the wake of World War II, into a much more adversarial process.

At a hearing in July, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) warned that the GOP proposal would “all but destroy the US asylum system.” Now Trump is trying to fold those changes into a deal to protect the Dreamers—undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children—who were previously covered by Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Eleanor Acer, an expert on refugees at the advocacy group Human Rights First, saidin a statement Monday that Trump’s demands will “block those fleeing persecution and violence from even applying for asylum, and punish those who seek protection by preventing their release from immigration detention facilities and jails.”

But Republicans like Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) argue that asylum reform is needed to address “pervasive” fraud, such as false claims of persecution. Asylum claims from the “Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have been a major focus for Republicans. Between 2013 and 2015, there were more asylum claims from the Northern Triangle, which has been terrorized by MS-13 and other gangs, than in the previous 15 years combined. A 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office found that the United States has “limited capabilities to detect asylum fraud.” But the scope of the problem is not known. Leah Chavla, a program officer at the Women’s Refugee Commission, says going after fraud is misguided in light of the many checks and balances that are already in place.

Trump’s proposal calls for raising the standard of proof for asylum seekers to establish that they have a “credible fear” of persecution, entitling them to make their case to a judge. That tracks language in the House bill that would require asylum seekers to show in their initial screening that is “more probable than not” that they deserve asylum. Immigrant advocates say that threshold, which would replace the “significant possibility” standard that exists today, is ill-suited to the realities of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers often don’t have a lawyer and may be exhausted from their time in immigration detention when the initial screening with an asylum officer takes place, says Olga Byrne, an asylum and refugee expert at Human Rights First. As a result, the screenings are designed to weed out what Byrne calls “obviously frivolous cases.”David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, believes it’s “absurd” to expect asylum seekers to be able to prove their claims soon after they arrive. “Many asylees have to flee under cover of darkness or swim through streams to escape their persecutors,” he wrote in July. “They often set out without any concept of where they will end up, let alone with documentary evidence in their pockets.”In the 75 percent of cases where a “credible fear” of persecution is established, the asylum seeker then faces the more difficult task of convincing an immigration judge to allow him or her to stay in the United States indefinitely. In the 2016 fiscal year, 57 percent of asylum claims were denied, according to data from the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Due to a 632,000-case backlog in immigration courts, asylum seekers often spend months, and sometimes more than a year, in detention while they wait for their cases to be decided. (The Supreme Court will decide this term whether detaining asylum seekers without a bond hearing is constitutional.)In 2009, the Obama administration ordered US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release asylum seekers from detention if they did not pose a danger to others or a flight risk, though it later changed that policy as part of its effort to deter Central American migrants. Trump’s proposal calls vaguely for ensuring “only appropriate use” of the executive branch’s authority to release asylum seekers. That is similar to language in the House bill that would block the president from releasing large groups of asylum seekers. People who remain in immigration detention are much less likely to have a lawyer and win their cases, according to a 2015 studypublished in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.Trump’s framework also says Congress should expand the administration ability to return asylum seekers to “safe third countries.” Again, that follows language in the House bill that would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Mexico, even if they are from other countries. Mexico does not want to receive these asylum seekers and is already struggling to deal with its own surge in asylum claims by Central Americans. Under the Republican bill, unaccompanied child migrants could be among those sent to Mexico, where more than 2,200 people were murdered in June, the deadliest month on record. The Trump administration has already taken steps to make it harder to obtain asylum. In February, the Department of Homeland Security released a memothat makes it easier for asylum officers to reject asylum claims. Advocacy groups have also reported that border officials are now more likely to summarily reject asylum claims when people present themselves at the border. And in June, the Trump administration ended a program that paired 630 families seeking asylum—almost all of them Central American mothers and children—with social workers who help them navigate life in the United States. The women are likely to be tracked by ankle monitors instead, the Associated Press reported in June. If Trump’s demands become law, the US asylum system will change fundamentally. Those calling for the reforms are “just trying to get people in and out as quickly as possible,” Chavla says. “And there’s no regard for their protection. There’s no regard for due process.”

Republicans’ asylum proposals “don’t just chip away at our nation’s asylum program,” Lofgren said in July. “They decimate it.”

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

The real “fraudsters” here are the GOP restrictionists, led by folks like Goodlatte, Miller, and Sessions, trying to fob off their knowingly false and contrived narrative on America. Shame!

Second, the current system intentionally denies lawyers to the respondents in detention in obscure locations along the Southern Border, specifically selected to make it difficult for individuals to exercise their rights. Raising the standards would virtually guarantee rejection of all such asylum seekers without any hearing at all. The standard for having asylum granted is supposed to be a generous “well-founded fear” (in other words, a 10% chance or a “reasonable chance”). In fact, however, DHS and EOIR often fail to honor the existing legal standards. Forcing unrepresented individuals in detention with no chance to gather evidence to establish that it is “more likely than not” that they would be granted asylum is a ridiculous travesty of justice.

Third, access to lawyers, not detention, is the most cost-effective way to secure appearance at Immigration Court hearings. Individuals who are able to obtain lawyers, in other words those who actually understand what is happening, have a relatively low rate of “failure to appear.” In fact, a long-term study by the American Immigration Council shows that 95% of minors represented by counsel appear for their hearings as opposed to approximately 67% for those who are unrepresented. See,e.g., https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/taking-attendance-new-data-finds-majority-children-appear-immigration-court

Rather than curtailment of rights or expensive and inhumane detention, the best way of insure that all asylum applicants appear for their scheduled hearings and receive full due process would be to insure that the hearings take place in areas with adequate supplies of pro bono and “low bono” counsel and that hearings are scheduled in a predictable manner that does not intentionally outstrip the capabilities of the pro bono bar.

Fourth, a rational response to fraud concerns would be building better fraud detection programs within DHS, rather than denying vulnerable individuals their statutory and constitutional rights. What would a better system look like: more traditional law enforcement tools, like undercover operations, use of informants to infiltrate smuggling operations, and much better intelligence on the operations of human trafficking rings. And, there’s plenty of resources to do it. DHS just lacks the ability and/or the motivation. Many of the resources now wasted on “gonzo” interior enforcement and mindless detention — sacking up janitors and maids for deportation and detaining rape victims applying for asylum — could be “redeployed” to meaningful, although more challenging, law enforcement activities aimed at rationally addressing the fraud problem rather than using it as a bogus excuse to harm the vulnerable.

Fifth, Goodlatte’s whole premise of fraud among Southern Border asylum applications is highly illogical. Most of the Southern Border asylum claims involve some variant of so-called “particular social groups” or “PSGs,” But, the entire immigration adjudication system at all levels has traditionally been biased against just such claims. and, it is particularly biased against such claims from Central America. PSG claims from Central America receive “strict scrutiny’ at every level of the asylum system! No fraudster in his or her right mind would go to the trouble of “dummying up” a PSG claim which will likely be rejected. No, if you’re going to the trouble of committing fraud, you’d fabricate a “political or religious activist or supporter claim” of the type that are much more routinely granted across the board.

Don’t let Trump, Miller, Sessions, Goodlatte, and their band of shameless GOP xenophobes get away with destroying our precious asylum system! Resist now! Resist forever! Stand up for Due Process, or eventually YOU won’t any at all! Some Dude once said “as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” While arrogant folks like the restrictionists obviously don’t believe that, it’s still good advice.

PWS

10-10-17

TAL KOPAN IN CNN: HUMAN RIGHTS TRAVESTY — According To U.S. State Department’s Info, Sudan Remains One Of The Most Dangerous And Violent Countries In The World — But, Reality Isn’t Stopping The Trump Administration From Ending TPS Protection! -“I mean look what’s going on in Sudan,” [Rep. Zoe] Lofgren [D-CA] said. “If that is a wise decision, what’s an unwise one?”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/sudan-tps-decision-dhs/index.html

Tal writes:

“Washington (CNN)The Trump administration on Monday announced an end to protections for Sudanese immigrants, a move that advocates fear could be a sign of things to come.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday afternoon that it would be ending Temporary Protected Status for Sudan after a 12-month sunset period. It opted to extend, however, Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan, which gained its independence in 2011, through May 2019.
The decision was overdue. By law, decisions on TPS designations are required 60 days before an expiration deadline. With both countries’ status set to expire on November 2, the decision was due September 3. DHS said it made a decision in time, but kept it quiet for more than two weeks and did not respond to requests for an explanation.
While the decision on the future of Temporary Protected Status for Sudanese and South Sudanese immigrants only affects just over 1,000 people in the US, the decision is being closely watched as a harbinger of where the administration will go on upcoming TPS decisions that affect more than 400,000 people in the US.
Under Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke’s direction on Monday, recipients of protections from Sudan will be allowed to remain protected from deportation and allowed to work under the program until November 2, 2018, during which they are expected to arrange for their departure or seek another immigration status that would allow them to remain in the US.
Individuals from South Sudan will be able to extend their status until May 2, 2019, when DHS will make another decision on their future based on conditions in the country.
According to USCIS data, at the end of 2016 there were 1,039 temporarily protected immigrants from Sudan in the United States and 49 from South Sudan.
Temporary Protected Status is a type of immigration status provided for by law in cases where a home country may not be hospitable to returning immigrants for temporary circumstances, including in instances of war, epidemic and natural disaster.
While DHS did not explain the delay in publicizing the decision, which the agency confirmed last week was made on time, the law only requires “timely” publication of a TPS determination. The decision was made as the administration was preparing to announce the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, a popular program that has protected nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation since 2012.

Some of the affected individuals have been living in the US for 20 years. TPS is not a blanket protection — immigrants have to have been living in the US continuously since a country was “designated” for TPS in order to qualify.

For example, Sudan was first designated in 1997 and was re-designated in 1999, 2004 and 2013, meaning people had opportunities to apply if they’ve been living in the US since any of those dates. South Sudan’s TPS was established in 2011 and had re-designations in 2014 and 2016.
Both countries were designated for TPS based on “ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

The situation in Sudan has improved in recent years, but there are still concerns about its stability and human rights record. In January, outgoing President Barack Obama eased sanctions on Sudan but made some moves contingent upon further review. President Donald Trump has extended that review period. South Sudan, meanwhile, remains torn by conflict.

Advocates for TPS have expressed fear that if the administration were to begin to unwind the programs, it could be a sign of further decisions to come. In the next six months, roughly 400,000 immigrants’ status will be up for consideration, including Central American countries like El Salvador that have been a focus of the Presidents’ ire over illegal immigration and gang activity.
close dialog

California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the immigration subcommittee for the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview before the decision that ending Sudan’s protections could be a sign of more to come.

“I mean look what’s going on in Sudan,” Lofgren said. “If that is a wise decision, what’s an unwise one?”

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

Let’s take a closer look at some of those supposedly “improved conditions,” using the Government’s own information, the U.S. Department of State’s latest (2016) Country Report on Human Rights Conditions for Sudan:

“The three most significant human rights problems were inability of citizens to choose their government, aerial bombardments of civilian areas by military forces and attacks on civilians by government and other armed groups in conflict zones, and abuses perpetrated by NISS with impunity through special security powers given it by the regime. On January 14, the government launched an intensive aerial and ground offensive against Sudan Liberation Army-Abdul Wahid (SLA/AW) strongholds in the Jebel Marra area of Darfur. This operation displaced more than 44,700 persons by January 31, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In February the government established in Darfur a suboffice of the National Human Rights Commission to enhance the commission’s capacity to monitor human rights in Darfur. Meanwhile, ground forces comprising Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Border Guards carried out attacks against more than 50 villages in an attempt to dislodge the armed opposition. Attacks on villages often included killing and beating of civilians; sexual and gender-based violence; forced displacement; looting and burning entire villages; destroying food stores and other infrastructure necessary for sustaining life; and attacks on humanitarian targets, including humanitarian facilities and peacekeepers. In September, Amnesty International issued a report alleging that, through September the government engaged in scorched-earth tactics and used chemical weapons in Jebel Marra, Darfur. UN monitors were unable to verify the alleged use of chemical weapons, due in part to lack of access to Jebel Marra, including by rebel commanders loyal to Abdel Wahid. By year’s end the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had not been presented with sufficient corroborating evidence to conclude chemical weapons had been used. The NISS continued to show a pattern of widespread disregard for rule of law, committing major abuses, such as extrajudicial and other unlawful killings; torture, beatings, rape and other cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; incommunicado detention; prolonged pretrial detention; obstruction of humanitarian assistance; restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly,association, religion, and movement; and intimidation and closure of human rights and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Societal abuses included discrimination against women; sexual violence; female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); early childhood marriage; use of child soldiers; child abuse; sexual exploitation of children; trafficking in persons; discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons with HIV/AIDS; denial of workers’ rights; and child labor. Government authorities did not investigate human rights violations by NISS, the military or any other branch of the security services, with limited exceptions relating to the national police. The government failed to adequately compensate families of victims of shootings during the September 2013 protests, make its investigations public, or hold security officials accountable. Impunity remained a problem in all branches of the security forces.

. . . .

The 2005 Interim National Constitution prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, but security forces, government-aligned groups, rebel groups, and ethnic factions continued to torture, beat, and harass suspected political opponents, rebel supporters, and others. In accordance with the government’s interpretation of sharia (Islamic law), the penal code provides for physical punishments, including flogging, amputation, stoning, and the public display of a body after execution, despite the constitution’s prohibitions. With the exception of flogging, such physical punishment was rare. Courts routinely imposed flogging, especially as punishment for the production or consumption of alcohol. The law requires police and the attorney general to investigate deaths on police premises, regardless of suspected cause. Reports of suspicious deaths in police custody were sometimes investigated but not prosecuted. For example, in November authorities detained a man upon his return from Israel. He died while in custody, allegedly from falling out a window, although the building had sealed windows. The president called on the chief prosecutor and chief justice to ensure full legal protection of police carrying out their duties and stated that police should investigate police officers only when they were observed exceeding their authority. Government security forces (including police, NISS, and military intelligence personnel of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF)) beat and tortured physically and psychologically persons in detention, including members of the political opposition, civil society, religious activists, and journalists, according to civil society activists in Khartoum, former detainees, and NGOs. Torture and other forms of mistreatment included prolonged isolation, exposure to extreme temperature variations, electric shock, and use of stress positions. Some female detainees alleged NISS harassed and sexually assaulted them. Some former detainees reported being injected with an unknown substance without their consent. Many former detainees, including detained students, reported being forced to take sedatives that caused lethargy and severe weight loss. The government subsequently released many of these persons without charge. Government authorities detained members of the Darfur Students Association during the year. Upon release, numerous students showed visible signs of severe physical abuse. Government forces reportedly used live bullets to disperse crowds of protesting Darfuri students. There were numerous reports of violence against student activists’ family members.

Security forces detained political opponents incommunicado, without charge, and tortured them. Some political detainees were held in isolation cells in regular prisons, and many were held without access to family or medical treatment. Human rights organizations asserted NISS ran “ghost houses,” where it detained opposition and human rights figures without acknowledging they were being held. Such detentions at times were prolonged. Journalists were beaten, threatened, and intimidated (see section 2.a.). The law prohibits (what it deems as) indecent dress and punishes it with a maximum of 40 lashes, a fine, or both. Officials acknowledged authorities applied these laws more frequently against women than men and applied them to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Courts denied some women bail, although by law they may have been eligible. There were numerous abuses reported similar to the following example: On June 25, the Public Order Police arrested several young women and men in Khartoum under the Public Order Act for “indecent dress.” During the sweep, all women who did not have their hair covered were taken into custody. The Public Order Police further arrested two young men for wearing shorts. According to NGO reports, the Public Order Police released the young women and men later the same day without charges.

Security forces, rebel groups, and armed individuals perpetrated sexual violence against women throughout the country; the abuse was especially prevalent in the conflict areas (see section 1.g.). As of year’s end, no investigations into the allegations of mass rape in Thabit, Darfur, had taken place (see section 6).”

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

What I’ve set forth above is just a small sample of some of the “lowlights.” Virtually every paragraph of the Country Report is rife with descriptions of or references to gross abuses of Human Rights.

Clearly, these are not the type of “improved country conditions” that would justify the termination of TPS for Sudan. Moreover, since it affects only 1,000 individuals, there are no overriding policy or practical reasons driving the decision.

No, the Administration’s totally disingenuous decision is just another example of wanton cruelty, denial of established facts, and stupidity. Clearly, this is an Administration that puts Human Rights last, if at all.

As pointed out by Nolan Rappaport in a a recent post, the best solution here is a legislative solution that would provide green cards to long-time “TPSers” through the existing statutory device of “registry.” With some lead time to work on this, hopefully Lofgren can convince enough of her colleagues to make it happen.

Here’s a link to Nolan’s proposal:

http://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/09/14/the-hill-n-rappaport-suggests-legislative-solutions-for-long-term-tpsers/

PWS

09-19-17

THE HILL: N. RAPPAPORT SUGGESTS LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR LONG-TERM “TPSers!”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/350668-with-dreamers-out-bring-immigrants-under-temporary-protection-status-in

Nolan writes:

“The Temporary Protected Status program (TPS) provides refuge in the United States to more than 300,000 aliens from a total of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

They are supposed to leave when it is safe for them to return to their own countries, but it can take many years for conditions in their countries to improve. The need for TPS can last for decades.

It does not include a path to permanent resident status, but should aliens who have lived in the United States for decades be required to leave when their TPS is terminated?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) says that at some point they have been here so long that they should be allowed to remain permanently: “There should be some rational way to transition people who have been here for a long time … who because of the length of their stay have basically become valued members of our community.”

. . . .

An alien is free to apply for other types of immigration status while he has TPS.

So, should congress make permanent resident status available to TPS aliens when conditions in their countries keep them here an exceptionally long time?

I agree with Lofgren that at some point, TPS aliens have been living here so long that it no longer makes sense to send them back to their own countries.

The best solution would be to change the TPS provisions to make some form of permanent status available when aliens are forced to remain for exceptionally long times because conditions in their countries do not improve, but that might not be possible.

One of the TPS provisions imposes a limitation on consideration in the Senate of legislation to adjust the status of aliens who have TPS. It provides that it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that provides for adjustment to lawful temporary or permanent resident status for TPS aliens, or has the effect of amending the TPS provisions in any other way.

This restriction can be waived or suspended with an affirmative vote from three-fifths of the senators, which is known as a “supermajority vote.”

But there is an alternative that would not require changing the TPS provisions.

The Registry legalization program, which was established in 1929, makes lawful permanent resident status available to qualified aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1972; have resided in the United States continuously since such entry; and have good moral character.

An update of the registry cutoff point is long overdue. It has not been changed since it was set at 1972, by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

The change would apply to all undocumented aliens who can meet the eligibility requirements.”

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

Read Nolan’s complete article, which contains a very succinct and helpful explanation of TPS which I omitted above, over at The Hill.

I think that Nolan has hit it on the head here! There is virtue in using existing administrative processes to deal with new issues. And, as he points out, “Registry” is there for the taking, and it’s been 30 years since it was updated!

Recollection: Understandably, we didn’t see very many “Registry” cases during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court (2003-16). But the rare ones we did receive always received “waivers” of the “no business at lunch rule” because they always involved such interesting human stories. I never came across one myself. But, I think that my colleagues who did always felt like they had discovered a “nugget of gold” in the least expected place! It would also help the Immigration Courts because most of the Registry cases (like the TPS cases) could be adjudicated over at USCIS, thereby reducing “docket pressure.” Bring back Registry! Yea Nolan!

PWS

09-14-17

TAL KOPAN AT CNN: WE’LL SOON LEARN IF THERE IS ANY LIMIT TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S BAD IMMIGRATION POLICIES: Hundreds Of Thousands Of U.S. Workers & Families In “TPS” Status Anxiously Await Word Of Their Fate!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/next-daca-tps-temporary-protected-status/index.html

Tal reports

“To qualify for protections from El Salvador, recipients must have lived in the United States since 2001, and for Honduras, it’s 1998, meaning any revocation of the program would upend lives built in the United States for nearly 20 years.

Lawmakers have been pressing the Trump administration to preserve temporary protected status for the countries whose deadlines for redesignation are coming up soon, citing the communities that would be harmed. At a meeting in July with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly indicated he could end Haiti’s status but hadn’t made a decision on Central America.

In addition to the humanitarian concerns, supporters of the program point to analyses that show an economic impact from revoking it.

“If El Salvador terminates, literally 260,000 eligible workers will fall out of the workforce at the stroke of midnight on whatever day that happens,” Rodriguez said.

An analysis by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which advocates for pro-immigration policies, found that deporting all the immigrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti who have temporary protected status would cost $3.1 billion and take away $6.9 billion in contributions to Social Security and Medicare and $45.2 billion to the gross domestic product over a decade. Turnover costs for their employers would total nearly $1 billion.

“There’s different elements to the concern,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California. “First, in the case of people who’ve been here a considerable period of time, people become members of their community, and so … a couple decades later, you own businesses, you have families, you have grandchildren, you’re kind of part of our situation here.”

Lofgren said the designated countries often remain in dire straits, and sending people back to them would be “unwise.”

The program is one of the issues that Congress needs to tackle as part of immigration reform because insisting on keeping recipients’ status temporary becomes untenable, she said.

“There should be some rational way to transition people who have been here for a long time, and in the case of these people, they’ve been here in legal status, who because of the length of their stay have basically become valued members of our community,” Lofgren said. “That’s a matter of a change of immigration law.”

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

Read Tal’s complete article at the link.

Terminating TPS would further de-stabbilize the U.S. Immigration Court system because many, probably the majority of TPS recipients have court cases that were “administratively closed” and therefore taken off that Court’s docket (currently totalling more than 610,000 cases with some hearings already scheduled four or more years in the future). Merely the preliminary act of “moving to re-calendar” the TPS cases all at once could crash the court system, given its current non-automated, largely manual, paper intensive procedures and lack of any e-filing.

If hundreds of thousands of individuals were returned to El Salvador it would likely de-stabllize the country and lead to collapse and internal chaos. Additionally, loss of “remittances” sent to El Salvador by legally working TPS individuals in the U.S. would almost certainly send the El Salvadoran economy into a tailspin. For that reason, a prior plan during the Clinton Administration for a phase-out of Salvadoran TPS led to panicked entreaties from the Salvadoran Government to the Administration to leave the TPS program in place.

From my perspective as an Immigration Judge, TPS was one of the “smartest” programs ever. It allowed many deserving individuals with difficult asylum cases that would have taken many hours of hearing time to be removed from the court docket with minimal work for the Immigration Court and our overburdened staff. Even “de novo review” of a TPS denial could ordinarily be accomplished in a 30 minute “short block” of hearing time rather than a 3-hour “full block” hearing.

TPS combined efficient adjudication by USCIS with needed work authorization for American families, while “demurring” on the more difficult questions of green card status or a path to citizenship. It also had an effective enforcement mechanism. Those relatively few TPS individuals who committed a felony or two or more misdemeanors were arrested, placed in detention, stripped of status, and in most cases removed from the U.S. promptly under the policies placed in effect by the Obama Administration.

PWS

09-11-17

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Today’s Dysfunctional & Unfair EOIR, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; “Captive” Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

. . . .

. . . .

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

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: