Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯 BORDER: THE “ADULTS IN THE ROOM” DON’T WORK FOR THE USG OR TEXAS: Dedicated Volunteers Left To “Pick Up The Pieces” Of Human Carnage From GOP Racism & Biden Administration’s Lack Of Courage, Competence, Creativity, & Resolve! — Failed Political Leadership On Migration On Both Sides Of The Border & Uncritical Reporting From Most Media Are A Big Part Of The Problem!

Melissa Del Bosque
Border Reporter
PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com

From The Border Chronicle:

From Education to Everything Else

Felicia Rangel-Samporano and Victor Cavazos founded The Sidewalk School, then a migrant shelter in Mexico. Now they also provide tech-support for a flawed U.S. immigration app.

MELISSA DEL BOSQUE

MAR 14

. . . .

Since opening, the school has also expanded to the neighboring Mexican border city of Reynosa. Because life in the migrant camps is transitory, The Sidewalk School’s teachers came and went, sometimes within weeks, said Rangel-Samponaro. They decided it would be easier to hire educators from Mexican border communities instead. Residents also understand better how to navigate the complicated dynamics at play in cities like Matamoros and Reynosa, which are riven by cartel-related crime—most recently, the kidnapping of four U.S. citizens in Matamoros, two of whom were shot and killed by cartel gunmen.

The Sidewalk School teaches based on the U.S. school calendar. In February they celebrated Black History Month, for example, she said. They focus on reading, writing, drawing, and play activities. Classes are typically held from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. They currently have 10 people on staff in Matamoros and Reynosa. “We need even more staff,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “In both cities.”

Frontline Responders

As elected leaders in both Mexico and the United States fail to acknowledge the seismic shift in global displacement due to climate change, Covid-19, and other factors, migrant camps continue to appear up and down the Mexican border.

Border residents have been frontline responders, adapting to the most pressing needs in the camps, one of which is housing. Recently, The Sidewalk School joined the church group Kaleo International to build a shelter in Reynosa. The shelter houses mostly Haitian and African migrants, who are some of the most vulnerable since they are routinely targeted for kidnapping and persecution in Mexico.

But one of the biggest surprises, said Rangel-Samponaro, is that they now serve as tech support for the CBP One app, which was rolled out in January by the U.S. government for migrants to apply for asylum, as an exemption to Title 42. The app has been plagued with errors. And humanitarian groups have complained that the app, which requires that each person upload a selfie to begin the asylum process, often won’t accept photos of darker-skinned applicants.

Currently, there are thousands of Haitians in both Reynosa and Matamoros, as well as other darker-skinned asylum seekers, who are stuck because they can’t get the app to accept their photos. (The manual on the app, which Sidewalk School employees consult daily is 73 -pages long).

I visited Reynosa and The Sidewalk School in late February and spoke with several Haitian families who had tried to use the CBP One app.

Upgrade to paid

I was quickly surrounded by frustrated parents who said they’d been trying for weeks to make the app work. Living in makeshift shelters made of tarps and cardboard and having little to no access to the internet, parents were waking up at 3:00 a.m. in the morning to find a place with an internet connection, then registering, and trying to take and upload their photo before 8:00 a.m., when the app began accepting daily applications.

“I have an appointment,” one father told me. “But the app won’t accept the photos of my children, so I can’t get appointments for them.”

The app often timed out, crashed, or gave error messages, they said. “It’s a disaster,” one man said, after I asked him to sum up his experience trying to use the app.

“People don’t like hearing it, much less acknowledging what is happening to Black asylum seekers,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “They are stuck inside these encampments for months compared to people of Latin descent, who are at the camps for maybe two weeks or a month.”

I spoke with at least 10 different Haitian families, and they all told me that they’d been living in the migrant camp in Reynosa for at least five months.

“We don’t have enough food,” a Haitian boy told me in Spanish, who said he was 11 years old. “And I have this rash on my face.” He pointed to his cheek. Open sewers and trash littered the area around the camps. And the families, who said they couldn’t work and were struggling to buy food, said they were growing desperate.

Felicia Rangel-Samporano visiting a migrant camp in Reynosa with mostly Haitian and Venezuelan asylum seekers. (Photo: Melissa del Bosque)

So desperate that families were considering splitting up. Rangel-Samponaro said there had been anguished meetings with parents who were considering sending their children across as unaccompanied minors. If the parents could get appointments through the app, they would reclaim their children once they arrived in the United States. At least that’s what they hoped.

Recently, The Sidewalk School brought in an immigration attorney to explain to parents how difficult it can be to find a child once they have been designated as unaccompanied in the U.S. immigration system. Children are held by CBP, then transferred to a shelter run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement somewhere in the country. “We’ve explained to them that it’s unlikely that they will cross, and their child will be there waiting for them,” she said.

And once people are accepted by the app for an appointment, they are extensively vetted through a series of law enforcement databases, and some are turned back, she said. “Just because you’ve got an appointment doesn’t mean they’re going to let you in to the United States.”

Rangel-Samponaro, like many others who provide humanitarian services in Mexico, is in frequent contact with CBP about problems with the app. In early March, she said, the agency updated the app so that it only requires one member of the family to submit a photo. But there are still not enough appointments for every member of the family, she said, so families are still splitting up and sending their children across as unaccompanied minors.

The Border Chronicle requested a response from CBP about the app. Tammy Melvin, a CBP press officer, replied in an email that the agency “continues to make improvements to the app based on stakeholder feedback.”

She said that “appointments will only be shown if enough slots for each member in the profile is available.”

And Melvin added in the email that they’ve not seen any issues linked to ethnicity. “CBP One is not conducting facial recognition that compares photos submitted in the application against any other reference system to identify someone,” She wrote. “CBP is not seeing any issues with the capture of the liveness photos due to ethnicity.”

Share

Rangel-Samponaro and others disagree. “We’ve invited the app developers to Reynosa and Matamoros to see the problems we’re having firsthand, but they’ve declined to visit,” she said.

Meanwhile, the hardships keep growing for asylum seekers. Recently, the Biden Administration announced, beginning in May after Title 42 is lifted, that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they enter, rather than at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Rangel-Samponaro said The Sidewalk School is doing everything it can to help, as even more people will likely be stuck in limbo after the policy change in May. They’re providing educational programs, running a shelter, and now providing tech support, and helping people navigate the U.S. government’s glitch-filled app. “I struggle to categorize everything that we do now,” she said.

Just one of the many error messages encountered while using the CBP One app that Rangel-Samponaro and others try to troubleshoot for asylum seekers. [The “error messages” are all too real! The CBP denial that there is a problem is surreal!]

The first two years were rough going, she said, and she and Cavazos spent their own money to keep The Sidewalk School afloat. Now they’re receiving some grants and donations. But it’s always a struggle, she said. “We need more volunteers, more funding,” she said. “Because the need never stops.”

For volunteer opportunities and to learn more about The Sidewalk School click here.

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

Read Melissa’s full article at the link.

How’s this for “contrast?” Felicia Rangel-Samporano and Victor Cavazos, private citizens, gave up comfortable lives in the U.S. and invested their own time and money in addressing the needs of children and families essentially “tashed” by lawless inhumane policies of both the Trump and Biden Administrations. Meanwhile, racist, cowardly, bullying Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is leading a clearly unconstitutional effort to deny children in Texas U.S. the public education to which they are entitled under Supreme Court precedent. Have to ask what’s wrong with a state that puts a horrible person like Abbott, who doesn’t even govern very well in emergencies or other areas, in charge? They also enabled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), another bullying, lawless, coward who is basically the “bottom of the barrel!”

What the major networks and “mainstream”nmedia aren’t telling you:

“[E]lected leaders in both Mexico and the United States fail to acknowledge the seismic shift in global displacement due to climate change, Covid-19, and other factors;”
“Same old, same old” deterrence and officially-sanctioned cruelty, even in large, expensive, wasteful doses will NOT “solve” refugee flows;
The U.S. “system,” such as it is, systematically mistreats Black asylum seekers;
“CBP One” is defective technology that should never have been put into operation without testing and approval from the humanitarians actually working in the camps in Mexico;
So bad is CBP One that it is encouraging family separation;
The “requirement” that every family member obtain a separate appointment through CBP One is totally insane;
Even when asylum applicants get an appointment, it’s still a “crap shoot” because the Administration functions in a lawless, opaque, and arbitrary fashion without the necessary legal and practical expertise and safeguards in place;
The very idea that Mexico is a “safe” place to send non-Mexicans rejected at the border, under the totally irrational and illegal “presumption of denial” proposed by the Administration, is beyond preposterous;
The Biden Administration has failed to heed the advice of experts who have actually worked on the border and who have constructive ideas for making the law work.

I’m not just getting the above from this article. I have recently had a chance to hear from individuals actually providing legal and humanitarian services at the border who basically said that the situation there is “beyond FUBAR” and that the Administration officials “crafting” border policies are out of touch with reality and not up to their jobs! In some cases, they are just paying no attention to the law or the advice of those who actually understand the system, both in and out of Government.

That seems exactly what we voted out of office when the Trump kakistocracy was removed. Why, then, does Biden think that ignorance, bias, cruelty, and incompetence on human rights and racial justice is now a “winner?” Why is he aligning himself and his Administration with GOP nativist zealots like Abbott, Paxton, DeSantis, Trump, and Miller, rather than with folks like Rangel-Samporano and Cavazos who actually represent the humane, practical, problem-solving values that the Dems ran on in 2020?🤯

With human lives at stake every day, one would think that our Government’s massive violations of human rights and cavalier dismissal of legal rights recognized for more than four decades, would be of great interest to the so-called “mainstream media” and that all Democrats would be demanding changes in human rights/immigration leadership (obviously, Mayorkas & Garland are the wrong folks) and a competent, legal, humane approach from the Biden Administration. But, unfortunately, you would be wrong! Dead wrong, in some cases! ☠️⚰️

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-18-23

LATEST FROM “SIR JEFFREY” 🛡⚔️ — “Determining Political Opinion: Problems and Solutions — Jeffrey S. Chase | Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/3/7/determining-political-opinion-problems-and-solutions

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Determining Political Opinion: Problems and Solutions

Regarding political opinion, the refugee law scholar Atle Grahl-Madsen famously explained that refugee protection “is designed to suit the situation of common [people], not only that of philosophers…The instinctive or spontaneous reaction to usurpation or oppression is [as] equally valid” as the “educated, cultivated, reflected opinion.”1 A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides an opportunity to reflect on this premise.

In Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, a young man was targeted for recruitment by MS-13. On two occasions, Zelaya directly announced to the gang’s members his reason for refusing to join: because gangs were bad for his hometown and country. Both times, the gang members responded by beating him, fracturing his arm the second time. They also threatened to kill him if he continued to refuse to join. The questions raised are whether Zelaya’s instinctive, simply-worded response expressed a political opinion, and if so, did that opinion form part of the reason for the beatings and threat?

The Immigration Judge recognized Zelaya’s statement to the gang to be a political opinion for asylum purposes. However, the IJ wasn’t persuaded from the record that Zelaya’s opinion was why the gang beat him. As expressed by the IJ, the beatings were caused by “Zelaya’s refusal to join the gang, irrespective of the reasons.” It doesn’t seem that the IJ considered whether the gang members imputed a political opinion to the act of refusal per se.

On appeal, the BIA took a far more extreme position, stating that because gangs are not political organizations and their activities are not political in nature, “expressing an opinion against their group is not expressing a political opinion.” This happens to be a position that EOIR and DHS (in defiance of much circuit case law and expert opinion to the contrary) later sought to codify in regulations that fortunately remain enjoined at present.

The Second Circuit in Zelaya-Moreno rejected the Board’s narrow view of political opinion. In fact, the court only last year, in its decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, recognized the act of resisting rape by members of the very same gang in El Salvador as the expression of a feminist, anti-patriarchy political opinion. Significantly, the victim in that case hadn’t stated any opinion to the gang members; it was only years later in front of the immigration judge that she gave her reason for resisting as “because I have every right to.”

As it has done in other decisions, the Second Circuit emphasized the need for a “complex and contextual factual inquiry” in political opinion determinations. It conducted a survey of cases in which political opinion was found, and of others in which it wasn’t. Unfortunately, the majority upheld the decision that Zelaya had not expressed a political opinion to the MS-13 members, stating that “[s]o far as the record shows, his objection to them is not rooted in any sort of disagreement with the policies they seek to impose nor any ideology they espouse.”

“So far as the record shows” is critical. I haven’t seen the record in this case, but I believe it might serve to demonstrate that while Grahl-Madsen correctly assigned equal validity to the opinions of the commoner and the intellectual, in practice, claims brought by members of the former group often require assistance from the latter in persuading adjudicators of the political nature of their words or actions.

For example, in Hernandez-Chacon, context for the petitioner’s resistance was provided by the affidavit of a lawyer and human rights expert who was able to articulate the patriarchal gender bias in Salvadoran society from which a political opinion could be gleaned from the asylum-seeker’s act of resistance alone. In another decision cited by the court, Alvarez-Lagos v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit was able to rely on the explanation of two experts on Central American gangs that the petitioner’s refusal to comply with extortion demands would be viewed by the gang as “political opposition” and “a form of political disobedience.”

In Zelaya-Moreno, the dissenting judge (in an opinion worth reading) was able to draw a political inference from the facts alone. It seemed that the two judges in the majority required more. But in finding the statements or actions of an applicant alone to be insufficient, is our present system of refugee protection genuinely designed to suit the situation of common people as well as philosophers?

In the view of the dissenting judge, yes. In that judge’s words, Zelaya “sought refuge here after standing up to MS members, refusing their demands that he join them, and informing them that he did not support them and considered them a blight on his native El Salvador. Our asylum laws protect individuals like Zelaya-Moreno who face persecution for such politically courageous stands.”

But in the view of the majority, Zelaya had expressed nothing “more than the generalized statement ‘gangs are bad.’ Thus, we cannot conclude that Zelaya holds a political opinion within the meaning of the statute, and therefore that the BIA erred in concluding that he was not eligible for asylum on this ground.” Would additional documentation providing the complex, contextual analysis the court mentioned earlier in its decision have delivered the two judges in the majority to the place already reached by their dissenting colleague?

The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees is a good reference source on such issues. In its Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Victims of Organized Crimes, UNHCR stated at para. 45 that in its view, “political opinion needs to be understood in a broad sense to encompass “any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of State, government, society, or policy may be engaged.” It continued at para. 47 that powerful gangs such as MS-13 may exercise de facto power in certain areas, and their activities and those of certain State agents may be closely intertwined. At para. 50, UNHCR stated that “rejecting a recruitment attempt may convey anti-gang sentiments as clearly as an opinion expressed in a more traditional political manner by, for instance, vocalizing criticism of gangs in public meetings or campaigns.” And at para. 51, UNHCR added that “[p]olitical opinion can also be imputed to the applicant by the gang without the applicant taking any action or making a particular statement him/herself. A refusal to give in to the demands of a gang is viewed by gangs as an act of betrayal, and gangs typically impute anti-gang sentiment to the victim whether or not s/he voices actual gang opposition.”

Had this document been included in the record, would it have been enough to persuade the majority that the BIA had erred in rejecting Zelaya’s claim that he was targeted on account of his political opinion? If so, how many pro se asylum applicants would understand the need to supplement their claims to provide this context, or know what type of document would be sufficient, or how to find it?

The Seventh Circuit had foreseen this problem 15 years ago. In a 2006 decision, Banks v. Gonzales, the court opined that Immigration Court needs its own country experts, who would operate much as vocational experts do in disability hearings before the Social Security Administration’s judges. In my opinion, an alternative approach would be for EOIR to follow the example of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which maintains National Documentation Packages that are referenced in all cases by adjudicators of refugee claims.

During my time in government, I oversaw the creation of country condition pages on EOIR’s Virtual Law Library, which were built, and continue to be updated, by EOIR’s Law Library staff. However, EOIR did not see fit to make its contents part of the records of hearing in asylum cases. It is for this reason that UNHCR’s Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers in El Salvador, which contains much of the same language as the Guidance Note quoted above, and which expresses the specific conclusion that “persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international refugee protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion,”2 is found on EOIR’s own website on the country page for “El Salvador,” yet wasn’t even considered in Zelaya-Moreno.

Considering the growing number of pro se applicants, the lack of legal resources available to those held in remote detention facilities, and the short time frame to prepare for hearings in certain categories of cases, I can’t see why the EOIR country pages should not be made part of the hearing record here as in Canada. It’s possible that such a policy would have led to a different result in Zelaya.

Furthermore, the BIA hears plenty of cases involving expert opinions supporting the conclusion that those resisting gangs such as MS-13 were harmed on account of their political opinion. Issuing precedent opinions recognizing the context that politicizes statements and actions such as Zelaya’s would result in much greater efficiency, consistency, and fairness in Immigration Court and Asylum Office adjudications.

Realistically, I harbor no illusions that the recent change in administration will bring about such enlightened changes to asylum adjudication anytime soon. But we must still continue to argue for such change. As the dissenting opinion in Zelaya stated in its conclusion: “[w]hile it may be too late for Zelaya-Moreno, the BIA and the Department of Justice can right this wrong for future asylum seekers. I urge them to reconsider their approach to anti-gang political opinion cases to ensure those who stand up to fearsome dangers are welcomed into this country rather than forced back to face torture and death.” As noted above, it wouldn’t take much effort on EOIR’s part to accomplish this.

Notes:

Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law, 228, 251 (1966) (quoted in Deborah E. Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Ed.) § 5:17, fn. 3.

UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers in El Salvador at 29-30.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission.

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

Truly wonderful, Jeffrey! One of your “best ever,” in my view! (And, they are all great, so that’s saying something.)

Imagine what could be achieved at the BIA with real judges, experts in asylum law, thoughtful, practical analysis, intellectual leadership, and inspiration to a fairer future, rather than the current Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ inventing bogus ways to ”get to no!”

As Jeffrey demonstrates, we could choose to protect rather than to reject. There has always been a tendency to do the latter at the DOJ; but, under White Nationalist nativist Jeff Sessions and his successors it has gone “hog wild” — rejection has been falsely portrayed as a “duty” rather than an extremely poor choice and an abdication of moral and legal responsibility!

Today’s BIA is basically incapable of problem solving. Time and again their strained, stilted anti-immigrant, anti-due-process, pro-worst-practices interpretations not only spell doom for those coming before them, but also promote inefficiency and backlogs in an already overwhelmed system. They also send messages of disdain and disrespect for the rights and humanity of people of color that redounds throughout our struggling U.S. Legal System.

I’ll keep saying it: Whatever positive message Judge Garland and his team at DOJ intend to send about racial justice will be fatally undermined as long as “Dred Scottification” and disdain for the due process rights of migrants is the “order of the day” at the one Federal Court System the DOJ runs: The U.S. Immigration Court! As long as EOIR is a “bad joke” the rest of Judge Garland’s reforms will fall flat!

The right judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️ at the BIA could turn this thing around! Remains to be seen if it will happen. But, it’s not rocket science. It just requires putting the right folks in charge, in place, and giving them the support and independence to engage in “creative problem solving.”

Judge Garland should be confirmed next week. And the confirmation hearings for Lisa Monaco (DAG) and Vanita Gupta (AAG) have been scheduled.

Some additional points:

The dissenter in the Second Circuit’s decision in Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson is Judge Rosemary Pooler. Judge Pooler has had a long and distinguished career. Perhaps she would like to cap it off by becoming Chair of the BIA and leading by example;
Shows the importance of experts, which is probably why the BIA has gone out of its way to demean them and encourage IJs to ignore their evidence;
Jeffrey’s analysis supports my “Better BIA for a Better America” 🇺🇸program;
As Justice Sotomayor says: “It is not justice.” That’s my view on today’s EOIR!

Due Process Forever! ⚖️🗽

PWS

03-07-21

From The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! ⚖️🗽

Related posts: