SAN DIEGO — The San Diego immigration court has been overwhelmed by the number of cases judges are hearing under a Trump administration program that returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for hearings in the U.S.
Normally, asylum seekers coming to the California border would be distributed to immigration courts across the country, either because they would be held somewhere in the federal government’s national immigration detention system or because they would be released to reunite with family and friends already in the U.S.
Now, the increasing number of people picked for the administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, known widely as the Remain in Mexico program, across the California border are all being sent to immigration court in downtown San Diego.
“Other than wallow through it, I don’t know what we can do,” said Immigration Judge Lee O’Connor shortly before walking out of his courtroom at 6:21 p.m. one evening last week after hearing a string of MPP cases. Court staff, including security, had left the building long before.
Immigration judges are already working under performance quotas set by the Trump administration to reduce the immigration court backlog, which has grown nationally to nearly 900,000 cases, according to data from the Transactional Record Access Clearinghouse of Syracuse University.
The San Diego court has more than 5,700 cases pending, up from 4,692 cases in fiscal 2018, a 22.4% increase. Nationally, the backlog has grown about 16.2% in fiscal 2019.
“This is a reflection of the constant doublespeak we’ve been highlighting. The agency has internally conflicting priorities,” said Ashley Tabaddor, speaking in her capacity as head of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges. “It creates chaos.”
On a given day, three of San Diego’s seven judges generally have afternoons full of MPP cases. On a recent Tuesday afternoon, 82 people were scheduled to appear before three judges, 28 of those before O’Connor.
“The judges have no control in terms of how many cases are being scheduled,” Tabaddor said.
Border officials who initially receive migrants either requesting protection at a port of entry or after they’re apprehended crossing illegally are responsible for scheduling the first court appearance for returnees.
Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Homeland Security was unable to respond to questions in time for publication.
Several of the judges assigned to hear cases in San Diego have pushed back on the government for a laundry list of issues that could be violations of the government’s due process responsibilities under immigration law.
Tabaddor said she’s heard a number of concerns from her union members who are trying to make sure “all of the T’s are crossed and all of the i’s are dotted” in implementation of the new program. “That’s what the oath of office is,” Tabaddor said. “You’re supposed to make sure all the rules are followed.”
One that has come up over and over again is the address put down initially on each asylum seeker’s case documents by border officials. Along the California border, Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol have written some version of “Domicilio conocido,” or “known address.”
Some have “Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.” Others simply say “Baja California” without the city or the country noted.
Having an accurate address on file is key to showing that immigrants were given proper notice of their court hearings. That proof of notice is a crucial part of a judge’s decision to proceed “in absentia” and order a person deported if he or she doesn’t show up for a hearing.
“This whole program, I don’t understand it,” said Immigration Judge Jesús Clemente on his first day of hearing MPP cases. “How are we ever going to tell this person that he has a hearing?”
Similarly, when an government attorney suggested that it was the asylum seeker’s responsibility to provide an accurate address, Immigration Judge Scott Simpson responded with incredulity. “Are you saying the respondent provided this address?” he asked, referring to the asylum seeker. “Are you saying every respondent in the MPP program provided this address?”
“I can’t speak to that,” the attorney representing ICE responded. “In my experience, the address the respondent provides is what is put down.”
“That’s how it usually works,” Simpson replied. “But I’m not convinced that’s what’s happening now.”
When asked about the address issue recently, San Ysidro Port of Entry Director Sidney Aki said that migrants don’t often know where they will be staying when they’re first returned.
To prevent any miscommunication, Aki said, they’re told to return to the port of entry at a particular date and time.
Normally, if a judge believes that the government violated an asylum seeker’s due process rights, the judge can terminate immigration proceedings against that person, said attorney Lindsay Toczylowski, executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Then the asylum seeker can apply for protection outside of immigration court in a process that is less adversarial.
For returnees who are ultimately hoping for asylum in the U.S., termination won’t help them because they’ll be returned to Mexico with no access to the U.S. asylum system, she said.
“It essentially removes their ability to vindicate their due process rights,” Toczylowski said.
Among other issues, the dates on instructions given to returnees that explain when to come back to the San Ysidro Port of Entry to be taken to court don’t always match the dates on their hearing notices. Or, the government fails to file the preliminary paperwork in the case and the immigration court doesn’t have a hearing scheduled for the person when he or she shows up.
“I’m sure you’re frustrated,” Simpson said to a man whose paperwork had not properly been filed by the government, resulting in a delay in the start of his case. “I share your frustration.”
Asylum cases typically have several preliminary hearings, known as “master calendar hearings,” before the “merits hearing,” where evidence is presented for the judge to make a decision on the person’s claim. During those master calendar hearings, asylum seekers are given time to look for attorneys, are told their rights in immigration court, and are given applications to fill out and submit.
Juan, a doctor who fled Honduras after facing threats for his participation in political protest, filed his asylum application in mid-May. His merits hearing was scheduled for November.
Where to live and how to sustain themselves in Tijuana is becoming a larger and larger issue as more asylum seekers are returned. Despite its promises at the program’s outset, Mexico has not given many of the returnees permission to work while they wait.
Tijuana’s migrant shelters are already at or near capacity, and most of the people staying in them are not returnees from the program.
One returnee who had become homeless and tried crossing illegally only to be returned again to Tijuana said he was planning on going back to his country in the coming days. It would be better to die there, he said, than to continue living as he’s been living in Tijuana.
Juan is one of the lucky ones. He is staying at a shelter near the border. Still, he’s worried about the long wait ahead.
“The policy’s name is migrant protection, but they send you to the most dangerous city in Mexico,” he said.
Morrissey writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The Ninth Circuit had an opportunity to put at least a temporary halt to this blatant denial of the statutory right to counsel and the constitutional right to adequate notice and Due Process. They “swallowed the whistle.” Eventually, these feckless and complicit Article III courts will find their own dockets overwhelmed with the results of their inaction in the face of a Due Process, operational, and human rights disaster of gargantuan proportions in the U.S. Immigration Courts as mal-administered by the DOJ.
Of course, the real culprit is Congress, which has failed to act to require an independent, constitutional U.S. Immigration Court. But, the word “feckless” doesn’t begin to describe a body that under Mitch McConnell has intentionally ceded its constitutional power to govern and oversee in the overall public interest to an unqualified, scofflaw President who respects neither democratic institutions nor the rule of law.
WASHINGTON, DC – The immigration court system has failed to fulfill the constitutional and statutory promise of fair and impartial case-by-case review, according to a new report released today by Innovation Law Lab and the Southern Poverty Law Center, entitled