"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump imposes sweeping entry restrictions in a bid to stop the spread of the coronavirus — and considers still more — he’s relying on an agency to help implement them that has been hollowed out at the top ranks in a revolving door of leadership, potentially hampering his administration’s response to the crisis.
It has been nearly a year since the Department of Homeland Security has had a Senate-confirmed leader. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, the fourth person to lead the agency in three years, has been on the job less than six months.
In addition, 65 percent of top jobs in the department are vacant or filled by acting appointees, more than in any other federal agency, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that advocates for more effective government. Among the vacancies are the No. 2 official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the department’s top lawyer and the head of the country’s immigration system.
That has led to a cascade of other unfilled jobs, a vacuum of leadership causing major decisions to be deferred and a drop in morale at the agency that was born out of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to coordinate the government’s response to threats, said people close to DHS. After a chaotic rollout over the weekend of restrictions on many travelers from Europe — where those returning to the U.S. were held for hours in cramped conditions — there are new concerns that the agency isn’t prepared to manage what’s to come.
“You have the vacancies, the musical chairs with positions throughout the organization and policies that come down without a lot of forethought putting added stress on a workforce that already has an extremely crucial job to protect the homeland,” said David Lapan, who was a spokesman for DHS during Trump’s first year in office. “So at what point do we break them?”
To Lapan, the chaotic scenes at airports over the weekend were a reminder of what happened when, in the early days of his presidency, Trump abruptly announced travel restrictions on passengers coming from predominately Muslim countries without giving DHS time to prepare.
. . . .
**************************
Now, lets hear from the always amazing Betsy Woodruff Swan over at her “new home” Politico on how DHS has, predictably, tried to “hide the ball” on the coronavirus exposure of its own employees:
Nearly 500 Homeland Security employees are quarantined because of the novel coronavirus, and at least 13 are confirmed or presumed COVID-19 positive, according to documentation reviewed by POLITICO.
A DHS spokesperson would not to comment on the record for this story.
Advertisement
The department previously revealed that eight Transportation Security Administration officers had contracted COVID-19.
But the latest numbers are higher and highlight the challenge the novel coronavirus poses to the federal workforce. More than 240,000 people work for DHS, making it the third-largest workforce in the federal government. Many of those employees interact with numerous people every day as part of their work, including employees with Customs and Border Protection and the TSA.
“The department’s leadership is going to have to pay very close attention as this public health crisis evolves,” said John Cohen, former acting undersecretary of intelligence and analysis. “It has to be concerned that its ability to carry out its core mission could be compromised if there’s a widespread outbreak of the virus among DHS personnel. And quite frankly, that’s something that federal, state, and local officials need to be concerned about across the board — that this virus will spread among first responders, law enforcement, and Homeland Security personnel, compromising the ability of those organizations to protect the public.”
. . . .
“Because of the president’s outsized focus on the immigration enforcement part of the DHS mission set — since immigration is not the only thing in DHS’ mission — the organization has been under a lot of strain over the last three years,” he said. “The focus on immigration, lots of attention, lots of presidential pressure, vacancies, changes in leadership, the government shutdown, people having to work without pay — after all of that, add on this pandemic and I think you have cause for concern about a workforce that has been under extended stress now having to endure yet more.”
So, it’s hardly surprising that faced with a genuine crisis that threatens health and safety, the DHS is rudderless, ill-prepared to respond, and continues to hide the real human consequences of its malicious incompetence, thereby endangering both its own line employees as well as the entire U.S. public.
Betsy Woodruff Swan is one of my favorite guest panelists on “Meet the Press.” Clear, concise, articulate, analytical! I assisted Betsy occasionally in the past when she was at The Daily Beast. I hope that in her new role she will get “re-involved” in immigration coverage. In any event, great to “post” you again, Betsy!
Maria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington PostArelis R. Hernandez Southern Border Reporter Washington Post
Maria Sacchetti & Arelis R. Hernandez report for WashPost:
United States immigration authorities will temporarily halt enforcement across the United States except for its efforts to deport foreign nationals who have committed crimes or who pose a threat to public safety. The change in enforcement status comes amid the coronavirus outbreak and aims to limit the spread of the virus and to encourage those who need treatment to seek medical help.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said late Wednesday that its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) will “delay enforcement actions” and use “alternatives to detention” amid the outbreak, according to a notification the agency sent to Congress.
ICE told members of Congress that its “highest priorities are to promote lifesaving and public safety activities.”
[[Mapping the spread of the coronavirus]]
“During the COVID-19 crisis, ICE will not carry out enforcement operations at or near health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances,” according to the notification. “Individuals should not avoid seeking medical care because they fear civil immigration enforcement.”
The agency, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, did not immediately respond to questions about how many of the approximately 37,000 detainees it has in custody will remain there. Nearly 20,000 in ICE custody have some sort of criminal history, but it remained unclear how many of those people have serious criminal violations in their past.
. . . .
*********
Read the complete article at the link.
Finally, a ray of sanity and humanity from DHS!Still no definitive word from EOIR.
We’ve actually gotten to the sad point where DHS occasionally acts more rationally than EOIR. Nothing to write home about. But, shows how totally perverted justice has become under Barr and the toadies at EOIR. Also says loads about those in Congress and the Article III Judiciary who have allowed EOIR to continue to heap abuses on migrants in clear violation of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution.
Anger builds over virus dangers in immigration courts
After protests, Trump administration makes late-night move to scale back deportation hearings
Prior to the curtailment announced Tuesday night, a spokeswoman for the DOJ unit said: “EOIR continues to evaluate the information available from public health officials to inform the decisions regarding the operational status of each immigration court. “
However, individual scheduled hearings were not covered by the Sunday announcement nor were those for those in detention. “All other hearings proceeding,” the twitter message that night said.
One immigration judge dismissed the limitation announced Sunday as a “drop in the bucket.”
Immigration court participants complained that they were being notified by late-night Twitter posts rather than a more detailed public announcement of how the risks and benefits were being weighed.
“The immigration courts need to close. Period,” said Jeremy McKinney of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Most of these hearings can wait in order to put the safety of the public first….Close the courts for a few weeks until screening and proper testing can be done.”
Closing the immigration courts altogether would create thorny issues, particularly for immigrants who are being held in custody. Such a move would likely trigger legal challenges on due process grounds.
However, immigration lawyers said there are workarounds for many of the issues, including handling bond hearings via written filings and conducting hearings by video or teleconference. Video conferencing is already used to beam detainees into hearings in many courts.
Morning Shift
Get the latest on employment and immigration, every weekday morning — in your inbox.
Still, some of the steps being promoted by lawyers for immigrants could be viewed as undermining aspects of the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement policies.
Immigrant advocates are urging the administration to “parole” into the U.S. asylum applicants sent back to Mexico under the remain-in-Mexico policy. That would be similar to the prior policy that administration officials derided as “catch and release.”
Several court participants said they found it ironic that immigration courts were largely shuttered during a government shutdown last year when their personnel were deemed non-essential, but the same personnel were told this week they are essential and must report to work despite officials at all levels of government urging Americans to remain home if at all possible.
“What is outrageous is that our non-detained courts were shut down for the government furlough, for political reasons,” said Dana Leigh Marks, a San Francisco immigration judge and former president of the judges’ union. “Yet, here we have a health emergency and no action.”
************************************
Gee, it’s not like there aren’t thousands and thousands of us out here who have been pointing out for years the outrageous unconstitutionality and threat to our country presented by these “captive courts” under the Trump regime! It’s also not that they haven’t already killed folks: certainly their politicized misapplication of asylum and other protection laws have done just that! But, do we really have to have them mindlessly spreading an epidemic to have folks take notice!
We need regime change in November! We also need a re-examination of the composition of our Article III Judiciary, specifically on the Supremes and Courts of Appeals, to determine why so few Federal Appellate Judges have had the guts and integrity to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency in the time of crisis and in the face of patent Executive incompetence and tyranny. The “institutional failures” go well beyond the continuing farce in the Immigration Courts and the inexcusable failure of the regime to be better prepared for crisis.
For weeks, public health officials have warned that the coronavirus will spread rapidly in the United States but the infection rate could slow with social distancing and severe restrictions on mass gathering. The nation’s judiciary did not listen. Civil, criminal, and immigration courts continued to operate normally, with very few exceptions, until late last week. Even on Monday, after both the president and most governors had declared a state of emergency, a huge number of America’s courts continued to operate, forcing judges, attorneys, litigants, defendants, immigrants, and court staff into close quarters with potentially infected individuals. Conversations with more than two dozen lawyers and court staff (who requested anonymity to avoid professional blowback) across the country reveal a system that is disastrously unprepared for a pandemic—and facilitating the coronavirus’s spread.
Because the American judiciary is so decentralized, there is no single contingency plan that governs all courts in case of an emergency. Most state and federal courts are making up their own rules as they go. All 94 federal district courts and 13 federal appellate courts are scrambling independently to devise a strategy for COVID-19. In many states, individual trial and appeals courts are also struggling to meet their legal obligations without contributing to the spread of the virus. Immigration courts are under the control of the discombobulated and ineffectual Trump administration. So are agencies, like the Social Security Administration, that hold administrative hearings to adjudicate individuals’ access to public assistance. Meanwhile, thousands of jails, prisons, and immigrant detention facilities remain unwilling or unable to meaningfully address COVID-19, putting both detained people and staff at risk of infection. The legal system is actively jeopardizing millions of people’s health and lives.
The legal system is actively jeopardizing millions of people’s health and lives.
State judiciaries’ sluggish response to the crisis was on display Monday in courtrooms around the country. Slate spoke with defense attorneys in Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Washington state, and the District of Columbia who witnessed large groups of defendants congregating in courthouses after police arrested them for low-level offenses. Many people had been jailed for at least one night for crimes like driving without a permit and possession of drug paraphernalia. In northern New Jersey, according to an attorney who was present, a prosecutor argued on Monday that defendants are, in fact, safer from the virus behind bars. But a defense attorney in the region told Slate that her clients in jail have no access to soap or toilet paper.
. . . .
As of Monday, federal district courts around the country were still in operation, though many had suspended jury trials. Chief Justice John Roberts, the head of the federal judiciary, has not issued public guidance to these courts, leaving them to fend for themselves. The chief judge of each federal district court must decide when, and if, to shutter completely. Similarly, the chief judge of each federal appeals court must determine how, and if, to hold oral arguments, and how to keep deciding cases in spite of the interruption. The Supreme Court has canceled March’s oral arguments.
Many immigration courts, which are controlled by the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the U.S. Department of Justice, were still operating on Monday too. EOIR cancelled all master calendar hearings on Sunday—these are short hearings, scheduled months or years in advance, that typically begin the deportation process. But courts are still holding other kinds of hearings, except in Seattle, whose immigration court has shut down entirely. According to a DOJ official at the Los Angeles Immigration Court, the agency has failed to provide employees with any meaningful guidance. This official told Slate that last week, a court administrator told staff that COVID-19 is “like the flu” and “not a big deal.” All last week, she said, “people were coming into courtrooms sick.” EOIR was just beginning to develop a telework plan on Monday and was withholding all information about future operations from staff.
An employee at the New York City Immigration Court spoke of similar disarray. This individual told Slate that her supervisor ignored repeated pleas to mitigate the risk of infection to staff. Immigrants with symptoms of COVID-19 have repeatedly appeared in court. When judges canceled hearings for the day to limit exposure to these individuals, this supervisor reportedly expressed anger that they had not simply moved to a different courtroom.
On Sunday, the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors joined immigration judges and lawyers to call on the Department of Justice to shutter immigration courts entirely. This unprecedented alliance of frequent foes condemned the DOJ’s response as “insufficient” and “not premised on transparent scientific information.” (The agency has yet to answer this letter.)
There are currently more than 50,000 individuals in immigrant detention. There are already coronavirus outbreaks cropping up at these detention facilities. But the government has put forth no comprehensive plan to test and treat patients. The same is true for inmates in state and federal facilities. A defense attorney in King County, Washington—a COVID-19 hot spot—told Slate on Monday that “there is no plan to protect people in jail from coronavirus. People are still held on nonviolent charges, and people are still cycling through on all sorts of minor charges.” As long as police continue to arrest individuals for low-level offenses, these people will be put in jail and then sent to a courthouse. Even if prosecutors decline charges, these individuals may have already been exposed to the virus and could spread it.
. . . .
************************
Read the complete article at the link.
******************************
Laura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA
Here’s the latest from Laura Lynch over at AILA:
The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
James McHenry
Director
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Matthew T. Albence
Deputy Director and Senior Official
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Submitted via email
March 16, 2020
Dear Attorney General Barr, Director McHenry, and Deputy Director Albence,
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is writing to follow up on our March 12, 2020 letter requesting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immediately implement procedures for the prevention and management of COVID-19 and our March 15, 2020 statement calling for the emergency closure of the nation’s immigration courts, sent in conjunction with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 (the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Professionals Union).
We appreciate the important measures already taken by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the suspension of non-detained master calendar hearings. However, the evolving nature of this crisis demands more aggressive action. Since our initial letter to ICE, President Donald Trump proclaimed that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. States and localities across the country have suspended school, put in place restrictions on the size of gatherings, closed restaurants and bars, and shut down tourist activities.
DOJ and DHS must acknowledge the severity of this pandemic, and take the following steps to protect DOJ employees, DHS employees, respondents, representatives, interpreters, experts, and other immigration court stakeholders, as well as the general public:
• Immediately Close Immigration Courts: DOJ should immediately close immigration courts for a minimum of two to four weeks so that public health officials have an opportunity to test and gain valuable information about who can transmit the COVID-19 virus and to reassess how to ensure a safe environment for immigration court hearings.
AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)
• Hold Telephonic Bond Hearings and Stipulate to Bond in Writing: DOJ should proceed with fully telephonic bond hearings so that detained individuals who are eligible can be released from custody as soon as possible and allow supporting documents to be faxed and emailed to the appropriate clerk. When possible, ICE OPLA should stipulate to bond in written motions so it is not necessary to hold hearings.
• Cancel ICE Check-Ins: ICE should cancel and/or reschedule all OSUP and/or ISAP appointments that are scheduled for at least the next 60-90 days and extend the same for several months as conditions warrant.
• Immediately Release Anyone With Vulnerabilities from Custody: ICE should immediately release vulnerable populations from ICE custody, including people 60 and over, pregnant people, and people with chronic illnesses, compromised immune systems, or disabilities, and people whose housing placements restrict their access to medical care and limit the staff’s ability to observe them.
• Decrease the Number of People in Detention to Limit Exposure: ICE should liberally use its discretion to release individuals from custody and decrease the overall ICE population, including through the increased use of parole authority, stipulating to bond in written motions, and use of alternatives to detention (with no check-in requirements for thirty days or more).
• Take Proper Care to Prevent Transmission in Custody: ICE should immediately test detainees who exhibit any symptoms and/or present risk factors, as delayed confirmation of cases will necessarily be too late to prevent transmission. ICE should also provide proper hygienic supplies at all ICE detention and check-in facilities, allowing easy access to all detained persons, the population under ICE supervision, and ICE staff. ICE should halt transfers from facility-to-facility and to out-of-state locations in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus throughout individual states and the U.S.
• Allow Stays of Removal and Other Emergency Motions to Be Submitted Via Mail: ICE should allow requests for stays of removal, and other emergency motions, to be submitted by mail instead of requiring an in-person filing with the applicant present.
• Issue a Blanket Extraordinary Circumstances Exception for One-Year Filing Deadlines: DOJ should issue a blanket extraordinary circumstances exception for asylum one-year filing deadlines that fall from March 1, 2020 (the beginning of the National Emergency) through the reopening of immigration courts.
2
AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)
• Provide Flexibility on All Deadlines: ICE and DOJ should liberally agree to and/or grant requests to extend filing deadlines based on imposition of remote work, loss of staff, necessity for child, elder, and family care based on school and institutional closures.
• Commit to Flexibly and Favorably Addressing COVID—19-Caused “Age Outs” on a Case-By-Case Basis. In the context of cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b), the Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged its ability to review the particular facts in a case in addressing a respondent’s argument that the age of qualifying relative should be “frozen” prior to the final administrative decision. Matter of Isidro, 25 I&N Dec. 829, 832 (BIA 2012) (rejecting respondent’s contention that age should be locked where there was no “undue or unfair delay” in the course of proceedings); see also Martinez-Perez v. Barr, No. 18-9573 (10th Cir. 2020) (BIA has jurisdiction and authority to interpret cancellation statute in a way that fixes the age of respondent’s daughter in light of undue or unfair delay).
• Stipulate to Relief When Appropriate, Especially in Detained Cases: ICE should stipulate to relief in cases where individual hearings are already scheduled, but must be re-calendared based on COVID-19 disruptions, and where the record in itself demonstrates that the respondent has meaningfully met her burden of proof based on a well-developed record of proceedings and evidentiary submissions that compel a grant of relief from removal.
• Parole Respondents in the Remain in Mexico Program: DHS should parole all respondents in the Remain in Mexico program (also known as MPP) into the U.S. on the date of their scheduled immigration court hearing date and provide them with a new hearing date in a non-detained court. At a minimum, EOIR must work with CBP to issue a new EOIR hearing notice and CBP must provide the respondent with both the new EOIR hearing notice and an MPP tear sheet. If the respondent does not have an MPP tear sheet containing a future U.S. immigration court date, the respondent would be out of status in Mexico and Mexico’s migration institute (INM) will likely refuse to renew the individuals’ temporary status in Mexico.
We respectfully request a response as soon as possible given the emergent circumstances. Please feel free to contact Kate Voigt (kvoigt@aila.org) with questions.
Sincerely,
THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
CC: Barbara M. Gonzalez, Assistant Director, ICE Office of Partnership and Engagement; Richard A. Rocha, ICE Spokesperson; Lauren Alder Reid, Assistance Director, EOIR Office of Policy.
3
AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)
*********************
So, the spread of the coronavirus worldwide was months in the making. Why didn’t Roberts convene a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office, and the ABA to come up with an emergency plan?
Why didn’t EOIR, which has time for endless counterproductive “management” (actually “mismanagement”) nonsense (how about “judicial dashboards” for a mindless waste of time and money?), get together with the NAIJ, ICE, and AILAmonths ago to develop an emergency response plan for the Immigration Courts? No, the “powers that be” at EOIR were too busy trying to “decertify” the NAIJ with frivolous and unethical litigation.
Once this emergency is over, America also needs a top to bottom re-examination of the leadership and administration of our diverse judicial systems. As a whole, they are obviously “not quote ready for prime time” (“NQRFPT”) when it comes to protecting the public or using technology for the common good.
Obviously, at many levels, Federal, State, and Local, we have some of the wrong people serving as judges. First and foremost, the law is about humanity and protecting and saving lives to the greatest extent possible. That’s a fundamental human message that Roberts and many other right wing judicial zealots, out of touch with the needs of the public and wedded to stilted semi-absurdist and contrived interpretations of the law, simply don’t get. America needs better judges, with some empathy, humanity, and common sense! Again, it won’t happen overnight, but we have to start somewhere to get anywhere in the future!
Immigration Judges, Prosecutors and Attorneys Call for the Nationwide Closure of All Immigration Courts
Position on Health and Safety of the Immigration Courts During the COVID-19 Pandemic
March 15, 2020
The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 (the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Professionals Union), and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) (collectively, “the Organizations”) call for the emergency closure of the nation’s Immigration Courts in adherence with current public health protocols regarding the COVID-19 virus and recognizing the urgency of this public health crisis.
Our nation is currently in the throes of a historic global pandemic. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is insufficient and not premised on transparent scientific information. The DOJ is failing to meet its obligations to ensure a safe and healthy environment within our Immigration Courts. No doubt, closing the courts is a difficult decision that will impose significant hardship for those in the Migrant Protection Protocols and detained Respondents. But these are extraordinary times. Respondents who are in detained settings are in a particularly vulnerable situation that warrants specialized considerations. For example, steps should be taken to conduct bond redetermination hearings telephonically during this period. We support the use of telework which has been advocated by the Administration, and we are ready and able to work to ensure
priority matters, including detained bond matters where appropriate, are addressed using technological tools wherever possible.
Coordinated through the leadership of the NAIJ, the Organizations urge immediate action to close our courts in light of the broad scope of the health and safety challenges facing our nation and the Immigration Court system. NAIJ proactively called for the DOJ to take the steps necessary to protect the Immigration Judges, the Immigration Court staff, and the public we serve. As of Sunday, March 15th, the DOJ has failed to institute adequate measures to protect our court’s personnel and the public during this public health crisis.
On Friday, March 13th, the DOJ announced that it will close the Seattle Immigration Court and limit the size of some large master docket hearings at ten Immigration Courts in six cities within the United States for four weeks. The Organizations are firmly convinced that this action is woefully insufficient. We applaud the DOJ’s decision to close down the Seattle Court as it recognizes the need to place the health and safety of the community first. However, the DOJ has provided no scientific or reasoned basis to explain why one locale deserves this type of protection, while the Immigration Courts in the rest of the country are being provided with either partial health and safety solutions, or worse, no health and safety precautions at all. The President has now declared a “National Emergency.” Thirty-nine states have declared “State Emergencies.” Some cities have declared “City Emergencies.”
The Immigration Courts need immediate, sensible, rational, scientifically-based health and safety solutions that protect the Immigration Judges, their staff, the contract interpreters, the private bar, the respondents and their witnesses, the security staff, and so many of the other people who make each hearing possible. On Saturday, March 14, NAIJ consulted Dr. Ashish Jha, K.T. Li Professor of Global Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, an internationally recognized expert and a leading authority on public health and COVID-19. We asked Dr. Jha to consider our Immigration Court structure and the nature of our hearings at more than 68 locations in cities throughout the United States in light of the current state of infection in our country due to the global pandemic. It is his expert opinion, from an epidemiological perspective, that the Immigration Court should not be holding any hearings at this point. He explained that it is impossible to determine which individuals who attend hearings are ill with COVID-19 virus, and stressed that people can infect others even though they are asymptomatic. He also explained that at this point, because of the lack of testing for COVID-19, we do not know which cities are “hot spots.” In other words, no one can say which cities have more cases of COVID-19 than other cities. Instead, confirmed COVID-19 cases reflects only the availability of testing and not the spread of disease.
In the face of inadequate national testing, Dr. Jha said it is irresponsible to do anything other than close our courts until sufficient testing has been conducted. He estimates that in two to four weeks sufficient testing will have been completed so that epidemiological experts will be able to provide specific, data-based directions for organizations like our courts. He provided his unequivocal opinion that to continue to hold any hearings at any Immigration Court at this time presents a high public health risk.
Given Dr. Jha’s uncontroverted expertise and studied opinion, we urge the Department of Justice to close the Immigration Courts to ensure the safety of all people involved in the process. Closing the Immigration Courts for the recommended limited period — two to four weeks — will give the public health officials an opportunity to test and gain valuable information about who can transmit the COVID-19 virus and to reassess how best to ensure a safe environment for Immigration Court hearings. Failing to take this action now will exacerbate a once in a century public health crisis.
Now is the time to close the nation’s 68 Immigration Courts for two to four weeks, to protect the health and safety of the Immigration Judges, the Immigration Court staff, and the public that we serve.
***********************
Horrible situation!
But not surprising to me that the “Old Team” of dedicated professionals from all sides that used to operate at the Arlington Immigration Court prior to this regime has come together again to put America first, promote the public good, and “do the right thing” in the absence of national leadership from the regime.
Imagine what immigration professionals working together could accomplish if an independent Immigration Court were created to operate cooperatively to serve the common interest — that of making the system work and promoting the common good! Thanks to everyone involved for this extraordinary effort demonstrating fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and respect for each other and for humanity!
Also, shows to the “toxic stupidity” of the Trump/Barr attack on Federal employee unions — the only folks in the immigration bureaucracy actually committed to making the system work for everyone.
Due Process Forever! Degradation Of The Public Interest Never!
PWS
03-15-20
UPDATE: 11:15 PM EDT.:
Courtside has been informed by an “inherently reliable source” that EOIR has halted all non-detained Master Calendar Hearings until April 10!
Kevin Euceda, a 17-year-old Honduran boy, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border three years ago and was turned over to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until his request for asylum could be decided by immigration courts. During that period, he was required, as are all unaccompanied minors in custody, to meet with therapists to help him process what he had gone through.
In those sessions, Kevin was encouraged to speak freely and openly and was told that what he said would be kept confidential. So he poured out his story of a brutalized childhood, of how MS-13 gang members moved into the family shack after his grandmother died when he was 12, of how he was forced to run errands, sell drugs and, as he got older, take part in beating people up. When he was ordered to kill a stranger to cement his position in the gang, Kevin decided to run.
His therapists submitted pages of notes over several sessions to the file on him, as they were expected to do. But then, HHS officials — without the knowledge of the teen or the therapists — shared the notes with lawyers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who used them in immigration court to paint the young migrant as a dangerous gang member who should be denied asylum and sent back to Honduras. In sharing those therapy notes, the government did not break any laws. But it most assuredly broke its promise of confidentiality to Kevin, violated standard professional practices — the first therapist involved quit once she learned her notes had been shared — and offended a fundamental expectation that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in this country.
Kevin, whose story was detailed by the Washington Post, wasn’t the only unaccompanied minor to fall victim to such atrocious behavior, though how many have been affected is unknown. The government says it has changed that policy and no longer shares confidential therapy notes, but that’s not particularly reassuring coming from this administration. It adopted the policy once; it could easily do so again.
Last week, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Immigrants’ Mental Health Act of 2020 to ban the practice, which is a necessary preventive measure. The bill would also create a new training regimen to help border agents address mental health issues among migrants and require at least one mental health expert at each Customs and Border Patrol facility. Both of those steps are worth considering too.
That the government would so callously use statements elicited from unaccompanied minors in therapy sessions to undercut their asylum applications is part of the Trump administration’s broad and inhumane efforts to effectively shut off the U.S. as a destination for people seeking to exercise their right to ask for sanctuary. Jeff Sessions and his successor as attorney general, William Barr, have injected themselves into cases at an unprecedented rate to unilaterally change long-established practices and immigration court precedent.
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases. Advocates argue persuasively that the efforts have undermined due process rights and made the immigration courts more a tool of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies than a system for measuring migrant’s claims against the standards Congress wrote into federal law.
Of course, trampling legal rights and concepts of basic human decency have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement — witness, for example, its separation of more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents. Beyond the heartlessness of the separations, the Health and Human Services’ inspector general last week blasted the department for botching the process. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded detention — about 50,000 migrants are in federal custody on any given day, up from about 30,000 a decade ago — and forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to await processing in dangerous squalor on Mexico’s side of the border.
There are legitimate policy discussions to be had over how this government should handle immigration, asylum requests and broad comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.
****************
The LA Times is ”on top” of the grotesque perversion of the Immigration “Courts” under nativist zealot Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Trump toady Billy Barr to carry out a White Nationalist political agenda:
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases.
Who’a NOT “on top” of what’s happening: The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate, Chief Justice Roberts, a number of his Supremely Complicit colleagues, and a host of Court of Appeals Judges who allow this unconstitutional travesty to continue to mock the Fifth Amendment and the rule of Law, while abusing and threatening the lives of legal asylum seekers every day!
With 2.5 Branches of our Government led by anti-democracy zealots and cowards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our only remaining bulwark against tyranny! Capable as she is, she can’t do it all by herself!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!
The immigration policies executed by the Trump administration have been, to be succinct, f***ed up. That’s not even just me saying that. The people who have to execute his policies are saying it too.
The New York Times reports that a union of federal asylum workers has filed an amicus brief stating that a policy from the Trump Administration that diverts migrants to Guatemala is unlawful. The union, National CIS Council 119, represents 700 asylum and refugee officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The brief states that international treaty obligations are being violated as a result of having to deport migrants to a country where they will likely face prosecution. The Trump administration made a deal with Guatemala that allows the United States to deport migrants seeking asylum in the States to Guatemala. The union believes that these new rules are forcing them to violate the laws they were trained to uphold.
. . . .
********************************
Read the complete report at the link.
HEROES & ENABLERS — Judges Who Aid The Trump Regime’s Deadly Oppression Of The Most Vulnerable Among Us Will Eventually Hear The Voices Of Those They Abandoned & Dehumanized — Even From The Graves Of The Oppressed, History Will Pass Judgement On The Smugly Powerful Who Abuse The Weak!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
March 9, 2020
USCIS Asylum Officers are the “NDPA Heroes of the Week!”
So, one group of courageous civil servants is willing to put their careers on the line to defend the Constitution and the rights of the vulnerable. But, others in more protected positions, like, for example, Supreme Court Justices and some Court of Appeals Judges, are afraid to stand up to Trump and defend the rule of law and the humanity of those whose only “crime” is to trust in our legal protection system. The courage of one group contrasts with the willful ignorance and cowardly complicity of the other. What’s wrong with this picture?
At some point, there will be “regime change” in the Executive as well as the Senate. When that happens, our system needs a complete re-examination of the immigration scholarship, commitment to human rights, and the moral leadership of those we are giving lifetime appointments to the Federal Bench, particularly the Supremes.
Obviously, the system has failed when two current justices choose to use their power and privileged positions disingenuously to rail about the “bogus horrors” of nationwide injunctions, and thereby spur the regime on to even grater abuses, while papering over the real issue of the actual grotesque legal, constitutional, and human rights violations inflicted on migrants and others by a White Nationalist would-be authoritarian regime that would eventually do away with almost all of our legal rights.
In the future, perhaps we should consider elevating more Asylum Officers with law degrees and a record of fair adjudication and speaking truth to power to the Article III Judiciary, including the Supremes. There are younger members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who were forced by the regime into “early retirement” who could bring scholarship, fairness, practicality, and justice back to the Article IIIs. How about some pro bono lawyers, clinical professors, and NGO leaders who combine scholarship with real life experience and whose proven creativity and problem solving skills far exceed the pedestrian and wooden approaches we see all too often from today’s failing Article III Judiciary. Although their efforts are mocked, disrespected, and undermined by complicit Article III Judges, like the “J.R. Five,” these courageous “defenders of democracy and the rights of the weak” are the ones who are in fact keeping our legal system afloat in the face of Article III willful ignorance and complicity in tyranny.
And, we definitely need fewer corporate lawyers (except those who have extensive pro bono immigration/human rights experience), prosecutors, and right wing “think tankers” occupying the Federal bench.We have an oversupply of those folks on the bench right now, and our rights are suffering for it. It will take years, perhaps decades, to repair the damage they are causing and to bring the Federal Judicial system back into a proper balance.
These aren’t “liberal/conservative philosophical questions.” They are black and white questions of moral courage and the willingness to enforce Due Process and protect those whose lives are endangered by the Trump regime’s cruel and lawless programs and constant racially-inspired lies, naked bias, and misrepresentations. Sending folks back to dangerous countries without functioning asylum systems is wrong as a matter of law. Period. Making them “Remain in Mexico” is wrong. Period. A so-called “court system” run by a transparently biased, disingenuous, “uber enforcement” official like Billy Barr does not provide the “fair and impartial adjudications” required by Due Process. Period. Separating families and putting kids in cages and “kiddie gulags” is wrong. Period. Those initiating and carrying out those policies should be chastised and held accountable, not enabled. Period.
Actually, many courageous and scholarly U.S. District Judges have gotten these straightforward legal questions exactly right and promptly entered life-saving injunctions. A number of U.S. Immigration Judges have also courageously adhered to the rule of law in the face of excruciating and unethical pressure from DOJ politicos and their toadies to cut corners and railroad individuals out of the country without due process.
It’s the Supremes and too many Circuit Court Judges who who have “rolled over” for the regime’s cruel and inhuman nonsense. By doing so, they essentially “pull the rug” out from under those judges who have the encourage and integrity to “just say no” to the regime’s constant overreach. In doing so, the Federal Appellate Courts and the Supremes are actually engaging in undermining the system they serve and encouraging “worst practices” and even worse results. What truly reprehensible “role models” for upcoming lawyers. Fortunately, many newer lawyers are members of the New Due Process Army and are ignoring the poor and immoral examples of judicial spinelessness set by their supposed “elders.”
Life tenure protects the jobs and paychecks of Article III Judges. But, it won’t protect them from justified criticism and the ultimate judgement of history. Bashing the oppressed in behalf of those in power might seem like a good short-term strategy. After all, the deported, the abused, and the dead don’t normally get to “write history.”
But others are watching this travesty unfold and are pledged to “give a voice” to those silenced by the gross dereliction of legal duties and ignoring simple human decency and values by many with power who could have put an end to these obscene human rights abuses. Chief Justice Roger Taney might have been hailed by the White Supremacists of his age for his opinion in Dred Scott. But, he hasn’t “weathered the test of time” too well! Nor will Chief Justice Roberts and others who have been “going along to get along” with cruel and illegal abuses wantonly inflicted by the White Nationalist regime on the most needy and vulnerable among us.
Congrats and much appreciation from all of us in the New Due Process Army to USCIS Asylum Officers for your courage and integrity in the face of tyranny!
Due Process Forever; Complicity & Enabling Cruelty Never!
(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals should consider de novo the application of law to the facts of this case, including whether the deprivations that the respondent would be likely to encounter upon removal to Mexico would constitute “torture” within the meaning of the Department of Justice regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United States Nov. 20, 1994).
(2) To constitute “torture” under these regulations, an act must, among other things, “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5). “‘[T]orture’ does not cover ‘negligent acts’ or harm stemming from a lack of resources.” Matter of J-R-G-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 482, 484 (BIA 2018) (citing Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 299, 301 (BIA 2002)).
(3) To constitute “torture,” an act must also be motivated by “such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
***************************
Actually, contrary to Billy Barr’s unethical “precedent,” the BIA “panel” in this case consisting of (now retired) Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland got this one completely right, as did the Immigration Judge.
Admittedly, this respondent isn’t a particularly sympathetic character. But, that’s totally irrelevant in a CAT deferral of removal case, where protection is mandatory if the respondent faces torture with Government acquiescence.
Let’s just take a cursory look at the publicly available information on what happens to mentally ill individuals in Mexico.
The Nightmare That Is Mexico’s Mental Health System
Published by Ariel Jacoby on Friday, April 15, 2016 | Features
Though there are an estimated 10 million people with mental, visual, hearing or motor disabilities living in Mexico, the country’s mental health system is so dysfunctional that the unlucky patients under its care are colloquially referred to as “abandanodos” – abandoned ones.
It’s an accurate description for these lost souls. A 93-page report from Disability Rights International revealed the horrific living conditions at Mexican mental health facilities, which are a breeding ground for human rights violations and abuse of the handicapped patients that these institutions are meant to help. Many patients never received a clinical diagnosis of their condition and don’t have families to give them private care – these patients remain locked inside the hospitals indefinitely and become completely anonymous to the world.
Patients rock back and forth in urine soaked clothes or walk about soiled, feces-smeared floors without shoes. Bedsheets are an uncommon luxury; hygiene is an abstract concept in a Mexican mental hospital where some “patients and their caretakers could not fully explain how or why they were institutionalized” (New York Times). Without proper oversight and the absence of any sort of registry system, it is not uncommon for mentally ill children to literally disappear from Mexican mental health facilities with no record of their name, age, or families.
In this dismal hole of human despair, atrocities are ubiquitous and plentiful. Many of the patients in these institutions have been detained against their will for years and will likely languish inside the walls of these torture chambers until their death. Psychotropic drugs are excessively relied upon to treat patients and the more aggressive patients who don’t respond to medication can be subject to forced lobotomies, which need only the approval of the facility director. Eric Rosenthal, the director of Disability Rights International, found that 1/4 of the mental health facilities were keeping patients in restraints for extended periods of time – an act that violates Article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture.
The concept of human rights has no real meaning or significance in these unregulated, inhumane environments. The investigation conducted by DRI revealed the severity and frequency of human rights violations within the walls of such state-run facilities. In one institution, a terrified blind patient admitted to being raped by one of the staff members – a claim that was quickly dismissed by Mexican officials. In another facility, investigators discovered two young women who had been institutionalized at a young age, grew up in the hospital, and had been working as unpaid laborers for years. There exists no record of how or why these women were institutionalized and Mexican law requires no legal review to detain them indefinitely as modern-day slave laborers.
The director of Samuel Ramirez Hospital, one of the 31 state-run mental health facilities in Mexico, calls his own hospital “hell” and has voiced his belief that the mental health of every patient at his facility have been made worse by their institutionalization. He blames the lack of proper funding and a deficiency of properly trained personnel – at a different mental institution nearby, there are only two psychologists and one doctor to treat the 365 patients who have been institutionalized there.
The sad state of Mexico’s mental health system can be traced back to its government’s complex and deep-rooted political issues. Mexico’s budget for mental health makes up about 2.5% of its overall health spending. This is an improvement from the paltry 1.6% allocated to mental health a decade ago, but still significantly lower than the WHO’s recommendation of 10%. Without a significant electorate of mental health advocates, mental health lacks any real political sway in Mexico. Back in 2006, Mexico was among 96 countries who ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it is clear that not much has changed within the system itself.
Mexico isn’t Haiti or some other “poor country.” It’s the 15th largest economy in the world. The allocation of a paltry 2-3% of spending on mental health is an intentional embrace of torture by the Mexican Government that relates directly to the dehumanized place of the mentally ill in Mexican society. A Mexican national being deported from the U.S. with a criminal record would very likely receive the “worst of the worst” – not “negligently” but very intentionally. Clearly,. the torture and punishment of the mentally ill just because they are mentally ill is “any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” I give this respondent 90 days max until he’s tortured to death if returned to Mexico. The conditions requiring mandatory deferral of removal under CAT have clearly been met.
Judge Wendtland was right. Barr is “dead” wrong. But, Billy’s message to his subordinates is clear: Forget the law: deny, deny, deny!
The system is broken. Removal of the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and the end of the ability of unqualified immoral politicos like Billy Barr to interfere in the judicial system in derogation of Constitutional Due Process is essential to the survival of our democracy.
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 9th Cir., 02-28-20, published
PANEL:Ferdinand F. Fernandez, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY:Judge William A. Fletcher
DISSENTING OPINION:Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
In addition to likelihood of success on the merits, a court must consider the likelihood that the requesting party will
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 49
suffer irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest in determining whether a preliminary injunction is justified. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “When the government is a party, these last two factors merge.” Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)).
There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined. Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.
The balance of equities favors plaintiffs. On one side is the interest of the Government in continuing to follow the directives of the MPP. However, the strength of that interest is diminished by the likelihood, established above, that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1231(b). On the other side is the interest of the plaintiffs. The individual plaintiffs risk substantial harm, even death, so long as the directives of the MPP are followed, and the organizational plaintiffs are hindered in their ability to carry out their missions.
The public interest similarly favors the plaintiffs. We agree with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant:
On the one hand, the public has a “weighty” interest “in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982). But the public also has an interest in ensuring that “statutes enacted by [their] representatives”
50 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
are not imperiled by executive fiat. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1301 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers).
932 F.3d at 779 (alteration in original).
VII. Scope of the Injunction
The district court issued a preliminary injunction setting aside the MPP—that is, enjoining the Government “from continuing to implement or expand the ‘Migrant Protection Protocols’ as announced in the January 25, 2018 DHS policy memorandum and as explicated in further agency memoranda.” Innovation Law Lab, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 1130. Accepting for purposes of argument that some injunction should issue, the Government objects to its scope.
We recognize that nationwide injunctions have become increasingly controversial, but we begin by noting that it is something of a misnomer to call the district court’s order in this case a “nationwide injunction.” The MPP operates only at our southern border and directs the actions of government officials only in the four States along that border. Two of those states (California and Arizona) are in the Ninth Circuit. One of those states (New Mexico) is in the Tenth Circuit. One of those states (Texas) is in the Fifth Circuit. In practical effect, the district court’s injunction, while setting aside the MPP in its entirety, does not operate nationwide.
For two mutually reinforcing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the MPP.
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 51
First, plaintiffs have challenged the MPP under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Section 706(2)(A) of the APA provides that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . not in accordance with law.” We held, above, that the MPP is “not in accordance with” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Section 706(2)(A) directs that in a case where, as here, a reviewing court has found the agency action “unlawful,” the court “shall . . . set aside [the] agency action.” That is, in a case where § 706(2)(A) applies, there is a statutory directive—above and beyond the underlying statutory obligation asserted in the litigation—telling a reviewing court that its obligation is to “set aside” any unlawful agency action.
There is a presumption (often unstated) in APA cases that the offending agency action should be set aside in its entirety rather than only in limited geographical areas. “[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When a court determines that an agency’s action failed to follow Congress’s clear mandate the appropriate remedy is to vacate that action.” Cal. Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The ordinary practice is to vacate unlawful agency action.”); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. United States, 817 F.2d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“The APA requires us to vacate the agency’s decision if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .”).
52 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
Second, cases implicating immigration policy have a particularly strong claim for uniform relief. Federal law contemplates a “comprehensive and unified” immigration policy. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012). “In immigration matters, we have consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 932 F.3d at 779. We wrote in Regents of the University of California, 908 F.3d at 511, “A final principle is also relevant: the need for uniformity in immigration policy. . . . Allowing uneven application of nationwide immigration policy flies in the face of these requirements.” We wrote to the same effect in Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev’d on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018): “Because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give Plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.” The Fifth Circuit, one of only two other federal circuits with states along our southern border, has held that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in immigration cases. In sustaining a nationwide injunction in an immigration case, the Fifth Circuit wrote, “[T]he Constitution requires ‘an uniform Rule of Naturalization’; Congress has instructed that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly’; and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as ‘a comprehensive and unified system.’” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). In Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), we relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Texas to sustain the nationwide scope of a temporary restraining order in an immigration case. We wrote, “[W]e decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 53 constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform
immigration law and policy.” Id. at 1166–67. Conclusion
We conclude that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that it is inconsistent in part with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b). Because the MPP is invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with § 1225(b), it should be enjoined in its entirety. Because plaintiffs have successfully challenged the MPP under § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and because the MPP directly affects immigration into this country along our southern border, the issuance of a temporary injunction setting aside the MPP was not an abuse of discretion.
We lift the emergency stay imposed by the motions panel, and we firm the decision of the district court.
****************************
At last, a breath of justice in halting, at least temporarily, an outrageously illegal program that is also a grotesque violation of our national values and humanity. Unfortunately, it has already resulted in thousands of injustices and damaged many lives beyond repair. That’s something that a clueless shill for authoritarianism, wanton cruelty, and abrogation of the rule of law like dissenting Judge Fernandez might want to think about.
But, hold the “victory dance.” The regime will likely seek “rehearing en banc,” appealing to other enablers of human rights atrocities like Fernandez. And, if the regime fails there, they always can “short circuit” the legal system applicable to everyone else by having Solicitor General Francisco ask his GOP buddies on the Supremes, “The JR Five,” to give the regime a free pass. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, that type of “tilt” has already become more or less “business as usual” as the regime carries out its nativist, White Nationalist immigration agenda. Indeed, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have already announced their eagerness to carry the regime’s water for them by doing away with nationwide injunctions, even though they are the sole way for doing justice in immigration cases like this.
But, at least for today, we can all celebrate a battle won by the New Due Process Army in the ongoing war to restore our Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity.
The Justice Department wants to dramatically increase fees for immigrants trying to fight deportation— including nearly $1,000 to appeal an immigration judge decision, according to a proposed Executive Office for Immigration Review rule.
Between the lines: It currently costs around $100 for immigrants to begin to legally fight deportation orders. If implemented, the new rule would raise fees to at least $305 and as much as $975, depending on the appeal.
By the numbers: In the rule, the administration argues that the discrepancy between fees collected and the processing costs “has become more of a burden on the immigration adjudication system as aliens overall have begun filing more of these fee-based forms and motions.”
They estimate that immigrants appealing deportation orders given by an immigration judge cost taxpayers $27.6 million in FY 2018. The rule proposes that fees be raised so that immigrants cover the total cost, which is how the $975 fee came about.
What they’re saying: When hearings are set two or three years in advance, immigrants have time to save for the fees. But with many new immigration judges and a rise in fast-track cases, that may no longer possible, immigration lawyer Jeffrey Chase, a former judge and senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, told Axios
Former immigration judge Paul Schmidt, who retired in 2016, told Axios in an email the proposed rule is “outrageous.”
He said correcting errors through the appeals process is one of the most important government functions. “That’s particularly true when the public segment ‘served’ is generally limited income individuals and getting results correct could be ‘life determining.’”
**************************
Here’s my complete commentary on EOIR’s latest shady maneuver:
In a single word, “outrageous.”
As set forth in the notice, EOIR is an “appropriated agency.” It was never supposed to recoup its costs, nor does it need to.
Correcting errors on appeal is probably one of the most important functions the Government performs. That’s particularly true when the public segment “served” is generally limited income individuals and the getting results correct could be “life determining.”
Applications, as opposed to “appeals,” also serve a critical public function in insuring that those who qualify under our laws to remain in the U.S. are permitted to do so. That’s a “winner” for everyone.
The astronomical proposed fee increase is particularly absurd in the current context. EOIR is actually cutting corners and has reduced the quality and accuracy of its work product. Why should the public pay nearly 10X more for a rapidly deteriorating product?
Moreover, given the “captive” nature of the courts and the illegal and unethical interference in their operations by the Attorney General and other political operatives at the DOJ, the only chance at fair and impartial “justice” for many individuals is to petition the Article III Courts. That requires going through EOIR, even when EOIR’s biased and unfair adjudication procedures make the results inevitable. It’s called “required exhaustion of administrative remedies.”
Sure, folks can continue to seek “fee waivers.” But, I’ll bet that the procedures for those will become more bureaucratic and unduly restrictive, and that many will be improperly denied. How does someone with no money appeal a wrongful denial of a fee waiver? He or she can’t. They are denied justice!
That gets us to the real point here. In an era and an area of the law where “access to justice” is everything, this is another blatant attempt by the White Nationalist regime to restrict access to justice. In real world terms, the claimed cost savings (and we should never accept the regime’s often flawed and manipulated calculations) here are peanuts compared with the human interests at stake. The regime wastes more than this every week on unneeded and unauthorized walls that blow down in the wind and overpriced golf security for Trump.
Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 3rd Cir., 02-26-20, published
PANEL: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge ROTH
KEY QUOTE:
It is our interpretation of Pereira that it establishes a bright-line rule:
A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under section 1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.”14
The language is clear. Pereira holds that an NTA shall contain all the information set out in section 1229(a)(1). An NTA which omits the time and date of the hearing is defective. To file an effective NTA, the government cannot, in maybe four days or maybe four months, file a second – and possibly third – Notice with the missing information. And it makes sense to have such a bright-line rule: The ability of the noncitizen to receive and to keep track of the date and place of the hearing, along with the legal basis and cited acts to be addressed at the hearing, is infinitely easier if all that information is contained in a single document – as described in
blanks for time and place” but holding that this deficiency was not of jurisdictional significance); Perez-Sanchez v. United States Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1154 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Ortiz-Santiago, 924 F.3d at 962) (“Under Pereira, . . . a notice of hearing sent later might be relevant to a harmlessness inquiry, but it does not render the original NTA non- deficient.”).
14 Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113-14.
7
Case: 19-2239
Document: 67 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/26/2020
15
Moreover, it seems to us to be no great imposition on the government to require it to communicate all that information to the noncitizen in one document. If a notice is sent to the noncitizen with only a portion of the statutorily required information, a valid NTA can easily be sent later which contains all the required information in one document – at such time as the government has gathered all that information together. The complete NTA would then trigger the stop-time rule.
The government argues, however, that the BIA’s
decision in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez should be given
Chevron16 deference as a reasonable reading of an ambiguous
statute. There, the BIA relied on Pereira’s position that “the
fundamental purpose of notice is to convey essential
information to the alien, such that the notice creates a
reasonable expectation of the alien’s appearance at the removal
proceeding.” 17 The BIA determined that this purpose can be
served just as well by two or more documents as it could by
18
We conclude, however, that Chevron deference is
15 We do note that in Pereira the Court left “for another day whether a putative notice to appear that omits any of the other categories of information enumerated in § 1229(a)(1) triggers the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113 n. 5.
16 Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
17 Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 531.
18 Id.
the statute.
one.
8
Case: 19-2239 Document: 67 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/26/2020
inapplicable here because we are not merely interpreting the
19
whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira forecloses
stop-time rule.
our interpretation of the statute in Orozco-Velasquez.
***********************
What does it mean:
In the 3rd Circuit, undocumented individuals who have been continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years prior to receiving a “Pereira-compliant” Notice to Appear” (“NTA”) are exempt from the “stop time” rule for non-lawful-permanent resident cancellation of removal.
An “after the fact” Notice of Hearing from EOIR does NOT remedy the “Pereira-defect” in the NTA for purposes of the stop-time rule.
Those whose cancellation of removal applications were improperly denied, or who were not given a chance to apply, because of the stop-time rule should be able to reopen their cases. This should add to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and jack up the backlog some more, at least within the 3rd Cir.
The 3rd Circuit covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
This mess was largely self-inflicted by DHS & EOIR. They had many chances to remedy the “Pereira problem’ over the years, but chose not to do so.
I would expect the DOJ to find a petition for rehearing in this case, as they did in the Ninth Circuit. That could result in the Third Circuit’s decision being put “on hold.”
This split will eventually have to be resolved by the Supremes. But, that’s unlikely to happen until next year.
Congratulations and much appreciation to the six BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, led by former Judge John Guendelsberger, who courageously dissented from the en banc decision in Mendoza-Hernandez:
Judge John Guendelsberger, author
Judge Charles Adkins-Blanch, Vice Chair
Judge Patricia Cole
Judge Edward Grant
Judge Michael J. Creppy
Judge Molly Kendall Clark
Perhaps not surprisingly, Judges Guendelsberger, Cole, & Kendall Clark have since retired from the BIA.
Dissent remains important, if exceedingly rare at today’s BIA, where DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats actively encourage “go along to get along,” pro-regime jurisprudence. Also, en banc decisions are disfavored at today’s BIA.
Court says Trump administration can withhold money from NYC, 7 states in ‘sanctuary cities’ fight
Updated 1:07 PM EST February 26, 2020
The Trump administration can withhold federal money from seven states, as well as New York City, over their cooperation on immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The decision by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that blocked the Justice Department from withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.
The federal appeals court ruling comes amid an ongoing feud between the Trump administration and so-called “sanctuary cities,” which limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Over recent weeks, the administration has stepped up its fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and taken measures like barring New York residents from enrolling in certain Trusted Traveler programs, such as Global Entry.
Judge Reena Raggi, writing on behalf of the unanimous 3-judge panel, acknowledged the divisive nature of the issue at hand, writing: “The case implicates several of the most divisive issues confronting our country and, consequently, filling daily news headlines: national immigration policy, the enforcement of immigration laws, the status of illegal aliens in this country, and the ability of States and localities to adopt policies on such matters contrary to, or at odds with, those of the federal government.”
The city of New York is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.
In July 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that applicants for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants would have to comply with federal immigration enforcement. States pushed back and sued over the move.
. . . .
***********************
Read the complete article at the above link. Thanks for keeping us up to date, Priscilla! Love your timely and accessible reporting!
My “Quick Takes:”
This one is headed to the Supremes, as there is now a “Circuit split.”
Don’t expect this to have much effect on actual immigration enforcement.
Coercing states and localities is unlikely to foster much meaningful cooperation.
It’s more likely to simply channel resistance to the regime elsewhere.
The affected jurisdictions always have the option of just taking a “pass” on “Byrne Grants.”
In any event, interior apprehensions are a minuscule part of the DHS civil enforcement program.
They accounted for fewer than 100,000 removals during the last fiscal year.
At that rate, it would take more than a century for DHS to remove the estimated 10+ million undocumented U.S residents.
On the other hand, this is a major “propaganda victory” for the regime. And, make no mistake, this was always about anti-immigrant propaganda not legitimate law enforcement.
The Administration will be able to tout that Second Circuit Judge Reena Raggi bought their disingenuous “enforcement policy” argument “hook line and sinker.” (The DHS “Community Terrorism” program has actually been shown to inhibit legitimate law enforcement by making it much less likely that victims of domestic violence and gang crimes will report them to local law enforcement.)
However, more thoughtful judges in the 7th Circuit and elsewhere have exposed the weaknesses of Judge Raggi’s reasoning.
It’s unlikely that the Supremes will resolve this before the November election.
If Trump wins, the “Roberts Five” have already demonstrated their obsequiousness in the face of Trump’s war on immigrants.
On the other hand, a Democratic Administration would be likely to withdraw this “punishment initiative” completely and try to reach a more harmonious working relationship with state and local law enforcement on immigration issues, thus “mooting” this litigation.
NDPA NEWS: Even In Times Of Systemic Dysfunction, Fairness, Scholarship, Timeliness, Respect, & Teamwork Among Conscientious Immigration Judges, Fair-Minded ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, & Caring, Well-Prepared Advocates From the NDPA Continue to Save Lives of the Most Vulnerable Among Us! — “I don’t know how much longer I’ll be alive, but my children will always thank you,” Says Critically Ill Respondent to Arlington Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg, Who Had Just Granted Her Asylum!
Paulina Vera Professorial Lecturer in Law GW Law
NDPA stalwart (and former Arlington Immigration Court Intern) Professor Paulina Vera reports:
Good afternoon,
The above is what our client said to Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg after she granted her asylum claim this afternoon. A-A-‘s husband was politically involved in their home country of Venezuela, actively protesting against Nicolas Maduro. Because of his political involvement, both A-A- and their 11-year-old son were targeted by security forces and threatened with their lives should the political opposition continue. Additionally, A-A- has been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer and feared that she would not be able to get medical treatments in her home country due to a shortage of medical supplies there.
After a 15 minute hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) agreed to grant relief, which the trial attorney did not oppose. Both the IJ and trial attorney commended student-attorney, Halima Nur, JD ‘20, for her preparation. The IJ commented that because of the amount of documentation and the legal arguments presented, she was able to issue a decision quickly. In addition to their 11-year-old son, the couple has a 1.5 year old son, who was born in the United States. With this grant, the family will remain together in the U.S.
Please join me in congratulating Halima Nur, JD ‘20, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ‘20, for all their hard work on the case.
Best,
—-
Paulina Vera, Esq.
Acting Director, GW Law Immigration Clinic (Academic Year 2019-2020)
Legal Associate, Immigration Clinic
Professorial Lecturer in Law
*********************************
These are the moments that everyone, judges, lawyers, interpreters, respondents, families, “live for” in Immigration Court. It’s what “kept me going” for 13 years on the trial bench. “Building America, one case at a time,” I used to say!
It’s the “polar opposite” of the “haste makes waste gimmicks” that unqualified politicos and administrators who don’t handle regular dockets have forced on judges and parties in a system where “docket control” has effectively been disconnected from its proper objectives of achieving due process and fundamental fairness.
Unfortunately, as Miller and the restrictionists seek to farther skew the regulations to screw asylum seekers, just results like this are likely to be even harder to achieve. That means that more and more asylum applicants will have to appeal to the Article III Courts, flawed as they have become, for any chance whatsoever of achieving a fair and unbiased outcome. I also discussed this unhappy likely future development in my post at the preceding link.
Thanks again to Judge Torg, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, Paulina, and GW Clinic Student AttorneysHalima Nur, JD ‘20, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ‘20, for being inspiring examples of how the Immigration Court system could work to achieve “due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency” under “different management” and an “independent structure” in the future.
But early one morning, she kissed her sleeping son goodbye. She had spent the night watching him in his bed. It was almost his 10th birthday.
“Fue el peor momento de mi vida,” Bárbara said. It was the worst moment of my life.
It had been nearly a year since Bárbara had been left for dead outside her clothing store, a victim of the Nicaraguan government’s bloody campaign to silence pro-democracy protests that rose up in 2018.
She knew she had to flee, but she didn’t think she could protect her son on the notorious migrant trail. She wasn’t willing to risk him.
So the 29-year-old entrepreneur escaped north alone, putting herself at the mercy of the U.S. asylum system — a system meant to protect the world’s most vulnerable.
RETURNED: PART I
The first in an occasional series in which the Union-Tribune explores the asylum system through the eyes of people who experience it firsthand, with drastically different outcomes.
The San Diego Union-Tribune is not fully identifying Bárbara or many of the witnesses interviewed in Nicaragua because of the danger that the government might retaliate against them or their families.
Bárbara is in Tijuana, one of tens of thousands of people waiting for a chance to argue for protection in the United States, part of a changing wave of migration that the Trump administration has labeled a crisis.
She exists in a constant state of uncertainty, and she realizes now just how much she underestimated the challenges that still lie ahead.
***********************
For Kate’s full article including the “original formatting” and all of the great pictures and graphics accompanying it, click on the above link that will take you to the original article on the San Diego Union-Tribune website!
Thanks, Kate, for so beautifully capturing the “heart and soul” of the refugee experience and why the Trump regime’s intentionally cruel, illegal, immoral, and dehumanizing policies are undermining our humanity as a nation and everything we should stand for. These are human lives at stake, not “numbers,” “beds,” or “apprehensions.” Success is measured in lives saved, and fair treatment of all, not “numbers turned back” or how we can “discourage” or “deter” others from seeking refuge. Our legal system should be fair and impartial, not a “weaponized tool” for nativist immigration enforcement policies. Indeed, it supposedly is there too protect all of us against such political overreach and abuses.
Interestingly, there was a time in the past when the GOP and the Reagan Administration went out of its way to help and give refuge to those Nicaraguans fleeing the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), one of the best, most effective, and most efficient pieces of immigration legislation ever passed, was a result of bipartisan support for providing permanent relief to Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans fleeing the mess in Central American that our Government played a significant role in creating. Some off those fleeing Cuba and Eastern Europe also were covered. Now, under the influence of Trump, neo-fascist Stephen Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist gang, this GOP-led regime simply turns its back on vulnerable refugees like Barbara, the human carnage resulting from Ortega’s misrule of Nicaragua.
Perhaps in the future, Kate will put it all together in a book. Hope so!
The trauma Donald Trump’s administration caused to young children and parents separated at the US-Mexico border constitutes torture, according to evaluations of 26 children and adults by the group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).
The not-for-profit group’s report provides the first in-depth look at the psychological impact of family separation, which the US government continued despite warnings from the nation’s top medical bodies.
“As a clinician, nobody was prepared for this to happen on our soil,” the report co-author Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at PHR, told the Guardian. “It is beyond shocking that this could happen in the United States, by Americans, at the instruction and direct intention of US government officials.”
Advertisement
Hide
Legal experts have argued family separation constituted torture, but this is the first time a medical group has reached the determination.
PHR volunteer psychiatrists evaluated 17 adults and nine children who had been separated between 30 to 90 days. Most met the criteria for at least one mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder “consistent with, and likely linked to, the trauma of family separation”, according to the report.
Not only did the brutal family separation policy create trauma, it was intensified by the families’ previous exposure to violence on their journey to the US and in their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
All but two of the adults evaluated by PHR said they had received death threats in their home countries and 14 out of the 17 adults said they were targeted by drug cartels. All were fearful their child would be harmed or killed if they remained at home.
Almost all the children had been drugged, kidnapped, poisoned or threatened by gangs before they left. One mother told investigators she moved her daughter to different schools in El Salvador several times so gang members couldn’t find her and kill her.
In the face of these threats, parents tried to move within the country, change their phone numbers, meet extortion demands and go silent on social media. Ultimately, however, the report said: “Parents were confident that the journey to the United States would result in protection for their children.”
This is not what happened at the border.
The Trump administration instituted a policy in April 2018 that formally enabled the mass separation of children and parents at the US-Mexico border. Trump ended the policy in June 2018, but it has since been revealed that the administration separated thousands of families before and after the policy was in place.
There was also no system to reunite the families, according to an internal government watchdog. The Trump administration also ignored warnings from the nation’s leading medical organizations that family separation would traumatize children and adults.
How Trump’s immigration policies hurt people’s lives – in pictures
People who experience trauma, especially as children, have higher rates of medical conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. They also have an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and detrimental coping behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse.
“Something like that does not just resolve once you’re reunified with your parents, it’s something you carry with you possibly forever,” Mishori said.
One Honduran father described how badly his son reacted the four times a psychologist came to their apartment for treatment in the report: “Each time the son would refuse to cooperate and would throw things at the therapist … It appears his son was afraid of strangers, afraid they will take him away from his father.”
Kathryn Hampton, a senior officer in PHR’s asylum program, said the group PHR had assessed was small but represented separated families from different detention centers and foster homes across the country over a two-year period.
“This is a really disparate group of people and yet their stories are practically identical,” said Hampton. “So that’s very disturbing, to see that level of consistency.”
Amid the despair, PHR has seen an outpouring of support in money and volunteers. Hampton said since the beginning of 2018, its Asylum Network had more than doubled to 1,700 clinicians who provide free medical and psychological evaluations to asylum seekers. There were also three times as many medical school clinics partnering with the organization in that period.
Dr Stuart Lustig, a California-based psychiatrist and longtime volunteer, evaluated a seven-year-old girl from Guatemala. He said when he and the girl did a common evaluation tool called the Squiggle Test, she had one of the more inhibited reactions he had seen in 20 years.
“These kinds of separations were filled with uncertainty, there was no information about where people are going, so it is not surprising at all that these separations ended up being extremely traumatizing for kids and parents,” Lustig said.
In November, a federal court ordered the US to compensate for the trauma separated families faced at the hands of the government. Lustig said there were many treatment options for children who experienced this deep level of trauma in the US, but he and PHR were concerned about how these families would have access to them.
Lustig said: “Part of the work is simply building trust in humanity again.”
**************************
We are diminishing ourselves as a nation; but, in the end, it won’t stop human migration. While the purpose of torture is dehumanization and degradation of the “other,” torture actually increases the humanity of its victims while dehumanizing the torturers and their enablers.
It’s also worthy remembering the next time “Big Mac With Lies,” Nielsen, Kelly, ”Gonzo” Sessions and other noted torturers want to “clean up their images” and capitalize on their misdeeds by speaking to an organization to which you belong or attend. Remember who they REALLY are beneath their facades: unpunished perpetrators of “Crimes Against Humanity.”
