"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.
. . . .
*****************
The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.
For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.
Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!
Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!
The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”
This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!
“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!” “Unpacking” Photo by John Keogh Creative Commons License
All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!
“A federal court ruled that tworules issued by the Trump administration restricting — and in some cases eliminating — access to work authorization for asylum seekers were illegally issued and are therefore invalid.
More than a year ago, a group of nearly 20 asylum seekers along with three organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging these rules. The individual asylum seekers include transgender women, parents with small children, and children and adults who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence. The rules prevented or delayed their access to a work permit. The organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — argued that the rules derailed their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers.
The National Immigrant Justice Center, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Kids in Need of Defense, and Tahirih Justice Center provided counsel in the case.
Plaintiffs challenged the substantive provisions that drastically curtailed access to work authorization, and they argued that the rules were invalid because purported Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf issued them even though he was not lawfully installed as DHS Secretary. The rules took effect in August 2020 and were partially enjoined by a different court in September 2020, but that decision left many of the rules’ harmful provisions in place. Despite these ongoing harms and despite a change in administration, the government dragged its feet arguing that the rules should remain in place “for the time being” to allow “developing administrative actions” to resolve the case.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to entertain these delay requests, and rejected the government’s “interpretative acrobatics” to justify Mr. Wolf’s purported authority to engage in rulemaking. Instead, the court followed numerous other courts around the country and concluded that “Wolf’s ascension to the office of Acting Secretary was unlawful.” The court also rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to ratify one of the rules in question, reasoning that the ratification “did not cure the defects … caused by Wolf’s unlawful tenure as Acting Secretary.”
Reflections from Counsel and Organizational Plaintiffs:
“The ability to earn an income is critical to asylum seekers’ ability to survive in the United States as they pursue protection from persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “The court’s decision recognizes that the government cannot neglect to fill a cabinet position with a Senate-approved candidate for 665 days and then rely on unvetted, temporary officials to strip asylum seekers of access to a livelihood in the United States.”
“The court got it right,” said Annie Daher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “People seeking asylum should be treated with dignity and fairness as they pursue their legal claims. Access to work permits allows asylum seekers to provide for their families, obtain vital legal representation, and ultimately find safety and security in the United States. Today’s ruling will make a life-saving difference for our plaintiffs and for all people who turn to this country for refuge.”
“Children seeking asylum often need a USCIS-issued ‘employment authorization’ document as their only form of photo ID, to access education and other services critical to their stability and well-being during the asylum process,” said Scott Shuchart, senior director, legal strategy, at Kids in Need of Defense. “The court correctly restored access to these important documents for, potentially, thousands of unaccompanied children who will now have the opportunity to build a more secure life in the United States as they pursue lifesaving protection.”
“The right to work is an essential component of humanitarian protection,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, executive director and founder of AsylumWorks. “Work is not only imperative to economic survival; it also represents a means for asylum seekers to maintain personal dignity and self-respect during the long and protracted legal process. The court took a critical step toward upholding the rights of asylum seekers by vacating illegally-issued rules created to deter individuals and families seeking safety from harm. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to continuing our work to help asylum seekers prepare for and retain safe, legal, and purposeful employment.”
“This decision restores the critical ability of countless survivors of gender-based violence to work, and thus be independent and provide for their families, while their asylum applications are pending—a process that often takes many years,” said Richard Caldarone, senior litigation counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center. “It also makes clear that the government remains obligated to promptly decide survivors’ requests for work authorization rather than leaving them in bureaucratic limbo for months or years. The decision takes arbitrary and punitive restrictions on work permanently off the books. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to its immediate implementation.”
“We are thrilled that our motion for summary judgment was granted. This decision will have an enormous impact on our clients and so many other asylum seekers who come to this country seeking safety and justice,” said Christina Dos Santos, the Immigration Program director at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “The Trump-era rules were punitive and cruel to asylum seekers, preventing them from receiving the right to work, potentially for years, as they waited to have their cases heard in our backlogged immigration court system. We have seen first hand how these policies forced asylum-seekers and their families into poverty and destitution. A resolution was urgently needed. We applaud the court’s decision.””
************
Garland’s poor judgement, legally deficient, ethically questionable defenses of illegal and inhumane Trump-era immigration policies continue to astound! Also, the inane maneuvers conducted by Mayorkas, presumably with Garland’s approval, attempting to illegally “ratify” one of these rules is simply disgraceful! Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell strongly and correctly rejected this flailing waste of Government resources in her opinion.
Chief Judge Howell’s decision describes a compendium of some of the most egregious evasions of rules and wasteful attempts to paper them over, by both the Trump and Biden Administrations, that can be imagined. It’s an appalling example of the failure of Biden’s “good government” pledge! Inflicting this utter nonsense on the Federal Courts and on individuals fighting for their lives and rights, and stretching the resources of their pro bono lawyers, is on Garland! It’s inexcusable!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Congrats to my good friend Joan, AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and all the other great NGOs who are “taking it to” Garland and and his flailing Justice Department as well as to Mayorkas and his lousy, inept, illegal gimmicks being used to “shore up” grotesquely cruel and unfair Trump policies that Biden & Harris were elected to change! Gotta wonder what Ur Mendoza Jaddou and other folks who were supposed to “just say no” to these disgraceful policies are doing over at DHS!
Here’s what Joan said about the case:
WE WON! 🗽 The court ruled in AsylumWorks’ favor and struck down a series of Trump era rules that significantly delayed – and in many cases outright denied – work permits for asylum seekers.Today, justice prevailed.
🇺🇸Due process Forever!
Best,
—
Joan Hodges-Wu, MA, LGSW
Founder & Executive Director | AsylumWorks
Justice DID indeed prevail! That’s thanks to you, Joan, your fellow NGOs, and some great pro bono lawyers who showed that despite campaign promises, true “justice” for all persons under our Constitution resides elsewhere than at our flawed and failing Department of “Justice” under Garland’s uninspired and often tone deaf “leadership.”
Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop shares valuable immigration insights in the era of the Biden Administration
Retired Immigration Judge, U.S. Immigration Court and Former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt discusses growing immigration court backlogs.
Feb. 7, 2022 – More than 350 practitioners attended the annual Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop recently. The four-hour virtual event held on Jan. 28 was presented by the University of Houston Law Center’s Immigration Clinic and co-sponsored by Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. Interfaith Ministries joined this year to shed light on the plight of Afghani refugees who have settled in Houston since the government in Afghanistan collapsed and the Taliban takeover.
The goal of the workshop was to provide an update on immigration practices since President Biden took office. For example, while Biden halted the building of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and removed Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – where asylum seekers must remain on the Mexican side of the border while awaiting U.S. immigration court dates – a federal court order forced MPP to be reinstated. Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.
The first panel, moderated by Immigration Clinic Director Geoffrey Hoffman, explored the Biden Administration’s focus on Prosecutorial Discretion, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Migratory Protection Protocols (MPP), recent circuit court decisions, Afghan and Haitian case precedents, and immigration court backlogs.
“I hope you are emboldened to take a pro-bono client,” said Hoffman. “You can reach out to any of us on this call and use us as mentors.”
Panelist Magali Candler Suarez, principal at Suarez Candler Law, PLLC warned practitioners that Title 42 – a public health and welfare statue that gives the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the power to decide whether something like Covid-19 in a foreign country poses a serious danger of spreading in the U.S. – was being applied to Haitians in a racist manner.
“Many Haitians are being turned back at the border,” said Candler Suarez. “They are being denied the right to apply for asylum.”
The second panel, moderated by Parker Sheffy, a clinical teaching fellow at the Immigration Clinic, was a refresher on asylum, withholding of removal and CAT. Panelist Elizabeth Mendoza from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which supports immigration attorneys in this work, spoke about challenges because of newly appointed immigration judges and evolving Covid practices.
“Unfortunately, things are in flux this month,” said Mendoza. “It’s not out of the ordinary to be given conflicting information.”
Well known former U.S. immigration judge, Jeffrey S. Chase, was the final panelist in this group and focused on the future of asylum in the U.S. “The Biden Administation issued a paper on climate change and migration,” said Chase. “[What] they were really talking about [though was] asylum and how climate change will impact that.”
A third panel offered insights on the use of experts in removal proceedings. UH Law Center Professor Rosemary Vega moderated the discussion which ranged from psychological experts to country experts and where to find them.
“The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies has a giant list of experts on many topics,” said panelist and UH Law Professor Lucas Aisenberg. “It’s the first place I go to when I’m working on a case.”
The workshop wrapped up with speakers from Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston explaining what it is like to be a refugee from Afghanistan and how hard it has been to meet the needs of Afghan refugees that have arrived in the last year.
“Two years ago, we resettled 407 Afghan refugees,” said Martin B. Cominsky, president, and CEO of Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. “Since September 2021, we have resettled 11,081 refugees.” He implored practitioners on the call to help in any way they can.
The Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop has been held annually since 2014 in memory of the University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic’s founder. Since the clinic’s inception in 1999, it has become one of the largest in the nation, specializing in handling asylum applications for victims of torture and persecution, representing victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, and crime, and helping those fleeing civil war, genocide, or political repression. The clinic has served over 2,000 individuals who otherwise could not afford legal services.
For a full list of speakers at this year’s event, click here.
******************
“Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.”
“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” is thriving @ Garland’s EOIR. Instead of gimmicks designed to “prioritize for denial and deterrence” (how about those “engineered in absentia dockets?”) why not work with the private bar and DHS to prioritize at both the Asylum Office and EOIR those with the most compelling cases from countries where refugee flows are well-documented?
For example, why not “prioritize” represented Uyghur and Afghani cases which should be “slam dunk” asylum grants? What’s the purpose of making folks who are going to be part of our society unnecessarily spend years in limbo?
Is anybody in the Biden Administration actually planning for a possible human rights catastrophe, or just waiting for it to happen and then declaring yet another “migration emergency.”
Contrary to the uninformed view of many, backlogs aren’t just a workload problem or a hindrance to enforcement. There are huge human, psychological, economic, societal, and institutional costs with maintaining large uncontrolled backlogs.
Most of those costs fall on the individuals with strong, likely winning cases who constantly are “orbited to the end of the line” to accommodate ever-changing, ill-advised, enforcement agendas and misguided “quick fix” initiatives. That’s so that DHS and DOJ can misuse the legal system as a deterrent — by prioritizing the cases they think they can deny without much due process to “send messages” about the futility of asking for protection or asserting rights in the U.S. legal system! And, those with strong cases (and their attorneys) “twist in the wind” as denials and deterrence are prioritized.
Trying to prioritize “bogus denials” (often without hearings, lawyers, time to prepare, or careful expert judging) also creates false statistical profiles suggesting, quite dishonestly, that there is no merit to most cases. These false narratives, in turn, are picked up and repeated by the media, usually without critical examination.
Like the “Big Lie,” they eventually develop “a life of their own” simply by repetition. When occasionally “caught in action” by Article IIIs, the resulting backlog bolstering remands and “restarts” are inevitably blamed on the individuals (the victims), rather than the systematic Government incompetence that is truly responsible!
The truth is quite different from the DOJ/DHS myths.Over the years, despite facing a chronically unfair system intentionally skewed against them, some hostile or poorly qualified Immigration Judges and Appellate IJs, and wildly inconsistent results on similar cases before different judges (so-called “Refugee Roulette”), asylum seekers have won from 30% to more than 50% of the time when they actually receive an opportunity for a full, individual merits determination of their claims.
But, getting that individual hearing has proved challenging in a system that constantly puts expediency and enforcement before due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity! No matter how the Government tries to hide it, that means that there lots of bona fide asylum seekers out there whose cases are languishing in a broken system.
The creation of the USCIS Asylum Office was supposed to be a way of dealing with this issue through so-called affirmative applications and “quick approvals” of meritorious cases. But, during the Trump Administration even that flawed system was intentionally and maliciously “dumbed down,” “de-functionalized,” “re-prioritized,” and hopelessly backlogged. It was so bad that the Asylum Officers’ Union actually sued the Trump Administration for acting illegally.
More “gimmicks” like Garland’s failed “dedicated dockets” won’t fix his dysfunctional system. Fundamental leadership, personnel, substantive quality, procedural, and “cultural” changes are necessary to address backlogs while achieving due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Ironically, that was once the “EOIR Vision.” ⚖️ It’s too bad, actually tragic, Garland doesn’t share it!🤯
Under Trump, asylum seekers sent to Mexico were often confused and adrift, unsure how to find legal help or return for their U.S. court appointments. They were visible on the streets of Mexican border cities and were easy targets for criminal gangs.
Marysol Castro, an attorney with El Paso’s Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services who provides legal aid to asylum seekers in MPP, said the program’s return under Biden was a “relief” to some, “because otherwise if you go to the border you’re getting expelled” under Title 42.
Castro said new enrollees in MPP have court dates with fast-tracked hearings, unlike asylum seekers who were placed into the program under Trump and are still stuck in Mexico “with no hope.”
Mexican authorities say they received assurances from the Biden administration that migrants placed in MPP would have improved access to legal counsel. But despite the vastly lower numbers, there is still far more demand for pro bono legal services than nonprofit groups and charities can provide, Castro said.
More than two-thirds of MPP returns under Biden have been sent to Ciudad Juárez, where they are provided secure transportation through a State Department contract with the U.N. International Organization for Migration. The Mexican government houses them in a shelter set up in a converted warehouse in an industrial area of the city.
“The shelters are more restrictive,” said Victor Hugo Lopez, a Mexican official who helps oversee the program. “The migrants can request permits to go outside, but we try to keep them safe by keeping them inside.”
Dana Graber Ladek, the IOM chief of mission in Mexico, said her organization continues to oppose MPP on principle, even as it’s working with both governments to ameliorate conditions for those sent back.
“It still has a tremendous amount of negative impacts,” she said. “It’s not how asylum is supposed to work.”
Representation remains a problem, but also an opportunity, just as Nolan Rappaport said on The Hill! Fortunately, Professor Michele Pistone has been thinking in advance and has built a “scalable” program (VIISTA-Villanova) that already is turning out qualified grads who can become accredited representatives and could quickly be expanded. By coordinating scheduling of hearings with nationwide NGOs and pro bono groups and “leveraging” resources that might be available to get pro bono resources to the border without overtaxing them elsewhere with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), the representation problem can be solved.
One good sign is that cases of those likely to be granted, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, have been prioritized which can help move dockets forward while reducing resource-wasting appeals and petitions for review. But, there is much more “low hanging fruit” here to be harvested, in my view:
Also prioritize many Haitian cases, domestic violence cases from Latin America, and family-based cases which, if represented and documented, should be relatively straightforward grants;
Replace the BIA with judges who are asylum experts and will issue the necessary positive guidance on granting asylum that will move dockets, promote consistency, and reduce appeals;
Why ignore the “waiting for Godot” cases left over from Trump’s intentionally “built to fail” program? Get them represented and scheduled for hearings;
End the failing and totally misguided “Dedicated Dockets” at EOIR. Instead, treat the MPP as the “Dedicated Docket;”
To keep backlog from further building, use ideas from the “Chen-Markowitz” plan to remove two “hopelessly aged” cases from the EOIR backlog docket for every MPP case “prioritized.” This could also free up some representation time. Go from ADRto “Rational Docket Management” (“RDM”), closely coordinated with the private bar and DHS!
Finally, keep in mind that directly contrary to the babbling of Paxton and other ignorant GOP White Nationalists, the purpose of asylum law is protection, not rejection! And, the generous standard of proof for asylum, recognized by the Supremes 35years ago, combined with existing regulatory presumptions of future persecution based on past persecution should, if honestly and expertly applied, favor asylum applicants (even if that hasn’t been true in practice). The U.S. legal system is supposed to be about guaranteeing due process fundamental fairness, and achieving justice, not to serve as a “deterrent,” “punishment,” or “enforcement tool.”
In the case of MPP, everyone in the program has already passed initial credible fear or reasonable fear screening!That means with well-qualified Immigration Judges possessing asylum expertise, new expert BIA judges, competent representation, and a focus on insuring justice by DHS Counsel, many, probably the majority of the MPP cases should be grants of asylum of other protection.
That will help clean out the camps, while addressing the serious “immigration deficit” that was engineered by Trump and Miller. It also allows refugees to become contributing members of our society, rather than rotting away and squandering their human potential in squalid camps in Mexico!
To date, most MPP cases havebeen denied with questionable due process, little obvious expertise, and a complete lack of positive, practical guidance by the BIA. This strongly suggests severe shortcomings and bias in the DHS/DOJ implementation of Remain in Mexico (“MPP”). But, it’s never too late to do better!
The Post article suggests that there have been some modest improvements in MPP under Biden. It’s time to take those to another level! The ideas and tools are out there. All that’s missing is the dynamic leadership, teamwork, and competent, creative., due-process-focused focused management.
“After Adan de Jesus Tomas-Ramos, a citizen and native of Guatemala, reentered the United States illegally in 2018, a removal order previously entered against him was reinstated. But because Tomas-Ramos expressed a fear of returning to Guatemala, an asylum officer conducted a screening interview to determine whether he reasonably feared persecution or torture in his home country. The asylum officer determined that Tomas-Ramos failed to establish a reasonable fear of such harm, and so was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concurred with that determination. Tomas-Ramos now petitions for review of the IJ’s order on two grounds. He first contends that the IJ’s finding that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture was erroneous. We agree. The primary ground for the IJ’s decision was that there was no “nexus” between the harm Tomas-Ramos faced and a protected ground. But the agency incorrectly applied the statutory nexus requirement. Instead, the record compels the conclusion that Tomas-Ramos was persecuted on account of a protected ground, in the form of his family ties. And in light of that error, we cannot determine that the other reason given by the IJ for her decision – that Tomas-Ramos could avoid harm by relocating – was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the agency’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Michael D. Lieberman, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Stacy M. Kim, Paul F. Brinkman, and Michael A. Francus!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
**********************
DOJ’s error-studded performance (or lack thereof) in this case is disgraceful!
I guarantee that there are plenty of other unjust, legally defectivereasonable fear and credible fear decisions where these came from. Just most folks never get any meaningful judicial review.
Both the IJ and the AO got the basics of nexus and the applicable 4th Circuit case law totally wrong here. How are is this acceptable performance from what are supposed to be “expert” courts? Why hasn’t Garland brought in real experts, committed to due process and best practices, to take charge and straighten out this mess?
Disturbingly, the Biden Administration wants to turn this type of clearly inadequate procedure with poorly trained officers and judges and incorrect applications of the law loose on the merits determinations for all asylum seekers at the border!
Rather than being a check on bad judges, Garland’s OIL continues to “defend the indefensible” with arguments that don’t meet “the straight-face test.” Aren’t ethical codes equally applicable to Government lawyers?
Worse yet, Garland continues to unethically defend the scofflaw behavior of the Biden Administration by using a Stephen Miller era “COVID pretext” to deny most asylum seekers at the Southern Border any process, even the pathetic one used here!
The “wheels have come off” @ Garland’s DOJ and he’s driving on the axel hubs! When is someone going to pull him over and make him fix it?
Believe it or not, these are life or death cases! ☠️ Why is Garland allowed to treat the lives and rights of migrants and those associated with them so frivolously?
The IJ’s attempt to bar the R’s attorney from participating in the “credible fear” review is ridiculous! It shows the deep problems in Garland’s broken system which too often is deaf to due process, hostile to attorneys, and immune from common sense and best practices! Why would the “default” for regulatory silence be “no participation” rather than a “strong presumption that attorneys can fully participate?” What kind of “court” bars attorneys from speaking for their clients? Why would any judge not want to listen to attorneys, who are there to help them make correct decisions? The IJ’s conduct here was particularly egregious given that she had already made a clearly wrong decision before cutting off the attorney’s attempt to point out her errors! What a complete farce that Garland has failed to address!
This is another case where Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee with solid conservative credentials, once thought to be a possible contender for the “ACB seat,” joined her colleagues (Judge Harris and Chief Judge Gregory) to overturn a wrong, anti-immigrant decision by EOIR. Her approach in this and another recent case shows more sensitivity to due process, scholarship, and the rights of individual immigrants than many decisions emanating from Biden’s Immigration Courts under Garland.
I’m not suggesting that Judge R is necessarily going to become a leading defender of due process for immigrants. But, based on these somewhat random “snippets,” she seems more “reachable” and open to sound arguments on the issues than some other Trump appointees, points worth keeping in mind for NDPA advocates!
She’s also young. So, she will be reviewing immigration cases and making law for decades to come.
“Aires Daniel Benros Da Graca petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirming his order of removal and denying his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Because we find that a conviction under Rhode Island General Laws (“RIGL”) § 31-9-1 is not categorically a theft offense, we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings.”
“Appellant Imad Jaffal, born in Jordan, seeks a declaration that he is entitled to derivative U.S. citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). That statute provides that “a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child’s parents are legally separated.” Jaffal’s father was naturalized when Jaffal was seventeen years old, and Jaffal presented evidence to the District Court that he was in the sole legal custody of his father when his father was naturalized and his parents were separated. The District Court, however, declined to accept Jaffal’s evidence of his parents’ divorce. Because we conclude that was error, we will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the matter with instructions to issue a judgment declaring Jaffal to be a national of the United States.”
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Torresen’s decision inDa Garcia v. Garland:
Despite this apparent disconnect between RIGL § 31-9-1 and the Board’s definition of theft offense, the Board in Da Graca’s case determined that to prove the statute’s overbreadth, the Petitioner was required to identify actual cases in which Rhode Island had enforced the statute against de minimis deprivations of ownership interests. Da Graca contests the Board’s imposition of an actual case requirement and argues that he “need not necessarily proffer specific examples of Rhode Island prosecutions in order to establish a ‘realistic probability’ that the state would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” We agree with Da Graca.
Essentially, Garland’s BIA “makes it up as it goes along” to reach a denial, then Prelogar’s DOJ attorneys defend the illegal result. Sounds like a really bad system, lacking accountability, expertise, common sense, and, sometimes, professional responsibility.
Lest you think that the legal nonsense being produced by Garland’s BIA and the USCIS is “below Prelogar’s radar screen” in her exulted position, that’s NOT true! Every adverse decision suffered by the USG must be reported to the SG’s Office with an analysis and recommendations from the agency’s attorneys, the litigators who handled the case, the appellate section of litigating division (here the Civil Division), and the SG’s staff. No appeal, petition for rehearing en banc, or petition for cert. can be filed without the express authorization of the SG’s Office.
So, Prelogar is well aware of the bad positions, unfairness, and poor work product DOJ attorneys are defending (sometimes with a lack of candor or misleading the courts) and their abuses of the time of the Article IIIs.
Even with the “real” (Article III) Federal Courts moving markedly to the right (following four years of Trump-McConnell appointments and eight years of lackadaisical performance by the Obama Administration), and rules that strongly favor the Government on judicial review, DOJ’s haphazard performance under Garland and Prelogar continues to earn a stream of avoidable “kickbacks” from the Article IIIs. The DOJ system is broken in many places — EOIR is just the most obvious, most pressing, and most easily addressed area of failure.
At the same time they acknowledge but downplay the existential crippling effects of Garland’s failure to bring progressive reforms to EOIR, his defense of disgraceful, immoral, and inhumane “Miller Lite” positions in Federal Court, his intentional indifference to human suffering and the complete breakdown of the rule of law at our borders, and his disdain for removing the Trump enablers, deadwood, and poor lawyers from DOJ — at all levels.
I have a radically different perspective on the future of meaningful progressive immigration reforms, based on my nearly 50 years of involvement with the system on both sides and at all levels — more than most folks.
There will be no meaningful, sustainable immigration reforms without a radically reformed, remade, Immigration Court system with a judiciary of due-process-oriented progressive experts who have the courage to “speak truth to power,” stand up for the legal, constitutional, and human right of the most vulnerable, and put integrity, humanity, and the best interests of our nation above career advancement, survival, or “ingratiation with the powers that be.” That’s NOT Garland’s DOJ — which remains largely the out of control, often ethically challenged morass that he inherited from his predecessors.
Let’s not forget that through intentional misuse of precedents, weaponization of EOIR, and White Nationalist litigation strategies, Jeff Sessions was able to largely disable the entire asylum system, including USCIS Asylum Offices, and shift USCIS Adjudications from service to “enforcement only,” in preparation for the “final eradication” of asylum and crippling of our entire legal immigration system by his crony and former subordinate, Stephen Miller. And, the folks who helped him do that and “went along to go along” with abuses are still largely on board and in key positions in Garland’s DOJ — actually operating with his apparent “stamp of approval.” Outrageous!
From a due process, human rights, progressive, good government, equal justice, racial equality standpoint, as well as from any aspect of moral leadership on fundamental values, Garland’s performance at DOJ has been unacceptable. Has Garland visited any of the camps in Mexico or gone to the “New American Gulag” to witness first-hand the human carnage for which he is responsible? Heck no! That’s a job for progressive experts whose input and advice he then shuns, ignores, and “tunes out!”
For progressive advocates to downplay the Biden Administration’s gross failures or “over-cheer” incremental progress that means little without fundamental reforms at EOIR and the DOJ only deepens the fecklessness of their own positions and furthers the disrespect and under-appreciation of their efforts, potential power, and value that has become an endemic feature of the Democratic Party.
The Biden Administration might talk a good game, particularly around election time; but, in reality, they are governing largely in fear of and like nativist Republicans — but getting no “political return” whatsoever for betraying their supposed values and their base (see, Catherine Rampell). Advocates reward and tolerate such disgraceful and intellectually dishonest conduct at their own peril!
Meanwhile, Suzanne Clark, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, certainly no “progressive shill,” speaks truth about the need for and our ability to accept more immigrants:
Allowing more immigrants into the US would help mitigate both soaring inflation and the current labor shortage, the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said.
“We need more workers,” Suzanne Clark told reporters Tuesday, per CNN. “We should welcome people who want to come here, go to school, and stay.”
“That is a place the government could be particularly helpful and we do believe it would be anti-inflationary,” she said, per CNN.
Those immigrants are right in front of us: rotting in camps at the border, being returned to danger or death with no process — both as a result of Garland’s failure to re-establish our legal asylum system at the border — or languishing in Garland’s mushrooming 1.6 million Immigration Court backlog!It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see that instead of wasting time, money, and resources on mindless “enforcement” intended to deter and discourage those who might help us by helping themselves, we should have set up fair and timely processing systems, staffed by experts, that would identify the many individuals at the border and already in the U.S. who can qualify to remain under fair and properly generous interpretations of asylum law, withholding, CAT, U & T visas, “stateside processing waivers,” cancellation of removal” (for those already here), TPS, and other possibilities.
This is just as much”law enforcement” and “maintaining the integrity of our system” as are the efforts to increase deportations, terrorize communities, or close borders to “deter” migrants (primarily those of color) that has been practiced to some degree by every Administration. It also makes sense, economically, practically, and ethically.
It starts with an Attorney General and DOJ with the courage and vision to end the “deterrence only” misconstruction of our laws and stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants, regardless of race, color, creed, or manner of entry. That’s not what Garland has been doing to date! Too bad, because there will be no resolution of immigration issues — nor will there be racial justice in America — without an AG who will stand up for the real rule of law rather than the parody of the law and justice purveyed by Miller and his White Nationalists and still being parroted and too often defended by Garland and his minions.
The “Gauleiter”s” policies of “transportation” of legal asylum seekers to danger zones or death has, to a totally unacceptable extent, been adopted by the Biden Administration. America’s cowardly, immoral, illegal, and unethical treatment of these vulnerable individuals will haunt our nation for generations to come! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.
According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.
However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.
The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021
Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.
Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.
Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.
Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.
. . . .
Outcome on Asylum Cases
Number
Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ
249,413
26%
Other Relief, etc.
236,889
24%
Removal Order
403,252
42%
Voluntary Departure Order
77,998
8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions
967,552
100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ
599,772
46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ
236,889
18%
Removal Order by IJ
403,252
31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ
77,998
6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions
1,317,911
100%
. . . .
****************
Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.
Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!
And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”
Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.
The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.
There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!
Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.
Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”
Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?
Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:
Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)
On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!
Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.
In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.
Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!
🎅🏻🎁🧸🎄😇“Happy Holidays from the U.S. Government! Don’t these folks know they could avoid this fate if they only would take our advice and ‘due in place’ — out of sight, out of mind.” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
Arelis R. Hernandez Southern Border Reporter Washington Post
EL PASO — Chaos, confusion and disillusionment marked the experience of many of the first asylum seekers to be enrolled in the Biden administration’s revised “Remain in Mexico” program, saying they understood little about what was happening or why they were selected.
The Trump-era program — formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) — returns border-crossers to Mexico to await the outcomes of their asylum claims and resumed earlier this month under court order. Although the Biden administration said it has made changes to the program that make it more humane, several of the first enrollees interviewed by The Washington Post said they did not understand documents they were asked to sign, did not have access to lawyers and were puzzled about why they were not released along with some of their compatriots.
Three men — two from Nicaragua and one from Venezuela — who were among the more than 160 migrants enrolled so far, said they had been robbed or extorted before crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The men, who were fleeing political persecution, said they hoped for relief in the United States, but instead felt as if they had won a raffle they never entered.
“I told the asylum officer I’d rather be in a U.S. detention center than be sent back to Mexico,” said Pedro, a 27-year-old asylum seeker from Nicaragua. “It’s dangerous for us.”
(The Washington Post is identifying the men only by their first names because they fear they might jeopardize their cases by speaking publicly.)
Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is still trying to terminate MPP, even though it was ordered to reimplement it by a federal judge. The administration lost an appeal of the ruling this week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Louisiana upheld the lower court decision. The circuit court order said the Biden administration erred when it issued a memo earlier this year terminating the program, “affecting billions of dollars and countless people.” The program, which is in effect in one border community and accepting only men, will soon expand to six more communities and could soon include families.
[‘Remain in Mexico’ program begins in El Paso amid skepticism from advocates]
Advocates say that MPP subjects migrants to a policy as hazardous to their lives as the reasons that prompted them to flee to the United States for protection. They say the revised version of the program is as flawed as it was under the Trump administration, when the New York-based nonprofit Human Rights First tracked more than 1,500 “violent attacks” against migrants.
“The Biden administration’s revamped ‘Remain in Mexico’ is already presenting security and due process concerns we saw under the Trump administration,” said Julia Neusner, who interviewed 16 MPP enrollees for Human Rights First. “I anticipate this process will deny people their due process rights and accessing counsel. This policy is inherently dangerous and I expect it to cause tremendous suffering as the rollout expands.”
. . . .
*******************
Read the full article at the link.
”Let ‘Em Die In Mexico!” What a thoughtful way for the world’s richest and most powerful nation to recognize and honor the birth of Christ. Doubt that Jesus would approve, though! He’d more likely be found among the “floaters” than with the arrogant, privileged, inhumane politicos and judges who came up with this idea and then enabled it!
Completely unnecessary! The incoming Biden Administration had the blueprints to reestablish due process and the rule of law at the border and to start robust, realistic, expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries. The practical human rights/immigration experts who could have pulled it off were out there.
The Administration could have “hit the ground running” with bold innovative actions, practical expert leadership, and a show of competence and humanity. But, they didn’t!
Instead, Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland dissed the progressive experts, ignored their recommendations, and froze them out of key judicial and leadership positions, preferring instead to use modified versions of “proven to fail deterrence-only programs” administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers. (There is an important legal doctrine of “mixed motive” that politicos, bureaucrats, and bad judges often choose to ignore when it suits them.)
Not surprisingly, this ridiculous, muddled “Miller Lite” approach has been spectacularly unsuccessful! Predictably, flows of desperate refugees, generated largely by circumstances outside our immediate control (contrary to restrictionist myths reinforced by some enforcement aficionados and mindlessly repeated by some mainstream media) have continued. Humans have continued to needlessly suffer and die. Backlogs have grown without credible plans to address them. The rule of law and the U.S. justice system (led by failed Immigration Courts, but also including poorly functioning and too often “brain dead” jurists at all levels of the Federal Judiciary) has continued to flounder and lose credibly. The “die in place and never darken our doors” message delivered by Gauleiter Miller and his acolytes, cluelessly repeated by VP Harris, hasn’t convinced anyone. Would YOU basically accept an invitation to “commit slow suicide by persecution rather than taking a chance on survival.”
And, also predictably, nobody is pleased or supportive of the Biden Administration’s inept and disingenuous approach. From hard core racist nativists to liberal asylum advocates, nobody, but nobody, outside the Administration’s party line flackies, supports this approach! Indeed, nobody in the Administration can even explain what they are doing on any particular day in a coherent manner.
Humanity, moral courage, common sense, and the rule of law might be taking a holiday. But death and despair don’t.
“Make the record” to fight the ignorant nonsense and grotesque misconstruction of the asylum law and country conditions by the Third Circuit & far, far too many Federal Judges & Bureaucrats with this authoritative report authored by Natalie Gonnella-Platts, Jenny Villatoro, and Laura Collins of the George W. Bush Institute:
No Justice: Gender-based Violence and Migration in Central America
Gender-based violence affects one in three women worldwide, making it an urgent and important policy challenge. Violence against women and girls is often excluded from conversations on the nexus of Central American migration, regional development, and domestic immigration reform.
Key Excerpts:
. . . .
Though there has been increasing focus from US and international influencers on the levels of violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (known as the Northern Triangle) and its impact on migration, an adequate response to the gendered differences in the ways violence is perpetrated remains limited and at times nonexistent.
This needs to change, especially since gender-based violence within the Northern Triangle constitutes a daily threat to women and girls—one that has been significantly worsened by corruption, weak institutions, and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators. At individual and community levels, gender-based violence drives women and girls to be displaced internally, migrate to the United States, or a somber third path—death either by femicide or suicide. At national levels, it seriously inhibits security, opportunity, and development.
As circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, gender-based violence has a direct influence on migration flows across the region and is deeply tangled with cyclical challenges of inequity and poverty. For those who choose to seek assistance or flee their communities, high rates of revictimization and bias further obstruct access to justice and safety.
Until policies and programs respond to the serious violations of agency and human rights perpetuated against women and girls (and within systems and society at large), instability in and migration from the Northern Triangle only stand to grow.
As the United States and the international community consider a comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform, proposed strategies must anchor the status and safety of women and girls at the center of solutions.
. . . .
In Guatemala, teenage girls face a substantial risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.7
. . . .
Guatemala: In Guatemala, about 8 of every 1,000 women and girls were the victim of violence in 2020. Thirty women were murdered on average each month last year, or almost one per day, the lowest rate in the last 10 years. Reported rape cases averaged 14 per day.17 One of the most extreme and recognizable forms of gender-based violence is sex slavery. According to a report by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and UNICEF: “A combination of gangs, crime families, and drug trafficking organizations run sex trafficking rings in Guatemala that may involve some 48,500 victims.”18
Women in Indigenous and rural communities may have it even worse. For example, Indigenous women in Guatemala face multiple layers of discrimination, including a history of repression and genocide.
During the genocidal Guatemalan civil war that lasted from 1960 to 1996, state sanctioned mass rape during massacres was used to repress the Indigenous populations—with offenses committed publicly and bodies often left on display with the intent to instill terror in the Mayan communities.19 Truth commissions state that more than 100,000 Indigenous women were raped and forced into sex slavery.20
State-sanctioned and state-accepted gendered violence may have contributed to a culture that tolerates violence against women. Guatemalans were the most accepting of gender-based violence in a 2014 survey of Latin American countries by Vanderbilt University, while El Salvador came in second.21
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the risk of violence to women and girls in the Northern Triangle, as it has in every region
of the world. Exploited by gangs and others, lock-downs have forced those most at risk for violence to shelter in proximity to their abusers. All three countries within the region have reported sizable increases in intrafamily violence since the start of the pandemic. El Salvador has also seen a notable increase in intrafamily femicide.
. . . .
Coupled with the trauma already experienced by survivors, each of these factors contributes to a lack of trust in institutions, high levels of impunity for perpetrators, and a vicious cycle of repeat violence against women and girls.
Faced with this dire reality, women and girls often have three choices: (1) report and face disbelief, (2) stay and risk additional violence, or (3) flee.
. . . .
Women and girls undertake this risky journey with no guarantee of legal protection in the United States. But they come because the horrors they face at home are so much worse.
It’s important to remember that seeking asylum
is often the only legal means that migrants who qualify have of entering the United States. Although requesting asylum is legal, the path to asylum is not
safe. An understanding of legal rights and access to services—including health, trauma, and legal support—also remain out of reach for many female migrants, furthering cycles of exploitation.
Current US refugee and asylum law does not recognize gender-based violence as its own category warranting protection. According to the American Bar Association, US protections for victims of gender-based violence are built upon 20 years of advocacy and sometimes favorable legal opinions.54 These protections are tenuous, with any presidential administration able to roll back the decisions made under its predecessor. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently reinstated prior precedent for gen- der-based violence asylum requests and announced that the Department of Justice would pursue a formal rule.55 But even this could be reversed in the future.
Until legislation enshrines gender-based violence as a condition warranting humanitarian protection, the United States will continue to turn away women and girls who merit refuge.
. . . .
The Northern Triangle, Mexico, and the United States are at a crossroads. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras can either take advantage of a young population of prime working age by promoting pol- icies that create a safe, stable environment where women and girls can fully participate, or they can continue on a path that is leading to substantial lev- els of gender-based violence, instability, migration, and economic stagnation.
As research continuously demonstrates, when empowered, active, and engaged, women and girls are a critical catalyst for security and prosperity. Countries with higher levels of gender equity are more peaceful and stable overall.66 Gender equality can provide better outcomes for children, increased labor productivity, lower poverty rates, and reduced levels of violence.67
In seeking to secure a brighter future across the Western Hemisphere, immigration and develop- ment policies must include solutions to address gender inequity and gender-based violence. As current circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, stability and prosperity are not possible without them.
*****************
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Many thanks to my good friend and “founding mother of the NDPA,” Deb Sanders for bringing this to my attention.
The Bush Institute has done some great “practical scholarship” on gender-based asylum, exposing many of the lies and misinformation upon which Government policies have been based, particularly GOP nativist policies and the overtly misogynistic attack on migrant women of color by the Trump regime.
And let’s not forget that Ms. Chavez-Chilil is actually one of the lucky ones! She got a chance to make her claim and was awarded life-saving protection by an Immigration Judge under the CAT, albeit protection that leaves her unnecessarily and perpetually “in limbo” — ineligible to fully join our society and maximize her own human potential for everyone’s benefit.
By contrast, thousands of women and girls (also men and boys) are insanely, illegally, and immorally “orbited” back to danger zones without any opportunity to even make a claim and without any legitimate process whatsoever, let alone due process!
Why this is important:
Compelling documentation and cogent arguments will win individual cases and save lives;
We can build case law precedent for gender-based asylum grants;
We must make a clear historical record of which jurists and bureaucrats stood up for the rule of law and the humanity of refugee women and which of them purposely have aligned themselves with the “dark side of history.” See, e.g., Chief Justice Roger Taney.
Why is the Biden Administration mindlessly and immorally attempting to “deter” legal asylum seekers from seeking to save their own lives? What’s the excuse for treating a moral and legal requirement under domestic and international law as a “bogus political strategy option” rather than the legal obligation it is? Why was the DOJ “pushing” a legally wrong, corrupt, factually wrong position before the Third Circuit? Where’s the expertise? The backbone? The moral courage? The accountability?
Furthermore, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday in Patel v. Garland, our amicus brief received a brief mention:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: — questions, how
10could an appellate court — and this question
11cuts both ways, so — but how can an appellate
12court look at a cold record and determine a
13factual error when it relates to credibility,
14for example, or something like that? Just give
15me some examples where this will matter, I
16guess.
17MR. FLEMING: Well, there — as the
18amici, the American Immigration Lawyers
19Association and the EOIR judges, point out, it
20— it’s not uncommon.Best, Jeff
********************
And, here’s more coverage from Human Rights First:
Courtesy Paul Ratje — AFP via Getty Images
A man sits in a migrant camp near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico.
The new version of MPP expands its focus to asylum seekers from across the hemisphere, stranding even more people seeking safety in dangerous conditions at the border.
Kennji Kizuka, Associate Director for Research and Analysis, Refugee Protection, appeared on Democracy Now! and detailed the many human rights violations faced by asylum seekers processed under the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
“It’s extraordinarily concerning that the Biden administration is not only restarting this policy but expanding it,” said Kizuka.
Human Rights First also announced the resumption of our research documenting the human rights abuses suffered by people turned away to wait in danger under MPP.
Human Rights First’s Associate Attorney, Refugee Protection Julia Neusner and Advocacy Strategist for Refugee Protection Ana Ortega Villegas are on the ground in Ciudad Juárez to monitor the first days of MPP’s reinstatement. Please follow their live updates and other reports through Human Rights First’s twitter account.
Our team’s view of the Mexican government’s
staging area in Cuidad Juárez for Remain in Mexico 2.0
Our position is gaining widespread support from those who understand the issue. The Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges condemned
MPP as the “antithesis of fairness,” concluding that there has been “no greater affront to due process, fairness and transparency,” and called for administration to “permanently end the program.”
The union for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers tasked with MPP screenings call it “irredeemably flawed.” They said that restarting MPP “makes our members complicit in violations of U.S. federal law and binding international treaty obligations of non-refoulement that they have sworn to uphold.”
******************
So proud to be a part of this group and so grateful for the leadership of colleagues like Judges Jeffrey Chase, Ilyce Shugall, Lory Rosenberg, Carol King, Joan Churchill, Denise Slavin, Sue Roy, John Gossart, Charles Honeyman, Charlie Pazar, Sarah Burr, Cecelia Espenoza, Bruce Einhorn, Tue Phan-Quang, Bob Weisel, Paul Grussendorf, Jennie Giambastini, and many, many, many others!
As an “appreciative fellow NDPA member” told me yesterday, “it’s a true team effort!“ This type of teamwork for the public good was once encouraged at EOIR and even incorporated into the “leadership vision,” but now, sadly, it has “fallen by the wayside” in what has basically become a “haste makes waste race to the bottom.”
Fortunately, the Round Table and other members of the NDPA still share a “vision of what American justice should look like” and are willing to speak up for what’s legal and right rather than just “expedient!”
Honorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired JudgesHon. Paul Grussendorf U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member, Round Table of Former IJs Author Source: Amazon.comHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
American Bar Association International Law Section
Program Spotlight: Refugees and Asylum in the U.S.
&
Review of Domestic Interpretations at Odds with International Guidance
This program will review the differences between the Refugee and Asylum processes (which includes Withholding of Removal) in order to provide clarity to new practitioners about the stark contrasts between the two U.S. refugee programs and to inform on international law compliance.
Topic 1: Contrast and compare Refugees and Asylum law and process, and
Topic 2: Compare U.S. domestic interpretations of the legal criteria of Refugees and Asylum seekers with international law and policy.
Moderator and Chair: Joan Churchill (Former Immigration Judge)
Paul Grussendorf has worked with both the refugee and asylum programs in the United States and abroad. He headed a law school legal clinic at the The George Washington University Law School representing asylum seekers, served as an Immigration Judge handling asylum cases, worked as a Supervisory Asylum Officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS], as a refugee officer with Refugee Affairs Division of USCIS, and as a refugee officer and supervisor with the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.
Topic 2: The Hon. Jeffrey Chase
Jeffrey Chase is a retired Immigration judge for New York City. He has written extensively about the inter relationship of international law sources with the U.S. national law when administering cases involving asylum and refugee applications.
He has a blog entitled Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law. He coordinates The Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges, an informal group of Retired Immigration Judges from both the trial and appellate level, who weigh in on topics relating to the administration of justice by the Immigration Court. The Round Table files amici briefs, and has issued position papers and testimony on issues affecting due process and the administration of justice by the Immigration Courts.
***************************
Many thanks to my round table friends and colleagues for putting this fantastic free program together and to the ABA International Law Section for sponsoring it!
In 1980, Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980 to bring the U.S. into compliance with the U.N. Convention & Protocol on The Status of Refugees, to which we are a signatory through the Protocol.
After some steady progress over the first two decades, today, as a result of actions taken by the last four Administrations since 2001, we are further away than ever from the goal of compliance. Bungling bureaucrats at DHS and DOJ wrongfully view large numbers of refugees and asylees as a “threat” to be “deterred,” rather than as the legal obligation and undeniable assets to our nation that they in truth are.
They fail miserably to fix systemic problems, to properly welcome refugees and asylees, and to adjudicate their claims in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and racial justice. With stunning tone deafness, they eschew the advice of experts like Judges Churchill, Grussendorf, and Chase in favor of cruel, inept, and “bad faith” gimmicks, like gross misuse of Title 42 to suspend the asylum system indefinitely without Congressional approval.
One only has to look at the evening news to see firsthand what a horrible failure these “Stephen Miller Lite” policies have been and how they ruin lives and trash the reputation of our nation. The failure of the Biden Administration to make good on its campaign promises to migrants and refugees is nothing short of a national disgrace!
The first step in holding Mayorkas, Garland, and the others responsible for this ongoing mess accountable and restoring the rule of law is to understand how the system should and could work.
Then, you will have the tools to sue the hell out of the irresponsible public officials and their bumbling bureaucrats, lobby Congress for better protections for asylum seekers, and generate outraged public opinion until the rule of law, common sense, and human decency are restored to our land! And, we can save some lives that are well worth saving in the process!
Knowledge is power! The Biden Administration’s knowledge of how to implement an efficient, practical, legal, successful asylum system would fit in a thimble with room left over! Get the “upper hand” by listening to these Round Experts!
Hello, this is Deanna Garcia with today’s edition of Early Arrival. You can email me at deanna.garcia@documentedny.com.
Do you know anyone who would find this information useful? Please, forward it.
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for this newsletter here.
NJ Immigrant Detainees Worried About Transfers as ICE Contracts End
📍 Documented Original
As New Jersey jails began to terminate their contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency has started sending immigrant detainees to other jails in the U.S., further away from their families and friends. ICE told lawyers that the agency can’t release their clients because it considers them a public safety threat, even though majority of them are imprisoned over unresolved charges for nonviolence crimes. This action indicates the power ICE has on where and how immigrant detainees are being held. “We all hoped that ICE would use its discretion to release,” said Ellen Pachnanda, the attorney in charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project. “As long as ICE retains this discretion to transfer, they will transfer.” Read more at Documented.
Documented is the only newsroom that creates journalism with and for New York’s immigrant communities. This work is not easy and it is not cheap. Help us fuel this work for $10/month.
AOC Revives Citizenship Bill for 9/11 Cleanup Crew
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and two other legislators reintroduced a federal bill to put immigrants who helped clean up after the 9/11 attacks on a fast track to U.S. citizenship. The 9/11 Immigrant Worker Freedom Act is an adjusted version of a bill that former Rep. Joseph Crowley introduced in 2017, which didn’t advance to the House. New York immigrants have asked for years to obtain legal immigrant status as compensation for the work they did and health problems they’ve suffered since the attacks. Several dozens are still protesting, while others gave up on fighting. The Associated Press
New Jersey Haitian Leaders Protest Deportations
Haitian community leaders and immigrant advocates gathered outside of a federal immigration office to protest the Biden administration deporting thousands of Haitian migrants under Title 42. The group of 50 people demanded that President Joe Biden allow more Haitians to seek asylum in the U.S. “These people just want to work and find a better way of life. We’re speaking in Newark because this city is a bedrock for New Jersey’s Haitian population,” said the Rev. Jean Maurice of the New Jersey Haitian Pastors Organization. According to U.S. Census data, New Jersey has roughly 60,000 Haitian residents. North Jersey
Advocates Rally Again for Schumer to Ensure a Pathway to Citizenship
For the last few weeks, immigrant advocates have been demanding Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to work to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. On Friday, that demand continued at Schumer’s Peekskill office. Immigrants and advocates said they help Democrats gain power in Washington, so now they want Schumer to work for them. “We’ve delivered that control to the Democrats, so we feel that the Democrats have to deliver the promise that they’ve made us and make sure that citizenship is being included in this year’s reconciliation package,” said Peekskill City Councilor Vanessa Agudelo. Advocates said they’re in talks with Schumer’s office and will continue the pressure. News12 the Bronx
ICE Investigation Discovered Falsified Documents of Immigrant’s Suicide
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s External Reviews and Analysis Unit, medical and security staff at Stewart Detention Center in Georgia violated several agency rules when handling Efraín Romero de la Rosa’s suicide in 2018. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and committed suicide after being in solitary for 21 days. The review discovered staff falsified documents, poorly dealt with his medication, didn’t follow proper care procedures and improperly placed him in disciplinary solitary confinement, even though there were multiple warnings of his declining mental health. The review also lists 22 separate violations of ICE and Stewart Detention Center rules by staff during Romero de la Rosa’s four months in detention and eight separate “areas of concern.” The Intercept
Migrant Caravan Breaks Mexican National Guard Roadblock
Roughly between 3,000 and 4,000 migrants left the U.S.-Mexico border city of Tapachula on Saturday morning and headed to Mexico City. Caravan organizers say that will be their last stop while they continue to attempt to secure humanitarian permits for Haitians andCentral and North American migrants to move freely throughout Mexico. But some migrants said they plan on going to the southern border as part of their push. Videos on social media show the caravan recently ran into a Mexican National Guard roadblock and broke through it, with soldiers making no attempts to pursue or draw weapons against them. Border Report
California Hires Border Wall Contractor to Screen, Test and Vaccinate Migrants
California Gov. Gavin Newsom hired Sullivan Land Services Co. to screen, test and vaccinate migrants for COVID-19 at the border. SLSCO, based in Galveston, Texas, received a no-bid $350 million contract from California. This was the same company former President Donald Trump used to build the border wall along the border. Newsom had criticized the border wall and even pushed to file several lawsuits to halt its construction. According to a report, SLSCO staff gave COVID-19 services to about 60,000 migrants at five locations. Immigration advocates and health care leaders aren’t happy about the state’s partnership with SLSCO. KXAN
Child Allowed into U.S. for Urgent Cancer Treatment and Given Humanitarian Parole
Carlitos, a 2-year-old boy from Guatemala, was allowed to enter the U.S. from Tijuana in an ambulance. According to his attorney Hollie Webb, his story of kidnapping, expulsion, lack of access to medical care and a serious illness that without proper treatment could kill him, provided him with a rare outcome. Attorneys and doctors campaigned U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to allow Carlitos and his mother, Ana, to cross into San Diego under a humanitarian parole to give him cancer treatment. CBP granted the request after an inquiry from The San Diego Union-Tribune. The two crossed into the U.S. Thursday evening to a hospital in San Diego. The San Diego Union-Tribune
Just like elsewhere in the U.S., Georgia is facing labor shortages as its economy recovers from the pandemic. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has been meeting to figure out how Georgia’s immigrants can help solve this problem and contribute to the state’s economy. They spoke with industry leaders and immigration advocates to learn what prevents immigrants from maximizing their participation in the workforce. According to Darlene Lynch, a representative of Georgia’s Business & Immigration Partnership, about 1 in 5 foreign-born Georgians with college degrees are either unemployed or employed in a low-wage job, which costs the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue per year. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Biden Allowing Private Groups to Sponsor Afghan Evacuees, Small USCIS Staff Tackling Humanitarian Requests, Arizona Mayor Claims Migration Stresses Local Services
The Biden administration plans on revealing a program Monday that would let private groups sponsor Afghan evacuees and assist their resettlement in the U.S., three sources familiar with the plan told CBS News. According to a presentation describing the plan, groups of about five individuals could apply to become “sponsor circles” that would help Afghan refugees secure housing, basic necessities, financial support, legal counsel and medical services for about 90 days. This program would become an alternative to the traditional refugee resettlement process, which is overseen by nine national agencies and their local affiliates. The “Sponsor Circle Program,” a joint initiative between the Department of State and the Community Sponsorship Hub, oversees online applications from potential sponsors and helps connect them with refugees. CBS News
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services allocated just six employees to process roughly 14,000 humanitarian requests for Afghan evacuees seeking relocation last week, drawing condemnation from lawmakers. “That is completely and utterly unacceptable, and I call on USCIS to address the shortcoming immediately,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, (D-R.I.). As of Friday, that number jumped to close to 20,000 requests, which is 10 times more than the number of humanitarian applications submitted around the world in a typical year, said a USCIS official. In response to Langevin’s criticism, the USCIS official said the agency is assigning additional staff for the workload. VOA News
Yuma, Arizona, Mayor Douglas Nicholls (R) told a Washington, D.C. forum that the increase of undocumented immigrants is stressing health care and nonprofits that assist migrants in his town. “As these (migrant) numbers continue to increase, it’s going to be beyond their capability,” he said. “From that perspective we have real concern about our health care system holding up, our nonprofit system holding up, and even our economy.” His comments come as apprehensions of immigrants at the southern border are at their highest numbers in decades. Immigration advocates say those numbers can be misleading since they might represent one migrant who was stopped multiple times. They also argued that nonprofits were under stress due to the pandemic before immigration numbers increased in Trump’s last year in office. AZMirror
Documented, PO Box 250250, New York, NY 10025, United States
*************************
Recently, I wrote about the heroic efforts of my friends Processor Erin Barbato and the UW Law Immigration Clinic and Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr and the Cornell Law Immigration Clinic to help Afghan refugees, including assistance filing applications for “humanitarian parole.”
I also questioned the unusually high $575 fee being charged by USCIS for these emergency humanitarian applications! Now, we find out that for this outrageously high fee, USCIS has assigned only a “skeletal staff” of six adjudicators to process those very predictable applications.Undoubtedly, that will result in unnecessary backlogs and processing delays.
Ur Mendoza Jaddou Director, USCIS PHOTO: PotomacLaw.com
These are the types of “X’s & O’s” practical problems that USCIS Director Ur Jaddou was hired to fix. So, she needs to “get on the stick” and fix this NOW!
A drastic increase in humanitarian parole applications and backlogs was totally predictable. Why is it only getting attention after it becomes a problem and draws public criticism?
They raped women, burned homes and killed dozens of people, including children, chopping up their bodies with machetes and throwing their remains to pigs.The gruesome massacre three years ago, considered the worst in Haiti in decades, was more than the work of rival gangs fighting over territory. It was organized by senior Haitian officials, who provided weapons and vehicles to gang members to punish people in a poor area protesting government corruption, the U.S. Treasury Department announced last year.
Since then, Haiti’s gang members have grown so strong that they rule swaths of the country. The most notorious of them, a former police officer named Jimmy Cherizier, known as Barbecue, fashions himself as a political leader, holding news conferences, leading marches and, this week, even parading around as a replacement for the prime minister in the violent capital.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of this gruesome, yet telling, report at the link.
Over 21 years on the Immigration Bench as both a trial and appellate judge, I adjudicated thousands of asylum claims. The circumstances described on this article undoubtedly would give rise to many potentially valid asylum and withholding claims, based on actual or implied political opinion and/or family or gender-based “particular social groups” and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) grants based on torture with government acquiescence or actual connivance!
So, how do Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland, who to my knowledge have never represented an asylum applicant or adjudicated an individual asylum case among them, “get away” with simply suspending the rule of law, under false pretenses, for those entitled to seek asylum?
Stephen Miller must be on “Cloud Nine” as Biden & Co. carry out his White Nationalist plans to eradicate asylum, particularly when it protects women and people of color! This is even as Miller and his neo-Nazi cohorts (a/k/a “America First Legal”) are gearing up to sue the Biden Administration to block every measure that might aid immigrants, particularly those of color.
He’s delighted with Biden’s abuse of asylum seekers of color! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
NGOs don’t share the Biden Administration’s vision of what a “safe” Haiti looks like. Neither do kidnapped American missionaries! PHOTO: Marcelo Casal, Jr., Creative Commons License
Angering and alienating your potential allies and supporters to aid the far-right program of your enemies who are determined to do whatever it takes to undermine, discredit, and destroy your Presidency! Obviously, I’m no political expert. But, sure sounds like an incredibly stupid, “designed to fail” strategy to me!
Cornell Law Students and Professors Assist Afghans at Risk
By Alexandra Eguiluz
October 19, 2021
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Email
The National Lawyers Guild and the International Refugee Assistance Project chapters at Cornell Law School, along with two professors and over three dozen law students, are volunteering to help Afghans seeking humanitarian parole in the United States. The recent turmoil in Afghanistan caused by the withdrawal of American troops and the takeover of the Taliban has forced many individuals into hiding and fearing for their lives, especially if they helped the U.S. military, government contractors, or Western aid groups.
Law student volunteers, Amy Godshall ’23 (far left), Jason Steuerwald ’23, Ethan Taveras ’23, and Matt Nelson ’23 (far right) preparing to mail the eleven cases they filed during the first week of October.
Humanitarian parole is a rarely used avenue in U.S. immigration law that allows individuals to come to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has been closed, leaving Afghans with no option but to either leave Afghanistan and begin humanitarian procedures in another country or stay in Afghanistan and have a family member or friend in the United States sponsor them. Almost all of the individuals who are receiving legal assistance on their humanitarian parole applications at the Law School are currently in Afghanistan.
Cornell Law students Ethan Taveras ’23, Amy Godshall ’23, Jason Steuerwald ’23, and Victoria (Tori) Staley ’23 are spearheading the project, which involves fifty law students who are volunteering their time and efforts. Aside from gathering paperwork from the families and filing cases, all four law students are also working on training other law student volunteers. Professors Stephen Yale-Loehr, director of the Asylum and Convention Against Torture Clinic, and Beth Lyon, associate dean for experiential education and clinical program director, are volunteering their time to supervise the law students.
“Currently there are about seventy active humanitarian parole cases we’re working on. Jason and Amy just filed a case for eleven people,” said Staley.
Although the project is in its initial stages, the students are facing some challenges, including high application fees ($575 per applicant), gathering evidence from individuals in hiding or separated from their identification documents, compiling all the documentation required for the application, and uncertainty with how long the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will take to decide on the applications. All these challenges, particularly the last one, are currently leaving Afghan applicants “waiting, without knowing whether they should leave Afghanistan or not,” said Godshall.
Despite these challenges, most of the students have been able to speak directly with the Afghan clients and their sponsors. Some clients or sponsors speak English; in other cases, the students are using the translation feature in WhatsApp. “We hope to file another chunk of cases in the next few weeks,” said Staley.
******************
Thanks, Steve, to you and your students for all they are doing for humanity and American justice!
I must say that for USCIS to charge each refugee $575 for the humanitarian parole application seems rather “Trumpian.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
KEY EXCERPT:
III.E. Limitation on Immigration Judge Review
We strongly oppose the proposal to severely restrict the right of those denied asylum by USCIS to a full de novo merits hearing before an Immigration Judge.Given these significant increases in efficiency mentioned above, the proposed restrictions are unnecessary to reduce the backlog.Regardless, even if EOIR and DHS disagree with this assessment, regulations may neither contradict the Congressional intent of statutes they seek to interpret, nor deny due process in the name of efficiency.Yet the proposed rule would violate both of these principles in the changes they propose to the Immigration Court procedures.
EOIR and DHS claim that the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), requiring “further consideration of the application for asylum” to those found to have a credible fear of persecution, is ambiguous.In fact, the legislative history of that statute demonstrates that Congress intended for all of those found to possess a credible fear of persecution to be afforded full Immigration Court hearings. At a 1996 hearing on the bill, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) assured that “[a] specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the [noncitizen] is found to have a ‘credible fear of persecution,’ he or she will be provided a full—full—asylum hearing.”EOIR and DHS are asked to note Sen. Simpson’s repetition of the word “full.”
This same sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,” and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”The regulatory proposal is thus improperly violative of Congressional intent.
As to due process, in a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids.
The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.”Our own experience supports this conclusion.Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.
Having heard as Immigration Judges many cases referred from the Asylum Office, we believe that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys were free to offer documents and briefs, and to present testimony as they saw fit, was the reason for the large disparity in outcomes. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why asylum officers, who need not be attorneys, are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law.
We can vouch from our experience on the bench to the importance of hearing live testimony in reaching the correct decision.We decided many cases in which in-person demeanor observations were instrumental to our credibility findings.Credibility is often a threshold issue in applications for asylum and related relief.In 2005, Congress specifically amended the criteria Immigration Judges may rely on in deciding credibility.While those criteria include their observations of the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness” (observations which cannot be made unless testimony is witnessed), there is no provision in the statute for reaching credibility findings by reviewing an asylum officer’s opinion on the topic.The court in Oshodi cited language in a House conference report on the REAL ID Act of 2005, containing the following quote: “An immigration judge alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluation of testimonial evidence. He [or she] is, by virtue of his [or her] acquired skill, uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.”
We can also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension.
Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes.Some of us teach trial advocacy skills to immigration attorneys, where we emphasize the importance of attorneys formulating a theory of their case, and then presenting documentary evidence and testimony in a manner best designed to support that theory.During our time on the bench, we looked forward to hearing well-presented claims from competent counsel; good attorneys increased efficiency, and usually led us to reach better decisions.And as former asylum officers have indicated that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, questioning in support of such theory will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
But under the proposed procedures, attorneys are largely relegated to passive observer status.At asylum office interviews, attorneys are only provided a brief opportunity to speak after the interview has been completed.And in cases referred to the Immigration Court, the new restrictions may prevent attorneys from presenting any testimony at all.
As to the criteria that must be met in order to supplement the record before the Immigration Judge, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.
******************************
Read our full commentary,, including some parts of the proposal we endorse, here:
Many, many, many thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for collecting the “sentiments of the group” and preparing these cogent comments under extreme pressure!
