"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
One month after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued his cruel, misguided decision in Matter of A-B-, we are seeing the first signs of how the decision is being implemented by the BIA, USCIS, and ICE.
There is no question that Sessions’ intent was to eliminate domestic violence and gang violence as bases for asylum. How can I be so certain of this? While Matter of A-B- was pending before him, Sessions told a Phoenix radio station in March: “We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence, therefore they are entitled to enter the United States. Well, that’s obviously false but some judges have gone along with that.” (here’s the link: https://ktar.com/story/2054280/ag-jeff-sessions-says-closing-loopholes-can-fight-illegal-immigration/).
However, Sessions chose to attempt to achieve this goal by issuing a precedent decision. A decision is not a fiat. It must be analyzed in the same manner as any other legal decision and applied to the facts accordingly.
Asylum experts and advocacy groups analyzing the decision have reached the following conclusions. The main impact of Sessions’ decision is to vacate the Board’s 2014 precedent decision, Matter of A-R-C-G-, holding that a victim of domestic violence was eligible for asylum as a member of a particular social group. Therefore, asylum applicants can no longer rely on that decision.
However, Sessions’ decision otherwise cobbled together already existing case law (which was taken into consideration in deciding Matter of A-R-C-G-), and added non-binding dicta, i.e. his statement that “generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence…will not qualify for asylum.” (Note the use of the pejorative “aliens” to describe individuals applying for asylum.)
Furthermore, most of the items covered by Sessions involved questions of fact (which are specifically dependent on the evidence in the individual case, and which the BIA and AG have very limited ability to reverse on appeal) as opposed to questions of law, which can be considered de novo on appeal and have more general applicability. The questions of fact raised by Sessions include whether the persecutor was aware of the existence of the group and was motivated to harm the victim on account of such membership; whether the society in question recognizes the social group with sufficient distinction; whether the authorities in the home country are unable or unwilling to protect the victim, and whether the victim could reasonably relocate to another part of the country to avoid the feared harm.
So in summary, Sessions felt that the Board’s decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- did not provide a sufficiently detailed legal analysis, therefore vacated it, and laid out all of the legal analysis that future decisions must address. Domestic violence and gang violence claims still remain very much grantable, provided that all of the requirements laid out by the Attorney General are satisfied. Hearings on these cases may now take much longer, as testimony will need to be more detailed, additional social groups will need to be proposed and ruled on, more experts must be called, and more documents considered. But nothing in A-B- prevents these cases from continuing to be granted.
Therefore, how discouraging that the first decision of the BIA to apply this criteria failed to do what is now required of them. A single Board Member’s unpublished decision issued shortly after A-B-’s publication did not engage in the detailed legal analysis that is now warranted in domestic violence cases. Instead, the decision noted that the case involved a social group “akin to the group defined in Matter of A-R-C-G-.” The Board then found that the AG’s decision in A-B- “has foreclosed the respondent’s arguments,” because “the Attorney General overruled Matter of A-R-C-G- and held that it was wrongly decided.”
What is particularly dispiriting is that the decision was authored by Board Member Linda Wendtland. A former OIL attorney whose views are more conservative than my own, I have always respected her scholarly approach and her intellectual honesty. At the BIA, staff attorneys draft the decisions which the Board Members then edit. Judge Wendtland always took the time to write her edits as academic lessons from which I always learned something. She recently authored the lone dissenting opinion in a case involving a determination of whether a women was barred from relief for having provided material support to terrorists; Judge Wendtland correctly determined that the cooking and cleaning that the woman was forced to perform after having been kidnapped by rebels did not constitute “material support.” It is therefore perplexing why she would sign the post-A-B- decision that so sorely lacked her usual degree of analysis.
In addition to the BIA, on July 11, both USCIS and ICE issued guidance on applying A-B- to asylum adjudications. Much like the BIA decision, the USCIS guidelines to its asylum officers, which serve as guidance not only in adjudicating asylum applications, but also for making credible fear determinations, seem to apply the personal opinion of Sessions rather than the actual legal holdings of his decision. USCIS decided to print in boldface Sessions’ nonbinding dicta that such cases will generally not establish eligibility for asylum, refugee status, or credible or reasonable fear of persecution.
Credible fear interviews are conducted right after an asylum seeker arrives in this country, while they are detained, scared, often unrepresented by counsel, before having a chance to understand the law or gather documents or witnesses. The interviewer is supposed to find credible fear if there is a significant possibility that the applicant will be able to establish eligibility for relief at a future hearing before an immigration judge. It is likely that, at such future hearing, the applicant will have an attorney who will make the proper legal arguments, call expert witnesses, formulate the particular social group according to the requirements of case law, submit other supporting evidence, etc. But now asylum officers are being instructed to ignore all of that and deny individuals the chance to even have the opportunity to apply for asylum before an immigration judge essentially because Jeff Sessions doesn’t believe these are worthy cases.
ICE (through its Office of the Public Legal Advisor) has issued guidance that, while probably reflecting internal conflict within the bureau, is nevertheless somewhat more reasonable than the interpretations of either USCIS or the Board. The ICE guidance does ask its attorneys to hold asylum applicants to some exacting legal standards, to look for flaws in supporting evidence, and to question asylum applicants in great detail. It also asks its attorneys not to opine on whether gender alone may constitute a PSG until further guidance is offered (again, probably reflecting internal conflict within the bureau on the issue). But the guidance does not simply conclude that all domestic violence and gang violence cases should be denied. It even encourages attorneys to employ a “collaborative approach” by pointing out flawed social groups offered by pro se applicants in the hope that the IJ might help the applicant remedy the situation early on.
However, let’s remember that ICE stipulated to grants of asylum for victims of domestic violence in both Matter of R-A- (during the Bush administration, and to the consternation of then Attorney General John Ashcroft), and in Matter of A-R-C-G-. ICE argued in its brief to Sessions in Matter of A-B- that Matter of A-R-C-G- was good law and should not be vacated. So then shouldn’t ICE be applying these same principles to its guidance to attorneys?
It should also be noted that ICE and USCIS could see a way to granting worthy cases in spite of Sessions’ decision. In the early 1990s, then INS General Counsel Grover Joseph Rees III took exception with the BIA’s precedent decision holding that forcible abortions and sterilization under China’s family planning policies did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground. Rees instructed his attorneys to seek to remand cases involving such claim to the INS Asylum Office, where per his instructions, such claims were granted affirmatively by asylum officers. There is no reason that a similar practice could not be employed now, particularly as both ICE and USCIS are not part of the Department of Justice and therefore are not controlled by Sessions. The only thing lacking is the political will to take such a stand. In the early 1990s, Rees’s stance involving abortion played to the Bush Administration’s political base. Today, ICE and USCIS would have to take action contrary to the wishes of that same base because doing so is the just and humane thing to do. Unfortunately, based on the tone of their recent advisals, doing the right thing is not enough of a motive in the present political climate.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
The Trump administration’s kidnapping — that’s the proper word — of the children of would-be migrants should be seen as an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Somebody ought to go to jail.
Under a federal court order, all 103 children under the age of 5 who were taken from their families at the border were supposed to be returned by Tuesday. The government missed that deadline, and I wish U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, who issued the order, had held somebody in contempt. One candidate would be Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who on Tuesday had the gall to describe the administration’s treatment of immigrant children as “one of the great acts of American generosity and charity.”
On Thursday, officials announced with fanfare that 57 of the kids — some still in diapers — had been returned to their parents. But 46 others were deemed “ineligible,” meaning they remain in government custody.
The reasons for failing to comply fully with Sabraw’s order sound reasonable, unless you take into account the bad faith with which the administration has conducted this whole sordid exercise. In 22 cases, officials had “safety concerns posed by the adults in question,” presumably the parents; in 12 cases, parents have already been deported; in 11 cases, parents are in federal or state custody; and in one case, an adult believed to be the child’s parent cannot be found.
In a joint statement, Azar, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, took credit for working “tirelessly” to reunite the children with their families — which is rich, given that the Trump administration deliberately and cynically created this crisis in the first place.
“Our message has been clear all along: Do not risk your own life or the life of your child by attempting to enter the United States illegally,” the statement said. Translation: Don’t come to the border seeking asylum because, when others did, we took away their kids.
Given that the intention from the beginning was clearly to frighten and intimidate would-be migrants from Central America, why should anyone believe that the administration is acting or speaking in good faith now? Why should we accept at face value that exactly 103 children under 5 were seized? How can we be sure there is only one case in which officials can’t find or identify the parents? Given that it has taken weeks to return just 57 children, what is the likelihood the government kept adequate records?
This is an administration, after all, that conducts immigration court proceedings, or travesties, in which children too young to know their ABCs are expected to represent themselves without the benefit of legal counsel. Imagine your 3-year-old child or grandchild in that situation. Now tell me how adopting child abuse as a policy is supposed to Make America Great Again.
And what about the children older than 5 who were taken from their families? Sabraw ordered that they be returned to their parents by July 26, but don’t hold your breath. We don’t even know how many there are, because the government doesn’t seem to know. Officials first gave the number as about 2,300, but the latest estimate is nearly 3,000. Why can’t they settle on a precise figure? What reason could there be for such vagueness, other than ignorance?
I don’t think they know how many kids they ripped away from their families, and I believe it is inevitable some children will never again see their parents. The fact that my government would commit such a crime weighs on my conscience as an American. President Trump and his accomplices, from all appearances, couldn’t be prouder.
“Judges run the system and illegals and traffickers know how it works. They are just using children!” Trump tweeted Wednesday. As usual, he was ascribing his own base motives to others: He is the one who is “just using children.”
Remember what this is really about. The main flow of undocumented migrants consists of Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans seeking to escape rampant, deadly gang violence that their home governments cannot or will not check. The Trump administration issued new instructions on Wednesday to officers who interview asylum seekers at the border, telling them that fear of gang violence, no matter how well-founded, is no longer grounds for asylum. The same new guidance applies to immigration judges, who take their orders from Sessions.
Kidnapping children. Failing even to account for them. Sending families home to be killed. Give us your huddled masses, this administration seems to say, and let us kick them in their little faces.
**************************
Yup. Sessions and his group of fellow racists know very well that their actions violate the Constitution and the laws of our country governing both conditions for detention and reasons for detention. Yet, they walk free and smugly give press conferences at which they continue to lie about their actions. Their victims, on the other hand, largely languish in substandard prisons or are being removed to the dangerous situations they fled in their home countries without any pretense of Due Process or fundamental fairness.
VICTORVILLE — Immigration detainees who were sent to a federal prison here last month were kept in their cells for prolonged periods with little access to the outside and were unable to change their clothing for weeks, according to workers at the facility and visitors who have spoken with detainees.
Staffers at the prison also say they have not been given the proper resources or direction to handle the influx of detainees, putting those in custody as well as workers in danger.
“We’re putting out fires, just like we were doing before,” said a worker who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. “But it’s gone from bad to worse to worst. We cannot take care of these inmates.”
The Victorville Federal Correctional Complex is a sprawling federal prison in San Bernardino County that houses thousands of inmates who have been convicted of crimes in federal courts.
By contrast, the immigrants who have been sent there are considered “civil” rather than criminal detainees, meaning they are being held pending the outcome of their immigration cases. Some are asylum seekers; some are fathers who were separated from their children in recent months.
They were sent to the prison in June as part of the Trump administration’s policy of increasingly detaining asylum seekers and immigrants who are in the country illegally until their cases are decided. Federal officials have said using prisons to hold the detainees is a stopgap measure while officials find more holding space.
Officials with the Federal Bureau of Prisons say the facility had beds available because of a decline in the inmate population in recent years, and that it has managed the new population using existing staff, some of whom were reassigned from other facilities.
But workers and people who have been able to visit the detainees say the prison was seriously unprepared for its new role.
The prison, which workers have long complained was short-staffed, is now scrambling to care for hundreds of new detainees from around the world with language, medical and care needs that are very different from those of typical federal prisoners, workers say.
The situation has raised concern among Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
In late June, Rep. Paul Cook (R-Yucca Valley) wrote a letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Prisons urging officials to increase staffing levels at Victorville to match the increase in population.
“Furthermore, I urge ICE to support and train [prison] staff so they are properly equipped to implement policies and procedures that may be unfamiliar to them when dealing with immigration detainees,” Cook wrote.
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside), who visited the facility July 2, said he saw numerous signs that the prison was struggling to meet detainees’ needs.
“Every detainee group that we met said they had not had a change in clothes since they arrived on June 8. Their bedding had not been switched. They were wearing the same underwear,” Takano said.
Thirteen of the detainees who spoke with Takano and his staff were fathers who had been separated from their children. The men said they had been unable to speak with their children since arriving at the facility.
Detainees also complained of not getting enough food, of being “locked up for long periods of time in their cells” and having very limited access to the outdoors, Takano said.
Prison officials showed Takano a recreation area that he said was nicely equipped. But when he asked one group of detainees whether they were able to use that room, they told him they had been there only once, he said.
“That’s an indicator to me that the prison was not ramped up to be able to accommodate this incursion of detainees. They were understaffed before the detainees arrived, and the arrival of 1,000 detainees I think has fully stressed the staff’s ability to be able to safely oversee their health and safety,” Takano said.
Nearly 1,000 immigration detainees were initially transferred to the prison. As of this week, 656 remained, said ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley.
The complex includes a high-security prison, two medium-security prisons and a minimum-security camp. The detainees are being housed in one of the medium-security prisons. Visits to the facility are tightly controlled.
Workers say one of their biggest concerns is the lack of staff and resources to adequately handle detainees’ medical needs.
There have been three cases of chickenpox and about 40 scabies cases since the detainees arrived.
One worker who spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation said medical workers are stretched so thin they can address only detainees’ most urgent needs.
“We’re not finding illness because we are so rushed,” the worker said. “As patients, they’re not getting the care they need.”
After Takano’s visit, the worker said, detainees were given a change of clothing — but for many of them it was paper gowns normally reserved for inmates with specific medical needs.
Eva Bitran, an attorney for the ACLU who has met with two detainees at the facility, said both men told her they had struggled to get medical care.
One man told her about a button that detainees could push for emergency medical care. When that button was pushed, they were asked: “Are you being raped or are you dying?” When the answer was no, no help would come, the man told her.
One detainee who has since left the facility told The Times that he and others in his unit were locked in their cells for most of the day for the two weeks he was at the prison, with food passed through a small opening in the door.
The man said he was not given a change of clothes during the 14 days he was at the facility and was not able to bathe for the first four days.
In late June, the ACLU sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Prisons on behalf of detainees, saying they had been held “incommunicado,” asking the court to order the prison to allow lawyer visits and phone calls.
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II sided with the ACLU and granted a temporary restraining order June 21 requiring the prison to allow detainees to communicate with immigration attorneys and attend “know your rights” workshops.
Haley, the ICE spokeswoman, referred questions about conditions at the prison to the Bureau of Prisons and said ICE was deferring to that agency’s standards on questions of things such as access to time outside of cells and outdoors time.
In an email response to questions from The Times, Bureau of Prisons officials said, “[D]etainees have regular inside and outside recreational opportunities.”
Officials also said that since the detainees’ arrival, 25 medical staff members had been temporarily assigned to help with intake screenings, physical exams and general care.
Regarding the chickenpox and scabies cases, officials said the facility was “taking the necessary precautionary measures to protect staff, inmates and detainees, and the community, from the possibility of being exposed.”
John Kostelnik, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3969, which represents workers at the prison, said that although some medical staffers were briefly assigned to help with the detainees, it was far from enough to meet the need.
He said many problems stem from a lack of direction from officials about how to reconcile standards that are common to federal prisons but aren’t necessarily appropriate for immigration detainees.
“We’re still day by day, making things up as we go,” he said.
As the facility has received increasing scrutiny from political leaders, legal groups and others following the transfer of detainees, Kostelnik said, some things appear to be improving — such as more uniforms.
But the staff is still overtaxed, said Kostelnik, who worries about what might happen if bigger changes don’t come fast enough.
“You have this group of detainees that are starting to get upset,” he said. “You get a large group of individuals that are upset, you have the potential for anything.”
(CNN)Authorities are investigating after an ICE detainee facing possible deportation apparently killed himself.
Efrain De La Rosa, 40, was found unresponsive in a cell at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, on Tuesday night and was later pronounced dead at a hospital, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.
The apparent cause of death was self-inflicted strangulation, the agency said Thursday, adding that the case is under investigation.
De La Rosa, a Mexican national, was in removal proceedings at the time of his death, ICE said.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is investigating the death at the request of the local sheriff. There is no indication of foul play, GBI Special Agent in Charge Danny Jackson said.
A preliminary investigation revealed De La Rosa was alone in an isolation cell at the detention center when officials there found him, Jackson said.
It was not immediately clear why De La Rosa had been placed in isolation.
ICE spokesman Bryan Cox said he could not provide additional comment because an agency review of the death is ongoing.
Amanda Gilchrist, a spokeswoman for CoreCivic, which owns and operates the facility, said the company is fully cooperating with investigators but declined to comment further because of the active investigation.
De La Rosa is the eighth detainee to die in ICE custody in the 2018 fiscal year, the agency said.
De La Rosa’s death comes less than six months after the death of another ICE detainee who had been in custody at Stewart.
Yulio Castro Garrido, a 33-year-old Cuban national, was diagnosed with pneumonia at Stewart and was hospitalized as his condition worsened. He died in January at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
And in May 2017, Jean Jimenez-Joseph, a 27-year-old Panamanian national, killed himself in solitary confinement at Stewart.
Immigrant rights groups swiftly criticized the facility as word of De La Rosa’s death spread.
“The deaths and systematic abuse at Stewart are not only tragic, but infuriating,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director at Project South.
ICE said it is conducting an agency-wide review of De La Rosa’s death and “is firmly committed to the health and welfare of all those in its custody.”
Four Democratic senators are calling for an investigation into the treatment of pregnant women detained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, following a BuzzFeed News report on several women who said they were mistreated while in immigration detention.
The letter to the Department of Homeland Security Acting Inspector General John Kelly, sent Friday, cites BuzzFeed News’ reporting on the conditions pregnant women in ICE and Customs and Border Patrol custody have faced under the Trump administration, particularly following a new policy issued in December allowing pregnant women to be detained. Under the Obama administration, ICE was ordered to release pregnant women past their first trimester from custody.
“Recent reports cite the inadequate care that pregnant women receive while in ICE custody, pregnant women’s lack of access to medical care, and their heightened vulnerability to sexual assault,” the letter reads. “Given the multiple findings of harmful and substandard conditions of detention for this particularly vulnerable population, we ask that you open an investigation into the treatment and care of pregnant women in ICE detention facilities.”
The letter was organized by Sen. Kamala Harris and signed by fellow Democratic Sens. Patty Murray, Maggie Hassan, and Tom Carper. A spokesperson for Harris’s office told BuzzFeed News that Harris was working “with a group of senators on legislative options to address this as well.”
In a story published Monday, BuzzFeed News related the stories of three women who had miscarriages while in the custody of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol and said they did not receive adequate medical care while pregnant or miscarrying. One woman told BuzzFeed News she was physically abused by CBP officials. All three said they bled for days without medical care and all said they were shackled while pregnant at some point during their detention. Shackling pregnant women is prohibited by ICE’s and CBP’s most recent standards-of-care policies, as well as by a congressional directive.
The report also included interviews with 11 legal, medical, and advocacy workers who work with pregnant detainees in or near detention centers, as well as two affidavits signed under “penalty of perjury” in which a fourth woman described being given clothes so small for her pregnant belly they gave her welts and “pain in [her] uterus.” A fifth woman said she underwent repeated X-rays, despite this being against the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendations and against CBP’s(but not ICE’s) policies for pregnant women.
“Pregnant women have repeatedly described the fear, uncertainty, and exhaustion they experience as a result of being detained,” the senators wrote in Friday’s letter. “Detained pregnant women have stated they experience routine mistreatment, including malnutrition, inadequate bedding, insufficient access to basic medical care, lack of privacy regarding their medical history, and even shackling during transportation for medical care.”
The senators’ letter said there was a 35% increase in the number of pregnant women detained by ICE in the fiscal year of 2017 compared to the year before, under the Obama administration. During that year, ICE detained nearly 68,000 women, 525 of whom were pregnant, the letter stated, and an additional 590 between December 2017, when the policy change was issued, and April 2018.
In June, Harris toured Otay Mesa Detention center, where the three women BuzzFeed News spoke with were held while miscarrying. There, Harris met with mothers who had been separated from their children as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, which has triggered national outrage, court cases, and an executive order from President Trump.
****************************************
These human beings aren’t “inmates”
They “civil detainees”
Their only “crime” is seeking asylum under U.S. and international law
Their only mistake: believing that the United States is a nation of laws and human decency, not just another “Banana Republic” as it has become under Trump & Sessions
The solution: regime change
Another thought: The problems in civil immigration detention were well-known and well-documented before Sessions and his cronies established the “New American Gulag” to punish, duress, and deter asylum seekers:
Shouldn’t that result in eventual successful suits against Sessions for ethical violations and for civil damages for intentionally violating the Due Process rights of asylum seekers?
At least at first reading, the OPLA memo seems like a more neutral legal analysis than the USCIS “Sessions told us to shoot ’em all on sight” memo:
On its face it also seems like a much less biased analysis than the anti-asylum, anti-woman, anti-Hispanic screed that Sessions spewed forth in Matter of A-B-;
OPLA appears to be emphasizing that each claim must be individually evaluated and examined, rather than the idea promoted by Sessions and USCIS that all women from Central America and all Central Americans fleeing gang violence or domestic violence should be presumptively denied with only a few exceptions;
Does this mean that there is an internal split within DHS?
Interestingly, the OPLA memo specifically reserves judgement on “gender as a particular group” claims;
Of course, if Sessions and Cissna have their way nobody will ever get to Immigration Court to claim asylum, because nobody will get out of the now-gamed “credible fear” process, so perhaps OPLA’s views won’t have much effect.
How bad and biased are Sessions and Cissna? That ICE’s OPLA, the head of all the ICE prosecutors, sounds more reasonable should tell you all you need to know!
It’s also worth remembering that OPLA and the DHS General Counsel actually led the years-long effort to provide protection for victims of domestic violence that Sessions, without any reasonable explanation, reversed in Matter of A-B-.
Trump administration to turn away far more asylum seekers at the border under new guidance
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration is implementing a new asylum policy at the border that will result in potentially thousands of asylum seekers being turned away before they can plead their case in court.
The guidance, reviewed by CNN, also applies to refugee applicants — immigrants seeking similar protections in the US who are still abroad.
Under new guidance given Wednesday to the officers who interview asylum seekers at the US’ borders and evaluate refugee applications, claims based on fear of gang and domestic violence will be immediately rejected. In addition, the guidance tells officers they should consider whether an immigrant crossed the border illegally and weigh that against their claim, potentially rejecting even legitimate fears of persecution if the immigrant crossed illegally.
The move is likely to draw swift condemnation from immigration advocates and legal challenges. Advocates say international law is clear that asylum claims are valid even when a migrant enters a country illegally. They also argue that rejecting these traumatized immigrants puts their lives at risk immediately upon their return home.
The changes being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security come on the heels of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision last month that gang and domestic violence victims no longer qualify for asylum. Asylum protects migrants already in the US who fear persecution in their home country.
Remember, folks, most of the intended “victims” of this policy are:
unrepresented
detained
traumitized
speaking through an interpreter (perhaps telephonic)
totally clueless as to what a “particular social group,” the “three criteria,” nexus,” or Matter of A-B- mean, and
Matter of A-B has never been tested or approved by any “real (Article III) court.”
Shoot first, ask questions later. This is America in the 21st Century. This is how we treat our fellow human beings —- most of them refugees seeking our help and protection under the law. This is what we are as human beings under Trump & Sessions. Someday, our descendants will look back on us and say “how could you!”
Surprised by vehement public reaction, President Donald Trump has decreed an end to the policy of separating arriving asylum seekers from their children. But what now? Not what will Trump do — his latest pronouncements simply up the ante on mean-spiritedness, with little clarity on a specific policy direction. But what asylum reforms should progressives push for to build a humane, workable, and sustainable program?
The policy problem is real. The flow of asylum seekers from Central America has not noticeably abated even during the administration’s imposition of cruelties. The current adjudication system has been overwhelmed — both the asylum officers in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the immigration judges in the Department of Justice (DOJ). Claims in both venues, from all nationalities, have seen sharp rises over the past five years, and backlogs have mushroomed.
DHS, which was keeping up with asylum claims as recently as 2011, now has more than 300,000 pending cases. Immigration judges, whose ranks number roughly 350 at present, have an astounding backlog of 700,000 cases. The resulting picture of dysfunction provides continual fodder for anti-immigration demagogues.
Progressives need to pay close attention to that last observation, because we are in danger of overplaying the righteous reaction to the horrors of child separation. Our nation needs to remain firmly committed to the institution of political asylum. But opportunistic or abusive claims are unfortunately numerous in the current caseload, particularly among people who seek asylum after having been in the United States for a while.
And any realistic migration management regime will have to keep in its toolbox the selective detention of asylum seekers, especially in times of high influx. We need to figure out what form our detention and release system will take.
So, yes, we need to call attention to the cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies. But we also need to bring the system back under control. Control is a precondition for regaining durable public support for the institution of political asylum in a world characterized by unprecedented migration pressures. Extreme-right politicians are exaggerating the scale of illegal immigration and unwarranted asylum seeking, and not just in the US. Getting this right will help take away from the authoritarians one of their most potent rhetorical weapons: immigration alarmism.
A precedent for a solution
Fortunately, we do have a solid model for how to repair our system: Today’s overload is surprisingly similar to an administrative meltdown faced in the early 1990s. Regulatory and operational reforms in 1995 brought that asylum situation under control, while preserving due process and avoiding widespread detention. The result was 15 years of reasonably efficient operation and blessedly few hot political controversies over asylum. We can rebuild that system; doing so won’t resolve all the problems we face, but it is an indispensable ingredient.
We still face some tough questions — notably about how far our asylum system can go in protecting against private violence in Central America, including from gangs and abusive family members. As a polity with a proud history of providing refuge, we face some hard choices. But however those choices are resolved, we can and should immediately expand aid designed to reduce violence in the source countries. That would go some way toward reducing refugee flows.
How our two-track asylum system works
To understand the history of reform successes and failures, we need first a map of the rather complex structure of agencies involved in asylum processing, and of the two primary pipelines by which applications are received. Bear with me, because the differences, though technical, are important as we think about reforms.
A person already in the United States, legally or illegally, who fears persecution back in the home country, can file for asylum directly with the Department of Homeland Security. These “affirmative claims,” so-called because the person takes the initiative to file without any enforcement action pending, are initially heard in an office interview conducted by expert asylum officers, housed in eight regional offices.
Based on the completed application and a nonadversarial office interview, asylum officers can grant or deny asylum, but when asylum is denied, they have no authority to issue a removal order.
That step requires an immigration judge — a specially selected DOJ attorney, appointed by the attorney general, who conducts removal proceedings. Until 1995, there was no routine for putting unsuccessful affirmative applicants into immigration court. It was up to the district field office of the immigration agency to file charges; many offices didn’t see these cases as a priority, at a time when the enforcement system had far lower funding than today. If the district office did serve a charging document, the person could renew the asylum claim in immigration court, and the judge would decide it afresh.
Now for the second main pipeline. People who are already in removal proceedings when they first seek asylum — people apprehended after crossing the border, for instance, or picked up by DHS after a local arrest for disorderly conduct — cannot file with the asylum office. Instead, they present their applications directly to the immigration court. A successful claim there constitutes a defense to removal; hence these applications are known as “defensive claims.”
For both defensive claimants and those affirmative claimants who have renewed their claims in court, the immigration judge considers the case through a formal courtroom procedure. He or she can grant asylum, but if asylum is denied, the judge normally issues a removal order — the kind of document needed for DHS to put the applicant on a bus or plane home (though appeal opportunities exist).
Border cases, as mentioned, are almost all heard as defensive claims, assuming applicants pass an initial, speedy “credible fear” screening done by an asylum officer, which is meant to weed out clearly meritless cases. (Over the past eight years, between 15 and 30 percent have been screened out this way.)
In the 1990s the system was also overwhelmed. We brought it back under control.
Back to the dysfunction I mentioned in the early 1990s. The expert corps of asylum officers, which had been created only in 1990, was overwhelmed by an accelerating volume of asylum claims, many of them containing near-identical boilerplate stories about threats, mostly crafted by high-volume “immigration consultants.” At the time, the regulations provided that nearly all asylum applicants received authorization to work in the US shortly after filing.
That created an incentive to file a false asylum claim — as did the slim chance, during that period, that an applicant would end up in immigration court. The system’s obvious disorder and vulnerability to escalating fraud worried refugee assistance organizations, who rightly feared that Congress, then beginning to consider tough immigration enforcement bills (ultimately enacted in 1996), would impose draconian limitations on asylum unless the administration brought the situation under control.
Government agencies worked closely with NGOs to analyze the situation and draw up a balanced solution. (I worked on the design and implementation of the reforms as a consultant to the Justice Department and later as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a.k.a. INS.) Two key changes in asylum regulations were the result. The first made it virtually automatic that affirmative asylum claimants whose claims were rejected by the asylum officer would be placed into removal proceedings.
Under the 1995 regs, when applicants return to the asylum office a few weeks after their interview to get the result, nearly all receive either an asylum grant or a fully effective charging document placing them in removal proceedings, normally with a specific date to appear in immigration court.
Second, the reform decoupled the act of filing for asylum from work authorization. The applicant would get that benefit from the asylum officer only if granted asylum. Those applicants who failed and were referred on to immigration court would similarly have to prove their asylum claim on the merits to gain permission to work.
But as a mechanism to minimize hardship and induce timely decisions, applicants would also receive work authorization if the immigration judge did not resolve the case within six months of the initial filing. (Applicants could also request delays, for example to gather more evidence, but such a request would suspend the running of the “asylum clock” and thus extend the six-month deadline for the issuance of work authorization).
To meet that processing deadline, the Clinton administration secured funding to double the number of immigration judges, from roughly 100 to 200, and also built up the asylum officer corps. New target timetables were established, and the new system met them with few exceptions: An asylum officer decision within 60 days, and an immigration judge decision within six months from initial filing (the latter also applies to purely defensive claims).
Finally, to maximize the immediate impact, the asylum offices and immigration courts adopted a last-in, first-out scheduling policy for judging claims. That sent the signal that new bogus claims would not slip through and get work authorization under the six-month rule, simply because of case backlogs. The older filers, already carrying a work authorization card, would take lower priority.
These reforms dramatically changed the calculus of potential affirmative applicants. Weak or opportunistic filings would no longer lead to work authorization; additionally, they would mean a quick trip to immigration court and a likely removal order. People responded to the new incentives. Asylum filings with the immigration authorities declined from more than 140,000 in 1993 to a level between 27,000 and 50,000 for virtually every year from 1998 through 2013. That annual filing rate was a manageable level, logistically and politically.
Congress had been poised to crack down on asylum in 1996 as part of a general tightening of immigration laws but, impressed by the already visible reductions, rejected most of the restrictive asylum proposals and instead made the administrative changes permanent by enacting them into law.
The seeds of the current crisis were planted around 2012, in a period of budgetary contraction. Neither Congress nor the executive branch appreciated how crucial it was to reach decisions in immigration court within six months and thereby prevent work authorization to unqualified asylum applicants. That had been the system’s main (and highly effective) deterrent to opportunistic, weak, or bogus claims. Hiring slowed even as caseloads and duties expanded, including the beginnings of the Central American surge. As more and more applicants began to receive work authorization without an asylum grant on the merits, affirmative applications poured in.
With the added filings, immigration court docketing fell further behind, reaching four-year delays in some locations. Much as in 1993, it was a vicious circle. Unscrupulous “consultants” could once again guarantee work authorization to their clients based just on filing, albeit after six months, with no immigration judge hearing expected for years. In 2017, affirmative filings with the asylum office climbed back above 140,000.
A 1995-style fix today would help us mainly to deter weak affirmative asylum claims. But it would still be quite relevant to the Central American applicants reaching our borders, even though they will normally file defensively. This is because so much of the paralyzing immigration court backlog stems from the massive increase in affirmative applicant numbers over the past five years. Reducing overall intake is central to getting both tracks of the asylum process under control.
Concrete steps to fix the problems
Undocumented immigrants released in El Paso, Texas pending an asylum hearing, June 24. All had been separated from their children.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
There are four primary components in a realistic strategy to restore our asylum machinery to health. We should:
1) Rebuild the capacity for prompt asylum decisions by strategically deploying existing staff and urgently adding more. It is obvious that the system needs a major influx of new asylum officers and immigration judges. Hiring is underway and budgets are growing significantly, though not fast enough. The administration still feels a need for more dramatic immediate deterrents, apparently believing that a full catch-up to the existing caseload will take years.
But a here-and-now impact can be had by following the last-in, first-out rule that served the US so well in 1995. Rejection of new filers is more important as a deterrent than processing old cases. In fact, DHS’s asylum office returned to last-in, first-outscheduling five months ago, and affirmative claims have already dropped by 30 percent.
This excellent change will not have the needed impact until the immigration courts complete comparable revisions to their scheduling system and thus assure the six-month decision timetable. We also need to be systematic about removing unsuccessful asylum seekers with a final order.
This would return us to a system where prompt denial on the merits after a fair hearing, not cruelty to applicants, serves as the main deterrent to weak or abusive claims.
2) Make smart use of detention, including family detention as needed, plus alternative measures to avoid flight. Some critics hope that the public revulsion against child separation will lead to ending virtually all detention of asylum seekers. Others theorize that Trump’s planners adopted the separation strategy just to get courts to end constraints they now impose on family detention — because family detention would look so much kinder than separation.
Detention, however, is an inescapable part of the immigration enforcement process, at least when people first arrive at the border and claim asylum. (It’s also essential later, to facilitate or carry out removals of those with a final order.) The judicious use of detention can help reassure skittish publics in times of truly high flow of asylum seekers.
In such times, centralized facilities housing asylum seekers also hold other potential benefits, as was recognized in a 1981 report by a blue-ribbon commission on immigration reform, chaired by Father Theodore Hesburgh from the University of Notre Dame. (The Hesburgh commission issued its report a year after the Mariel boatlift from Cuba brought 125,000 asylum seekers to US shores within a few months.)
Such facilities provide a centralized location for prompt asylum interviews and court hearings. Run properly, which requires constant and committed monitoring, they also can facilitate regular and efficient ongoing access to counsel — particularly when, as is typical in a high-influx situation, most representation comes from organized pro-bono efforts.
The Trump administration has sent unclear and confusing signals about its overall plans while now trying to persuade courts to allow more room for family detention. As a matter of policy, we need to keep family detention available in the toolbox but we should not see it as an early or primary option — especially since the administration has not exhausted other methods, and the Central American flow is not as massive as officials paint it.
Critics today often argue that detention is unnecessary, pointing to high attendance rates by asylum seekers at court hearings. That observation is true, but incomplete. A well-functioning system needs released respondents to show up not just for hearings where a good thing might happen, but also for removal if they lose their asylum cases.
Good data are not available, but intermittent government snapshot reports tend to find that fewer than a sixth of the nondetained are actually removed after the issuance of a final removal order. Policymakers and advocates who want to reduce the use of detention need to attend to that latter statistic, and improve it.
To be sure, detention should not be used routinely. Alternatives to detention — such as intensive release supervision or ankle-bracelet monitoring — are generally more cost-effective. When actual detention is employed, conditions of confinement must be humane and must fully accommodate access to counsel. The Obama administration made headway toward those ends, including creating better family facilities.
3) Think hard about the realistic range of refugee protection, and be more rigorous about “internal protection alternatives.” Advocates for asylum claimants from Central America today have been working to expand the conceptual boundaries of protected refugee classes. Few of those applicants are claiming classic forms of persecution — by an oppressive government, based on the target’s race or religion or political opinion.
A great many claims today are based on domestic violence or risks from murderous criminal gangs, in the context of ineffectual government. Our whole system faces a challenge to determine whether and how such claims fit within the refugee laws and treaties.
The asylum seekers’ cases are highly sympathetic, but they also prompt concerns about figuring out workable boundary lines on any such protection commitment. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a highly restrictive ruling in June. It held that private crimes, including gang retribution and domestic violence, can rarely serve as the basis for a valid asylum claim. Expect a wide variety of reactions from reviewing courts over coming months and years.
But while that interpretive struggle proceeds, an immediate practical step can be taken to alleviate the dilemma. Adjudicators need to pay more systematic attention to the availability of what are known as “internal protection alternatives.” Asylum applicants who can find reasonable safety within the home country, even at the cost of moving to a new city or region — for example, because that region has a good network of domestic violence shelters — should be required to return to those regions, rather than relocate to the US.
Though this “internal protection alternatives” concept is already part of US and international law, it is understandable why many people balk at taking a firm line on it. The applicant would almost surely face lower risks in the United States than back in the home country, and real hardships can be incurred by moving to a new city where the person may not know anyone.
But that objection has to be kept in perspective. We are talking about protection in another part of one’s homeland, for someone who has already shown the resourcefulness to venture thousands of miles to a distant country, with an unfamiliar culture and language. Asylum should not be thought of as a prize for a person who has endured harm or threats, no matter how much sympathy or admiration he or she may deserve for weathering that past. Asylum is a forward-looking last-resort type of measure to shelter those who cannot find adequate protection other ways.
US Vice-President Mike Pence (L) and Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales at a joint press conference in Guatemala City on June 28 — a stop on the vice president’s recent Central American trip. The asylum crisis was high on the agenda.Orlando Estrada/AFP/Getty Images
4) Work with other countries to address root causes and expand potential refuge elsewhere. This brings us directly to the fourth primary measure, of particular relevance to the Central American crisis. The United States should greatly expand assistance, through bilateral aid, multilateral efforts, or the funding of NGO initiatives, toward reducing the violence that sends people in search of protection.
It’s easier in theory to address root causes when the threat is private violence, since the US can expect support rather than resistance from the government. But real effectiveness on the ground demands ongoing diplomacy, implementation skill, vigilance against corruption, and, above all, consistent funding year to year.
In Central America, past US assistance has had some visible impact in helping to reduce gang violence and murder rates. The Central American Regional Security Initiative has provided more than $1.4 billion to this effort since its start in 2008. The Trump administration, with typical short-sightedness, is moving to cut this funding. And Vice President Mike Pence’s meeting with heads of state in Guatemala City last week was a giant missed opportunity. According to press accounts, he basically just badgered those governments to stop sending people.
That message would have been so much more effective toward changing conditions on the ground if it had been joined with significantly increased aid for the security initiative. We should also expand funding to enhance police responsiveness to domestic violence in Central America and to support shelter networks.
These steps are obviously worthy in their own right, helping potential victims of all sorts, not just potential migrants. But they also can reduce the felt need to migrate and generate a more extensive menu of “internal protection alternatives” to be considered by adjudicators ruling on asylum claims.
The Obama administration also had some success in working with Mexico to discourage dangerous unauthorized travel, through information campaigns and interdiction — and to open up a modest possibility that Central Americans could find refuge in Mexico itself. President Trump’s unending insults directed at our southern neighbor have torpedoed such cooperation, but a future administration should revive it.
Revulsion at the current administration’s border practices is fully deserved. And the current administration exaggerates the crisis. But in an era where tolerance for asylum protection has become a politically scarce resource, we still need realistic and determined asylum reform measures in order to restore public confidence that migration is subject to control.
Our country’s 1995 experience shows such a change is possible, while retaining a firm commitment to refugee protection. Repeating that success will require well-targeted funding and tough-minded administrative resourcefulness to succeed.
David A. Martin is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law. He served as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1995 through 1997, and as principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, 2009 through 2010.
MY RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DAVID A. MARTIN’S MOST RECENT ASYLUM PROPOSAL
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
As I tell my law students, my good friend Professor David A. Martin is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of our era. I first met David in the Carter Administration when I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS,” and he was the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Patt Derian. David, Alex Aleinikoff, who then was in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the late Jack Perkins, who was then Legislative Counsel at the DOJ, the late Jerry Tinker, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Ted Kennedy, and I, along with many others, worked closely together on the development and passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.
David and I have remained friends and kept in close touch ever since. Later, during the Clinton Administration, David appeared before me in the famous Kasinga case when I was Chair of the BIA. He invited me to be a guest lecturer at his class at UVA Law on a number of occasions, and I used the textbook that he, Alex, and others authored for my Refugee Law and Policy Class at Georgetown Law.
David has been a “life saver,” particularly for refugee women. The position that he took for the INS in Kasinga helped me bring a near unanimous Board to protect women who faced the horror of female genital mutilation (“FGM”).
Later, the famous “Martin brief,” written while David was serving as the Deputy General Counsel of DHS in the Obama Administration, urged the recognition of domestic abuse as a form of gender-based persecution. It saved numerous lives of some of the most deserving asylum applicants ever. It also supported those of us in the Immigration Judiciary who had been granting such cases ever since the BIA’s atrociously wrong majority decision in Matter of R-A-was vacated by Attorney General Reno.
The “Martin brief,” of course was the forerunner of Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing domestic violence as a form of gender based- persecution. Sadly, as noted by many commentators, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recently attacked refugee women by overruling Matter of A-R-C-G-and reinstating the long-discredited bogus reasoning of the R-A-majority!
With that bit of history in mind, Here are my reactions to David’s proposal for another “bureaucratic rescue” of the asylum system.
Don’t Blame The Victims.
With acknowledgement and credit to my good friend retired Judge Carol King, we need to stop blaming the refugees who are fleeing the human rights disaster in the Northern Triangle (that we helped cause). They are actually the victims. There is no “crisis” except the one caused by the cruel and incompetent policies of the Trump Administration directed at refugees compounded by the gross mismanagement of the U.S. Immigration Court system over the last three Administrations including, of course, this Administration.
Let Judges Run The Courts.
The idea that bureaucrats sitting in Washington and Falls Church, no matter how well-intentioned (and I’m not accusing anyone in the Trump Administration of being “well-intentioned”) can keep redesigning the Immigration Court System and manipulating dockets without any meaningful input from the judges actually hearing the cases is absurd. It’s a big part of the reason that the Immigration Court system is basically in free fall today. The key to running any good court system is to have judges in charge of the system and their own dockets. Judges should hire bureaucrats, when necessary, to work for the judges and help them, not the other way around. A court system run as a government agency, such as EOIR, is “designed to fail.” And, not surprisingly, it is failing.
Protection Not Rejection.
Refugee and asylum laws are there to protect individuals in harm’s way. But, you wouldn’t know it from most recent BIA asylum precedents and the disingenuously xenophobic and racist statements of this Administration. No, from the BIA and the bureaucrats one would think that the purpose of asylum law was to develop ever more creatively inane and nonsensical ways NOT to protect those in need – hyper-technical, often incomprehensible requirements for “particular social groups;” bogus “nexus” tests that ignore or pervert normal rules of causation; “adverse credibility” findings that are more like a game of “gotcha” than a legitimate evaluation of an applicant’s testimony in context; denial of representation; coercive use of detention; politicized “country reports” often designed to obscure the real problems; misuse of the in absentia process; hiring judges who have little or no understanding of asylum law from an applicant’s standpoint; intentionally unrealistic and overwhelming evidentiary standards; misapplications of the one-year deadline; cultural insensitivity, etc. That’s not the direction the Supreme Court was pointing us to when they set forth a generous interpretation of the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca back in 1987.
Gender-Based Claims Fit Squarely Within “Classic” Refugee Law.
No, claims based on domestic violence and/or resistance to gangs aren’t “non-traditional.” What might be “non-traditional” is for largely male-dominated bureaucracies, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement authorities to recognize the true situation of women. In fact, gender is clearly immutable/fundamental to identity, particularized, and socially distinct. Moreover, there is a clear political element to gender-based violence in patriarchal societies. And in countries like those of the Northern Triangle where gangs have infiltrated and intimidated the governments and in many areas are the “de facto” government, of course resistance to gangs is going to be viewed as a political statement with harsh consequences. As Sessions recently proved in Matter of A-B-and the Third Circuit confirmed in S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., it takes pages and pages of legal gobbledygook and linguistic nonsense to avoid the obvious truths about gender-based violence and how it is, in fact, a “classic” form of persecution well within international protections.
Detention Isn’t The Answer.
Civil immigration detention is the problem, not the answer. How perverse is this: Under Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy, hapless asylum applicants are “prosecuted” for “misdemeanor illegal entry.” The “criminal penalty?” One or two days in jail.
Then, they can apply for asylum as they are legally entitled to do under our laws. The civil penalty for exercising their legal rights? Potentially indefinite detention in substandard conditions that in many cases would be illegal if they were applied to convicted criminals.
I’ve been involved with immigration detention for most of my professional career, primarily from the Government side. I’ve witnessed first-hand its coercive, de-humanizing effect on those detained, mostly non-criminals.
But, that’s not all. Immigration detention also corrodes, corrupts, and diminishes the humanity of those officials who participate in and enable the process. It also is wasteful, expensive, and ineffective as deterrent (which it’s not supposed to be used for anyway). It diminishes us as a nation. It’s time to put an end to “civil” immigration detention in all but the most unusual cases.
No, I Don’t Have All the Answers.
But, I do know that it’s time for us as a country to begin living up to our national, international, and moral obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. We owe these fellow human beings a humane reception, a fair processing and adjudication system that complies completely with Due Process, a fair and generous application of our protection laws, and thoughtful and respectful treatment regardless of outcome. We haven’t even begun to exhaust our capacity for accepting refugees and asylees. Studies show that refugees are good for the United States and vice versa.
But, if we really don’t want many more here, then we had better get busy working with UNHCR and other countries that are signatories to the 1952 Refugee Convention to solve the problems driving refugee flows and to provide durable refuge in various safe locations. And, a great start would be to reprogram the huge amounts of money we now waste on purposeless, ineffective, and inhumane immigration enforcement, needless immigration detention, inappropriate prosecutions, scores of government lawyers defending these counterproductive policies, and more bureaucratic “silver bullet” schemes that won’t solve the problem. We could put that money to far better use assisting and resettling more refugees and developing constructive solutions to the problems that cause refugees in the first place.
It’s high time to put an end to “same old, same old,” repeating and doubling down on the proven failures of the past, and “go along to get along” bureaucracy and judging. We need a “brave new regime” (obviously the polar opposite of the present one) focused on the overall good and improvement of humanity, not promoting the biased and selfish interests of the few! And, who knows? We might find out that by working collectively and cooperatively and looking out for the common interests, we’ll also be improving our own prospects.
ERO shouldn’t terrorize anyone, but it has to be able to arrest deportable aliens where they can be found.
The main reason for wanting to abolish ICE is likely to prevent undocumented aliens who are here for a better life from being deported.
But if ICE were to be abolished, its responsibilities would be assigned to another agency and Trump would require the new agency to implement the same policies.
Trump’s enforcement policies
President Barack Obama focused his immigration enforcement programprimarily on aliens who had been convicted of crimes in the United States, had been caught near the border after an illegal entry, or had returned unlawfully after being deported.
Once an undocumented alien had succeeded in crossing the border without being apprehended, he did not have to worry about being deported unless he was convicted of a serious crime. He was home free.
This created a “home free magnet” which encouraged more undocumented aliens to come and do whatever they had to do to cross the border.
“We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”
He directed DHS “to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.”
Nevertheless, he prioritized removing aliens who are inadmissibleon criminal and related grounds, on security and related grounds, and for misrepresentations, or who are deportable for criminal offenses or on security and related grounds, and removable aliens who:
Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
Have committed acts that constitute a criminal offense;
Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or government application;
Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
Are subject to a final order of removal but have not left the United States; or
In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
Sanctuary policies prevent local police departments from turning inmates over to ERO when they are released from custody, so ERO is spending more of its time looking for deportable aliens in communities. This resulted in arresting 40,000 noncriminal aliens in FY 2017.
But ERO should not be engaging in improper behavior to make these or any other arrests.
If you see an ICE officer doing something improper, report him. This is far more likely to improve the situation than calling for the abolishment of ICE.
*****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.
I agree with Nolan that ICE isn’t going anywhere under Trump.
I also agree that the essential functions of ICE will still need to be performed, regardless of the ultimate fate of the organization.
I think it’s great that the “Abolish ICE Movement” has focused more attention on the cruel, unnecessary, and highly counterproductive enforcement and prosecutorial policies of ICE under Trump.
Indeed, the counterproductive nature of the Trump/Sessions immigration enforcement is a major reason why a group of Senior ICE Agents who actually perform real law enforcement functions — anti-smuggling, anti-human trafficking, immigration fraud, anti-terrorism — want to ditch the ICE label, because they know it’s inhibiting cooperation with other agencies and communities and thereby diminishing real law enforcement.
Most true law enforcement professionals that I have known don’t want to be associated with a group that glorifies cruelty and de-humanizes ordinary people. Having ICE on your resume today wouldn’t be a plus for most folks interested in a legitimate law enforcement career.
While the “essential functions” of ICE will continue, lots of today’s ICE enforcement has little to do with “essential enforcement.” The latter would be targeted at criminals, fraudsters, spouse abusers, traffickers, and recent arrivals who don’t have applications pending.
The lack of any semblance of common sense and responsibility in ICE’s abusive refusal to exercise prosecutorial discretion and actually putting properly closed cases back on the docket is a major contributor to the absolute mess in today’s Immigration Courts.
It’s also a reason why the Immigration Court mess is unlikely to be solved until Congress, the courts, and/or some future Executive force some fundamental changes in ICE enforcement and prosecutorial policies to reflect the same type of prudent, respectful, and realistic use of judicial time and prosecutorial discretion that is employed, to some extent, by every other major law enforcement agency in the U.S.
It never hurts to complain. I’m a big fan of making a “running record” of misconduct.
But, in the Trump Administration a record is about all you’ll get. Nothing is going to be done to correct misconduct because misconduct comes from the top.
My experience with ICE Chief Counsel’s Office in Arlington was highly positive. The attorneys were overwhelmingly fair, smart, responsive, respectful, and part of the “team” with the private, bar, the courts, and the interpreters that made the justice system work in Arlington in the past.
Indeed, working with the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office made me proud to have led the major reorganization that established the forerunner to the “Modern Chief Counsel System” at the “Legacy INS” during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was exactly what former General Counsels Dave Crosland, Mike Inman, Regional Counsel Bill Odencrantz, and I had envisioned when we planned and carried out the reorganization (over considerable internal opposition, I might add).
My overall experiences with the officers of ICE and it’s forerunner INS Investigations were positive. I found and worked with plenty of capable, dedicated, professional, and humane officers during my decades of dealing with immigration enforcement in some form or another.
All of that suggests that the major problems in ICE have arisen almost entirely under the Trump Administration. That’s because of truly horrible leadership from the top down.
ICE won’t improve until we get “regime change.” When that happens, ICE will have to be reorganized, reinvented, and “rebranded.” Professional management — one that pays particular attention to its relationship to local communities — must be reestablished. Sane enforcement and prosecutorial discretion policies will have to be reinstated.
My experiences with ICE suggest that the right people to lead an “ICE-type” agency in the future are likely already somewhere in ICE. They just aren’t in the right leadership and management positions. Maybe they will all quit before the end of the Trump Administration If not, they could serve as a “professional core” for rebuilding and reforming ICE.
I’m skeptical that so-called “Catch and Release” has a significant effect on what’s happening on the Southern Border.
In the first place, the current situation is “a self-created crisis” initiated by Trump & Sessions. Otherwise it’s pretty much normal migration.
Seeking asylum at the border isn’t “illegal migration” at all. It’s asserting an internationally recognized right. Detention and family separation are not appropriate responses to individuals seeking in good faith to exercise their rights.
In any event, the primary drivers of migration outside the visa system are: 1) unmet needs of the U.S. labor market, and 2) political, social, and economic conditions in foreign countries. So-called “Catch and Release” has no established effect on either of these “drivers.” See, e.g.,https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/crisis-border-not-numbers.
PORT ISABEL DETENTION CENTER, Texas — Sitting before an immigration judge in this south Texas detention center Thursday, a Central American mother separated from her son pleaded for asylum.
“Your honor, I’m just asking for one opportunity to be here,” said the woman wearing a blue prison uniform and a red plastic rosary around her neck. “You don’t know how much pain it has caused us to be separated from our children. We’re kind of losing it.”
Judge Robert Powell’s face was stern. During the last five years, he has denied 79% of asylum cases, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
“What you’re describing is not persecution,” he said.
“I’m asking for an opportunity,” the woman replied in Spanish through an interpreter.
“I’m not here to give you an opportunity.” He ordered her deported.
Immigrant family separations on the border were supposed to end after President Trump issued an order June 20. A federal judge in California ordered all children be reunited with their parents in a month, and those age 5 and under within 15 days. On Thursday, the administration said up to 3,000 children have been separated — hundreds more than initially reported — and DNA testing has begun to reunite families.
Port Isabel has been designated the “primary family reunification and removal center,” but lawyers here said they have yet to see detained parents reunited.
To qualify for asylum in the U.S., immigrants must prove they fear persecution at home because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or “membership in a particular social group,” and that their government is unwilling or unable to protect them. Most of the Central American parents detained here after “zero tolerance” fled gang and domestic violence. But that’s no longer grounds for seeking asylum, according to a guidance last month from Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions. Immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, so judges are following that guidance.
Because immigration courts are administrative, not criminal, immigrants are not entitled to public defenders. And so, each day, they attempt to represent themselves in hearings that sometimes last only a few minutes.
The courtrooms are empty. That’s because, like others nationwide, the court is inside a fortified Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Access is restricted, and may be denied. The Times had to request to attend court hearings — which are public — 24 hours in advance. After access to the facility was approved last week, admission was denied to the courtrooms when guards said the proceedings were closed, without explanation.
Detainees have little access to the outside world, including their children. It costs them 90 cents a minute to place a phone call. When they do, they can be nearly inaudible. They receive mail, but when reporters wrote to them last week, the letters were confiscated and guards questioned why they had been contacted, according to a lawyer. Lawyers also said some separated parents have been pressured into agreeing to deportation in order to reunite with their children.
UNICEF officials toured Port Isabel Thursday. A dozen pro bono lawyers visited immigrants. But they were spread thin. None represented parents at the credible fear reviews, where judges considered whether to uphold an asylum officer’s finding that they be deported.
Immigration Judge Morris Onyewuchi, a former Homeland Security lawyer appointed to the bench two years ago, questioned several parents’ appeals.
“You have children?” he asked a Honduran mother.
Yes, Elinda Aguilar said, she had three.
“Two of them were with me when we got separated by immigration, the other is in Honduras,” said Aguilar, 44.
“How many times have you been to the U.S.?” the judge asked.
Aguilar said this was her first time. The judge reviewed what Aguilar had told an asylum officer: That she had fled an ex-husband who beat, raped and threatened her. “He told you he would kill you if you went with another man?” the judge said.
Yes, Aguilar replied.
The judge noted that Aguilar had reported the crimes to police, who charged her husband, although he never showed up in court. Then he announced his decision: deportation.
Aguilar looked confused. “Did the asylum officer talk to you and explain my case?” she said.
The judge said he was acting according to the law.
Although she was fleeing an abusive husband, he said, “your courts intervened and they put him through the legal process. That’s also how things work in this country.”
Aguilar knit her hands. She wasn’t leaving yet.
“I would like to know what’s going to happen to my children, the ones who came with me,” she asked the judge.
“The Department of Homeland Security will deal with that. Talk to your deportation officer,” he said. Guards led her away as she looked shocked, and brought in the next parent.
Down the hall, Judge Powell heard appeals from separated parents appearing by video feed from Pearsall Detention Center to the west. Though he denied most asylum cases, there are exceptions. Recently, after an asylum officer denied a claim by a Central American woman who said police raped and threatened to kill her, Powell reversed that decision. She can now pursue her asylum claim, though she still hasn’t been released or reunited with her kids.
Obvious question: What, in fact, is a “judge” who isn’t there to give individuals fair hearings and treat them with respect, dignity, and humanity “there for?” What good is a judge who won’t protect individual rights from Government abuses? That’s the whole reason for our “Bill of Rights!”
Jeff Sessions regularly makes bogus, racist inspired claims about “fraud” in our asylum system. But, the REAL fraud in our asylum system is holding ourselves out as a nation of laws and Constitutional government instead of the Banana Republic we have become under Trump. And, maybe if this is what America is today, Trump is right: we don’t need any judges. Just jailers and executioners.
S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., No. 17-2031, 3rd Cir., July 3, 2018
HOLDING: Latinas fleeing persecution in the Northern Triangle can expect no protection under U.S. asylum laws in the Third Circuit.
PANEL: Circuit Judges Kent Jordan, Cheryl Ann Krause; Senior Circuit Judge Ira Morton Greenburg
OPINION BY: Judge Kent Jordan
KEY QUOTES:
S.E.R.L., a native of Honduras, seeks review of the denial of her application for asylum and statutory withholding of removal based on membership in a proposed particular social group that she characterizes as “immediate family members of Honduran women unable to leave a domestic relationship[.]”2 (Opening Br. at 21.) She fears persecution by two men, Jose Angel and Juan Orellana. Jose Angel abducted, raped, and continues to stalk one of S.E.R.L.’s daughters, K.Y.R.L. That daughter has already been granted asylum in the United States. Juan Orellana is S.E.R.L.’s stepfather and has repeatedly abused S.E.R.L.’s mother. S.E.R.L. fears that if she is removed to Honduras, both men will persecute her, Jose Angel because of her relationship to her daughter, and Juan Orellana because of her relationship to her mother.S.E.R.L. and two of her children fled here from Honduras in 2014. Within a month of their unlawful arrival, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). S.E.R.L. conceded removability, and timely applied for asylum and statutory withholding of removal.4 In support of her claims for relief, she alleged past persecution and a fear of future persecution based on the relationships just noted.
. . . .
S.E.R.L. contends that the BIA’s change innomenclature from “social visibility” to “social distinction” is the only change the BIA has made to its test for assessing a“particular social group,” and, she says, that is a “distinction without a difference.” (Reply Br. at 5.) According to S.E.R.L., our decision in Valdiviezo-Galdamez forecloses application of the “particularity” and “social distinction”requirements. She also argues that the BIA plainly acknowledges that it has not changed course, nor has itprovided a “principled” explanation for why it continues to impose criteria we rejected in Valdiviezo-Galdamez. (Opening Br. at 31.)
In addition, those who have filed amicus briefs in this case point out that the BIA’s decisions in M-E-V-G- andW-G-R- could be read as inconsistent with certain other BIA decisions and contrary to the canon of ejusdem generis. Amici note, for example, that in W-G-R-, the BIA concludedthat “‘former members of the Mara 18 gang in El Salvadorwho have renounced their gang membership’ does not constitute a particular social group” in part because “the group could include persons of any age, sex, or background.”26 I. & N. Dec. at 221. Yet, even though the groups varied significantly across age, sex, and background, the BIA has also held that “Filipinos of Chinese [a]ncestry” constituted a “particular social group,” In re V-T-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 792, 798 (BIA 1997), and that “former member[s] of the national police” in El Salvador, Fuentes, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 662, likewise could be cognizable.15 And although the BIA expressly justified its new requirements as “[c]onsistent with the interpretive canon ‘ejusdem generis,’” M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 234, amici highlight that some of the enumerated grounds for persecution, including “political opinion,” and “religion,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), may themselves be thought of as amorphous, diffuse, or subjective and therefore as insufficient bases for PSGs under M-E-V-G-’s requirements.
Those critiques raise legitimate concerns. The BIA has chosen to maintain a three-part test for determining the existence of a particular social group, and it has discussed how the revised particularity and social distinction requirements are not a departure from but a ratification of requirements articulated in its prior decisions. M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 234. And the arguable inconsistencies in its precedent highlight the risk that those requirements could be applied arbitrarily and interpreted to impose an unreasonably high evidentiary burden, especially for pro se petitioners, at the threshold. At the same time, however, we recognize thatM-E-V-G- is a relatively recent decision and clarity and consistency can be expected to emerge with the accretion of case law. That process is aided by M-E-V-G- itself, which addressed the specific concerns we raised in Valdiviezo- Galdamez, and explained why the particularity and social distinction requirements are different from one another and necessary. We now consider each of those requirements, beginning with social distinction, to explain why, notwithstanding our concerns, we conclude that the requirements are reasonable and warrant Chevron deference.
. . . .
Although S.E.R.L. also relies heavily on Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), where the BIAhad held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” constituted a particular socialgroup, the Attorney General recently issued a decision overruling A-R-C-G-. See Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
. . . .
At the same time, we are mindful of the role that courts can and must play to ensure that agencies comply withtheir “obligation to render consistent opinions,” Chisholm v. Def. Logistics Agency, 656 F.2d 42, 47 (3d Cir. 1981), including, as relevant here, review of BIA decisions for inconsistent application of M-E-V-G’s requirements to similarly situated petitioners, routine rejection of proposed PSGs without reasoned explanation, and the imposition of insurmountable evidentiary burdens that would render illusory the opportunity to establish a PSG. However, just as we will carefully examine cases on petition for review to guard against such dangers, we anticipate that the BIA will scrutinize the IJ decisions that come before it with those considerations in mind and with an eye towards providing clear guidance and a coherent body of law in this area.
**************************************
3RDCIRCUIT’S JULY 4 MESSAGE TO ABUSED LATINAS: YOUR LIVES DON’T MATTER! – S.E.R.L v. Att’y Gen., JULY 3, 2018 – How “Go Along To Get Along” Judging Costs Innocent Lives!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Judge Kent Jordan, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, and Senior Judge Ira Morton Greenburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit got together in Philly, ”our nation’s birthplace,” on July 3, 2018 to deliver an early July 4 message for courageous Latinas fleeing the Northern Triangle: Your lives don’t matter; we’re OK with femicide, rape, torture, and abuse of you and your children as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind in some foreigncountry where we don’t have to listen to your screams or come across your mutilated bodies!
These judges’ names and faces are worth remembering, since they went to such great lengths to avoid taking or acknowledging any legal or moral responsibility for their own actions. Obviously, they don’t want anyone to put names and faces with consequences.
While you wouldn’t recognize it from their 43 pages of intentionally legalistic, opaque, de-humanized, gobbledygook, there is actually a simple straightforward human tragedy behind their obfuscation and task shirking. Since they won’t tell it, I will.
“Ms. S.E.R.L”. (I’ll call her “Susana”) is a native and citizen of Honduras. Honduras is a patriarchal “failed state” with a corrupt and incompetent government that does little or nothing to control gang violence and violence against women, even encouraging it or participating in the abuses in many cases. By 2015, femicides in Honduras had far surpassed “epidemic levels.” For example, in 2013, one Honduran woman was murdered every fourteen hours!
Jose Angel abducted, raped, and continued to stalk Susana’s daughter “Karla.” Susana’s stepfather, Juan Orellana repeatedly abused Susana’s mother without any interference from the government. Juan also threatened Susana personally. Having witnessed what these men did to her closest relatives, her daughter and her mother, Susana reasonably believed that she would be next. Karla was granted asylum in the U.S. Susana fled to the United States with two other daughters and applied for asylum.
Since Karla was granted asylum in the U.S., Susana expected the same humane treatment, particularly since our Supreme Court once said that asylum laws should be generously applied to those with as little as a 10% chance of being persecuted. After all, Honduran women are a distinct, well-recognized class subject to essentially uncontrolled specifically gender-based violence in a patriarchal society. Additionally, the family members closest to Susana had already suffered severe harm in Honduras at the hands of two specific men. And, her daughter Karla was being allowed to stay.
The Immigration Judge supposedly believed Susana. However, he came up with some creative ways, pioneered by the BIA, to deny her protection. First, he found that she had no reason to fear harm because she hadn’t actually been harmed or killed by either Jose or Juan, despite the threats to her from Juan who obviously was capable of inflicting severe harm. Second, he found she didn’t fit within any “particular social group,” whatever that might mean on a particular day. The went on to make the amazing finding that being a Honduran woman would have nothing to do with the harm anyway.
Perhaps, the judge believed that Honduran men suffered the same high rate of femicide as did women. Or, maybe he believed that guys like Jose and Juan and Honduran society in general wouldn’t recognize that Susana was a Honduran woman closely related to two previously abused Honduran women. The judge observed that refugee laws weren’t meant to protect women like Susana from “generalized violence,” even though Susana’s claim wasn’t based on generalized violence but rather specific violence directed at her.
The judge basically told Susana to buck up and accept her fate. The judge appeared to have no idea what actually happens to women like Susana in Honduras. Susana appealed to the BIA which had very recently found that a virtually identical situation qualified a woman for asylum. But, the other woman wasn’t Susana, and the BIA found some reasons why it was OK to send Susana back to where she might reasonably expect be killed, raped, or abused by Jose and/or Juan.
Susana appealed to a “real court”, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike the Immigration Judge and the BIA, judges on the Third Circuit don’t work for Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Jeff hates foreign nationals, women, and particularly brown-skinned foreign women fleeing from persecution in Central America. He thinks that they are all coming here for economic reasons and should just go stand in a line to immigrate. But, Jeff knows that the line doesn’t really exist, and that they will likely be killed or disabled shortly after return anyway. What Jeff really wants is an America where only nasty old White guys like him hold all the power and non-White folks stay away.
Judge Kent Jordan, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, and Senior Judge Ira Morton Greenburg decided Susana’s case. They recognized that the BIA had rewritten asylum law so that fewer individuals would be protected and more rejected. They also recognized that Jeff Sessions had further rewritten the laws so that women like Susana would have no chance of protection. They also knew that there were lots of good arguments against what the BIA and Jeff were doing and in favor of protecting Susana.
But the judges found another Supreme Court case saying that they really didn’t have to decide legal questions if Jeff Sessions and his subordinates had done it for them. They thought that it made sense to rewrite protection law so that very few people, particularly women of color, would be protected. According to their thinking, the asylum law is intended to reject, not protect. They also thought that because these were relatively new interpretations, Jeff and the BIA should have a chance to kill or harm as many Latinas as possible before they as judges might think about whether it was a good idea. Of course, by then, it would be too late for Susana and others like her. And, these judges don’t really have any intent or will to hold Sessions accountable anyway.
So, Judge Jordan, Judge Krause, and Judge Greenburg told Susana that she should be separated from her daughter Karla and go back to Honduras with her other daughters to die, be raped, be beaten, or whatever. They knew that she would receive no help from the Government. But, they just didn’t care. Because Susana and her daughters were not their daughters or granddaughters and they wouldn’t have to hear her screams or look at their dead bodies. But, history has recorded what they did. Let the slaughter of innocents commence.
Better, more courageous judges might have said the obvious: that “women in Honduras” are a particularized, distinct, immutable/fundamental protected group; that Susana is a member of that group; and that any reasonable person in her position would have an objectively reasonable fear of persecution if returned to Honduras.
They also could have castigated the BIA and Jeff Sessions for intentionally manipulating asylum law so as not to grant protection to some of the most vulnerable and needy refugees among us. But, this “Gang of Three’ who decided Susana’s case would have been happy pushing the St. Louisand its cargo of Jewish refugees from Germany back out to sea again. Any of the judges who looked at Susan’s case could have had spoken out for saving her life and the lives of her daughters. None did!
After abdicating their judicial functions to hold the Executive accountable, this “Gang of Three” dishonestly expresses concerns about consistency and not creating “insurmountable evidentiary burdens.” Get serious!
Everyone knows Jeff Sessions is ordering Immigration Judges to crank out more removal orders with little or no Due Process. He has publicly stated his disdain for asylum seekers and women asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle. He has made it clear that he intends to “deconstruct:” the entire U.S. protection system until the only “consistency” will be that nobody gets asylum. And with cases like his decision in Matter of A-B-and spineless “go along to get along” precedents like this from the Article III courts, Sessions is implementing his real plan – insuring that nobody who comes to the border and seeks asylum passes “credible fear” and even gets to an Immigration Judge hearing.
Judges like these can shirk their responsibilities and hide behind mountains of hollow words and legal platitudes. But, they won’t escape the judgement of history for their lack of courage, backbone, integrity, and their unwillingness to stand up for human rights and human decency in the face of tyranny.
Happy July 4, 2018 from Judge Kent Jordan, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, and Senior Judge Ira Morton Greenburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit! They can celebrate. But, for Susana, her family, and other vulnerable refugee like her, there will be no celebration. Indeed, they might not even live to see another July 4! That should make us all ashamed as a nation!
Perhaps Trump’s “no due process” approach is the best solution if persecution claims can be considered outside of the United States.
Letting them apply here isn’t working well.
As of April 2017, the average wait for a hearing was 670 days, and the immigration court backlog has increased since then. It was 714,067 cases in May 2018.
It isn’t possible to enforce the immigration laws if deportable aliens can’t be put in removal proceedings, and the judges are being pressed to spend less time on cases, which puts due process in jeopardy.
We need a politically acceptable way to reduce the number of asylum applicants to a manageable level.
******************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article!
I agree with Nolan’s observation that pushing Immigration Judges to schedule more cases and spend less time on them puts due process in jeopardy. I also can see that Sessions intends to reduce asylum grant rates to about 0% by totally distorting the system until it is impossible for virtually anyone actually needing protection to get it.
As I have stated before, the problem isn’t the asylum law. The problem is the way Trump and Sessions have distorted and perverted asylum law and the Constitutional right to Due Process.
Asylum law is designed to protect individuals fleeing from persecution. We haven’t even begun to test the limits of our ability to give refuge. Indeed, at the time of the world’s greatest need, and our own prosperity, we have disgracefully turned our backs on accepting anything approaching a fair share of the world’s desperate refugees. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation! Refugees of all types bring great things to our nation and help us prosper. But, even if they didn’t, that wouldn’t lessen our moral and humanitarian obligations to accept our fair and more generous share of the world’s refugees.
And never forget that the backlog and the waiting times have little or nothing to do with fault on the part of asylum applicants.Many of them have also been unfairly screwed by the mess that Congress, the DOJ, DHS, and politicos have made of the Immigration Court system.
The backlog is almost entirely the result of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” which has been kicked into high gear under Sessions, exceptionally poor choices in docket management and bad prosecutorial decisions by DHS, and years of neglect and understaffing by Congress, as well as stunningly incompetent management of the Immigration Courts by the DOJ under the last three Administrations.
Here’s the truth that Trump and the restrictionists don’t want to deal with:
SOLVING THE SOUTHERN BORDER: It’s Not Our Asylum Laws That Need Changing — It’s The Actions Of Our Leaders Who Administer Them That Must Change!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Contrary to what White Nationalist liars like Trump & Sessions say, our U.S. asylum laws are not the problem. The politicos who misinterpret and misapply the law and then mal-administer the asylum adjudication system are the problem.
The current asylum laws are more than flexible enough to deal efficiently, effectively, and humanely with today’s bogus, self-created “Southern Border Crisis.” It’s actually nothing more than the normal ebb and flow, largely of refugees, from the Northern Triangle.
That has more do with conditions in those countries and seasonal factors than it does with U.S. asylum law. Forced migration is an unfortunate fact of life. Always has been, and probably always will be. That is, unless and until leaders of developed nations devote more time and resources to addressing the causation factors, not just flailing ineffectively and too often inhumanely with the inevitable results.
And the reasonable solutions are readily available under today’s U.S. legal system:
Instead of sending more law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges to the Southern Border, send more CBP Inspectors and USCIS Asylum Officers to insure that those seeking asylum are processed promptly, courteously, respectfully, and fairly.
Take those who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to the nearest port of entry instead of sending them to criminal court (unless, of course, they are repeat offenders or real criminals).
Release those asylum seekers who pass “credible fear” on low bonds or “alternatives to detention” (primarily ankle bracelet monitoring) which have been phenomenally successful in achieving high rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. They are also much more humane and cheaper than long-term immigration detention.
Work with the pro bono legal community and NGOs to insure that each asylum applicant gets a competent lawyer. Legal representation also has a demonstrated correlation to near-universal rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. Lawyers also insure that cases will be well-presented and fairly heard, indispensable ingredients to the efficient delivery of Due Process.
Insure that address information is complete and accurate at the time of release from custody. Also, insure that asylum applicants fully understand how the process works and their reporting obligations to the Immigration Courts and to DHS, as well as their obligation to stay in touch with their attorneys.
Allow U.S. Immigration Judges in each Immigration Court to work with ICE Counsel, NGOs, and the local legal community to develop scheduling patterns that insure applications for asylum can be filed at the “First Master” and that cases are completed on the first scheduled “Individual Merits Hearing” date.
If there is a consensus that these cases merit “priority treatment,” then the ICE prosecutor should agree to remove a “lower priority case” from the current 720,000 case backlog by exercising “prosecutorial discretion.” This will end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and insure that the prioritization of new cases does not add to the already insurmountable backlog.
Establish a robust “in-country refugee processing program” in the Northern Triangle; fund international efforts to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle; and work cooperatively with the UNHCR and other countries in the Americas to establish and fund protection programs that distribute refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle among a number of countries. That will help reduce the flow of refugees at the source, rather than at our Southern Border. And, more important, it will do so through legal humanitarian actions, not by encouraging law enforcement officials in other countries (like Mexico) to abuse refugees and deny them humane treatment (so that we don’t have to).
My proposed system would require no legislative fixes; comply with the U.S Constitution, our statutory laws, and international laws; be consistent with existing court orders and resolve some pending legal challenges; and could be carried out with less additional personnel and expenditure of taxpayer funds than the Administration’s current “cruel, inhuman, and guaranteed to fail” “deterrence only” policy.
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT: We could also all sleep better at night, while reducing the “National Stress Level.” (And, for those interested in such things, it also would be more consistent with Matthew 25:44, the rest of Christ’s teachings, and Christian social justice theology).
As Eric Levitz says in New York Magazine, the folks arriving at our border are the ones in crisis, not us! “And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.”
That warrants a much more measured, empathetic, humane, respectful, and both legally and morally justifiable approach than we have seen from our Government to date.The mechanisms for achieving that are already in our law. We just need leaders with the wisdom and moral courage to use them.
PWS
06-23-18
I also take note of how EOIR under Sessions has disingenuously manipulated the asylum adjudication numbers to support a false narrative that most asylum claims are meritless.
The only “real ” number is a comparison of asylum grants to denials, not grants to the total number of cases involving asylum applications including the substantial number that were never decided on the merits. The fact that a case is disposed of in some other manner does not mean that the asylum application was meritless; it just means that the case was disposed of in another way.
Here are the “real” numbers from EOIR’s own Statistics Yearbook, before they were dishonestly manipulated under Sessions’s instructions to support his false claims about asylum seekers:
Asylum Grant Rate
Grants
Denials
Grant Rate
FY 12
10,575
8,444
56%
FY 13
9,767
8,777
53%
FY 14
8,672
9,191
49%
FY 15
8,184
8,816
48%
FY 16
8,726
11,643
43%
In 2016, the “real” grant rate was 38%. Even under Sessions in the partial FY 2018, the merits grant rate is 35%. That’s by no means negligible — one in three! And, remember folks, this is with asylum law that was already badly skewed against applicants, particularly those from the Northern Triangle with potentially bona fide claims. (But, admittedly, before Sessions recent rewriting of asylum law to improperly deny asylum and essentially impose death sentences or torture on vulnerable women fleeing from the Northern Triangle.)
And, in my experience, the vast majority of denied asylum seekers had legitimate fears of harm upon return that should have entitled them to some protection; they just didn’t fit our unrealistically and intentionally restrictive interpretations. By no means does denial of an asylum claim mean that the claim was frivolous!
The real question we should be asking is that with the refugee situation in the world getting worse and with continually deteriorating conditions in the Northern Triangle, how do asylum merits grant rates drop from 56% and 53% as recently as FY 2011 & 2012 to 35% in 2018? What those numbers really suggests is large-scale problematic behavior and improper influence within the DOJ and the Immigration Judges who are denying far, far too many of these claims. Some of that includes use of coercive detention in out-of-the-way locations and depriving individuals of a fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, as well as a number of BIA decisions (even before Sessions’s Matter of A-B- atrocity) specifically designed to promote unfairness and more asylum denials.
There is no “southern border crisis,” other than the unnecessary humanitarian crisis that Trump and Sessions created by abusing children. Nor is there a problem with our asylum laws except for the intentional failure of our Government to apply them in a legal, fair, and Constitutional manner. But, there is a White Nationalist, racism problem clearly manifesting itself in our immoral and scofflaw national leadership.
Everyone committed to fairness, Due Process, and maintaining America as a country of humane values should fiercely resist, in every way possible, suggestions by Trump, Sessions, and some in the GOP to further abuse Due Process and eliminate the already limited rights of the most vulnerable among us!
We need to say focused on the real threats to our national security and continued existence as a democratic republic: Trump, Sessions, and their cohorts and enablers!
‘National Socialist,’ circa 1935; photograph by August Sander from his People of the Twentieth Century. A new collection of his portraits, August Sander: Persecuted/Persecutors, will be published by Steidl this fall.
Liberal democracy has enjoyed much better days. Vladimir Putin has entrenched authoritarian rule and is firmly in charge of a resurgent Russia. In global influence, China may have surpassed the United States, and Chinese president Xi Jinping is now empowered to remain in office indefinitely. In light of recent turns toward authoritarianism in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, and the Philippines, there is widespread talk of a “democratic recession.” In the United States, President Donald Trump may not be sufficiently committed to constitutional principles of democratic government.
In such a time, we might be tempted to try to learn something from earlier turns toward authoritarianism, particularly the triumphant rise of the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s. The problem is that Nazism was so horrifying and so barbaric that for many people in nations where authoritarianism is now achieving a foothold, it is hard to see parallels between Hitler’s regime and their own governments. Many accounts of the Nazi period depict a barely imaginable series of events, a nation gone mad. That makes it easy to take comfort in the thought that it can’t happen again.
But some depictions of Hitler’s rise are more intimate and personal. They focus less on well-known leaders, significant events, state propaganda, murders, and war, and more on the details of individual lives. They help explain how people can not only participate in dreadful things but also stand by quietly and live fairly ordinary days in the midst of them. They offer lessons for people who now live with genuine horrors, and also for those to whom horrors may never come but who live in nations where democratic practices and norms are under severe pressure.
Milton Mayer’s 1955 classic They Thought They Were Free, recently republished with an afterword by the Cambridge historian Richard J. Evans, was one of the first accounts of ordinary life under Nazism. Dotted with humor and written with an improbably light touch, it provides a jarring contrast with Sebastian Haffner’s devastating, unfinished 1939 memoir, Defying Hitler, which gives a moment-by-moment, you-are-there feeling to Hitler’s rise. (The manuscript was discovered by Haffner’s son after the author’s death and published in 2000 in Germany, where it became an immediate sensation.)* A much broader perspective comes from Konrad Jarausch’s Broken Lives, an effort to reconstruct the experience of Germans across the entire twentieth century. What distinguishes the three books is their sense of intimacy. They do not focus on historic figures making transformative decisions. They explore how ordinary people attempted to navigate their lives under terrible conditions.
Haffner’s real name was Raimund Pretzel. (He used a pseudonym so as not to endanger his family while in exile in England.) He was a journalist, not a historian or political theorist, but he interrupts his riveting narrative to tackle a broad question: “What is history, and where does it take place?” He objects that most works of history give “the impression that no more than a few dozen people are involved, who happen to be ‘at the helm of the ship of state’ and whose deeds and decisions form what is called history.” In his view, that’s wrong. What matters are “we anonymous others” who are not just “pawns in the chess game,” because the “most powerful dictators, ministers, and generals are powerless against the simultaneous mass decisions taken individually and almost unconsciously by the population at large.” Haffner insists on the importance of investigating “some very peculiar, very revealing, mental processes and experiences,” involving “the private lives, emotions and thoughts of individual Germans.”
Mayer had the same aim. An American journalist of German descent, he tried to meet with Hitler in 1935. He failed, but he did travel widely in Nazi Germany. Stunned to discover a mass movement rather than a tyranny of a diabolical few, he concluded that his real interest was not in Hitler but in people like himself, to whom “something had happened that had not (or at least not yet) happened to me and my fellow-countrymen.” In 1951, he returned to Germany to find out what had made Nazism possible.
In They Thought They Were Free, Mayer decided to focus on ten people, different in many respects but with one characteristic in common: they had all been members of the Nazi Party. Eventually they agreed to talk, accepting his explanation that he hoped to enable the people of his nation to have a better understanding of Germany. Mayer was truthful about that and about nearly everything else. But he did not tell them that he was a Jew.
In the late 1930s—the period that most interested Mayer—his subjects were working as a janitor, a soldier, a cabinetmaker, an office manager, a baker, a bill collector, an inspector, a high school teacher, and a police officer. One had been a high school student. All were male. None of them occupied positions of leadership or influence. All of them referred to themselves as “wir kleine Leute, we little people.” They lived in Marburg, a university town on the river Lahn, not far from Frankfurt.
Mayer talked with them over the course of a year, under informal conditions—coffee, meals, and long, relaxed evenings. He became friends with each (and throughout he refers to them as such). As he put it, with evident surprise, “I liked them. I couldn’t help it.” They could be ironic, funny, and self-deprecating. Most of them enjoyed a joke that originated in Nazi Germany: “What is an Aryan? An Aryan is a man who is tall like Hitler, blond like Goebbels, and lithe like Göring.” They also could be wise. Speaking of the views of ordinary people under Hitler, one of them asked:
Opposition? How would anybody know? How would anybody know what somebody else opposes or doesn’t oppose? That a man says he opposes or doesn’t oppose depends upon the circumstances, where, and when, and to whom, and just how he says it. And then you must still guess why he says what he says.
When Mayer returned home, he was afraid for his own country. He felt “that it was not German Man that I had met, but Man,” and that under the right conditions, he could well have turned out as his German friends did. He learned that Nazism took over Germany not “by subversion from within, but with a whoop and a holler.” Many Germans “wanted it; they got it; and they liked it.”
Mayer’s most stunning conclusion is that with one partial exception (the teacher), none of his subjects “saw Nazism as we—you and I—saw it in any respect.” Where most of us understand Nazism as a form of tyranny, Mayer’s subjects “did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now.” Seven years after the war, they looked back on the period from 1933 to 1939 as the best time of their lives.
Mayer suggests that even when tyrannical governments do horrific things, outsiders tend to exaggerate their effects on the actual experiences of most citizens, who focus on their own lives and “the sights which meet them in their daily rounds.” Nazism made things better for the people Mayer interviewed, not (as many think) because it restored some lost national pride but because it improved daily life. Germans had jobs and better housing. They were able to vacation in Norway or Spain through the “Strength Through Joy” program. Fewer people were hungry or cold, and the sick were more likely to receive treatment. The blessings of the New Order, as it was called, seemed to be enjoyed by “everybody.”
. . . .
*************************************
Read the complete article at the link.
As a historical footnote, I crossed paths with Cass Sunstein at the DOJ during the Carter Administration in 1980-81, when he was an attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel and I was the Acting General Counsel/Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.” About all I remember is that: 1) he was brilliant, 2) he wrote really well; 3) everyone had him pegged as among “the most likely to succeed;” and 4) we both had lots, lots more hair then.
I agree with pretty much everything Sunstein says. Except for one major point. I don’t think “it can happen here.” It is happening here!
Cass says “Thus far, President Trump has been more bark than bite.” Really! With all due respect, that seems like a view directly from the “Ivory Tower.”
Ask U.S. citizens children whose parents have been deported for no rational reason without any consideration of what will happen to those left behind; ask those children intentionally abused and probably damaged for life by the likes of Jeff Sessions; ask communities that have been terrorized by the Homan-led “ICE Gestapo” that strikes terror, performs few if any “real” law enforcement functions these days, while insuring that whole segments of the population are “easy marks” for crime and abuse; ask women and children refugees from Central American who are essentially being railroaded back to the “death camps” from which they fled by the noxious White Nationalist racists Trump, Miller, & Sessions, with the assistance of morally vapid sycophants like Nielsen and Kelly, without even the semblance of due process; ask Dreamers who are slurred by the always disingenuous Sessions while being held as hostages by Trump, and hung out to dry by the GOP Congress; ask the kids and families being held in the “New American Gulag” established by Sessions — combined with his intentional distortion of asylum law, they are basically being held in concentration camps waiting to be shipped off to death camps in the Northern Triangle! And we haven’t even gotten to Sessions’s absolutely outrageous, lawless, unconstitutional, and totally immoral plan to rewrite asylum law so that nobody who needs protection actually gets it! Or how about not taking any Syrian refugees, even though they are dying in refugee camps awaiting resettlement every day. Just because the actual deaths, rapes, torture, US-caused human trafficking, and other unspeakable abuses take place outside our national boundaries doesn’t mean that we aren’t just as responsible for them as the fat & happy Burghers of the Third Reich!
I wrote about Sunstein’s timely, yet totally disturbing, article in my response to a comment from my good friend, colleague, and fellow member of the “Gang of Retired Immigration Judges,” Judge Gus Villageliu in response to one of his “right on” comments today. Here’s what I said:
There is a great article by Professor Cass Sunstein about the parallels between Nazism and Trumpism. The key: Germans who supported Hitler were fat, happy, and satisfied with their lives under Nazism and were willfully indifferent to the torture and suffering of their fellow human beings. They happily accepted the Nazi propaganda that Jews were either traitors or had voluntarily left the country after being fairly compensated for their property. Even after the war, some ordinary Germans looked back on the 1933-39 era of Nazi rule as the best time of their lives.
Another key observation by Sunstein: resistance is never futile and every individual act of resistance, no matter how small or insignificant it might seem at the time, is important. The little acts and persistence add up over time.
In my view, they also establish an important record for historians and future generations. I want my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren to know where I stood in the era of Trump, Sessions, Miller & the rest of the White Nationalist neo-Nazis and their utterly disgusting perversion of Western Judeo-Christian values!
Due Process, tolerance, courage, standing up for the less fortunate, and recognizing the human rights and dignity of every person are eternal values that are always worth fighting for!
Join the New Due Process Army. Resist the White Nationalist Regime every step of the way. Force “go along to get along” courts (like the Supremes) to face up to the horrible immorality of their appeasement of the cruel, inhuman, and illegal actions of the Trump Administration. Write the historical record that even the Trumpsters and their followers won’t be able to escape so that we might never, ever again have a Neo-Nazi revival like the Trump Administration!
Judge Roger Harris, Me, Judge Thomas Snow, & Judge John Milo Bryant (“The Non-Conformist”) head out to lunch on my last day at the Arlington Immigration Court, June 30, 2016
‘Just be a kid, OK?’: Inside children’s immigration hearings
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
As each immigrant child took their seat in his courtroom for their hearing, Judge John M. Bryant started the same way.
“How are you doing today?” he’d ask.
“Muy bien,” most would answer.
In a span of about 45 minutes, Bryant — an immigration judge in Arlington, Virginia — checked in on the cases of 16 immigrants under the age of 20, all with attorneys and some with parents.
The day was known as a “master calendar hearing” — a swift introduction in court and the beginning of court proceedings for immigrants facing deportation.
The children had largely been in the country for some time, each fighting in court for the right to stay.
But though the immigration courts have long dealt with immigrant children, even those barely school age or younger, their turn through the unique, stand-alone immigration courts is getting new attention as the government’s “zero tolerance” border policy has sent thousands more children into the system without their parents.
The hearings were observed by six Democratic members of Congress: Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland; Rep. Don Beyer, whose Virginia district includes the court; Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico; and Reps. Pete Aguilar, Nanette Diaz Barragán and Norma Torres, all of California.
At a news conference afterward, Beyer called the session “One of the best-case scenarios of a master calendar hearing, a sympathetic judge with kids with lawyers.”
The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.
“We know that in vast numbers of cases, there is not proper representation,” Hoyer said, adding that some kids are “not old enough to spell their own names, let alone represent themselves in court.”
In each case, the attorneys described waiting for applications filed with the government, and all were quickly given court dates into 2019 to come back for another check-in. One, a boy named José who had just finished ninth grade, was there for his second check-in and for his full asylum hearing received a court date of May 11, 2021 — likely to be just as he is finishing high school in the US.
The youngest was a 6-year-old boy, Rodolfo, who was there with his attorney and father, though Rodolfo’s case was being heard by itself. As he did with most of the children, Bryant asked Rodolfo if he was in school, translated by an interpreter via headphones provided to every immigrant facing the court.
“Hoy?” Rodolfo asked, confused — “Today?”
Bryant cheerfully prompted Rodolfo about what grade he had finished — kindergarten — and his teacher’s name — Ms. Dani. Bryant said he still remembered his own kindergarten teacher, Ms. Sweeney, from many years prior. “Hasta luego,” Bryant told Rodolfo, giving him a next court date of May 30, 2019.
While all the children in Bryant’s courtroom on this afternoon had attorneys, the Arlington Immigration Court is not typical of the country, where closer to 1-in-3 children are represented in court. Bryant was also generous with the continuances requested by attorneys as they waited to hear from the government on applications for other visas for the children, despite uniform opposition by the government attorney in court.
“Mr. Wagner, your turn,” Bryant joked at one point to the government attorney present, who dutifully recited the government’s opposition to granting continuances solely on the basis of waiting to hear back on a visa application. Bryant than immediately picked a day on his calendar for the immigrant and attorney to return.
One attorney for a 12-year-old girl, Rosemary, who was there with her mother, said they had applied for a Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, which is for minors who have been abused, abandoned or neglected by a parent. Bryant asked the attorney if the application was before a “sweet or sour judge.”
“I think it’s going to be a problem. It may have to be appealed,” the attorney replied.
The judge granted them a court date on February 28 of next year.
“Have a nice summer,” he said to the girl. “Just be a kid, OK?”
******************************************
“The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.” And, with very good reason!
No trace of the Jeff Sessions’s paranoia, xenophobia, bias, child abuse, and de-humanization of migrants here. It’s like one would expect a “real” U.S. Court to be run! Sadly, that’s not what’s happening in the rest of the country. Just ask folks in Charlotte, Atlanta, Stewart, Ga., or Houston how they are treated by Immigration Judges. It’s ugly, abusive, well documented, highly inappropriate, and needs to end!
Even more outrageously, rather than building on and replicating successful judicial models like Arlington, Sessions has actually adopted some of the worst imaginable “judicial” practices, encouraged bias, and has actually endorsed and empowered the actions of some of the most clearly biased and anti-immigrant, anti-asylum Immigraton Judges in the system. It’s a simply unacceptable waste of taxpayer money and abuse of our legal system by someone incapable of fulfilling his oath of office.
Imagine, with judges actually in control, lawyers for the respondents, time to prepare and file applications, empathy, courtesy, knowledge, kindness, concern for fairness, efficiency, and giving ICE’s obstructionist “rote objections” and other dilatory tactics encouraged and enabled by this Administration exactly the short shrift they so richly deserve, the U.S. Immigration Courts could potentially fulfill their original vision of “becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
And, ICE could be once again required to function in the same highly-professional, courteous, collegial, respectful, and helpful manner that they did in Arlington during the last Administration. It’s disgraceful that rudeness and unfairness have become the norm under Trump. Things like that used to get even Government lawyers fired, disbarred, or disciplined. Now they appear to win kudos.
And, having dockets run by experienced judicial professionals like Judge Bryant with the help of professional staff responsible to him and his colleagues would promote fairness, quality, and efficiency over the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere created by a biased, politicized, and totally incompetent Department of Justice and carried out by agency bureaucrats who aren’t judges themselves and are not qualified to administer a major court system.
Why not design a system “built for success” rather one that is built for failure and constant crisis? A well-functioning court system where “Due Process and Quality Are Job One” and which serves as a “level playing field” would actually help DHS Enforcement as well as the immigrants whose lives depend upon it.Fairness and Due Process are good for everyone. It’s also what our Constitution requires! Play the game fairly and professionally and let the chips fall where they may, rather than trying to “game the system” to tilt everything toward enforcement.
But, it’s not going to happen until either 1) Congress creates an independent U.S. Immigration Court, or 2) the Article III Courts finally step up to the plate, put an end to this travesty, remove the DOJ from its totally improper and unethical supervisory role, and place the Immigration Courts under a court-appointed “Special Master” to manage them with the goal of Due Process and judicial efficiency until Congress reorganizes them outside of the Executive Branch! Otherwise, the Article IIIs will have to do the job that Sessions won’t let the Immigration Courts perform!
Compare Judge Bryant’s professional performance with the “judicial meat processing plant/Due Process Denial Factory” being operated by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby on the Southern Border as described by Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post in my post from yesterday:
Who is the “real” judge here? It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to answer that one! Just some judges with the backbone, courage, and integrity not to “go along to get along” with Sessions’s assault on the integrity and independence of our justice system.
(1) An applicant who is subject to being barred from establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on the persecution of others may claim a duress defense, which is limited in nature.
(2) To meet the minimum threshold requirements of the duress defense to the persecutor bar, an applicant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he acted under an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or others; (2) he reasonably believed that the threatened harm would be carried out unless he acted or refrained from acting; (3) he had no reasonable opportunity to escape or otherwise frustrate the threat; (4) he did not place himself in a situation in which he knew or reasonably should have known that he would likely be forced to act or refrain from acting; and (5) he knew or reasonably should have known that the harm he inflicted was not greater than the threatened harm to himself or others.
CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Garry d. Malphrus
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
In a decision dated May 31, 2005, an Immigration Judge denied the applicant’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal but granted his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988) (“Convention Against Torture”). On February 7, 2006, we dismissed the appeals of both the applicant and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).1 This case is now before us on remand pursuant to a decision of the United States Supreme Court in
1 The DHS does not now challenge the applicant’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009). Having reviewed the record and the arguments presented by the parties and amici curiae, we will again dismiss the applicant’s appeal.2
We conclude that duress is relevant in determining whether an alien who assisted or otherwise participated in persecution is prevented by the so-called “persecutor bar” from establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 101(a)(42), 208(b)(2)(A)(i), and 241(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (2012), and for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) and (d)(2) (2018).3 In this decision, we set forth a standard for evaluating claims of duress in this context. Applying that standard to the uncontested findings of fact in the record, we conclude that the applicant has not established that he was under duress when he assisted in the persecution of prisoners who were persecuted under his guard in an Eritrean prison camp.
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
The United States Supreme Court remanded this case for us to make an “initial determination of the statutory interpretation question,” Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 524 (2009), “with respect to whether an alien who
was coerced to assist in persecution is barred from obtaining asylum in the United States,” id. at 525 (Scalia, J., concurring). The remand directed us to interpret the statute anew based on principles of statutory construction, free of our prior assumption that Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), definitively resolved this question. The majority decision is artfully drafted, but it does not engage in this analysis. Instead, the majority reads a duress exception into the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for the United States Nov. 1, 1968) (“Protocol”), and, by extension, the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (“Refugee Act”), that simply does not exist. And it does so essentially by deferring to international expectations of how the Protocol should be interpreted. I cannot agree with this approach.
******************************************
Wow! Deferring to international interpretations and expert interpretations from the UNHCR that actually give an asylum applicant a very circumscribed break for actions he or she was forced to take. Very “Un-Boardy.” Could actually be “career threatening.” No wonder Judge Malphrus wanted to separate himself from any such rational and reasonable actions in the “Age of Sessions & Trump.”
9 years in the making, during which the DHS position changed several times, is a pretty good argument against “Chevron deference” (a/k/a “task avoidance by life-tenured Article III Judges”). What were Immigration Judges supposed to do during those 9 years?
Odds on whether or how long it will take “Gonzo” to intervene?
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631193/GettyImages_983050074.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631215/GettyImages_986622846.jpg)
