"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.
NDPA NEWS: THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES: An Impressive Body Of Work Advancing & Defending Due Process!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Our fearless leader, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase reports on the list of Amicus Briefs we have filed since the summer of 2017:
1. BIA Matter of Negusie (7/10/2017) 7 White & Case
2. AG Matter of Castro-Tum (2/16/2018) 14 Akin Gump
3. 9th Cir. CJLG v. Sessions (3/15/2018) 11 Simpson Thacher
4. 10th Cir. Matumona v. Sessions (3/21/2018) 11 Sidley Austin
5. AG Matter of A-B- (4/27/2018) 16 Gibson Dunn
6. 5th Cir. Canterero v. Sessions (5/23/2018) 13 Sidley Austin
7. 9th Cir. Rodriguez v. Sessions (7/27/2018) 20 Wilmer Hale
8. BIA Matter of M-J- (8/07/2018) 20 Gibson Dunn
9. 4th Cir. N.H. v. Whitaker (2/14/2019) 27 Gibson Dunn
10. 10th Cir. Matumona v. Whitaker (2/19/2019) 24 Sidley Austin
11. 1st Cir. OLDB v. Barr (3/11/2019) 27 Gibson Dunn
12. 2d Cir. Orellana v. Barr (4/09/2019) 26 NYU Law School
13. 2d Cir. Kadria v. Barr (4/05/2019) 25 NYU Law School
14. 2d Cir. Banegas-Gomez v. Barr 26 NYU Law School
15. 2d Cir. Pastor v. Barr (4/10/2019) 26 NYU Law School
16. 3d Cir. Giudice v. Att’y Gen.(2 briefs) 26 NYU Law School
17. 1st Cir. De Pena Paniagua v. Barr (4/22/2019)29 Gibson Dunn
18. 9th Cir. Karingithi v. Barr (4/25/19) Boston College Law School
19. 1st Cir. Pontes v. Barr (4/25/2019) Boston College Law School
20. 10th Cir. Zavala-Ramirez v. Barr (5/01/2019) Boston College Law School
21. 10th Cir. Lopez-Munoz v. Barr (5/01/2019) Boston College Law School
22. Sup. Ct. Barton v. Barr (7/03/2019) 27 Pillsbury Winthrop
23. N.D. Ca. East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr 24 Covington
24. 9th Cir. Padilla v. ICE (9/04/2019) 29 Wilmer Cutler
25. 5th Cir. Sorev v. Barr (9/25/2019) 30 White & Case
26. 1st Cir. Boutriq v. Barr (9/25/2019) 31 Harvard Law School
27. 3d Cir. Ramirez-Perez v. Att’y Gen. (10/03/19) 31 Harvard Law School
28. 3d Cir. Nkomo v. Att’y Gen. (10/07/2019) 30 Boston College Law School
29. 9th Cir. Martinez-Mejia v. Barr (10/25/2019) 23 Texas A&M Law School
30. 4th Cir. Quintero v. Barr (11/04/2019) 27 Akin Gump
31. 3d Cir. Campos-Tapia v. Barr (11/25/19) 30 Texas A&M Law School
32. 2d Cir. Guasco v. Barr (12/11/2019) 31 Harvard Law School
33. Sup. Ct. Nasrallah v. Barr (12/16/2019) 33 Gibson Dunn
34. 1st Cir. Doe v. Tompkins (12/23/2019) 34 Jerome Mayer-Cantu, Esq.
********************
Great work!Proud and honored to be a member ofthe Round Table!
And, of course, special appreciation and a big shout out to all of of those wonderful firms, lawyers, institutions, and organizations listed above who have “given us a voice” by providing beyond outstanding pro bono representation!
I have tried to write at least one column every year about Guantánamo in the belief that what happened there, and what the Supreme Court had to say about it, still matters — even though only a few dozen prisoners remain from the hundreds once held there as legal proceedings grind on with no end in sight.
Having missed my goal in 2019, I’m starting the new year with a Guantánamo column. It’s not about Guantánamo per se, but rather about a new Supreme Court case that will test the current justices’ adherence to an important constitutional principle that emerged from the struggle among the three branches of government over what legal regime should govern the detention of those deemed enemy combatants in the aftermath of 9/11.
In a series of rulings from 2004 through 2008 that were notable for majority coalitions of justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, the court rejected the claims of both the White House and Congress that the federal courts had no business in Guantánamo. The most important of these decisions was the final one, Boumediene v. Bush. Congress had tried in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. The court ruled, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the detainees had a constitutional right to seek habeas corpus, the ancient English remedy for illegal detention.
The case now before the court, to be argued in early March, is in essential respects Boumediene’s direct descendant. The question in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam is whether a 1996 federal immigration law unconstitutionally stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases, including habeas corpus cases, brought by undocumented immigrants who are subject to what the law designated as “expedited removal.”
The immigrant in this case, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, is a member of the minority Tamil population in Sri Lanka who applied for asylum after being apprehended crossing the Mexican border into California. Expedited removal applies to, among others, those aliens who are deemed inadmissible upon arrival; an immigration officer can order their immediate deportation. The rules are different if the immigrant is seeking asylum. Those individuals appear before an asylum officer to be screened for the required “credible fear of persecution or torture” if sent back to their home countries.
If “credible fear” is found, immigrants enter what is known as a “full removal proceeding” where they can apply for asylum and obtain judicial review if asylum is denied. But an immigrant who fails the initial screening, as Mr. Thuraissigiam did, receives only a truncated administrative review process and remains in expedited removal. The only access to federal court is for a claim of mistaken identity. The law, which carries the unwieldy name of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, provides: “There shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.”
In its decision last March, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the law unconstitutional. “Boumediene is our starting point,” the appeals court wrote. It held that like the Military Commissions Act that the Supreme Court invalidated in that case, the immigration law amounted to an unconstitutional “suspension” of habeas corpus. The reference is to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Suspension Clause, which provides: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
In the government’s petition to the Supreme Court, which the justices granted in October, Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Boumediene was “fundamentally different” from this case, because while the Guantánamo detainees were seeking release from custody so they could return home, Mr. Thuraissigiam is already free to return home but is trying to stay: “He would be removed to and released in Sri Lanka forthwith absent his habeas petition.”
Whatever its merits, this was a conventional legal argument. Lawyers are always distinguishing their case from the case that set the precedent, aiming to persuade a court that the precedent shouldn’t apply because the facts or context are different.
Then something changed.
The brief on the merits that Solicitor General Francisco filed in December took a surprisingly different line of attack on the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In addition to distinguishing Boumediene as inapplicable, the brief argues that Mr. Thuraissigiam’s claim must fail because the Constitution’s framers would not have applied the Suspension Clause to immigrants seeking relief from deportation. This is an aggressive “originalist” argument that comes very close to telling the court that Boumediene itself was wrongly decided. “This court has stated that ‘the Suspension Clause protects the writ as it existed in 1789,’ ” the brief asserts, citing an immigration case from 2001, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr. It continues: “And in 1789, the writ did not protect the sort of claim that respondent asserts here.”
To be generous, that is at best a partial rendering of what Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion in the St. Cyr case. Here is the relevant paragraph, highlighting two important words that the administration’s brief left out (Enrico St. Cyr was a Haitian immigrant trying to avoid deportation; he won the case):
“In sum, even assuming that the Suspension Clause protects only the writ as it existed in 1789, there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that pure questions of law like the one raised by the respondent in this case could have been answered in 1789 by a common law judge with power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. It necessarily follows that a serious Suspension Clause issue would be presented if we were to accept the I.N.S.’s submission that the 1996 statutes have withdrawn that power from federal judges and provided no adequate substitute for its exercise.”
Justice Kennedy voted with the St. Cyr majority. And in his majority opinion seven years later in Boumediene, he had this to say: “The court has been careful not to foreclose the possibility that the protections of the Suspension Clause have expanded along with post-1789 developments that define the present scope of the writ.”
What accounts for the administration’s aggressive advocacy in the face of the carefully nuanced precedents that apply to this area of the law? Two factors, I think. The first is that conservatives despise the Boumediene opinion. Judge Raymond Randolph, a stalwart conservative on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who wrote the opinion that the Supreme Court overturned in Boumediene, has openly been at war with the Supreme Court over Guantánamo.
In a 2010 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he compared the justices in the Boumediene majority to Tom and Daisy Buchanan in “The Great Gatsby:” “careless people, who smashed things up” and who “let other people clean up the mess they made.” And another conservative judge on the same court, Laurence Silberman, in a concurring opinion in 2011 called Boumediene “the Supreme Court’s defiant — if only theoretical — assertion of judicial supremacy.”
After Boumediene, dozens of Guantánamo detainees brought habeas corpus petitions in Federal District Court in Washington, and the judges of that court granted relief to many of them. But the conservative judges on the appeals court overturned one favorable ruling after another in what at least from the outside looked like a systematic effort to “clean up the mess” by rendering a potentially powerful rights-protecting decision toothless. Not once did the appeals court uphold a detainee’s grant of habeas corpus. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was a judge on the D.C. Circuit throughout that period, joined the majority in two of the more important cases.
The war on Boumediene is not ancient history. In his widely noticed speech to the Federalist Society in November, Attorney General William P. Barr took direct aim at the decision, referring to it as the climax of “the most blatant and consequential usurpation of executive power in our history.” According to the attorney general, the Supreme Court, in its series of Guantánamo cases, “set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict — decisions that lie at the very core of the president’s discretion as commander in chief.”
An attorney general doesn’t ordinarily get involved in the day-in, day-out work of the solicitor general’s office. I’m willing to speculate that Mr. Barr was at most only vaguely aware of the Thuraissigiam case until the court agreed to hear it. I’m guessing that at that point, he saw his opening — an opportunity to shackle the right of habeas corpus to a theory of originalism, as rigid as it is ahistorical, and to perhaps inspire some justices to take a fresh look back at Boumediene.
That brings to me the second factor that explains the turn the administration is taking. Both the St. Cyr and Boumediene cases were decided by votes of 5 to 4. (Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene was memorable. “It will almost certainly cause Americans to die,” he predicted.) Justice Kennedy was in the majority in both. Now, of course, Justice Kavanaugh sits in Justice Kennedy’s seat.
In renewing my commitment to write about Guantánamo every year, I’m not limiting myself to once a year. This case has been overshadowed by pending Supreme Court cases on issues more central to the public conversation. But in their time, it was the Guantánamo cases that held the country in thrall. The current attorney general’s position notwithstanding, that series of decisions represents the best the Supreme Court has to offer the country, an assertion of principle beyond politics. The Trump administration’s advocacy having put that legacy on the line, the question now is whether it will be shredded like so much else in this troubled time.
*******************************
Recently, Chief Justice Roberts remarked on the importance of democratic institutions and judicial independence.
Sadly, the Chiefie and his band of righty politico-judges that form the Supremes’ majority have been rather pathetic examples of how democratic institutions decay and die. With the exception of a rather meek rebuke of outrageous Trump regime fraud and contemptuous lies in the “Census Case,” Roberts and his band have been major contributors to the fecklessness and complicity of the higher level Article III judiciary when confronted by dishonesty and tyranny.
They have eviscerated voting rights, green-lighted unconstitutional gerrymandering by the GOP to dilute voting power on the basis of race, approved a fraudulent “Muslim Ban” based on contrived reasons covering up an obvious invidious purpose, failed to halt unconstitutional immigration detention practices, and allowed the Administration to effectively repeal US and international asylum protections based on Executive action that contravenes both the statute and Constitutional Due Process.
Actions speak louder than words, Chiefie! Until you and your “go along to get along” GOP appointed colleagues act like real judges rather than appendages of right-wing politicos, you won’t get the respect that you seem to crave and believe you deserve. And, that’s why Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco treats you and your colleague like “bought and paid for” political toadies, assigned to do his and his master’s bidding at the expense of our Constitution and the individual rights it was meant to protect.
There are courageous lawyers, judges, and bureaucrats out there putting themselves at risk to protect the democratic institutions and rule of law that you tout. Your complicity is undermining their efforts at every turn. Why don’t you and your colleagues wake up, smell the roses, and come to the aid and support of those doing your job of protecting American democracy for you?
IMMIGRATION DETENTION IS PART OF MASS INCARCERATION: THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING ICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE
NOT MANY PEOPLE besides immigration law wonks had probably heard of “Section 1325,” before Julián Castro called for repealing it during the first Democratic presidential primary debate this summer. The law in question makes it a federal crime to enter the U.S. without permission — turning an immigration offense into a criminal one. President Donald Trump used a policy of “zero tolerance” for breaking that law to justify separating families at the border, but under George W. Bush and Barack Obama before him, 1325, along with illegal reentry — coming back after being deported — was already being used to jail and deport more and more immigrants. In fact, immigration-related crimes now make up the majority of all federal criminal prosecutions.
Castro’s proposal to repeal 1325 might have seemed to come out of left field, but it’s the exercise of the law that is historically the outlier: While laws criminalizing entry have existed since 1929, they “were largely ignored for a century,” the lawyer and scholar César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández reminds us in a new book, “Migrating to Prison: America’s Obsession with Locking Up Immigrants.” In 1975, he noted “a mere 575 people” were charged with an immigration crime; in 1993, only 2,487. Contrast that with fiscal year 2018, when prosecutors brought 105,692 federal immigration charges.
T he criminalization of immigration, especially the scale at which it happens now, is a relatively recent trend, Hernández argues. And it ought to be reversed. His book joins a number of recent works that put contemporary immigration politics in the same light that scholars and activists have shone on mass incarceration — showing it to be a phenomenon inextricably linked to the history of land, race, and capitalism in the United States. “The immigration prison is a reminder that human bondage based on racial and economic markers of undesirability can’t be relegated to some distant past,” Hernández writes. “If we’re willing to lock people up, we’ll find a reason. Most of the time the targets will be people of color. We can call this coincidence, but we would be lying to ourselves.”
Hernández lays out in a lucid, linear fashion the evolution of immigration law and its enforcement in the United States, from laws restricting the movement of certain people across state lines — formerly enslaved people, for instance — to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first in a series of acts that barred Asian immigrants for decades.
Any history of how the notion of “illegality” in migration took root has to consider the experience of Mexicans. While the first U.S. immigration laws focused with explicit racism on excluding Asians, Mexicans were the ones often physically targeted by Border Patrol — harassed, removed, or allowed to pass to satisfy the desires of powerful Southwest planters. In Hernández’s words, Border Patrol “detained and deported their way to a scared workforce.” Many of those workers, whether unauthorized or sanctioned under the bracero program, which ran from 1942 to 1964, were rendered “illegal” by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which got rid of national quotas and more or less established the United States’ current immigration regime, wherein countries are allotted a certain number of visas. Though ostensibly a progressive measure doing away with the racist quotas and nationality bans of previous eras, when it came to Mexico, the act, also known as Hart-Celler, ignored the closeness of the nations and subjected Mexicans to a national cap nowhere near high enough to accommodate traditional migration levels. “Perversely, the Hart-Celler Act’s formal equality turned immigration law against Mexican migrants,” Hernández writes. Mexicans became “illegal,” and “illegal aliens” became racially coded as Mexican.
Its focus on detention sets Hernández’s book apart from other recent histories of immigration and the border, including Kelly Lytle Hernández’s history of the Border Patrol; “Undocumented Lives: The Untold Story of Mexican Migration,” by Ana Raquel Minian; and Greg Grandin’s “The End of Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America.” Early immigration prisons were “atrocious” “dockside facilities,” like a two-story wooden shed on the San Francisco wharf run by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, where Chinese migrants waited to be approved entry by U.S. officials. Ironically, it was to address these terrible conditions in company-run centers that the federal government got involved, creating facilities like Ellis Island in the New York Harbor, which opened in 1892, and Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay. For the first time, Congress required inspection officers “to detain anyone not ‘clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission,’” César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández writes in “Migrating to Prison.” In 1896, the Supreme Court “emphatically declared that immigration imprisonment was constitutionally permissible.”
Yet it was a relatively brief experiment. By 1954, under Dwight D. Eisenhower, Immigration and Naturalization Service (the precursor to today’s immigration agencies) “had all but abandoned its detention policy.” Ellis Island shut down with little fanfare. Hernández concludes that, “in fact if not in law, the United States came remarkably close to abolishing immigration imprisonment.” While that was, in the words of the attorney general at the time, a step in the direction of “humane administration of the immigration laws,” it was also self-interested, Hernández notes. Immigration prisons were costly, and, as has been the case throughout U.S. history, businesses wanted migrants out of prison so they could be used as cheap labor.
Again, Hernández connects this history to that of incarceration writ large in the U.S. There was a time when, even within Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, the utility of prison was questioned. But the ’70s ushered in a politically orchestrated crime panic, and the war on drugs, which led to mandatory minimum prison terms and sentencing disparities for powder cocaine and crack. A parallel process played out with immigration. Migrants, like black Americans, were linked to drugs, crime, and unrest, and portrayed as leeches on government services.
In the 1980s and ’90s, legislation introduced new levels of criminality for immigrants, which in turn expanded the population of imprisoned people. As Hernández writes, “Congress denied immigration judges the discretion to release anyone convicted of an aggravated felony,” which includes serious offenses like murder but also shoplifting and tax fraud. Detention and deportation, once decided with considerable discretion, became mandatory for all sorts of offenses. The link between mass incarceration and immigrant incarceration is clear in the legislative history: The same 1986 law that created mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine created “detainers,” requests to local police to hold someone in jail until they can be picked up by immigration. Liberals were complicit too. As Grandin notes, Bill Clinton played a key role, signing “a number of extremely punitive crime, terrorism, and immigration bills into law, which created the deportation regime that exists today.”
Muslims and other immigrants from majority-Muslim countries suffered the racist expansion of immigration detention after September 11, 2001, as counterterrorism enveloped immigration into the ballooning national security apparatus. And, as with the incarceration of U.S. citizens, black migrants have been disproportionately impacted by the shift to “crimmigration,” as scholars call it — more likely to be detained for a crime, and more likely to be removed.
Considering the recent explosion in immigration detention, Hernández explores federal contracts with local law enforcement and private prison companies. He looks not just at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement but also the U.S. Marshals Service, which holds some 60,000 people a day in pre-trial detention, making deals with state and local jails around the country (the deaths of immigrants in Marshals custody were recently investigated by Seth Freed Wessler for Mother Jones). Again, the degree to which immigration offenses dominate the criminal justice system is stark — in 2013, marshals detained 97,982 people on immigration crimes, compared with 28,323 drug defendants. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, under the Department of Health and Human Services, had 49,000 children in custody in 2018, in “shelters” that range in comforts offered but which are all tightly controlled. Whatever agency officially holds them, Hernández argues, “to the migrants who are under constant surveillance and whose liberty has been denied there is little difference.”
Detention is also used with the idea that it will dissuade people from coming. Although Hernández points out this is legally suspect — detention of asylum-seekers and people accused of other non-criminal immigration offenses is not supposed to be a punishment — multiple administrations have invoked deterrence as a reason to keep people locked up.
Trying to separate immigrants who deserve imprisonment and those who don’t, distinguishing between shelters and detention centers and jails, obscures the workings of the whole system, Hernández says, which is designed to punish people for nothing more than being born in the wrong place. “Migrants are expected to live out the exceptionalism that U.S. citizens imagine in themselves,” he writes. The legal immigration system rewards wealth, education, and family connections, while the immigration enforcement system has no tolerance for human error.
Daniel Denvir’s forthcoming book, “All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It,” complements Hernández’s by focusing on political history. He, too, traces the development of anti-immigrant sentiments and policies alongside anti-black ones, arguing that “resistance to desegregation, a white identity politics of racial grievance, mass incarceration, the war on terror: all were dedicated to a quixotic mission to keep dangerous others from crossing U.S. borders and to restrict the free movement of those inside them.”
Democrats likewise fell into the trap of demonizing “illegal immigrants” and “criminal aliens,” believing that by doing so they could protect legal immigration from hard-right restrictionists and defend themselves from soft-on-crime accusations (just as they’d attempted to do by jumping on the war-on-drugs bandwagon).
T he bipartisan embrace of immigration enforcement, Denvir argues, was the product of the elusive quest for so-called comprehensive immigration reform, which would combine a path to legalization for people already in the country with the liberalization of legal immigration — goals sought by immigrant rights groups and big business alike. In order to get it, Democrats and some Republicans, from Clinton through Bush and Obama, tried to appease nativists with promises of “border security,” miles of fencing, massive increases in the Border Patrol, and surveillance systems befitting a war zone. Each time, however, the nativists were not, in fact, appeased, crying “amnesty” and sabotaging the prospect of reform. “The long-term advantage,” of focusing on enforcement, Denvir writes, “would accrue to the Right, which was better positioned to link the immigrant threat to crime, welfare, black people and terrorism.” Trump’s attempt to demand funding for his pet wall in order to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program last year, was a repeat of the same pattern. In the end, Trump plowed ahead with construction (literally, through delicate desert ecosystems), and DACA’s fate remains unsettled.
Over time, the left flank of immigration activism has grown wary of both comprehensive immigration reform (finding those “reforms” incremental) and the attempt to distinguish “good” immigrants from “bad” ones. As Denvir notes, “lots of ‘good’ immigrants were being deported too. And how bad were the bad ones, given the vast number of individuals convicted of crimes in the carceral state?”
Hernández ends his book with the case for abolishing immigration detention, while admitting that few people have a specific vision for how to do it. Denvir ends with an analysis of an electorate that might be willing to try. As he puts it, “record deportations and a radicalizing racist right has triggered a revolt among the Democratic Party’s increasingly young and diverse base,” and Democrats under Trump have become “staunchly pro-immigrant” and “more hostile to enforcement.” Hernández also decides to see Trump’s hostility to immigrants not just as horror but also as opportunity. Has the bipartisan consensus of “immigration is a ‘problem’ that needs fixing” finally broken? Will Trump’s nativist wish list of anti-immigrant, anti-refugee policies permanently shift Democrats away from their position that enforcement is always necessary?
Decriminalization of entry and reentry is a start, as Denvir and Hernández advocate (among the remaining Democratic presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, and Andrew Yang have said they agree). Denvir also calls for downsizing the Border Patrol, destroying existing physical barriers, breaking up agreements between ICE and local law enforcement, and increasing opportunities for legal immigration, especially from Central America and Mexico. Hernández urges, on a personal and institutional level, divestment from private prison companies. Eliminating cash bail and giving every migrant the right to a lawyer would drastically increase their odds of success, as would case management — offering help with housing and legal assistance.
These types of measures might actually lead to better compliance with immigration law, satisfying the obsession with people migrating “the right way.” But they would not offer concessions to a nativist right that wants any and all nonwhite immigration restricted, and they would have to resist the scare tactics bent on tying immigrants to crime and the rhetoric of scarcity that will inevitably accompany an economic downturn and worsening climate conditions. The court cases challenging the most horrendous aspects of confinement in immigrant detention centers are important. But if radical changes come, Hernández writes, “it won’t be because the law demands it. It will be because people demand it.”
********************************
This is a study in how a motivated minority can shove bad and fiscally irresponsible policies down the throats of a complicit majority.
The legal, fiscal, and humanitarian arguments against the NAG are out there, but the Dems keep getting “sidetracked” by buying into the bogus concept that “hard line enforcement and a little cruelty” is a necessary “quid pro quo” for rational immigration reform. But, the truth is that no amount of repression, cruelty, and irrational enforcement will ever satisfy the White Nationalists who have taken over the GOP.
Maybe, rather than trying to appease the unappeasable, the Dems’ strategy needs to be getting 100% of Democrats out to vote and registering the large number of new and younger potential voters who don’t favor racially driven policies of unrelenting cruelty and wasteful immigration restrictionism.
“SITTING DUCKS” IN “UNSAFE THIRD COUNTRIES” — How The Supremes, The 9th Circuit, The 5th Circuit, & Other Complicit Federal Appellate Courts Aid & Abet The Trump Regime’s Human Rights Violations — Would The “Privileged Robed Ones” Take Due Process & The Rule Of Law More Seriously If It Were Their Kids & Grandkids Being Kidnapped & Held for Ransom For The “Crime” Of Seeking Protection Under U.S. Laws?
Robbie Whelan Mexico City Correspondent Wall Street Journal
Violence Plagues Migrants Under U.S. ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program
Migrants seeking shelter in the U.S. under Trump administration policy report rising numbers of kidnappings by criminal groups
NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico—Every morning, Lorenzo Ortíz, a Baptist pastor who lives in Texas, drives a 12-seat passenger van packed with food and blankets across the border to pick up migrants who have been dropped off in Mexico and ferry them to shelters.
His mission is to keep the migrants safe from organized crime groups that prowl the streets of this violent Mexican border town. Since the Trump administration began implementing its Migrant Protection Protocols program at the start of 2019—widely known as Remain in Mexico—some 54,000 migrants, mostly from Central America, have been sent back to northern Mexico to wait while their asylum claims are processed. Mexico’s government is helping implement it.
But in cities like Nuevo Laredo, migrants are sitting ducks. Over the years, thousands have reported being threatened, extorted or kidnapped by criminal groups, who prey upon asylum seekers at bus stations and other public spaces.
“Over the last year, it’s gotten really bad,” Mr. Ortíz said.
A typical scheme involves kidnapping migrants and holding them until a relative in the U.S. wires money, typically thousands of dollars, in ransom money. Gangs have also attacked shelters and even some Mexican clergy members who help migrants.
There have been 636 reported cases of kidnapping, rape, torture and other violent crimes against migrants returned to Mexico under Remain in Mexico, according to Human Rights First, which interviews victims in border cities and advocates for migrants’ due process rights. At least 138 of these incidents involved kidnappings of children.
Many more cases of extortion and violence go unreported for fear of retribution. As more migrants are returned to dangerous areas such as Nuevo Laredo under Remain in Mexico, the situation is expected to worsen, the nonprofit Human Rights First said in a recent report.
The Mexican government has played down the violence. Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard recently acknowledged kidnapping incidents, but said that “it’s not a massive number.” Only 20 such cases have been investigated by the government, he added.
The Trump administration has credited the program with deterring migrants from attempting to cross into the U.S. Monthly apprehensions of migrants at the U.S. Southern border have plunged from more than 144,000 in May to 33,500 in November. The Remain in Mexico program was expanded in June.
On a recent visit to the border, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said the program has been a “game-changer” for U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers because it has freed them from having to perform humanitarian duties.
But Mr. Ortíz’s daily commute back and forth over the border highlights what migrants’ advocates say is a key element of the program—it isolates migrants not only from the legal counsel they need to argue their asylum claims, but from resources like food, shelter and medical care that are abundant on the U.S. side, but near-nonexistent in Mexico.
“You have all this infrastructure to help feed and clothe and house people set up on this side, in Laredo and Del Rio and Eagle Pass, and then suddenly the administration changes the policy, and you have to send it all to Mexico, because now everyone is on the other side,” said Denise LaRock, a Catholic Sister who helps distribute donations to asylum seekers through the nonprofit Interfaith Welcome Coalition. Mexico has been unable to provide enough safe shelter and other resources to migrants.
In Matamoros, another large recipient of asylum seekers under the program across the border from Brownsville, Texas, a tent city of more than 3,000 people has sprung up. Migrants there have complained of overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and insufficient medical treatment. In November, a migrant from El Salvador was murdered in Tijuana, opposite San Diego, while waiting with his wife and two children for an asylum hearing under the Remain in Mexico program.
On a recent, briskly-cold Wednesday, Mr. Ortíz, dressed in a ski vest and a baseball cap with the logo of the U.S. Chaplain International Association, picked up six migrants, including two children aged 8 and 14, at the immigration office in Nuevo Laredo. All were from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, and were returning from legal appointments in the U.S. Hearings take place in makeshift courts set up in tents in Laredo, just across the bridge over the Rio Grande that separates the two cities.
At the front door of the office, six young men sat idly around a motorcycle, hats pulled low over their heads, watching the scene unfold, periodically walking up to the church van and peering in. Mr. Ortíz said these men were “hawks” or lookouts for criminal gangs.
“They know who I am, I know who they are,” he said. “You have to know everyone to do this work. The cartels respect the church. I’ve driven all around Nuevo Laredo in this van, full of migrants, and they never mess with me.”
At one point two of the lookouts asked the pastor for some food. He gave them two boxes of sandwich cookies. They clapped him on the shoulder, eating the treats as they walked back to their observation post.
Mr. Ortíz, a native of central Mexico, came to the U.S. at age 15 and eventually built a small contracting business in Texas. He became an ordained Baptist minister about a decade ago and three years ago began ministering to migrants full time. This year, he converted several rooms of his home in Laredo, Texas, into a dormitory for migrants and built men’s and women’s showers in his backyard.
After picking up the migrants, Mr. Ortíz ferried the group to an unmarked safe house with a chain-locked door on a busy street in the center of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
Inside, about 90 migrant families crowded into rows of cots set up in a handful of bedrooms and a concrete back patio. Among the Central Americans are also migrants from Peru, Congo, Haiti, Angola and Venezuela.
Reports of migrant kidnappings have increased since the Remain in Mexico program began, Mr. Ortíz said. In September, armed men stormed the safe house—one of two that the pastor brings migrants to—and detained the shelter’s staff for about an hour.
Since then, Mr. Ortíz said, the volunteer staff has stopped allowing migrants to leave the house unaccompanied, even to buy milk for young children at a nearby store.
Rosa Asencio, a schoolteacher fleeing criminal gangs in El Salvador and traveling with her two children ages 4 and 7, was returned to Nuevo Laredo under Remain in Mexico. She says she hasn’t been outside the shelter for nearly three weeks. “They can kidnap you anywhere,” she said.
María Mazariegos, an Honduran housekeeper, said she was kidnapped along with her 12-year-old daughter Alexandra from the bus station in Nuevo Laredo in September.
Gang members held her in a windowless cinder-block room that bore signs of torture for three days with one meal of tortillas and beans. She was released after her family members in the U.S. convinced her captors that they didn’t have the money to pay a ransom.
Then, two weeks later, while she was returning from a court appointment in the U.S., a shelter staff member confirmed, another group tried to kidnap her. An escort from the shelter was able to talk the kidnappers out of it.
She has court hearing under Remain in Mexico rules on Jan. 22, where a judge is expected to decide on her asylum case. If she is rejected, she plans to move to the Mexican city of Saltillo, where she has heard there are more jobs and less violence.
“Just about anywhere is better than here,” Ms. Mazariegos added.
These two quotes really tell you all you need know about this grotesquely immoral and illegal “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico Program” (sometimes totally disingenuously referred to as the “Migrant Protection Protocols”) and the sleazy U.S. Government officials responsible for it:
There have been 636 reported cases of kidnapping, rape, torture and other violent crimes against migrants returned to Mexico under Remain in Mexico, according to Human Rights First, which interviews victims in border cities and advocates for migrants’ due process rights. At least 138 of these incidents involved kidnappings of children.
. . . .
On a recent visit to the border, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said the program has been a “game-changer” for U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers because it has freed them from having to perform humanitarian duties.
Let’s not forget that the Immigration “Court” system that has life or death power over these asylum claims has been twisted and “gamed” against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly women and children with brown skins, by the White Nationalist politicos who unconstitutionally control it. All this while the Article III appellate courts look the other way and “swallow the whistle” on protecting the legal and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us.
Let’s see, essentially: “It’s great program because it allows us to evade our humanitarian duties under humanitarian laws and concentrate on faux law enforcement directed against individuals who are not legitimate targets of law enforcement.” Doesn’t say much for the legal and moral authority of the Article III, life-tenured judges who think this is acceptable for our country.
Obviously, this has less to do with the law, which is clearly against what the “regime” is doing, or legitimate law enforcement, which has little to do with the vast majority of legal asylum seekers, and lots to do with vulnerable, brown-skinned individuals desperately seeking justice being “out of sight, out of mind” to the exalted, tone-deaf Article III Judges who are failing to do their Constitutional duties. “Going along to get along” appears to be the new mantra of far too many of the Article III appellate judges.
Assuming that our republic survives and that “Good Government” eventually returns to both the Executive and the Legislative Branches, an examination of the catastrophic failure of the Article III Judiciary to effectively stand up for the Constitutional, legal, and individual human rights of asylum seekers obviously needs reexamination and attention.
The glaring lack of legal expertise in asylum, immigration, and human rights laws as well as basic Constitutional Due Process, and the total lack of human empathy among far, far too many Article III appellate jurists is as stunning as it is disturbing! The past is the past; but, we can and should learn from it. At some point, if we are to survive as a nation of laws and humane values, we need a radically different and more courageous Article III Judiciary that puts humanity and human rights first, not last!
The “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico Program” will not go down in history as a “law enforcement success” as Wolf-man and the other Trump regime kakistocrats and their enablers and apologists claim; it eventually will take its place as one of the most disgraceful and cowardly abandonments of American values in our history. And, the role of the complicit Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges who turned their backs on our asylum laws, our Constitution, and human decency will also be spotlighted!
As I was “indexing” this article, I “scrolled through” the name and thought of my old friend the late Arthur Helton, a courageous humanitarian, lawyer, teacher, role model, and occasional litigation opponent (during my days at the “Legacy INS”). Arthur, who literally gave his life for others and his steadfastly humane view of the law, was a believer in the “fundamental justice” of the American judicial system. I wonder what he would think if he were alive today to see the cowardly and complicit performance of so many Article III appellate judges, all the way up to and including the Supremes, in the face of the unlawful, unconstitutional, institutionalized evil, hate, and tyranny of our current White Nationalist regime.
For reference purposes, the average grant rate for FY 2018 and FY 2019 was 33% and 29%, respectively.
******************
Go to the link for complete individual Immigration Judge asylum stats.
The idea that a “court” system is providing “fair and impartial” decisions toasylum seekers by advancing to important appellate positions biased, obviously unqualified, anti-asylum “jurists”with grant rates that are a small fraction of the already artificially and unethically suppressed “national average” is a total fraud — a grotesque national disgrace rivaled only by the gutless Article III judges who have allowed and encouraged this to happen on their watch!
Somewhat remarkably, after three years of concerted efforts to “zero out” asylum grants, including gimmicks like illegally and unethically rewriting asylum law to screw refugees, denying the statutory and Constitutional right to counsel, using coercive and punitive detention, abusive criminal prosecutions, and family separation to coerce asylum seekers into giving up viable claims, production quotas encouraging rote asylum denials, packing the Immigration Courts with appointees from enforcement backgrounds, and stacking the BIA with anti-asylum zealots, the overall asylum grant rate is still 29%.
That suggests that under a fair and impartial judicial system asylum seekerscould and should succeed in the vast majority of cases. With no material improvements in worldwide refugee-creating conditions, and indeed a record number of refugees fleeing oppression, there is no bona fide explanation for how grant rates would go from 43% in FY 2016 to 29% in FY 2019 without any legislative changes. And, let’s be clear: the 43% in 2016 was already artificially suppressed from 56% in FY 2012. Even the 2012 rate was unrealistically low. A realistic grant rate under a properly generous application of asylum law probably would have been in the 70%-80% range.
The answer is obvious: Government fraud and misfeasance in asylum adjudication on a massive scale, motivated by a White Nationalist, racist, nativist political agenda that clearly violates both the asylum laws and our Constitution. And, this doesn’t even take into account the many asylum seekers artificially denied access to the system at all through the “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico Program,” and ludicrously illegal and fraudulent “Safe Third Country” agreements with patently unsafe and corrupt failed states.
Yet, while it’s all happening in plain view, indeed touted by Stephen Miller and other racist officials, the Article III Courts of Appeals and the Supremeshave taken a dive. They are are allowing the “Second Coming of Jim Crow” to unfold before their eyes, every day, without taking the strong, courageous judicial actions necessary to preserve Due Process and fundamental fairness and to “just say no” to the overt racism driving anti-asylum policies.
Sure, the stock market is up and we’re essentially at full employment. But, that really has little or nothing to do with justice, morality, values, and the rule of law. Eventually, the inevitable economic cycles will turn again.
With social justice, integrity, the rule of law, and our republic in shambles, how will the Article IIIs and the other cowardly enablers justify their roles and dereliction of their duty to stand up for the rights of the most vulnerable among us? And, who will stand up for them and their rights when the anti-American forces driving Trumpism decide that these toady judges’ complicit role is no longer essential to the planned destruction of American democracy?
In INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 452 (1987), Justice Blackmun, in his concurring opinion, cautioned:
“The efforts of these courts stand in stark contrast to — but, it is sad to say, alone cannot make up for — the years of seemingly purposeful blindness by the INS, which only now begins its task of developing the standard entrusted to its care.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 452 (1987).
Unfortunately, after years of progress under Administrations with more integrity and intellectual honesty, the interpretation and application of U.S. asylum law is now in, perhaps terminal, regression under this corrupt and intellectually dishonest White Nationalist regime and the kakistocracy it has constructed within the immigration bureaucracy, including the parody of justice and Due Process that takes place daily in the Immigration “Courts.”
Even more tragically, this time around the Supremes and the Article III Circuit Courts, far from being part of the solution and fearless defenders of the rule of law and the rights of vulnerable asylum seekers, have become a key part of the “purposeful blindness” feeding and driving the problem — in effect, “slaughtering the innocents.” By their complicity and fecklessness, they are ripping apart our system of justice and our established constitutional order. I’m sure that Justice Blackmun would be both horrified and outraged by the institutional cowardice and dereliction of duty by his black-robed, life tenured successors.
Due Process Forever; Corrupt, Complicit Federal Courts Never!
Washington (CNN)Lisa Dornell loved her job. For 24 years, she sat on the bench in Baltimore’s immigration court, hearing hundreds of cases of immigrants trying to stay in the United States.
“It was an honor. It was a privilege to be able to preside over so many different cases and be able to grant relief to people who needed relief,” Dornell told CNN in an interview.
But she walked away from that job in April — a decision that still invokes a wave of emotion when she recalls it. “The toxic environment made it both harder and easier to leave,” Dornell said.
Over the past year, in the heat of a border migration crisis, 45 judges have left, moved into new roles in the immigration court system — which is run by the Justice Department — or passed away, according to the department. That’s nearly double the number who departed their posts in fiscal years 2018 and 2017, when 24 and 21 judges left, respectively, according to data provided by the judges union.
The reasons why individual judges have moved on from their posts on the bench vary, but in interviews with judges who left in recent months, one theme ties them all together: frustration over a mounting number of policy changes that, they argue, chipped away at their authority.
Their departures come as the Justice Department faces a backlog that exceeds 1 million cases. The bogged-down system has led to immigration cases being pushed out years in the future, leaving many immigrants residing in the US unsure if they’ll be allowed to stay or be ordered removed.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the nation’s immigration system, specifically taking issue with the practice of releasing immigrants while they await their court dates. To remedy that, the administration has sought to hire more immigration judges. Most recently, the immigration judge corps hit a record high, though the Justice Department still has to contend with judges leaving over policy disagreements.
In a statement to CNN, the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review spokeswoman, Kathryn Mattingly, said the agency “continually plans for attrition, and both improvements to the hiring process and a policy of ‘no dark courtrooms’ help minimize the operational impact of (immigration judge) separations and retirements.”
The agency doesn’t track individual reasons for retirements or departures, Mattingly said.
Immigration judges — employees of the Justice Department — are charged with following the policies set by each administration.
“The nature of the job ebbed and flowed as administrations changed,” Dornell recalled. “It was always tolerable. We all work with a realization that it’s the prerogative of the administration to implement policies as they see fit.”
The Trump administration was no exception. Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, implemented a series of changes to the immigration court system that have continued under his successor, William Barr.
The Justice Department has imposed case quotas, given more power to the director charged with overseeing the courts, reversed rulings, curtailed judges’ ability to exercise discretion in some cases and moved to decertify the union of immigration judges.
Over time, those actions prompted immigration judges, some of whom were retirement eligible and had decades of experience, to leave the department despite initial plans to stay longer.
“I felt then and I feel now that this administration is doing everything in its power to completely destroy the immigration court system, the board of immigration appeal and the immigration system in general,” said Ilyce Shugall, who served as an immigration judge in San Francisco from 2017 until March of this year. “And I just couldn’t be a part of that.”
‘It started to wear on me’
Over his nearly two-year tenure as attorney general, Sessions transformed the courts by flexing his authority to overrule decisions, hire more immigration judges and set a case quota for judges.
One of Sessions’ addresses to the workforce, in particular, resonated with judges. In a June 2018 speech in Washington, Sessions denounced the system, which he believed was encouraging migrants to make baseless asylum claims, and reminded judges of their role in cracking down on those claims.
“You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly and consistently,” Sessions said. Later that day, he issued a ruling that removed asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and gang violence.
“To be honest with you, in that meeting room, there were a number of judges that cheered and clapped when he announced it,” said former immigration judge Rebecca Jamil, referring to the ruling that would follow his address. “It was grotesque to me.”
Jamil, who had been based in the San Francisco immigration court, had a docket that included migrants who had fled their home countries, claiming they were victims of domestic violence. Sessions’ decision took direct aim at those cases.
Another judge in attendance at Sessions’ speech, Denise Slavin, recalled jaws dropping. Slavin had become a judge in 1995, serving in Florida before finishing her tenure in Baltimore in April of this year.
Sessions’ address and follow-up ruling was among a series of policy changes that began to wear on judges.
“When you’ve been around that many administrations, you learn to adapt. You see a lot of different things. Nothing like this,” said James Fujimoto, a former Chicago immigration judge who started on the bench in 1990 and also retired in April.
In particular, the administration began rolling out changes that dictated the way judges were expected to proceed with cases, thereby tightening control of the immigration courts. For example, the Justice Department said it would evaluate immigration judges on how many cases they close and how fast they hear cases.
Earlier this year, the Justice Department also issued a new rule that gives more power to the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. It allows the Justice Department-appointed director — currently James McHenry — to step in and issue a ruling if appeals are not completed within a certain time frame.
“It started to wear at me,” said Jennie Giambastiani, a former Chicago immigration judge who joined the bench in 2002 and left this year. “The great number of cases coming in and the way it was expected we handle them.”
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told CNN that for the majority of people leaving their roles it’s a result of the “hostility and insulting working conditions.”
Tabaddor noted that there’s been a pattern of new judges either leaving to return to their old jobs or taking other jobs within the government.
“This is not what they signed up for,” Tabaddor said, referring to policies designed to dictate how judges should handle their dockets.
Judges who have since left the department expressed similar concern over those policies. Dornell called the situation “intolerable.”
Shugall recalled the challenges she had faced in trying to move forward with cases in a way she thought was appropriate. “I felt like as more and more policies were coming down, it was making it harder and harder to effectively hear cases in the way that I felt was appropriate and in compliance with the statute regulations and Constitution,” Shugall said.
At an event earlier this year, McHenry rejected criticism that judges are vulnerable to pressures from the attorney general.
“Most judges that we’re familiar with, and I don’t think that immigration judges are any exception, when they’re on the bench, they know what their role is as a judge,” he said. “We’ve had no allegations of anyone reaching down to specific judges telling them, ‘You have to rule this way; you have to rule that way.’ ”
Justice Department hires new judges
Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced 28 new immigration judges, bringing the number of such judges to more than 465, a record high. The majority come from government backgrounds.
It’s not unusual for administrations to hire people who’ve worked in government, but under the Trump administration, Booz Allen Hamilton, at the direction of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a report recommending that the agency diversify the experience of immigration judges.
The direction of the nation’s immigration courts is also a source of concern among immigrant advocate groups. This month, groups filed a wide-ranging lawsuit, alleging that the Trump administration has manipulated the immigration court system to serve an “anti immigrant agenda.”
It remains to be seen what changes, if any, are in store for the court system, but some of those who have already left their posts as judges carry guilt for departing, concerned about who may fill their jobs.
“The biggest thing I contended with is who is going to replace me,” Jamil said. “I knew I was a fair judge.”
**************************************
I’m proud to say that all of the quoted former Immigration Judges are members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, committed to preserving and advancing Due Process and judicial independence.
Apparently, EOIR headquarters and DOJ bureaucrats now refer to Immigration Judge decisions as “policy decisions,” thereby dropping any pretense that they are fair and impartial quasi-judicial adjudications under the law.
As for the ludicrous claim that this is anything approaching a legitimate independent judiciary, as one of my Round Table colleagues succinctly put it: “The political arm of DOJ’s assertion that IJs are treated independently is so much BS.”
Yup! Congratulations and many thanks to Judge Dornell and the others who spoke out in this article!
So, Immigration Judges, who lack the life tenure and protections of independence given to Article III Judges, put their careers and livelihoods on the line for Due Process and the rule of law, and, frankly, to save vulnerable lives that deserve saving. Meanwhile, the majority of Supreme Court Justices and far too many Article III Courts of Appeals Judges just bury their judicial heads in the sand and pretend like the outrages against Due Process, fundamental fairness, and the rule of law aren’t really happening in Immigration Court and that human lives aren’t being ruined or lost by their derelictions of duty. Has to make you wonder about their ethics, courage, and commitment to their oaths of office, as well as what the purpose of life tenure is if all it produces is complicity in the face of tyranny that threatens to destroy our Constitution and bring down our republic.
The Article IIIs are providing some rather sad examples and bad role models for today’s aspiring lawyers.
NYT: The new rule, issued by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, would expand the list of crimes that bar migrants from asylum to include misdemeanor offenses, including driving under the influence, possession of fake identification and drug possession, including having more than 30 grams of of marijuana… The administration would also deny asylum to migrants caught crossing the border after receiving a deportation order and those who illegally received public benefits.
WaPo: The White House sought this month to embed immigration enforcement agents within the U.S. refugee agency that cares for unaccompanied migrant children, part of a long-standing effort to use information from their parents and relatives to target them for deportation, according to six current and former administration officials.
WSJ: Guatemala is set to finalize within days a deal to expand its asylum agreement with the U.S. to begin accepting Mexican migrants sent from the southern U.S. border, U.S. and Guatemalan officials familiar with the talks said.
WaPo: An estimated 800,000 immigrants who are working legally in the United States are waiting for a green card, an unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration that has fueled a bitter policy debate but has been largely overshadowed by President Trump’s border wall fight and the administration’s focus on migrant crossings from Mexico.
Quartz: Social media tracking, Increased denaturalization efforts, Expansion of “public charge” definition, Domestic violence no longer grounds for asylum, Limits to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Secret policies.
WGBH: Concerns are growing as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considers a legal motion filed by a private group to cancel the federal program.
USA Today: A USA TODAY Network investigation revealed sex assaults, routine use of physical force, poor medical care and deaths at facilities overseen by ICE.
TRAC: MPP Results in Slightly Longer Wait Times for First Hearing…Asylum Seekers in the US are 7 Times More Likely to Have an Attorney…Most Asylum Seekers Attend Their Hearings Unless Forced to Remain in Mexico.
On 12/10/19, former immigration judges sent a letter to EOIR requesting that it investigate violations of due process rights during MPP hearings and ensure that the public has appropriate access to all immigration courts. AILA Doc. No. 19121700
Susan F. Aikman, Immigration Judge, Batavia Immigration Court
Jennifer Chung, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
Diane L. Dodd, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
David A. Norkin, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick Immigration Court (yes, former court administrator)
John J. Siemietkowski, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
Rantideva Singh, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court
New Permanent ACIJ at New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court
EOIR: Effective January 20, ACIJ Carrie Johnson will be the permanent ACIJ for the New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court. ACIJ Johnson is currently the ACIJ for the Newark and Elizabeth Immigration Courts and will remain in those positions. ACIJ Sheila McNulty will continue to serve as the Acting ACIJ for the New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Fishkill, and Ulster Immigration Courts.
Intercept: In this case, ICE used Thomson Reuters’s controversial CLEAR database, part of a growing industry of commercial data brokers that contract with government agencies, essentially circumventing barriers that might prevent the government from collecting certain types of information. See also California DOJ Cuts Off ICE Deportation Officers from State Law Enforcement Database.
Reuters: The pathway to citizenship – even for a relatively small cohort of immigrants – is a victory for pro-migrant activists and lawmakers who pushed for citizenship for Liberians covered by temporary deportation relief programs.
Bloomberg: The 30-day limitations period for an immigrant to appeal an order requiring him to be removed from the U.S. isn’t jurisdictional, and thus may be equitably tolled, the Second Circuit said Dec. 19.
USCIS updated its policy manual to clarify the effect of travel abroad by TPS beneficiaries with final removal orders. Per USCIS, TPS beneficiaries who depart and return to the U.S. based on authorization to travel remain in the exact same immigration status and circumstances as when they left. AILA Doc. No. 19122036
NYLJ: U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York said the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James and Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez raised valid claims that the practice could have deleterious effects on the criminal justice system.
SCOTUSblog: The justices will decide whether a noncitizen who is convicted of a state crime can apply for relief from deportation – such as asylum or cancellation of removal – when the state-court record is ambiguous about whether his conviction corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
WaPo: Organizations critical of President Trump’s immigration policies filed a broad lawsuit Thursday challenging new restrictions for green-card seekers who may need government help to pay for food and health care…It seeks to block the State Department from moving forward with its public-charge rules, and specifically singles out Trump’s October decree — titled “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System” — requiring green-card applicants to have “approved” medical coverage or sufficient resources to pay for their medical costs out of pocket.
AP: The lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Washington, D.C., and Innovation Law Lab of Portland, Oregon, said that instead of being fair and impartial, judges in immigration courts answer to Attorney General Robert Barr and are pushed to deny applications for asylum.
DOJ and DHS issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to provide seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum for individuals who commit certain criminal offenses in the U.S. The proposed rule would also remove provisions regarding reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum. AILA Doc. No. 19121835
The Trump administration announced the opening of an office to focus on identifying immigrants who are suspected of cheating to get their green cards or citizenship and will seek to denaturalize these individuals. Watch this page for updates and resources from AILA. AILA Doc. No. 18072705
USCIS provided Q&As from its December 10, 2019, engagement on the recent Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) adopted AAO decisions and the corresponding policy manual update. AILA Doc. No. 19122002
ICE and the Mexican Ministry of the Interior announced the continuation of the Interior Repatriation Initiative. The first 2019 repatriation flight of approximately 150 Mexican nationals departed Tucson International Airport on December 19, 2019. AILA Doc. No. 19122000
Note that DOJ/EOIR rally outdid themselves on Immigration Judge appointments with 27 “Government insiders,” most from DHS or other enforcement backgrounds, and only one “outside” appointment from private practice. As one of my Round Table colleagues quipped: “I guess they must have run out of ICE Assistant Chief Counsel.”
Time to be happy and thankful if you’re not a migrant seeking justice and mercy in Trump’s America.
Behind every tyrannical regime are complicit judges who fail to stand up for justice for the most vulnerable and deserving of protection!
Thanks again, Elizabeth for all you do for the New Due Process Army and the cause of American justice!
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford U.S. District Judge WDNY
Dan Kowalski over @ LexisNexis Immigration Community reports:
FW:due process victory: Hassoun v. Searls
“[T]he Court finds that 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) is not a permissible reading of § 1231(a)(6), and that it is accordingly a legal nullity that cannot authorize the ongoing, potentially indefinite detention of Petitioner. … The Court further finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary before it can determine the lawfulness of Petitioner’s continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226a.”
Note also the roasting, on page 11, of DOJ lawyers for failure to do basic 1L legal research: “To say the least, it is disappointing that Respondent’s counsel, after consulting with other counsel including “prosecutors and appellate attorneys” in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”
I hear and appreciate U.S District Judge (WDNY) Elizabeth A. Wolford’s outrage and frustration.
But, for hard working members of the New Due Process Army this is “just another day at the office” in dealing with the Trump Regime’s unethical, scofflaw, fact free White Nationalist nativist agenda: lies and pretexts presented to the Supremes to hide an intentional census undercount directed at reducing Hispanic voting and political power; false narratives about migrants and crime; a bogus largely self-created “border emergency;” fraudulent “national security” justifications; EOIR “administrative changes” intended to undermine the right to representation and eliminate due process; twisted unethical “precedents” entered by the chief prosecutor that always come out against the individuals; misogynist racist misinterpretations of asylum law intended to kill, maim, and torture vulnerable women of color; child abuse cloaked in disingenuous “law enforcement” rationales; bogus “civil detention” to punish lawful asylum seekers; a grotesquely dishonest “Migrant Protection Protocol” intended to subject migrants to deadly conditions in Mexico; “Safe” Third Countries that are among the most dangerous in the world without functioning asylum systems; irrational “public charge” regulations intended to reduce legal immigration without legislation; EOIR’s distorted statistics intentionally manipulated to minimize asylum grants and cover up the anti-asylum bias improperly infused into the system; vicious unsupported attacks on the private bar by the Attorney General and other regime politicos. The list goes on forever.
Unfortunately, this scofflaw and unethical behavior will continue until Federal Judges back up their words with actions: declarations of unconstitutionality; sanctions against the Government for frivolous litigation; removing political control over EOIR; referring Barr and other DOJ attorneys who are abusing the justice system to bar authorities for possible discipline.
“This ain’t your Momma’s or Papa’s DOJ!” (Or for that matter one that those of us who served in the recent past would recognize.) Its antecedents and “role models” are America’s vile, deadly, discredited Jim Crow era and 20th & 21st Century fascist regimes.
Time for Article III Judges to get out of their ivory towers, stop tiptoeing around Government corruption, dishonesty and misconduct, and start looking at things from the human perspective of the individuals and their courageous attorneys caught up in this legal, moral, and ethical quagmire and fighting not only for their own lives but for the future of our nation! There is and will be “only one right side of history” in this existential struggle!
Due Process Forever; The Corrupt White Nationalist Immigration Agenda Never!
EMELI KWASI ATTIPOE v. BARR, 2d. Cir., 12-19-19, published
PANEL: POOLER, LOHIER, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Rosemary Pooler
KEY QUOTE:
Here, as in Iavorski, nothing in the text of Section 545(d)(2) itself, or in its
4 legislative history, indicates that Congress intended the appeal filing deadline to
5 be jurisdictional. To the contrary, the House Conference Report states that
6 “[u]nless the Attorney General finds reasonable evidence to the contrary, the
7 regulations must state that administrative appeals be made within 30 days, except
8 that the appellate body may, upon motion, extend such period up to 90 days, if good cause
9 is shown by the movant.” H.R. Rep. No. 101‐955 at 133 (emphasis added). The
10 legislative history thus indicates that Congress was amenable to the idea of
11 extending the time to file an appeal past the deadline upon a showing of good
12 And the BIA may, sua sponte, decide to accept late filings under the self‐
13 certification process. It could not accept any late filings—exceptional
14 circumstances or not—if the filing deadline truly was jurisdictional.
15 We therefore extend Iavorksi’s interpretation of Section 545(d)(1) to its
16 sister subsection, Section 545(d)(2), and hold that the BIA must consider the
17 principles of equitable tolling when an untimely appeal is filed and the petitioner
18 raises the issue, as Attipoe did here. We remand to the BIA to consider whether 15
1 equitable tolling allows consideration of Attipoe’s late‐filed appeal. The BIA is
2 free to develop the factors it will apply in considering equitable tolling, although
3 we note that it need not start from scratch. In Holland, the Supreme Court set out
4 standards for courts to apply in determining whether equitable tolling is
5 appropriate: (1) a showing that a petitioner “has been pursuing his rights
6 diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” 560
7 S. at 649 (internal quotation marks omitted). And in the context of a late
8 motion to reopen, we have held that petitioners seeking equitable tolling must
9 demonstrate (1) that their constitutional rights to due process were violated by
10 the conduct of counsel; and (2) that they exercised due diligence during the
11 putative tolling period. Iavorski, 232 F.3d at 135; see also Rashid v. Mukasey, 533
12 3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring that a petitioner prove diligence during
13 “both the period of time before the ineffective assistance of counsel was or
14 should have been discovered and the period from that point until the motion to
15 reopen is filed”); Cekic v. I.N.S., 435 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2006) (requiring that
16 petitioner “affirmatively demonstrate that he exercised reasonable due diligence
17 during the time period sought to be tolled”). After it determines what the
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
standards for equitable tolling under Section 1003.38 are, the BIA should determine whether Attipoe satisfies those standards.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the petition is granted, the BIA’s decision is vacated, and this matter remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
An honest, competent Attorney General would make fixing the glaring legal, quality control, and Due Process problems with the BIA’s performance “job one.”
Instead, White Nationalist political hacks Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have maliciously pushed the BIA and the Immigration Courts to rush more defective unprofessional work product out the door faster, thereby guaranteeing unconstitutional miscarriages of justice and numerous wrongful removals.
Improper, mindless, designed to fail “haste makes waste” gimmicks by the regime actually make the astounding 1.3 million case Immigration Court backlog much much worse, rather than addressing it in a rational and professional manner consistent with Due Process of law.
That’s especially true in a system where many individuals are improperly and unconstitutionally forced to appear without assistance of counsel and many others suffer from “underperformance” of counsel in a totally stressed and unfair system where the problems are overwhelmingly caused by our Government‘s “maliciously incompetent” performance, but the consequences fall almost exclusively and most heavily on the individual victims of U.S. Government malfeasance.
The idea the the BIA deserves “deference” as a fair, impartial, “expert” tribunal is beyond absurd. It’s a flat out abdication of legal duty by the Article III Courts of Appeals. When will they finally put a stop to this mockery of justice and remove the biased, unethical, and malicious DOJ prosecutor from improper and unconstitutional control over the Immigration “Courts?” How many illegal removals on their watch are too many for the complicit and privileged “life-tenured ones?”
What if it were themor their families suffering and being abused in this ongoing national disgrace that passes for a “court system?”
Wendy Fry reports for the San Diego Union Tribune:
By Wendy Fry
TIJUANA — A 35-year-old man from El Salvador returned to Mexico under a controversial Trump administration program was brutally killed in Tijuana while waiting for an outcome to his U.S. asylum case, according to his family’s attorney.
During a seven-month period, the man and his family repeatedly told U.S. officials — including a San Diego immigration court judge, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection — that they were not safe in Tijuana, the lawyer said.
Customs and Border Protection returned the man and his family to Tijuana anyway, records show. In November, he was killed in Zona Norte, one of Tijuana’s more dangerous regions near the border.
“I don’t know how there’s an argument that Mexico is a safe country,” said Richard Sterger, the family’s immigration attorney. “My clients begged not to be sent back there.”
The family fled El Salvador and presented themselves at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in May asking to be allowed into the United States to assert their legal right to seek asylum, Sterger said.
The family was placed into the Migrant Protection Protocols program, also known as MPP or “Remain in Mexico.” The man’s wife and their two children are not being identified because they fear for their lives after reporting and speaking about his slaying.
Sterger said he could not discuss details of their asylum claim, such as why they fled El Salvador, because it is part of their ongoing immigration case.
Between May and September, the family members waited in Tijuana for their first court appearance, he said.
During their Sept. 11 immigration court hearing, they pleaded with a San Diego immigration judge to not be sent back to Mexico because they feared for their safety. At the time, the family did not have legal representation, Sterger said.
The judge referred the case to ICE, a process called “red sheeting,” and the family was interviewed about its fears of returning to Tijuana without a legal representative, the attorney said.
A spokeswoman for ICE said a “red sheet” is placed at the top of a person’s immigration court case file to alert Customs and Border Protection officials that an interview needs to be done about whether or not a family can continue safely waiting in Mexico.
She said she could not comment specifically on the man’s case because of privacy and identification policies.
Under international law, countries are forbidden to return asylum seekers to any nation where they are likely to face danger of persecution because of their “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The legal principle is known as “non-refoulement.”
Migrant rights advocates have been warning the public that the U.S. government is violating the “non-refoulement” principle with the MPP program, which is facing numerous challenges and lawsuits in federal court.
Sterger said his clients’ case is a perfect example.
After telling U.S. officials they were afraid to be in Tijuana, the members of the family were sent back anyway without explanation.
A Baja California death certificate says the husband and father died Nov. 20 of stab wounds to his neck. It also says he had cuts and stab wounds all over his torso that a Baja California investigator confirmed could indicate torture.
Started under the Trump administration, MPP requires that migrants trying to legally enter the United States remain in Mexico during the immigration court process.
That process usually takes several months, sometimes up to a year, and involves multiple court hearings, which requires migrants to present themselves at El Chaparral border crossing near the San Ysidro Port of Entry to travel to immigration court in San Diego.
In Tijuana, the threat of violence for migrants is so severe that Baja California state police have been going around to various migrant shelters giving presentations on how to avoid becoming a victim since the MPP program began.
Under the program, rolled out in January in Tijuana and then expanded across the U.S.-Mexico border, tens of thousands of U.S. asylum seekers have been returned to Mexico.
Immigration advocacy groups, attorneys and human rights organizations have been urgently warning the U.S. government that border cities are not safe places for asylum seekers to be forced to wait while their cases are processed.
The nonprofit group Human Rights First identified 636 publicly reported cases of “rape, torture, kidnapping and other violent assaults against asylum seekers and migrants forced to return to Mexico by the Trump administration.”
“The MPP fear screening process is a sham with interviews that have become increasingly cursory and adversarial resulting in the return of vulnerable and victimized asylum seekers to new dangers,” the report highlighted.
Sterger agreed.
“We are literally putting people’s lives at risk,” he said.
The attorney said that after the father and husband of the family was brutally slain, the mother ran to the border with her children, both younger than 10. She told border officers what happened and begged to be let into the United States.
The Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan travesty just keeps on killing, abusing, torturing, and dehumanizing every day. Encouraged by the 9th Circuit’s cowardly dereliction of duty and the Supremes evident lack of concern for the safety, lives, and human dignity of asylum seekers, the regime has taken it to a new level with fraudulent and illegal “Safe Third Country” agreements with the super dangerous Northern Triangle states, none of which has any semblance of a credible asylum adjudication system.
I guess the further way we can kill ’em, the more complacent the Article IIIs are going to be. “No blood on their spiffy black robes!” And, after all, it’s not them or their families being abused. and killed by the regime, so “What, me worry?”
Also, something to keep in mind the next time “Big Mac With Lies” appears on the “speaking circuit” to tout his many “accomplishments” at DHS.
I’m, glad Wendy reports on these continuing “crimes against humanity.” But, it must be tough being on the “Watchdog & Accountability Team” in a system where complicit and complacent Federal Judges are unwilling to hold the regime accountable for their outrageously illegal and unconstitutional (not to mention unconscionable) behavior.
The Center for Migration Studies Releases New Report on the Benefits of Citizenship and the Barriers to Naturalization
The well-being and contributions of immigrants increase as they advance toward citizenship, but new impediments to permanent residence and naturalization deny access to citizenship.
New York, NY — The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) today released a report finding that the well-being of immigrants and their contributions to the United States increase as they advance to more permanent and secure immigration statuses, culminating in naturalization. The report finds that naturalized citizens match or exceed the native-born by key metrics, including: college degrees (35% vs. 29%); percent employed (96% vs. 95%); and average personal income ($45,600 vs. $40,600).
The report – authored by CMS Executive Director Donald Kerwin and CMS Senior Visiting Fellow Robert Warren – argues that the administration’s “America first” ideology obscures a far-reaching set of policies that significantly impede the ability of immigrants to “move forward” on the path to naturalization, to their own detriment and the detriment of their families and communities.
“The report finds that policy makers should encourage naturalization rather than making it unnecessarily difficult,” said Warren. “Another important finding is that the US legal immigration system currently produces the same percentage of high skilled workers as the native-born population.”
The report documents the Trump administration’s policies that seek to prevent undocumented persons from gaining status, divest documented persons of status, cut legal admissions and immigration by decree, create new barriers to permanent residence and naturalization, and make citizenship a less valuable and less secure status.
It finds that at least 5.2 million current US citizens – 4.5 million children and 730,000 adults – who are living with at least one undocumented parent, obtained US citizenship by birth. It concludes that current immigration enforcement priorities effectively deny the full rights and benefits of citizenship to the US citizen children of undocumented parents, and it warns that eliminating birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented parents would create a permanent underclass of US-born denizens.
“US citizenship represents the principle marker of full membership and equality under the law in our constitutional democracy,” said Kerwin. “Yet this administration has adopted policies to make naturalization far less accessible and to make citizenship a less secure and valuable status for some disfavored citizens.”
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.
James McHenry, Director
Christopher Santoro, Acting Chief Immigration Judge Executive Office for Immigration Review
5107 Leesburg Pike, 18th Floor
Falls Church, VA 22041
Dear Director McHenry and Chief Immigration Judge Santoro,
Public access to the immigration courts is vital to the constitutional protections of the respond- ents who appear in court. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27 the immigration courts are open to the public. Limited exceptions to public access exist under the regulations, for example, to protect witnesses or parties or the public interest (§ 1003.27(b)), in VAWA cases (§ 1003.27(c)), and when there is a protective order (§ 1003.27(d)). Asylum hearings are confidential and are not open to the public unless the asylum applicant consents (8 C.F.R. § 1208.6).
Migrant Protection Protocol “MPP” hearings are routinely conducted in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27. Observers have been denied access to remote hearing locations where respondents are appearing in “tent courts.” In addition, it was recently announced that some MPP hearings would be heard via video teleconference by immigration judges in the Fort Worth Adjudication Center. For such hearings, public access is entirely restricted, as observers are not allowed in the tent courts or the adjudication centers. As Judge Ashley Tabaddor stated in an interview with CNN, “MPP is rife with issues but by assigning the adjudication centers to the tent courts takes us to a new low where public access to the court are now eliminated.” She further stated, “[t]his is not the way we as judges or courts should function.”
We agree with Judge Tabaddor. On December 5, 2019, a member of our group of former immi- gration judges, Ilyce Shugall, was denied access to the immigration court while attempting to observe an MPP individual calendar hearing. Human Rights First requested permission for the observers to sit in Laredo with the respondents in the tent courts. The request was denied. Ac- cordingly, the observers, including Former Immigration Judge Shugall, who traveled across the country, were required to sit in San Antonio to observe respondents appearing from Laredo via
December 10, 2019
1
VTC. Although the individual hearing was an asylum merits hearing, the respondent consented to Former Judge Shugall observing the hearing.
Early in the hearing, Immigration Judge Cynthia Lafuente-Gaona confirmed that the respondent consented to Former Judge Shugall observing, as she was with a delegation from Human Rights First. Subsequently, Judge Lafuente-Gaona asked Former Judge Shugall to step out of the court- room because she was taking notes on her computer and looking at her cell phone. The assistant chief counsel for ICE was taking notes on his computer, but was never asked to cease his note taking. Former Judge Shugall advised she would put both her phone and computer away and take notes on a note pad. Judge Lafuente-Gaona told Former Judge Shugall she “should know better” because she was a former judge. Former Judge Shugall explained that attorneys and ob- servers used computers and phones in her courtroom when she was on the bench and had used her computer and phone in court all week, including in Judge Lafuente-Gaona’s courtroom the prior day. Former Judge Shugall remained in the courtroom and continued her note taking on a note pad. Some time later, a legal fellow from Human Rights First entered the courtroom. Judge Lafuente-Gaona again confirmed with the respondent that he consented to the additional observ- er. While doing so, she told the respondent that the observers were “writing about what he was saying,” which was entirely untrue. Judge Lafuente-Gaona then told the observers that their note taking on note pads was distracting and asked both to leave. After a break, the observers con- firmed with Judge Lafuente-Gaona that she was requiring they remain outside of the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing. She had two male guards escort the two female attorneys out of the courtroom. That same day the legal fellow from Human Rights First was prevented from ob- serving another pro se merits hearing.
Immigration judges preside over individual and master calendar hearings that are rife with dis- tractions. During master calendar hearings, people are constantly entering and leaving the court- room, taking notes, talking, and moving papers. On many dockets, children are crying, crawling on the floors, throwing toys and food, and playing with microphones. In addition, in immigra- tion courtrooms across the country, parties routinely take notes on computers and use cell phones in court. Observers taking notes during a pro se asylum hearing is not inherently distracting. That the judge became distracted because a former immigration judge and an attorney from a human rights organization made her nervous does not justify closing the courtroom.
While the above examples are specific to MPP hearings, issues related to public access to the immigration courts is not exclusively limited to MPP. For example, according to a Daily Beast article, earlier this month a reporter was forced to leave an immigration courtroom in New York.
Very few respondents subject to MPP are represented. There are significant concerns with ac- cess to counsel and due process in MPP proceedings. Allowing observers in court, pursuant to the regulations, is crucial. A judge’s failure to follow the regulations and the constitution should be of great concern to EOIR. It is certainly of paramount concern to this group of former immi- gration judges.
As former immigration judges, we understand that a judge has the right to control the conduct of those attending a hearing, but exercise of that control cannot compromise the parties’ due pro-
2
cess rights. We request that EOIR investigate this issue and ensure that the public has appropri- ate access to all immigration courts.
Very truly yours, /s/
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Steven Abrams
Terry Bain
Sarah Burr
Teofilo Chapa
Jeffrey Chase
George Chew
Matthew D’Angelo
Bruce J. Einhorn
Cecelia Espenoza
Noel Ferris
James Fujimoto
Jennie Giambastiani
John Gossart
Paul Grussendorf
Miriam Hayward
Rebecca Bowen Jamil
William Joyce
Carol King
Margaret McManus
Charles Pazar
Laura Ramirez
John Richardson
Lory Rosenberg
Susan Roy
Paul Schmidt
Ilyce Shugall
Denise Slavin
Andrea Sloan
William Van Wyke
Polly Webber
Bob Weisel
3
********************************
NOTE: A few of the above signatures were not received in time for the “hard copy” mailed to EOIR. They later were added to the publicly distributed version.
Public access is critical to Due Process and Fundamental Fairness in Immigration Court. In the Arlington Immigration Court, we were constantly “under observation” by reporters, Congressional staff, NGOs, students, Senior Executives from DOJ and DHS,Asylum Officers, OIL Attorneys, EOIR Headquarters and BIA staff, ORR staff, and other members of the public. We welcomed it. All of us viewed it as a “teaching opportunity” and a chance to demonstrate “Due Process in action” and to communicate our judicial philosophies and expertise in the law to others. It was an important “public education” opportunity.
Indeed, when I taught “Refugee Law & Policy” as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law “Court Observation” was a required assignment. The same was true of many of my teaching colleagues at the many law schools in DC and Virginia.
Far from “disruptive” or “distracting,” I found that public observation actually improved everyone’s performance, including my own. Everyone in the courtroom got into “teaching mode,” willing and eager to demonstrate the importance of their roles in the justice system. Counsel on both sides would often remain for a few minutes after the case to discuss their respective roles and how they came to choose immigration law as a career (of course, being careful not to discuss particular case facts).
Indeed, one of the most meaningful items of “feedback” I got from an observer (paraphrased) was: “I expected something much more openly adversarial and hostile. I was surprised by the degree of cooperation, mutual respect, and teamwork by everyone in the courtroom including counsel, the witnesses, the interpreter, and the judge to complete the case in the time allotted and to inform the judge’s decision. Everyone seemed to be working toward a common goal of resolution, even though they had different roles and views on the right outcome.”
Of course that was then. I’ve been told that most Immigration Courts these days are much more “openly hostile territory” particularly for respondents and their counsel. All the more reason why we need more, rather than less, in person court observation.
Many thanks to our friend and Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall for bringing this festering problem “out in the open.”
WASHINGTON — U.S. officials have started to send families seeking asylum to Guatemala, even if they are not from the Central American country and had sought protection in the United States, the Los Angeles Times has learned.
In July, the Trump administration announced a new rule to effectively end asylum at the southern U.S. border by requiring asylum seekers to claim protection elsewhere. Under that rule — which currently faces legal challenges — virtually any migrant who passes through another country before reaching the U.S. border and does not seek asylum there will be deemed ineligible for protection in the United States.
A few days later, the administration reached an agreement with Guatemala to take asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border who were not Guatemalan. Although Guatemala’s highest court initially said the country’s president couldn’t unilaterally enter into such an agreement, since late November, U.S. officials have forcibly returned individuals to Guatemala under the deal.
At first, U.S. officials said they would return only single adults. But starting Tuesday, they began applying the policy to non-Guatemalan parents and children, according to communications obtained by The Times and several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials.
One family of three from Honduras, as well as a separate Honduran parent and child, were served with notices on Tuesday that they’d soon be deported to Guatemala.
The Trump administration has reached similar agreements with Guatemala’s Northern Triangle neighbors, El Salvador and Honduras, in each case obligating those countries to take other Central Americans who reach the U.S. border. Those agreements, however, have yet to be implemented.
The administration describes the agreements as an “effort to share the distribution of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims.”
The deals — also referred to as “safe third country” agreements — “are formed between the United States and foreign countries where aliens removed to those countries would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,” according to the federal notice.
The expansion of the policy to families could mean many more asylum seekers being forcibly removed to Guatemala.
Experts, advocates, the United Nations and Guatemalan officials say the country doesn’t have the capacity to handle any sizable influx, much less process potential protection claims. Guatemala’s own struggles with corruption, violence and poverty helped push more than 270,000 Guatemalans to the U.S. border in fiscal 2019.
Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Molly O’Toole is an immigration and security reporter based in the Los Angeles Times’ Washington, D.C., bureau. Previously, she was a senior reporter at Foreign Policy covering the 2016 election and Trump administration, and a politics reporter at the Atlantic’s Defense One. She has covered migration and security from Mexico, Central America, West Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf, and South Asia. She is a graduate of Cornell University and NYU, but will always be a Californian.
*******************************************
To be an Article III Federal Appellate Judge or Supreme Court Justice these days seems to belittle more than a license to take a “what me worry approach” to Due Process, immigration, asylum, racism, and the human tragedy unfolding around us every day. As long as it isn’t their kids and families being harassed, abused, allowed to die in prison, or unlawfully sent to potential “death camps” in some of the most dangerous regions of the world, who cares?
Abuse of others, particularly the less fortunate and most vulnerable: “Out of sight, out of mind.” As long as the paychecks keep coming and the security is good in the ivory tower, the legal gobbledygook and spineless task evasion will keep flowing until our nation finally goes out of business under Trump’s anti-Constitutional authoritarian onslaught.
Will it affect those lifetime judicial pensions? Just don’t let the screams of the abused, tortured, and dying keep you up at night judges! But do authoritarian dictatorships really need “judges,” even subservient ones?
Sixteen-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez died horribly and needlessly. The Trump administration’s policy of deliberate, punishing cruelty toward Latin American migrants killed him.
That is the only conclusion to be drawn from a shocking report by the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica about Hernandez’s death in May at a U.S. Border Patrol station in Texas. I assume the agents and health-care workers who should have given Hernandez lifesaving attention are decent human beings, not monsters. But they work within an intentionally monstrous system that assigned no value to a young Guatemalan boy’s life.
President Trump’s racist and xenophobic immigration policies are not grounds for impeachment; rather, they are an urgent reason to defeat him in the coming election. But at least six migrant children, including Hernandez, have died in federal custody on Trump’s watch. Somebody should be held accountable. Somebody should go to jail.
Hernandez died of influenza and neglect.
He had crossed the Rio Grande without documents with a group of migrants who were almost immediately apprehended by the Border Patrol. In keeping with administration policy, he was separated from his adult sister and processed at a notoriously overcrowded holding facility in McAllen, Tex., where a nurse practitioner found he had a temperature of 103. She diagnosed him with the flu and said he should be taken to a hospital if his condition worsened.
Instead, worried he might infect others at the McAllen center, officials moved him to a Border Patrol station in nearby Weslaco and locked him in a cell. That was on the afternoon of May 19. By the following morning, Hernandez was dead.
Border Patrol logs show that agents checked on Hernandez several times that night. But ProPublica obtained cellblock video showing that “the only way . . . officials could have missed Carlos’ crisis is that they weren’t looking.”
The video “shows Carlos writhing for at least 25 minutes on the floor and a concrete bench,” ProPublica reported. “It shows him staggering to the toilet and collapsing on the floor, where he remained in the same position for the next four and a half hours.”
Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol, claimed that Hernandez’s lifeless body was discovered by agents doing a morning check. But the video shows, according to ProPublica, that it was Hernandez’s cellmate who sent up the alarm.
“On the video, the cellmate can be seen waking up and groggily walking to the toilet, where Carlos was lying in a pool of blood on the floor. He [the roommate] gestures for help at the cell door. Only then do agents enter the cell and discover that Carlos had died during the night.”
Let that sink in for a moment. A 16-year-old boy has obviously fallen ill and has a soaring fever. Instead of seeking medical care for him, agents of the United States government — acting in your name and mine — leave him to die on the cold concrete floor of a detention cell.
Hernandez’s death implies more than the apparent negligence of a few overworked Border Patrol agents. It indicts a whole system designed by the Trump administration to deter would-be migrants and asylum seekers by punishing those who do make the journey.
In Hernandez’s case, the fatal punishment was meted out illegally. He had been in custody for six days when he died, but the Border Patrol is only supposed to hold children for 72 hours, at most, before transferring them to the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration instituted a shockingly inhumane policy of separating migrant parents from their children, who in many cases were sent hundreds of miles away. Thousands of children were warehoused in cages, like animals. Toddlers and infants were absurdly expected to represent themselves at immigration hearings whose nature they could not begin to understand.
It is true that officials have had to deal with a flood of migrants who overwhelmed border facilities and personnel. But the Trump administration responded to the surge not with compassion but with purposeful callousness. It is horrific that six migrant children are known to have died in Customs and Border Protection custody since September 2018. It is even worse when you realize there were no such deaths, not a single one, during the eight years of the Obama administration.
According to ProPublica’s report, Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez was a bright and engaging boy who captained his school’s soccer team in the village of San Jose del Rodeo. The Border Patrol assigned him the alien identification number A203665141. His body was shipped home for burial.
So why are racist White Nationalist policies that kill kids and then cover up “OK?” Why are Kelly, Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies,” “Gonzo Apocalypto,” and others responsible for human rights violations running around making big bucks off their misconduct, giving speeches as if they were “normal” former senior executives, and even running for public office rather than facing charges for their misconduct? Others like Chief Toady Billy Barr and “Cooch Cooch” remain in office while spreading their authoritarian lies and attacking our democratic institutions.
And what about complicit Federal Appellate Judges and Supreme Court Justices who have let Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency die while looking the other way?
Human rights criminals like Trump & Miller need plenty of “go along to get along” accomplices to carry out their abuse.
Thanks, Eugene, for speaking out when so many others in privileged positions of supposed responsibility have been so cowardly and complicit in the face of tyranny that intends to destroy our democracy and that has already undermined our humanity.
A few times a week, attorney Jodi Goodwin walks across the bridge from Brownsville, Texas, to a refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico, to meet with asylum-seekers. Her clients are among the more than 2,500 immigrants crammed into tents while they wait for U.S. immigration hearings ― often stuck for months in dirty and dangerous conditions.
The forced return to Mexico of migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. is one of President Donald Trump’s most inhumane immigration policies, yet it hasn’t received nearly the attention that his family separation and prolonged detention practices have.
Since January, under Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” initiative ― also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) ― the U.S. government has sent at least 54,000 immigrants to wait for their court dates in Mexican border towns. Instead of staying with relatives in the U.S., families are sleeping in tents for up to eight months, in unprotected areas where infections spread within crowded quarters and cartel kidnappings are commonplace. Family separation ended a year ago. But Trump’s mistreatment of asylum-seekers continues in a different form.
Some parents are so desperate that they’ve resorted to sending their children across the bridge alone, since unaccompanied kids who arrive at the border cannot be turned away under MPP. Since October, at least 135 children have crossed back into the U.S. by themselves after being sent to wait in Mexico with their parents, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In Mexico, many of these migrants don’t have access to lawyers and are forced to plead their cases in makeshift tent courts set up along the U.S. border where overwhelmed judges conduct hearings via video teleconference. The courts have limited public access ― lawyers and translators say that they have been barred from attending hearings. Migrants’ advocates argue that the tent courts violate due process, and immigrant rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the use of videoconferencing.
Goodwin, who has 42 clients, said there is a serious shortage of lawyers willing to represent immigrants staying in another country where crime is rife. She spoke with HuffPost about why the Remain in Mexico policy is even more traumatic than separating thousands of families and why it hasn’t sparked public outrage.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Jodi Goodwin (center) at the refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico.
HuffPost: Immigrant parents forced to wait in Mexico are making the heart-wrenching choice to send their kids to the U.S. alone. What are the conditions like at the camp in Matamoros?
Jodi Goodwin: It smells like urine and feces. There’s not enough sanitation. There’s 10 port-a-potties for thousands of people. Up until recently, there was no potable water available at all. People were bathing in the Rio Grande river, getting sick and, in some cases, drowning. People were seriously dehydrated.
The camp sounds completely unfitting for any human being, let alone children.
It’s a horrific situation to put families in. It’s great to live in a tent for the weekend when you’re going to the lake. It’s not great to live in a tent for months at a time where you don’t have basic necessities.
Are kids getting sick?
The kids are sick every day. I’ve seen all kinds of respiratory illnesses and digestive illnesses. I’ve seen chronic illnesses like epilepsy. I saw a baby that appeared to have sepsis who was forced to wait on the bridge for more than three hours before being taken to a hospital.
And what about the kidnappings? Have you heard of families being taken by cartel members who then try and extort an immigrant’s U.S. relatives for money?
About half of the people I’ve spoken to in Mexico have been kidnapped. The cartel knows if they can grab an immigrant, they’re likely to be able to work out a ransom. If they don’t, then they just kill them.
Any specific examples?
I dealt with one case where a mom from El Salvador and her 4-year-old son were kidnapped within an hour of being sent back to Mexico under MPP. They were taken for eight days before her brother in the U.S. paid the kidnappers $7,000.
The lady was terrified. She was sleep-deprived, food-deprived and water-deprived. She said that the people who had kidnapped her were extremely violent and hit her kid. They were drinking alcohol and raping people at a stash house where several other people were being held.
LOREN ELLIOTT / REUTERS
Migrants, most of them asylum-seekers sent back to Mexico from the U.S. under the “Remain in Mexico” program, occupy a makeshift encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, on Oc. 28, 2019.
The last time we spoke, you were on the frontlines of family separation, visiting detention centers where mothers were hysterically crying after being ripped apart from their children. How does the trauma of MPP compare, particularly for parents who are sending their kids across the border alone?
It’s way worse. I can’t with any confidence say that they will ever see their children again.
Why not?
I knew there were legal ways to get out of family separation. We were able to talk with our clients and didn’t have to go off to another country. And for those parents who got through their interviews or their court hearings, we were able to get them back with their kids.
With MPP, the assault is not only on human rights but also on due process within the court systems, which has completely hijacked the ability to be able to fix things. The parents can’t even get into the country to try to reunify with their kids.
Nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents under Trump’s zero-tolerance policy. Do you think a similar number of families will be ripped apart because of Remain in Mexico?
It could be more. Over 55,000 people have been sent back to Mexico. I’ve talked to so many parents who have sent their kids across. It’s a heart-wrenching decision process that they go through. How do you give up your baby?
It reminds me of Jewish parents who were captives in Nazi Germany and had to convince their kids to get on a different train or go in a different line to save their own lives.
Have you witnessed these separations firsthand?
In November I saw a little boy and his 4-year-old sister sent across the bridge with an older child, who was about 14 years old. The teenager carried the baby boy, who still had a pacifier in his mouth, and the girl was holding onto the older kid’s belt loop.
I was standing on the bridge between Matamoros and the U.S. and I turned around to look down at the bank of the Rio Grande river. Every single parent who has sent their kid to cross tells me the same thing: As soon as they say goodbye and hug their kids, they run to the bank to watch them. [Her voice breaks] I knew there was somebody probably standing on that bank hoping those kids made it across.
Do you still think about those kids?
Oh yeah. The green binky that the little baby was sucking on is knitted in my mind.
VERONICA CARDENAS / REUTERS
The Mexican National Guard patrols an encampment where asylum-seekers live as their tents are relocated from the plaza to near the banks of the Rio Grande in Matamoros on Dec. 7, 2019.
You’ve been working hundreds of hours a month to try and help people stranded in Matamoros. This work must take a toll on you personally.
I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me.
I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.
Family separation resulted in massive outcry from the public, which eventually pressured the government to end the zero-tolerance policy. Why is MPP not getting the same attention?
There is no public outrage because it’s not happening on our soil. It’s happening literally 10 feet from the turnstile to come to the U.S. But because it’s out of sight and out of mind, there is no outrage. What ended family separation was public outrage. It had nothing to do with lawsuits. It had everything to do with shame, shame, shame.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
***********************************
I’m with you, Jodi!Thanks for your dedication to justice for the most vulnerable!
What’s wrong with this scenario: life-tenured Federal Judges who won’t stand up for the rule of law, Due Process, and Equal Protection in the face of an arrogantly and overtly lawless White Nationalist Regime; DOJ and other U.S. Government lawyers who defend immoral and disingenuous positions in Federal Court, often, as in the Census Case and the DACA Case using pretextual rationales and knowingly false information; dehumanization, with overwhelming racial and religious overtones, of those who deserve our protection and rely on our sense of fairness; undercutting, mistreating and humiliating the brave lawyers like Jodi who are standing up for justice in the face of tyranny; GOP legislators who are lawyers defending Trump’s mockery of the Constitution, human decency, and the rule of law and knowingly and defiantly spreading Putin’s false narratives.
Obviously, there has been a severe failure in our legal and ethical education programs and our criteria for Federal Judicial selections, particularly at the higher levels, and particularly with respect to the critical characteristic of courage. Too many “go alongs to get alongs!” I can only hope that our republic survives long enough to reform and correct these existential defects that now threaten to bring us all down.
Where’s the accountability? Where’s the outrage? Where’s our humanity?
We should also remember that many asylum seekers from Africa, who face extreme danger in Mexico, are also being targeted (“shithole countries?”) and abused as part of the Regime’s judicially-enabled, racially driven, anti-asylum, anti-rule-of-law antics at the Southern Border. https://apple.news/AyYSWSXNfSdOm63skxWaUTQ
Also, morally corrupt Trump Regime officials continued to tout “Crimes Against Humanity” as an acceptable approach to border enforcement and “reducing apprehensions!” Will machine gun turrets be next on their list? Will Article III Judges give that their “A-OK?”
We’re actually paying Article III Federal Judges who are knowingly and intentionally furthering “Crimes Against Humanity.” Totally outrageous!
