"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.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
How much of Ukraine will look like this by war’s end? Photo from Previous Russia-Ukraine War by Wojciech Zmudzinski Creative Commons License
Weekly Briefing
briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The content of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
CONTENTS (jump to section)
PRACTICE ALERTS
NEWS
LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
RESOURCES
EVENTS
PRACTICE ALERTS
Virtual EOIR Registration: For new attorney registration, practitioners are no longer required to go to the court personally to show an ID. However, they still may appear personally. To coordinate identification verification please contact: Tina.Barrow@usdoj.gov or by phone at 717-443-9157.
Adjustment-Ready Cases: DHS is filing motions for dismissal for about 1,000 cases nationwide for Adjustment-Ready Cases (ARCs) to allow for pursuit of relief before USCIS. If you don’t want the case dismissed, timely file your opposition.
ICE Appointment Scheduler: Now available in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole in addition to English.
Hill: Immigration restrictionists celebrated that the bill includes funding increases for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but worried that the Biden administration will not use those funds to implement the Trump-style strict enforcement measures they favor…“The budget gives ICE money to fund over 5,000 more beds than proposed in funding bills introduced last year in both the House and Senate. These funding levels directly contradict commitments made by the Biden administration and members of Congress to reduce the immigration detention system,” Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, said in a release.
WaPo: Advocates for immigrants said they welcomed many of the Biden administration’s early changes, such as ending the travel ban and increasing the number of refugees allowed into the United States. But they said the most recent spending bill increases funding for immigration enforcement and complained that Biden has not kept his campaign promise to end privately run detention, which accounts for the majority of the ICE system.
NYT: The tension has also resonated inside the White House, where senior officials have been anxious that unwinding the Trump-era border restrictions would open the United States to an increase in illegal crossings at the southern border and fuel Republican attacks that Mr. Biden is too lenient on illegal immigration.
NYT: More than 4,100 Russians crossed the border without authorization in the 2021 fiscal year, nine times more than the previous year. This fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, the numbers are even higher — 6,420 during the first four months alone.
RollCall: Now, embassies have shuttered in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. That could increase pressure on other consular posts in the region already feeling the weight of a visa backlog of nearly half a million cases.
AP: All Florida government agencies would be barred from doing business with transportation companies that bring immigrants to the state who are in the country illegally under a bill sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday.
Miami Herald: Nearly 200 Haitian migrants were returned to Haiti on Friday by the U.S. Coast Guard after their bid to reach U.S. shores ended with their overloaded sailboat running aground behind a wealthy North Key Largo resort in the Upper Florida Keys and some of their compatriots making a harried dash to freedom in the choppy waters. See also Black Immigrants to the U.S. Deserve Equal Treatment.
NYT: Although the bureau did not say how many people it missed entirely, they were mostly people of color, disproportionately young ones. The census missed counting 4.99 of every 100 Hispanics, 5.64 of every 100 Native Americans and 3.3 of every 100 African Americans.
Buzzfeed: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents obtained millions of people’s financial records as part of a surveillance program that fed the information to a database accessed by local and federal law enforcement agencies, according to a letter sent Tuesday by Sen. Ron Wyden to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general requesting an investigation into whether the practice violated the US Constitution.
Forbes: “International student enrollment at U.S. universities declined 7.2% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” according a new analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). “At the same time, international student enrollment at Canadian colleges and universities increased 52% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, illustrating the increasing attractiveness of Canadian schools due to more friendly immigration laws in Canada, particularly rules enabling international students in Canada to gain temporary work visas and permanent residence.”
Law360: A Salvadoran woman urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Eleventh Circuit decision greenlighting her deportation based on a decades-old removal order issued after she voluntarily left the country, saying the ruling conflicted with Fifth and Seventh Circuit precedents.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Thursday revived an asylum application from a man who says he fled political violence in Guinea, finding a string of errors in an immigration judge’s determination that he wasn’t credible.
LexisNexis: Dissent: I respectfully dissent from this court’s denial of rehearing en banc on the issue of whether to grant Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration’s (“Board”) recent interpretation of § 1101(a)(43)(S), providing that an aggravated felony under the INA is “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness.” …Namely, this decision is the first and only to uphold the Board’s 2018 redefinition as reasonable—repudiating the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision. Accordingly, by no longer requiring a nexus element, this opinion expands the list of possible state crimes that could trigger immigration deportation consequences for many persons who may not have been otherwise subject to deportation. This is a sizeable impact for many people in our country.
LexisNexis: The Government indicates that the matter should be remanded, in part, to the BIA for consideration of her request for voluntary departure in light of Niz-Chavez. Thus, the petition for review is granted as to the stop-time issue, and this matter is remanded to the BIA for consideration under Niz-Chavez and other relevant precedents.
LexisNexis: The Board granted one extension but denied a second, suggesting that Oluwajana instead submit his brief with a motion seeking leave to file it late. When he did so, less than two weeks after the submission deadline, the Board denied the motion in a cursory-and factually erroneous-footnote. And having rejected the brief, the Board upheld the removal order without considering Oluwajana’s allegations of error by the immigration judge. Based on the undisputed circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by unreasonably rejecting Oluwajana’s brief.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals on Wednesday to decide if an immigrant’s rape conviction bars deportation relief, with a dissenting judge saying the decision only delays the “unpalatable” conclusion that the man can seek a removal waiver.
BIA: When the Department of Homeland Security raises the mandatory bar for filing a frivolous asylum application under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2018), an Immigration Judge must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the requirements for a frivolousness determination under Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), have been met.
LexisNexis: Additionally, the respondents assert that despite informing immigration officials of their intent to get a new attorney and “sort out [their] case,” ICE officials told them that they were not priorities for deportation and there was nothing more they could do with respect to their case (Respondents’ Mot., Tab G). Accordingly, under these circumstances, we will equitably toll the filing deadline for the respondents’ motion to reopen.”
Law360: An Illinois federal judge closed the book on Chicago’s lawsuit challenging certain Trump-era conditions for recipients of a federal public safety grant on Tuesday when he put the final touches on his judgment blocking conditions for receiving the grant to resolve the case’s outlying issues.
LexisNexis: Defendant executed an I-864 Affidavit of Support; therefore, he is contractually obligated to provide Plaintiff and J.K.M.F. any support necessary to maintain their household at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Plaintiff has received no financial support from Defendant since fleeing to a shelter on October 21, 2021…Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged a meritorious claim against Defendant for breaching his contractual duty.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s New York office will overhaul its policy on people suspected of civil immigration offenses while on bond, settling claims it detained suspects beyond what the law allows without a chance to post bail.
Law360: A D.C. district court ordered the federal government to disclose the names of border officers who screened migrants’ asylum claims under a pilot program, saying Friday that asylum-seekers needed to know if they were unwittingly placed in the since-suspended project.
Law360: A woman’s suit contending she was wrongly deprived of pandemic relief payments from the IRS because of her marriage to an immigrant is barred by a federal law prohibiting court challenges that restrain tax collection, a Maryland federal court ruled.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to consider deferred action and related employment authorization for noncitizens who have an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification but who cannot apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) because a visa number is not available.
AILA: DOS provided guidance for nationals in Ukraine seeking to enter the United States. The guidance clarifies information on nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, COVID-19 entry requirements, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.
AILA: EOIR updated appendix O of the policy manual with adjournment code 74. The reason is “Public Health,” and the definition is “Adjourned for public health reasons.”
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the group page and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The “Top News Section” is a good rundown of the Biden Administration’s “mixed bag” on immigration policy, particularly as it relates to our largely defunct asylum system and the refugee system (still reeling from Trump-era “deconstruction”) that does not appear to be prepared for the inevitable flow of Ukrainian refugees. It also highlights some of the lingering damage to our democracy (e.g., racially biased census undercount) done by the Trump regime and its toady enablers.
My Take: Ukrainian Refugees & The U.S. Response
So far, largely meaningless political rhetoric from the Administration concerning Ukrainian refugees has been predictably “welcoming.” But, the actions to date have amounted to nothing more than taking the obvious step of granting TPS to Ukrainians actually here.
That does little or nothing to address the nearly 3 million refugees who have fled Ukraine in recent weeks. If the Administration has a coherent plan for admitting our share of those refugees and resuming processing of Ukrainians and all other refugees seeking asylum at the border, they have not announced it.
For example, despite U.S. and worldwide condemnation of China’s treatment of Uyghurs — some characterizing it as “genocide” — the Administration has done nothing to speed the processing of the very limited number of Uyghur refugees languishing in our still largely dysfunctional asylum system. If, as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, the Administration is unable to address “low hanging fruit” like Uyghurs and Immigration Court reform, in a bold and timely matter, how are they going to respond to more difficult human rights issues?
As this op-ed in today’s NY Times points out, “generous” responses to large-scale refugee situations are often short-lived. As refugees flows inevitably continue and grow, the initial positive responses too often “morph” into xenophobia, nativism, racism, culture wars, and restrictionism.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/ukraine-refugee-crisis.html
Ukrainian refugees have two potential “advantages” over those from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela, Ethiopia, DRC, and the Northern Triangle that could help them realize “more durable” protection. They are 1) mostly White Europeans, and 2) mostly Christian.
Neither of these is a legally recognized international criterion for defining refugees. Fact is, however, that they were not universally descriptive of those aforementioned groups who have often received less enthusiastic receptions from Western democracies. As a practical matter, “cultural attitudes” influence the Western World’s acceptance of refugees, probably to a greater extent than the actual dangers which those refugees face in the lands from which they have fled.
But, that has also been true in Haiti, Syria, Central America, the DRC and many other trouble spots. It has made little positive difference to the U.S. The Trump regime, led by Uber racist-misogynist refugee deniers “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller actually went out of their way to target the most vulnerable women and children fleeing persecution for further abuse.
And, to date, the Biden Administration’s promise to do better and regularize the treatment of those fleeing gender-based violence has been a huge “nothingburger.” Whatever happened to those promised “gender-based regulations” and the “common-sense recommendations” to replace the restrictionist holdover, bad-precedent-setting BIA with real judges who are experts in gender-based asylum?
The flow of refugees from Ukraine, and a much smaller (at this point) flight of dissidents from Russia, has already “exceeded projections” and is not likely to diminish in the coming weeks and months. Moreover, with Russia focusing on civilian targets and leveling parts of many major metropolitan areas in Ukraine, the essential infrastructure and “livability” of many areas is rapidly being destroyed.
Thus, even if a “truce” were declared tomorrow (which it won’t be), many who have fled would not be able to return for the foreseeable future, perhaps never, even if they wanted to. The latter is a particular risk if Russia makes good on its threats to eradicate the current Ukrainian Government and replace it with a Russian puppet regime.
Refugee planning has consistently lagged foreign policy developments even though that has been shown to be problematic over and over. When will we ever learn?
We can’t necessarily prevent all foreign wars and internal upheavals, worthy as that goal might be. But, we can learn to deal better with inevitable refugee displacements.
Indeed, that was the purpose of the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, to which we and the other major democracies are parties. That more than 70 years after the initial Convention was signed we are still groping for solutions (indeed, we have shamefully abrogated a number of our key responsibilities under both domestic and international law)to recurring, somewhat predictable, and inevitable dislocations of humanity is something that should be of concern to all.
Despite all of the nativist propaganda, the truth is that nobody wants to be a refugee and that it could happen to any of us for reasons totally beyond our control! The similarity of the lives of many Ukrainians, up until a few weeks ago, to daily life in Western Democracies has perhaps “brought home” these realities in ways that the equally bad or even worse plight of other refugees in recent times has not.
I hope that we can learn from this terrible situation and treat not only Ukrainian refugees, but all refugees, with generosity, humanity, compassion, kindness, and as we would hope to be treated if our situations were reversed. Because, in reality, nobody is immune from the possibility of becoming a refugee!
Leading Senate Democrats demanded that the Biden administration immediately end a Trump-era policy that blocks asylum-seeking migrants from crossing land borders into the United States, after lawyers said U.S. Customs and Border Protection expelled a single mother of three who had traveled from Ukraine to Mexico seeking refuge.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited the “desperate” Ukrainian family at a news conference Thursday and said he was deeply disappointed that the Biden administration has dragged out the Trump-era policy, which a federal appeals court in D.C. last week called “questionable.” The Trump administration issued the order two years ago under Title 42, which is the public health code. Since then, officials have expelled more than 1.6 million migrants to countries such as Haiti and Mexico.
“The United States is supposed to welcome refugees with open arms, not put them in additional danger by denying them a chance to plead their case and leaving them at the mercy of criminals and smugglers,” Schumer said, joined by advocates for immigrants. “Now’s the time to stop the madness.”
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added that the policy “has created life-threatening conditions” for migrants. He called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the order under President Donald Trump and has extended it under President Biden, to rescind it.
. . . .
Sofiia, 34, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she has family sheltering in their basements in Ukraine, said in a telephone interview that her family had enjoyed a good life there. She worked as a Hebrew teacher and lived in her father’s house. They left as bombs grew closer.
“I was seriously afraid for my life and the life of my kids,” she said in English, one of four languages that she speaks.
She said she and her children — ages 6, 12 and 14 — flung suitcases stuffed with clothes and medicines into her old Citroen and drove straight to Moldova, the closest border, and then into Romania, where they traveled to Germany and caught a flight to Mexico. She said that they tried to enter legally twice, once by car and again by foot, and that officials rejected them both times, citing the Title 42 order.
“I was surprised that they don’t even want to listen,” she said. “I was trying to tell them that I have tests and I am vaccinated but they told me, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’”
She said she does not speak Spanish and was crying on the bridge in Mexico when lawyer Blaine Bookey spotted her. Bookey, the legal director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California’s Hastings law school, was there with her students to aid Haitian migrants facing similar troubles.
ADVERTISEMENT
00:00
Bookey said Customs and Border Protection told her that they would consider admitting the Ukrainian family. They were planning to try again Thursday, she said, adding that shelters in Mexico are filled with other would-be refugees who are not eligible to enter.
“There’s families like this that are showing up at the border from all sorts of countries from similar levels of violence. They deserve process to apply for asylum,” Bookey said. “This case really brings it home for people how just problematic this policy is.”
*********************
Read Maria’s full article at the link.
Rhetoric over action!
“Do as I say, not as I do!”
More cowardly performances from AG Garland and SG Prelogar who continue to “defend the indefensible,” putting politics over their constitutional duty to speak up for due process, human rights, racial justice, adherence to international conventions, and the rule of law.
The “COVID emergency” appears to be “over” everywhere in the U.S., even in areas with significant infection rates, EXCEPT for asylum seekers at the Southern Border who never were a major threat anyway.
“Saying no” to desperate Ukrainian mothers and children seeking refuge in the U.S. That’s ”law enforcement?” That’s how your tax dollars are being spent? Do these count as “border apprehensions?”
The Dem leaders are right to speak out. But, they waited far too long to do so. This travesty has been going on since Day 1 of the Biden Administration.
The only “hero” 🌟 here is Blaine Bookey and others like her who have the guts and courage to stand up for equal justice for all when politicos, judges, and public officials “tank!”
Blaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Meanwhile, although the opposition to Biden’s scofflaw policy hasn’t restored the rule of law for most asylum seekers, it might have generated at least a modest reaction. CBS News reports that the CDC has revoked the (bogus) Title 42 authority to bar the entry of unaccompanied children seeking asylum.News: https://apple.news/Anfp9S-UAQFqT5PWRc-8u2A
Few Americans favor mass deportations, and with good reason — a large majority of the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States have been here for at least a decade, including more than 4 in 5 Mexican migrants. Many are fixtures in their community, with U.S. citizen spouses and children; the vast majority are employed, and some own their homes and businesses.
So it was not a radical idea when Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued new enforcement guidelines last fall that urged deportation agents to focus their efforts on actual threats to public and national safety, as well as border security. As for long-term migrants, the bulk of whom are law-abiding, Mr. Mayorkas urged Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to use some common sense. “The fact that an individual is a removable noncitizen should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them,” he said.
. . . .
Despite the resistance, however, they appear to be having a preliminary and positive effect of tailoring enforcement to unauthorized immigrants who are dangerous. In the first 13 months of the Biden administration, 44 percent of deported migrants had been convicted of felonies or aggravated felonies, compared with just 18 percent during the Trump administration, according to internal ICE figures. For the same period, there was also a sharp jump, compared with under the Trump administration, in the number of arrests of migrants who had earlier convictions for aggravated felonies.
At the same time, the number of migrants held in ICE detention facilities has dropped sharply. At the end of February, roughly 18,000 migrants were detained, and the vast majority had no criminal record or had committed only minor offenses, such as traffic violations, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. By contrast, nearly three times as many migrants were held for much of 2019, when the Trump anti-immigrant blitz was in full force.
. . . .
It’s not lax enforcement to refrain from arresting very old or very young migrants, or to think twice about a deportation that would tear apart a family. It’s an intelligent application of the law.
*********************
Read the full editorial at the link.
The Post is right. But, unfortunately, by not making this “smarter PD” part of an overall plan to reduce backlogs, reform the Immigration Courts, re-establish the legal asylum and refugee systems, and end unnecessary detention, the Biden Administration has failed to take full advantage of this promising development.
By “running” from immigration improvements rather than embracing them, they also fail to to get credit for replacing the “maliciously incompetent,” demonstrably not in the national interest Trump/Miller/Homan White Nationalist nativist policies with a functioning system that actually serves the national interest and works as well as can be expected without legislative reforms.
A major problem remains the underperformance of DOJ and EOIR under AG Garland. Without the enlightened leadership and better personnel that should now be in place, Garland has failed to “leverage and build upon” improvements in DHS enforcement priorities to slash backlog and advance due process at EOIR.
Indeed, disturbingly, Garland has actually built new Immigration Court backlogat a record pace, while inexplicably relying on a “holdover Miller Lite” BIA that continues to deliver bad precedents, resulting in increased wasteful litigation and backlog-building remands from Circuit Courts. He has also ignored the many opportunities for harnessing the innovative ideas and high-level pro bono advocacy skills developed by the private sector in response to the “Trump onslaught” to dramatically advance and increase quality representation before the Immigration Courts.
The grotesque mismanagement of EOIR by the Trump DOJ resulted in a backlog of approximately 12,000 pending BIA appeals at the end of FY 2017 exploding to more than 84,000 by the end of FY 2020 — a mind-boggling 700% increase!https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1248501/download
Yet, curiously, there has been no major personnel shakeup at EOIR under Garland. The Trump-era “hand selected” BIA whose skewed anti-asylum, anti-immigrant “jurisprudence” helped create this mess remains largely intact.
Most of the EOIR senior managers who helped DOJ engineer this unmitigated disaster remain in their jobs. Garland has sent a message that there will be no accountability for “going along to get along” with the White Nationalist war on immigrants and that he isn’t interested in expertise, fundamental fairness, creativity, or dynamic leadership by example in his reeling “court system!”
Yet, Garland continues to “blow off” and “lock out” the private/NGO sector experts who could bring rational professional docket management, higher representation rates, and resulting reductions in detention to his dysfunctional system. Instead, he continues the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” approach of unilateral “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and endless “built to fail gimmicks” designed by bureaucrats to meet political agendas without meaningful input from and consideration of the views of those who have actual private sector experience litigating in his broken system.
How does the make sense? It doesn’t!
Of course, effective, dynamic, courageous management of EOIR to focus on constitutionally required due process would provoke reactions from the GOP nativist right, including obstructive litigation. That’s why Garland also needs better litigators at DOJ: Tough, experienced “due process warriors” who will aggressively and expertly defend and advance the Executive’s authority to rationally administer the law, allocate resources wisely and prudently, and to recognize and vindicate civil and constitutional rights that have been suppressed by GOP politicos and some of their reactionary Federal Judges.
Bottom line: Probably the majority of those 1.6 million individuals rotting in EOIR’s largely self-created backlog fit the Post’s “lead-in” description above: “Many are fixtures in their community, with U.S. citizen spouses and children; the vast majority are employed, and some own their homes and businesses.”
Many could be granted asylum or other protection under proper interpretations of the law or granted “cancellation of removal” but for the unrealistic, anachronistic 4,000 annual “numerical cap” imposed by Congress decades ago. Others could be granted Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) just as it recently was extended to Ukrainians in the U.S.
Very few are “criminals” or others who should be “priorities” for removal. Most are actively contributing to our society and many are paying taxes. In most cases, removing individuals in the EOIR backlog from the U.S., even if possible, would be a net loss for our society.
Yet, the uncontrolled, undifferentiated EOIR backlog prevents the Immigration Courts from working in “real time” on more recent cases that might actually be proper priorities.What’s the good of a more rational and professional system at DHS Enforcement if the Immigration Courts under Garland remain discombobulated? The system will not change without dynamic expert leadership at the top and an infusion of better judges, particularly at the appellate level where precedents are set and “best practices” and some measure of fair and consistent adjudication can be established and enforced.
Immigration is a complex, often convoluted system. Without a comprehensive plan led by outside experts that fixes the Immigration Courts and restores a robust functional asylum system at our borders, the positive enforcement changes initiated by Mayorkas will continue to have limited impact. And, ironically, that will play right into the hands of the Millers and Homans of the world who would like to see democracy fail, irrationality prevail, and cruelty rule!
In the early morning on Feb. 4, Jose boarded a packed airplane in Illinois filled with handcuffed immigrant detainees just like him. They were en route to another detention center in Oklahoma after theirs was ordered close. During the hour-and-35-minute flight, several people appeared ill, coughing and sniffling, but no one was able to socially distance. A few days later, Jose began experiencing the worst kind of sickness he had ever felt. He had contracted COVID-19. Jose joins the 1,126 other immigrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention who are currently being monitored and tested positive for the virus, representing a 395% surge in COVID-19 cases since January when there were only 285 reported cases.
“I was scared at one point. I’ve never been sick like that in my life,” Jose said. “I thought, ‘I’m going to die here.’”
Jose, who has asked to withhold his last name to protect his identity, is 25 years old and has lived in the U.S. since he came with his parents from Mexico at age seven; he has been in immigration detention for three months. He was originally detained in Illinois at McHenry County Jail, but when Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Illinois Way Forward Act, banning private and county-run immigration detention, Jose was one of 17 people from McHenry County Jail transferred to the Kay County Jail in Oklahoma.
“We really want to focus on getting releases and getting folks out of detention, instead of transfers to another facility,” said Gabriela Viera, advocacy manager at the Detention Watch Network. “We need to continue shutting down facilities until we are in a place where there are no more facilities for people to be transferred to.”
Another person in a different immigrant detention center, Jorge, was transferred from a facility in New York to Krome Detention Center in Homestead, Florida. According to advocates from the Queer Detainee Empowerment Project, he was exposed to COVID-19 and tested positive for the virus. Jorge has confirmed widespread reports that there is a complete disregard for the virus within the detention center, with no access to hand sanitizer or vaccines.
According to the National Immigrant Justice Center, both McHenry County Jail and the Jerome Combs Detention Center in Kankakee County experienced COVID-19 outbreaks among the ICE population at the time of these transfers. Advocates, public health experts, and members of Congress raised the alarm to Chicago Field Office Director Sylvie Renda in the days before the transfers about the risks of moving people to jails out of state under these circumstances, but ultimately, about 30 people were transferred from McHenry and Kankakee to Oklahoma, Indiana, and Texas.
“There was no distance between us,” Jose said. “When we got there, they just put us all in the dorm room.”
About four days after arriving in Oklahoma, Jose began feeling sick. His body ached, his sinuses were congested, and he had difficulty standing, especially during routine phone calls where there are no chairs provided. The extreme cold at night only worsened his symptoms, and he developed body shivers, chest pain, and a fever. He put in two requests to see the medic before he was finally tested for COVID-19 and confirmed that he had the virus.
“They’re not testing people regularly, and they’re not socially distancing, they’re not providing people with sufficient hygiene products,” said Diana Rashid, National Immigrant Justice Center’s managing attorney, who is representing Jose in his release request. “The spread is just going to continue.”
The medic gave him fever-reducing medication and vitamin D. He was returned to his 20-person pod and was told to remain in his bunk and try to self-isolate within his dorm room the size of a small basketball court.
“I thought they were going to move me to a cell alone,” Jose said. “But, they just left me in the room. I think I even got someone else sick.”
Jose is now recovering and feels better, but at least one other person has tested positive, with a total of nine positive cases in the detention center, according to ICE. But, Jose says that number may be even larger due to underreporting. When a person tests positive, they are put under quarantine for 10 days, meaning they cannot interact with other pods. Even worse, they are not taken out of their rooms for their court hearings, postponing an already delayed process and forcing them to stay in detention longer than necessary. According to Rashid, it would take about two to four weeks to get the first hearing in Chicago’s immigration court after a person is first detained.
“Everyone’s cases stalled for those who are in quarantine,” said Rashid.
Jose, who has been in quarantine for a majority of his detention, says that people are getting frustrated and desperate with the continued prolonging of their cases. Some are even considering signing the removal papers out of desperation.
“I just want to go ahead with my court proceedings and get out of here,” said Jose. “I want to make it to the light at the end of the tunnel.”
Immigration advocates hope more states will follow Illinois and close their detention centers. A total of 41 people were released from these jails during January in Illinois, but they believe that everyone, including Jose, should have been released on the current ICE enforcement memo guidelines. Advocates are also continuing to push for Congress to cut funding for immigration detention and enforcement and hope to invest in vital programs that uplift their communities instead, like health care, affordable housing, and education.
Prism is a BIPOC-led non-profit news outlet that centers the people, places, and issues currently underreported by national media. We’re committed to producing the kind of journalism that treats Black, Indigenous, and people of color, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and other invisibilized groups as the experts on our own lived experiences, our resilience, and our fights for justice. Sign up for our email list to get our stories in your inbox, and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
*********************
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights, Kristen Clarke looks for civil rights violations by state and local governments. Yet, she studiously ignores those being committed in broad daylight by her boss’s dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and the immigration detention empire he enables, supports, and defends.
As Alexandra’s report notes, one well-known result of prolonged detention in intentionally unsafe and substandard conditions is to “duress” individuals into giving up legal rights. Could there be a clearer violation of our Constitution going on right under Garland’s nose? I doubt it! But, no stand against these clear abuses. It’s as if “Gonzo” Sessions, “Billy the Bigot” Barr, and “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller were still calling the shots for Garland!
“The New American Gulag” (“NAG”) operates right under the noses of civil rights honcho Kristen Clarke and her boss AG Merrick Garland with their blessing. Indeed, they have “embedded courts” in the NAG! So much for the Biden Administration’s commitment to civil rights. GULAG PHOTO: Public Realm.
Almost from the “git go,” the Biden Administration has avoided dealing effectively and honestly with the “second (or third) class justice system” being inflicted by the DOJ, disproportionately targeting individuals of color and ethnic communities in America! It’s a rather glaring case of “do as I say, not as I do” that doesn’t appear to have escaped the notice of some Trump Article III judges. They turn the DOJ’s spineless “Dred Scottification” and “Miller Lite” actions and arguments back against them to undermine racial justice, fundamental fairness, and truth in all areas.
In a truly revolting🤮, yet highly revealing, interview with Savannah “Why Am I Giving Air Time To This Bad Dude” Guthrie on today’s Today Show, “Billy the Bigot” Barr made it clear that he considers corruption, lies, fascism, racism, and the final destruction of American democracy a “small price to pay” to fight the “real problem:” Progressive, humane, values-based governance in the common public interest.
But, somehow, Garland and others in the Biden Administration see no reasons to take a stand against this dangerous nonsense!
Remember folks, BTB is the overt racist who casually and glibly told Lester Holtthat “Black Lives Matter” is the “Big Lie!” He knows there will be no accountability for GOP enablers like him! Who’s the next “exclusive” for the NBC News crew, the Grand Dragon of the KKK? And, you can bet that if empowered again, the GOP will have no problem reviving the “White Nationalist Clown Show”🤡 @ DOJ.
That leaves the fight for the future of our nation to the NDPA and others who believe that America doesn’t necessarily have to spiral downhill into a “MAGAland” grave, ⚰️ but could actually become something better than we are today! It’s not a given that we can build a better nation and a better world, but it is a possibility.
Will the next generation stand up for a better future for everyone, or fulfill the nasty, backward-looking vision of lies, hate, and intolerance that BTB and the rest of the GOP right have mapped out for them?
Trump Judge Mark T. Pittman has a very explicit vision of the future for brown-skinned children seeking protection from “White Nationalist Nation.” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
ThreadOpen appSee new TweetsConversationAaron Reichlin-Melnick@ReichlinMelnick🚨Absolute madness. The same day the DC Circuit rules that families can’t be expelled under Title 42 to places they will be persecuted, a federal judge in Texas just overruled the CDC and ordered the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf…
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of Aaron’s feed at the link.
Although the DC Circuit basically confirmed that the evidence produced by plaintiffs showed illegal returns to death and that there was little, if any, support for the draconian Title 42 exclusion order, the relief granted was unacceptably narrow. The order merely directed the Administration to cease returning individuals to countries where they would be persecuted or tortured.
That order is weak because:
It doesn’t specify any particular fair procedure that must be followed by DHS in determining who faces persecution or torture. That appears to leave open the possibility of DHS employing bogus “summary determinations by enforcement agents” rather than using Asylum Officers and having cases referred to Immigration Courts.
There are no limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals and/or return them to other countries.
The standard for so-called “withholding of removal” to persecution is “more likely than not” as opposed to the more generous “well-founded fear” or “reasonable possibility” standard for asylum (although individuals should be able to invoke the regulatory “presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution).
Even if granted, withholding of removal does not provide individuals with “durable legal status” nor does it allow them to access the asylum system, from which they apparently would remain barred under Title 42.
Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas is a Trump appointee with strong ties to the Federalist Society and a very loose grasp on domestic and international laws and procedures for protecting children.
It’s interesting, if disheartening, to compare the “overt wishy-washiness” of the DC Circuit Judges who were timidly, “sort of” trying to protect at least some minimal legal and human rights with the “in your face,” overtly anti-immigrant, arrogant tone and ridiculous self-assuredness with which activist righty District Judge Mark Pittman advanced his absurdist notion that the White Nationalist agenda of “protecting” America from the “non-threat” of brown-skinned children merited his simultaneous assumption of the roles of President, Secretary of DHS, Attorney General, and for a good measure, Congress.
Obviously, the “judicial restraint,” supposedly a hallmark of modern conservatism, was just a “smoke screen” for the GOP’s activist anti-social, anti-immigrant, racially charged agenda. That’s not news to many of us, although it seems to have gone “over the head” of many in the Biden Administration and many Dems on the Hill.
It shows once again why “Team Garland’s” indolent, often uninformed, and floundering approach to immigrant justice under law is being steamrolled by Trump holdovers and crusading right-wing Federal Judges. And, you wonder why Dems can’t figure out what they stand for and what their “line in the sand” is!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Garland and other weak-kneed Biden officials can’t decide how much of the leftover “Miller Lite” anti-asylum, anti-humanitarian, anti-due-process policy they want to retain and defend and how much effort, if any, they want to put into re-establishing human rights and the rule of law.
One observation: After more than one-year in office, the Biden Administration is no closer to having an orderly, functional, due-process-oriented asylum system in place and ready for the border than they were on January 20, 2021! The expert Asylum Officers and qualified Immigration Judges who are necessary to operate such a system are still few and far between, and the program to facilitate legal assistance for those seeking legal protection at the border is all but non-existent.
Trump Judges Are Now a Threat to America’s National Security
The 5th Circuit let a lone judge order the deployment of unvaccinated SEALs. High-ranking officers say the decision puts the world at risk.
MARCH 1 2022 6:55 PM
On Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stunning decision transferring control over the Navy’s special operations forces from the commander-in-chief to a single federal judge in Texas. The 5th Circuit’s decision marks an astonishing infringement of President Joe Biden’s constitutional authority over the nation’s armed forces, directing him to follow the instructions of an unelected judge—rather than his own admirals—in deploying SEALs. High-ranking military personnel have testified under oath that this power grab constitutes a direct threat to the Navy’s operational abilities. As Russia invades Ukraine and declares a nuclear alert, Donald Trump’s judges are actively threatening America’s national security.
Like so many lawless cases in the 5th Circuit, this dispute began in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor. A notorious George W. Bush nominee, O’Connor is best known for attemptingto abolish the Affordable Care Act in 2018, then getting reversed by a 7–2 vote at the Supreme Court last year. So when 35 Navy Special Warfare service members refused to comply with Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the armed forces, they brought their case to O’Connor. These service members—mostly SEALs, all represented by the far-right First Liberty Institute—claimed that their religious beliefs barred them from getting the shots. (Some said they heard “divine instruction not to receive the vaccine”; others asserted that the mRNA vaccines altered “the divine creation of their body by unnaturally inducing production of spike proteins.)
O’Connor predictably sided against Biden in January, granting a preliminary injunction of staggering scope on the grounds that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He awarded himself sweeping authority over the assignment of the plaintiffs, forcing the Navy to deploy them with operational units. When several plaintiffs were denied transfer to a duty station, they asked O’Connor to sanction the government for allegedly violating his order; he promptly ordered the Justice Department to explain why it should not be punished for failing to deploy these service members. (O’Connor has not yet decided whether to impose sanctions.)
As of today, this lone judge continues to oversee the plaintiffs’ assignments, forcing the Navy to train, equip, and deploy unvaccinated troops—with granular specificity as to their exact stations and duties.
Never before in the history of the United States has one district court judge exercised so much control over the armed forces. The Constitution assigns this authority to Congress and the president. There are certainly legal limits on executive discretion, including due process and constitutional safeguards against invidious discrimination. Right-wing lawyers have typically been loath to acknowledge any restrictions on the president’s war powers. Indeed, the conservative legal movement has endorsed a near-limitless vision of the commander-in-chief: Republican presidents, lawyers, and judges have argued that the Constitution allows the president to deploy troops without congressional approval, indefinitely detain enemy combatants, and exclude entire classes of immigrants from the country. But now it seems they draw the line at a simple vaccine requirement—even though all service members were already required to have at least nine vaccines upon enlistment.
Setting aside this hypocrisy, O’Connor’s order violated a fundamental principle of judicial restraint: Federal courts have long held that specific military assignments are never subject to judicial review. O’Connor appears to be the first judge ever to rule that, in fact, the courts can compel the armed forces to deploy a specific service member to a specific location to perform a specific duty. If his court were in a sane circuit, this unprecedented intrusion on the president’s power would be quashed almost instantly.
In an unsigned opinion that bristled with hostility against the COVID-19 vaccine, this panel agreed that the mandate violated religious liberty. Noting that most service members are vaccinated, the panel declared that the Navy lacks the “paramount interests” necessary to overcome anti-vaxxers’ religious objections. It questioned the “efficacy” of the vaccine, noting that “the USS Milwaukee was ‘sidelined’ in December 2021 by a COVID-19 outbreak despite having a fully vaccinated crew.” (Unmentioned was the fact that the crew’s vaccination status prevented even more transmission and serious illness.) The panel then found that the Navy will not be “irreparably harmed” by O’Connor’s order. And it concluded that the “public interest” lies in keeping the plaintiffs unvaccinated.
. . . .
******************
Don’t expect this lackadaisical attitude from the next far-right GOP Attorney General to “own” the U.S. Immigration Courts — America’s “retail level” judiciary! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
There isn’t anything that Biden and the Dems can do in the short run to change the scofflaw trajectory and composition of the 5th and the Supremes.
But, there is a powerful, nationwide, precedent-setting“Trump-oriented retail level ‘judiciary’” — with trial and appellate divisions and control over millions of lives and futures — that they have the power to immediately reform: The U.S. Immigration Courts “housed” within the DOJ’s EOIR!
Too bad for the rule of law and the future of democracy, not to mention the millions of individual human lives and futures at stake, that Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “up to” the job!
Progressives shouldn’t expect the same lack of will, defective focus, and clueless complacency the next time the radical GOP right takes over ownership of the DOJ! When it comes to the interrelated problems of immigration, human rights, civil rights, and immigration judicial reform in the 21st Century, fecklessness and underperformance are exclusive characteristics of Dem Administrations!👎🏽☹️🤯
One Year In: The Biden Administration and Asylum Policy
Developments in Fourth Circuit Case Law
Increasing Access to Pro Bono Counsel in Underserved Areas: Virginia as a Case Study
Working Across Disciplines: Best Practices for Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals in Asylum Seeker Evaluations
Country Conditions: From Page to Practice
CLE Credit and DOJ Accredited Representative Certifications
This event has been approved for 6.5 credit hours of CLE credit from Virginia and North Carolina. Attorneys seeking CLE credit must purchase tickets indicating that CLE credit is provided (indicated by “CLE” listed by the ticket type).
Attorneys from other jurisdictions who are not seeking CLE credit from Virginia or North Carolina are welcome to attend.
DOJ Accredited Representative certifications will be provided to those who register as DOJ Accredited Representatives seeking certification.
Zoom Webinar Information
Zoom information for the event will be sent to the email address used to register. For security reasons, we do not post the Zoom link information. All Zoom registration information will be provided in a separate email closer to the date of the event.
The Dehumanizing Work of Immigration Law is an analysis piece authored by immprof Jennifer M. Chacón (Berkeley) for the Brennan Center for Justice. It was part of a series of articles examining the “punitive excess that has come to define America’s criminal legal system.”
In her article, Chacón acknowledges that “our immigration laws are exceptionally harsh in ways that frequently defy common sense.” She notes that for many migrants “the notion that there is a ‘right way’ to immigrate is just not true.” Moreover, “our country has not always honored its own legal processes when immigrants are doing things ‘the right way.’” And, for those “long-time lawful permanent residents who have contact with the criminal legal system are often denied the chance to do things ‘the right way.’”
“Again and again,” Chacón writes, “notions of the rule of law are invoked to justify the sundering of families and communities that would, in other circumstances, seem unthinkable.”
Jennifer elegantly articulates a theme that echoes what “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I often say on our respective blogs: It’s all about gratuitous cruelty and intentional dehumanization of “the other” — primarily vulnerable individuals of color!
But, it need not be that way! Undoubtedly, the current legislative framework is outdated, unrealistic, and often self-contradictory. Congress’s failure to address it with bipartisan, humane, common sense, practical reforms that would strengthen and expand our legal immigration system is disgraceful.
But, there are plenty of opportunities even under the current flawed framework for much better interpretations of law; more expansive, uniform, and reasonable exercises of discretion; creation and implementation of best practices; advancements in due process and fundamental fairness; drastic improvements in representation; improved expert judging; rational, targeted, “results-focused” enforcement; promoting accountability; and teamwork and cooperation among the judiciary, DHS, and the private/NGO/academic sectors to improve the delivery of justice and make the “rule of law” something more than the cruel parody it is today.
Historically, as Jennifer points out, courts have often aided, abetted, and sometimes even disgracefully and cowardly encouraged lawless behavior and clear violations of both constitutional and human rights. But, it doesn’t have to be that way in the future!
Folks like Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Wolf, “Cooch,” Hamilton, McHenry, et al spent four years laser-focused on banishing every last ounce of humanity, fairness, truth, enlightenment, kindness, compassion, reasonableness, efficiency, rationality, equity, public service, racial justice, consistently positive use of discretion, practicality, and common sense from our immigration and refugee systems.
Biden and Harris promised dynamic change, improvement, and a return to a values-based approach to immigration. Once in office, however, they have basically “gone Miller Lite” —preferring to blame and criticize the Trump regime without having a ready plan or taking much positive action to bring about dynamic systemic improvements. In fact, as pointed out by Jennifer, Garland and Mayorkas have continued to apply, defend, and to some extent rely on the very vile policies they supposedly disavowed. Talk about disingenuous!
Drastic improvements in the current system are “out there for the taking,” with or without Congressional assistance. But, the will, skill, and guts to make the “rule of law” something other than an intentionally cruel, failed “throw away slogan” appears to be sorely missing from Biden Administration ldeadership!
Maybe, the beginning of Jennifer’s essay “says it all” about the abject failure of Garland and others to “get the job done:”
During his confirmation hearing to be attorney general, when asked about the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border, Merrick Garland repudiated the policy, stating “I can’t imagine anything worse.”
Yet, now that he is confirmed, Attorney General Garland presides over an agency that represents the U.S. government in court arguing every day that parents should be separated from their children, brothers from sisters, grandchildren from grandparents.
Obviously, that’s the problem! Garland actually “can’t imagine” the human impact of government-imposed family separation! Nor can he “imagine” what it’s like to be caught up in his unfair, biased, and broken Immigration “Courts” as a party or a lawyer. The “retail level” of our justice system “passed him by” on his way to his judicial “comfort zone.”
“Justice” Star Chamber Style — “AG Garland ‘can’t imagine’ what it’s like to be caught up in the dysfunctional, abusive, and unfair ‘court system’ that he runs!”
Unless and until we finally get an Attorney General who has either experienced or has the actual imagination necessary to feel the daily horrors and indignity that our unnecessarily broken immigration justice system inflicts on real human beings, American justice and human values will continue to spiral downward! ☠️🤮
And, there will be no true racial justice in America without justice for immigrants!
On the line are millions of futures. Undocumented immigrants who fear being split from their American children and spouses, people facing persecution and death in their countries of origin, or those being sent to countries they haven’t seen in decades are all fighting for fair play and often literally their lives in courts ill-equipped to do them justice.
“Let’s make it absolutely clear: due process is suffering,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. “There’s just no way around that.”
Chishti said he sees all the hallmarks of a strong administrative law system suffering in the nation’s immigration courts, which are housed under the Department of Justice in the executive branch of the federal government, not within the judicial branch.
“It is a system in crisis,” he said.
After Trump made hardline anti-immigration policies pivotal to his 2016 presidential campaign, he flooded courts with judges more inclined to order deportations, Reuters reported.
His administration hired so many new immigration judges so hastily that the American Bar Association warned of “under-qualified or potentially biased judges”, many of whom had no immigration experience.
And as officials such as then-attorney general Jeff Sessions made sweeping proclamations that “the vast majority of asylum claims are not valid”, judges simultaneously confronted performance metrics demanding they each race through at least 700 cases a year.
People ranging from asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico to unaccompanied children crossing the border on foot, to longtime undocumented residents with families stateside end up appearing in court, often without attorneys to help them parse the country’s byzantine laws.
In a process smacking of a zip code lottery, one judge in New York may grant nearly 95% of asylum petitions while colleagues in Atlanta almost universally deny similar requests, creating a patchwork of standards.
. . . .
***************************
Read Alexandra’s full report at the link.
Garland’s stubbornly indolent approach to racial justice and due process at “Justice” endangers the lives of millions of vulnerable humans! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Not news to Courtside readers or the millions whose lives and futures are caught up in Garland’s totally dysfunctional morass! And, that doesn’t even include hundreds of thousands of migrants orbited to danger under bogus “border closure” gimmicks that Garland and his ethically-challenged DOJ continue to defend!
Lips Sewn Shut Public Realm — Biden’s continuation of Trump’s cruel and illegal abrogation of asylum laws at the border, inappropriately defended by Garland’s DOJ, drives desperate people to do desperate things.
Nicole Narea Immigration Reporter Vox.com — Her clear and cogent analysis stands in sharp contrast to the Biden Administration’s often muddled, incoherent, and self-contradictory policies on human rights and racial justice on America.
Migrants stranded in southern Mexico because of US and Mexican border policies are taking increasingly drastic measures to draw attention to their plight. On Tuesday, a dozen migrants staged a protest in which they sewed their lips together and went on a hunger strike.
They are among the thousands staying in what has become known as an “open-air prison” in the city of Tapachula on Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala. Migrants there have struggled to access food and shelter, and have reported being preyed on by government officials.
Facing pressure to find ways to limit the number of migrants requesting entry to the United States, Mexican immigration authorities will not permit the migrants to leave the city unless they have some form of legal immigration status allowing them to move freely through the country, such as asylum. Hundreds tried to escape last month, but were intercepted and detained by Mexican immigration authorities.
. . . .
The US could share the load by resuming processing of migrants at its own borders and allowing them to pursue claims to humanitarian protection, as is their legal right. Instead, it has offloaded its immigration responsibilities onto its neighbor.
****************
As usual, Nicole provides timely, astute, accessible analysis of complex problems. I highly recommend her complete article at the link above.
The Attorney General is supposed to stand up for the rule of law, human rights, and to “just say no” to defending illegal and improper policies. As many of us pointed out during the scofflaw tenures of Sessions and Barr, the AG’s fealty is supposed to be to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which include treaties that we have ratified and incorporated into our laws. As human rights and legal rights continue to be ignored, deflected, and degraded at our borders and in Immigration “Courts” that don’t operate as “courts” at all in any commonly understood meaning of the term, where is Garland?
Train Dennis Adams, Federal Highway Administration; levels adjustment applied by Hohum Public domain. — Garland’s Deportation Railway retains most of his predecessors’ engineers, conductors, and crew. It’s often slow, unreliable, erratic, and subject to arbitrary unannounced schedule changes. It continues to bypass “Due Processville” and “Fundamental Fairness City.”
Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 4th Cir., 02-16-22, published
PANEL: NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Niemeyer
DISSENT: Judge Motz
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
Under the current immigration statutes, DHS has good reason to require applicants for relief from removal to submit fingerprints and other biometrics. But before DHS does so, it must first comply with specified notice obligations. Where, as here, DHS fails to do so, I would not fault the applicant. As the Supreme Court explained in Niz-Chavez, “[i]f men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” 141 S. Ct. at 1486.
I respectfully dissent.
*********************
The IJ and the BIA relied on a wrong BIA precedent. The 4th Circuit majority judges recognized its incorrectness, but took OIL’s invitation to fashion another rationale for denying this asylum applicant a hearing on the merits of her life or death claim. While the respondent was represented by counsel, the disputed “warnings” and dialogue relating to the missing biometrics were not translated into Spanish, the only language she understood.
While this case was pending, USCIS finally delivered the long and inexplicably delayed biometrics appointment letter to the respondent. But, that made no difference to a group of judges anxious to railroad her back to Honduras (one of the most dangerous and thoroughly corrupt countries in the hemisphere) without a meaningful chance to be heard.
Of all the Federal Judges who looked at this case over the years, only Judge Motz was interested in providing the respondent a due process hearing on her life-determining claim. The rest evidently were more fixated on creating reasons for NOT hearing her case. With the same amount of judicial and litigation effort, likely less, the respondent probably could have received a due process hearing on the merits of her claim. Additionally, there would have been consequences for the BIA’s defective “good enough for government work” precedent.
Of course, like Garland, none of the exalted judges involved in this disgraceful dereliction of duty have actually represented an asylum applicant in Immigration Court and had to deal with the confusing, convoluted, backlogged, and often notoriously screwed up DHS/EOIR biometrics process. See, e.g., “USCIS Biometrics Appointment Backlog,” https://www.stilt.com/blog/2021/02/biometrics-appointment-backlog/.
I suspect that folks contesting a parking ticket get more consideration in our system than this asylum applicant got from Garland’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the OIL lawyers who defend these mis-handled cases. And, in the world of “refugee roulette,” where human lives are treated like lottery tickets, a different Circuit panel of judges might have joined Judge Motz in getting it right.
The problem starts with EOIR — tribunals that receive deference without earning it through expertise, quality scholarship, and prioritizing due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. It’s aggravated and multiplied by Garland — an Attorney General indifferent to injustice and the trail of broken lives and dashed hopes left in its wake. And, it’s aided, abetted, and enabled by judges like the panel majority here, who can’t be troubled with the hard work of understanding the consequences of their dilatory approach and demanding fair, competent, and reasonable expert judging from EOIR.
As several of my colleagues have said about the broken, dysfunctional, unfair Immigration Court system, the haphazard review by some Circuit Courts, and the disturbing systemic lack of judicial courage when it comes to fairly applying the Due Process Clause of our Constitution to migrants of color: “The cruelty is the point.”
It’s also worthy of note that the failure of all the Federal Judges, save Judge Motz, to make any meaningful inquiry into the respondent’s clearly expressed fear of return to Honduras appears to violate mandatory requirements for withholding of removal under the INA and international conventions. Perhaps that’s not surprising as Federal Judges have allowed Garland, Mayorkas, and their predecessors to use the transparent pretext of “Title 42” to systemically violate the legal and human rights of refugees at our borders — every day!
It’s also worth putting into context the Biden Administration’s continuing pontification about the human rights of Ughyurs, Afghans, women, and other persecuted minorities, as well as their professed commitment to racial justice in the U.S., which has not been matched by actions. Indeed, the Biden Administration’s actual approach to human rights looks much more like “Miller Lite Time” than it does a courageous, competent, and fair reinstitution of the rule of law!
According to recent reports, many of the Ughyurs and Afghans who were fortunate enough to reach the U.S. and avoid arbitrary “turn backs” at our borders, are now mired in the endless, mindless Mayorkas/Garland bureaucracy that masquerades as an “asylum system” — subject to long waits, missing work authorizations, and sometimes arbitrary and secretive “denials” blasted by human rights advocates. In a functional system these would be the “low hanging fruit” that could rapidly be removed from limbo and given the ability to fully function in our society. But, not in the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere fostered by Mayorkas and Garland.
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawBlaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
The problem is very obvious: The “practical scholars” and widely respected international experts in asylum law who should be drafting gender-based regs and issuing precedents as appellate judges @ EOIR remain “frozen out” by Garland and the Biden Administration. Meanwhile, those who helped carry out the Miller/Sessions misogynistic policies of eradicating asylum protection for women of color not only remain on the bench but still empowered by Garland to issue controlling interpretations of asylum law.
Deadly Inertia: Needless Delay of “Particular Social Group” Regulations Puts Asylum Seekers at Risk
February 10, 2022
On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order (“EO”) which directed executive branch agencies to review and then take action on numerous aspects of our shattered asylum system.1 Of particular interest to the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), and many asylum seekers, legal experts, and allies, was a provision ordering the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive examination of whether U.S. treatment of asylum claims based on domestic or gang violence is consistent with international standards, and to propose a joint rule on the meaning of “particular social group,” as that term is derived from international law (emphasis added).2
The deadlines set by the President – August 1, 2021 for the examination of current law on domestic violence and gang claims, and October 30, 2021 for the proposed regulations on particular social group – have come and gone. We are concerned that the administration has offered no indication of its progress on what should be a simple task, given that international law and authoritative international standards on particular social group are clear.3
This reference guide explains why regulations on particular social group are important, why this legal issue has become so contentious, and why there is no good reason for the delay in proposing regulations. We point out that there is a clear path forward for the United States to realign its treatment of asylum claims with established international standards, which is precisely what the EO mandates.
Why are regulations on particular social group important?
While “particular social group” may sound like an arcane topic in the notoriously complex area of asylum law, there is a reason it merited the President’s attention in an EO signed just two weeks after he took office.4 Persecution on the basis of membership in a particular social group is one of only five grounds for refugee status in U.S. and international law and has become the most hotly contested asylum law issue in the United States.
Why has particular social group jurisprudence become so contentious in the United States?
First, the phrase “particular social group” is less intuitively clear than the other grounds for asylum of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. This ground is understood to reflect a desire on the part of the treaty drafters – and U.S. legislators who incorporated the international refugee definition into our own immigration law – to protect those who don’t fit neatly into the other four categories, and to allow asylum protection to evolve in line with our understanding of human rights. Such refugees might include, for example, women fleeing domestic violence, or LGBTQ+ people persecuted because they do not conform to social norms regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. They might be people fleeing violent retaliation by criminal gangs because they
200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102 | http://cgrs.uchastings.edu
reported a crime or testified against a gang member. Or they might simply be related to someone who has defied a gang, and that alone makes them a target.
These people are clearly facing enormous harm, and equally clearly belong to a particular social group under a correct interpretation of the law. 5 But merely belonging to a particular social group does not result in being granted asylum. Only if a person meets all the other elements of the refugee definition, including the heavy burden of showing their group membership is a central reason they will be targeted, will they obtain protection in the United States.
Second, some policymakers and adjudicators fear that if particular social group claims qualify for protection, the “floodgates” will open. The Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) established the legal test for particular social group in 1985 in Matter of Acosta (see below).6 But beginning in 2006, the BIA altered the Acosta test by imposing additional requirements that are nearly impossible to meet.7 The result is that with only one exception, no new particular social groups from any country, no matter how defined, have been accepted in a published BIA decision since that time.
But there is no evidence to support the “floodgates” concern. Decades ago, when women who fled female genital cutting/mutilation were first recognized as a particular social group, some people argued that the United States would be inundated with such claims.8 Those fears never materialized. History shows, and the governments of both the United States and Canada acknowledged at the time, that acceptance of social group claims does not lead to a skyrocketing number of applicants.9
Third, asylum law, including the legal interpretation of particular social group, has been politicized. As part of an overtly anti-immigrant agenda, some politicians have seized upon the floodgates myth to promote increasingly restrictive policies and legal interpretations that depart from international standards. Politically oriented interference with asylum law reached new lows under the previous administration, most notably in 2018 when former Attorney General Sessions overruled his own BIA to issue his unconscionable decision in Matter of A-B-.10
Matter of A-B- was so widely reviled and justly condemned that all major Democratic candidates seeking their party’s presidential nomination in the last election promised to reverse the decision. Doing so was part of candidate Biden’s campaign platform.11 As President he made good on this promise by including the legal questions of domestic violence, gang brutality, and particular social group in the February 2021 EO.
Furthermore, and very much to his credit, Attorney General Garland granted CGRS’s request as counsel to vacate Matter of A-B- in June 2021.12 The law now stands as it did before Sessions’ unlawful interference, with the key precedent case Matter of A-R-C-G-13 recognizing a certain defined particular social group that may provide the basis for asylum for some domestic violence survivors.
However, as explained above, the problem goes beyond Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B- and stretches back at least as far as 2006, when the BIA began to encumber particular social group claims with additional legal hurdles. As correctly noted in the EO, it is necessary to assess whether U.S. law concerning not only domestic and gang violence claims, but all claims based on particular
2
social group, is consistent with international law. Fortunately there is ample international guidance, which is itself largely based on Acosta, on this exact question.
So why the delay in proposing new regulations?
We can think of no good reason for the agencies’ delay in proposing new regulations on particular social group. From the perspective of both binding international law and authoritative international standards, each of which are named as the framework for particular social group regulations in the EO, the legal analysis is not at all complicated.
To begin with, this is not a new area of the law. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the source of the refugee definition in which the phrase appears, was drafted in 1951. Our domestic law followed suit in the 1980 Refugee Act. As noted above, the key BIA precedent case interpreting particular social group, Matter of Acosta, was decided in 1985.14 The UN Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) guidelines on particular social group, which adopt Matter of Acosta, were issued 20 years ago, in 2002.15
Making the job of proposing regulations even simpler, international guidance is clear. It is critical to note that as an inter-governmental organization, UNHCR routinely takes the concerns of governments, including the United States, into account in crafting its legal advice. UNHCR’s guidelines on particular social group were drafted only after a thorough review of State practice, including U.S. law, and an extensive process of external expert consultations with government officials and judges in their personal capacities, academics, and practitioners.16 The consultations process began with a discussion paper on particular social group drafted by a leading U.S. scholar who had previously served as Immigration and Naturalization Service General Counsel.17
How should the United States interpret particular social group to be consistent with international law?
The United States should adopt the “immutability” standard that the BIA set forth in Matter of Acosta, with an alternative – not additional – test of “social perception” which was initially developed by courts in Australia.18 The Acosta test rests on the existence of immutable or fundamental characteristics such as gender to determine whether there is a particular social group. What must be discarded are the BIA’s extraneous requirements of “particularity” and “social distinction.” They have no basis in international law, are not consistent with international standards, are not compelled by the text of the statute, and are not coherent or internally logical. They have themselves spawned an enormous number of confused and confusing cases, including at the federal courts of appeals level, as judges attempt to apply them to real world cases.19
Key Democratic members of Congress with deep knowledge on refugee issues have taken this position, which is consistent with UNHCR’s views. The Refugee Protection Act of 2019, for example, reflects international guidance in its clarification of particular social group.20 Then-Senator Kamala Harris was one of the bill’s original cosponsors.
Additionally, in response to the EO, U.S. and international legal experts have explained that Matter of Acosta provided a workable test, that the BIA’s additional requirements distorted U.S. law in violation
3
of international standards, and that a return to Acosta would be consistent with international standards and offer an interpretation most faithful to the statutory text.21
Why does it matter?
Lives hang in the balance. Women who have survived domestic violence, and all other asylum applicants who must rely on the particular social group ground, are stuck on a deeply unfair playing field. Existing law, even with the vacatur of Matter of A-B-, gives far too much leeway for judges to say no to valid claims. For people wrongly denied protection, deportation can be a death sentence.22
We are concerned that the delay in proposing particular social group regulations reflects an unwillingness on the part of some key actors within the administration to accept that the United States is bound by international law and should realign itself with international standards. The EO explicitly expresses a mandate to analyze existing law on domestic and gang violence, and to draft new particular social group regulations, in a manner consistent with international standards. Yet it is possible that the administration, out of a flawed political calculus, will backtrack on this commitment as it has on others, notably the promise to restore asylum processing at the border.
To be clear, if this is the case, it is not because there is a principled legal argument against the relevance of international law. It is because a certain political outcome is desired, and the law will be bent to achieve that result. Administration officials should know that advocates will fight relentlessly if the proposed regulations do not in fact follow the EO’s directive to align U.S. law with authoritative international standards.
1 Executive Order on Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border, Feb. 2, 2021, 86 Fed. Reg. 8267 (Feb. 5, 2021).
3 Instead, on the one-year anniversary of the EO, USCIS Director Ur Jaddou held a virtual briefing on USCIS’s progress on this and three other immigration-related EOs, but provided no substantive details.
4 The EO otherwise encompasses the enormous operational, logistical, foreign policy, development, and other challenges required to create a comprehensive regional framework to address root causes, manage migration throughout North and Central America, and provide safe and orderly processing of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.
5 For example, when Harold Koh, a senior State Department advisor, resigned in October 2021 in protest over the expulsion of Haitian and other asylum seekers, he wrote: “Persons targeted by Haitian gangs could easily have asylum claims as persons with well-founded fears of persecution because of their membership in a ‘particular social group’ for purposes of the Refugee Convention and its implementing statute. Indeed, this is precisely the issue that faces the interagency group on joint DOJ/DHS rulemaking pursuant to President Biden’s February 2, 2021 Executive Order, which directed examination of whether
2 EO, Sec. 4(c) Asylum Eligibility. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(i) within 180 days of the date of this order, conduct a comprehensive examination of current rules, regulations, precedential decisions, and internal guidelines governing the adjudication of asylum claims and determinations of refugee status to evaluate whether the United States provides protection for those fleeing domestic or gang violence in a manner consistent with international standards; and
(ii) within 270 days of the date of this order, promulgate joint regulations, consistent with applicable law, addressing the circumstances in which a person should be considered a member of a “particular social group,” as that term is used in
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
4
the United States is providing appropriate asylum protection for those fleeing domestic or gang violence in a manner consistent with international standards.’” See https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017c-4c4a-dddc-a77e-4ddbf3ae0000.
6 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).
7 Stephen Legomsky and Karen Musalo, Asylum and the Three Little Words that Can Spell Life or Death, Just Security, May 28,
2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/. 8 Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).
9 Karen Musalo, Protecting Victims of Gendered Persecution: Fear of Floodgates or Call to (Principled) Action?, 14 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 119, 132-133 (2007), available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1560&context=faculty_scholarship.
10 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). The applicant was a domestic violence survivor whose asylum claim based on particular social group had been granted by the BIA.
11 “The Trump Administration has … drastically restrict[ed] access to asylum in the U.S., including … attempting to prevent victims of gang and domestic violence from receiving asylum [.] Biden will end these policies [.]” See https://joebiden.com/immigration/.
12 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021). He also vacated other problematic decisions that touched on particular social group and gender claims. See Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 351 (A.G. 2021).
15 UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 2: “Membership of a Particular Social Group” Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 7 May 2002, HCR/GIP/02/02, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3d36f23f4.html.
16 UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection, Update Oct. 2001, available at: https://www.unhcr.org/3b83c8e74.pdf.
17 T. Alexander Aleinikoff, “Protected Characteristics and Social Perceptions: An Analysis of the Meaning of ‘Membership of a Particular Social Group’”, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International
Protection (Feller, Türk and Nicholson, eds., 2003), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/470a33b30.html.
18 This is the approach recommended by UNHCR, n.15 above.
19 Legomsky and Musalo, Asylum and the Three Little Words that Can Spell Life or Death, n. 7 above, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/. See also, Sabrineh Ardalan and Deborah Anker, Re-Setting Gender-Based Asylum Law, Harvard Law Review Blog, Dec. 30, 2021, available at: https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/re-setting-gender-based-asylum-law/.
21 Scholars letter to Attorney General Garland and DHS Secretary Mayorkas, June 16, 2021, available at: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/2021.06.16_PSG%20Scholars%20Letter.pdf. See also, letter to Attorney General Garland and DHS Secretary Mayorkas, May 27, 2021, signed by 100 legal scholars discussing the “state protection” element of the proposed regulations, available at: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Law%20Scholars%20State%20Protection%20Letter%205.27.21%20%28FINAL%2 9.pdf.
22 When Deportation Is a Death Sentence, Sarah Stillman, The New Yorker, January 8, 2018, available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a-death-sentence.
20 The Refugee Protection Act of 2019, Sec. 101(a)(C)(iii) reads: “the term ‘particular social group’ means, without any additional requirement not listed below, any group whose members—
(I) share—
(aa) a characteristic that is immutable or fundamental to identity, conscience, or the exercise of human rights; or (bb) a past experience or voluntary association that, due to its historical nature, cannot be changed; or
(II) are perceived as a group by society.”
See https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2936/text?r=4&s=1#toc- idA272A477BC814410AB2FF0E6C99E522F.
5
*****************************
“Sir Jeffrey & Me Nijmegen, The Netherlands 1997 PHOTO: Susan Chase
You can check out what “Sir Jeffrey” and I had to say back in June 2021 here:
Unfortunately, my commentary then remains largely true today:
Without progressive intervention, this is still headed for failure @ EOIR! A few things to keep in mind.
Former Attorney General, the late Janet Reno, ordered the same regulations on gender-based asylum to be promulgated more than two decades ago — never happened!
The proposed regulations that did finally emerge along the way (long after Reno’s departure) were horrible — basically an ignorant mishmash of various OIL litigation positions that would have actually made it easier for IJs to arbitrarily deny asylum (as if they needed any invitation) and easier for OIL to defend such bogus denials.
There is nobody currently at “Main Justice” or EOIR HQ qualified to draft these regulations! Without long overdue progressive personnel changes the project is almost “guaranteed to fail” – again!
Any regulations entrusted to the current “Miller Lite Denial Club” @ the BIA ☠️ will almost certainly be twisted out of proportion to deny asylum and punish women refugees, as well as deny due process and mock fundamental fairness. It’s going to take more than regulations to change the “culture of denial” and the “institutionalized anti-due-process corner cutting” @ the BIA and in many Immigration Courts.
Garland currently is mindlessly operating the “worst of all courts” — a so-called “specialized (not) court” where the expertise, independence, and decisional courage is almost all “on the outside” and sum total of the subject matter expertise and relevant experience of those advocating before his bogus “courts” far exceeds that of the “courts” themselves and of Garland’s own senior team! That’s why the deadly, embarrassing, sophomoric mistakes keep flowing into the Courts of Appeals on a regular basis.
No regulation can bring decisional integrity and expertise to a body that lacks both!
As the CGRS cogently says at the end of the above posting:
The EO explicitly expresses a mandate to analyze existing law on domestic and gang violence, and to draft new particular social group regulations, in a manner consistent with international standards. Yet it is possible that the administration, out of a flawed political calculus, will backtrack on this commitment as it has on others, notably the promise to restore asylum processing at the border.
To be clear, if this is the case, it is not because there is a principled legal argument against the relevance of international law. It is because a certain political outcome is desired, and the law will be bent to achieve that result. Administration officials should know that advocates will fight relentlessly if the proposed regulations do not in fact follow the EO’s directive to align U.S. law with authoritative international standards.
If you follow some of the abysmal anti-asylum, poorly reasoned, sloppy results still coming out of Garland’s BIA and how they are being mindlessly defended by his OIL, you know that a “principled application” of asylum law to protect rather than arbitrarily reject isn’t in the cards! Also, as I have pointed out, even if there were a well written reg on gender based asylum, you can bet that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” would come up with intentionally restrictive interpretations that many of the “Trump-era” IJs still packed into EOIR would happily apply to “get to no.”
You don’t turn a “built and staffed to deny in support of a White Nationalist agenda agency” into a legitimate court system that will insure due process and fair treatment for asylum seekers without replacing judges and bringing in strong courageous progressive leaders.
That’s particularly true at the BIA, where harsh misapplications of asylum law to deny worthy cases has been “baked into the system” for years. And, without positive precedents from expert appellate judges committed to international principles and fair treatment of asylum seekers in the U.S., even a well-drafted reg won’t end “refugee roulette.”
By this point, it should be clear that the Biden Administration’s intertwined commitments to racial justice and immigrant justice were campaign slogans, and not much more. So, it will be up to advocates in the NDPA to continue the “relentless fight” to force an unwilling Administration and a “contentedly dysfunctional” DOJ that sees equal justice and due process as “below the radar screen” to live up to the fundamental promises of American democracy that they actively betray every day!
What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.
. . . .
*****************
The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.
For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.
Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!
Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!
The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”
This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!
“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!” “Unpacking” Photo by John Keogh Creative Commons License
All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!
We, the undersigned organizations committed to the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, write to express our serious concerns over reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun a new practice of using Title 42 to expel Venezuelan migrants to Colombia. We understand that the first two Venezuelan individuals to be expelled under this policy were flown to Colombia on January 27, 2022 and that additional Title 42 expulsion flights to the country are expected to take place on “a regular basis” for Venezuelans who “previously resided” in Colombia. This practice represents a concerning and unacceptable escalation to your administration’s misguided approach to border and migration policy that flouts domestic and international refugee and human rights law. We urge you to cease these and other Title 42 expulsions immediately, to prioritize protection and access to asylum in your regional and domestic migration policies, and to engage asylum and human rights experts as you pursue new policies.
One year into your administration, you have continued the misuse of a xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized an obscure provision of Title 42 of the U.S. code to summarily block and expel individuals, often repeatedly, from the U.S. southern border, without providing them the opportunity to seek asylum or the ability to access any protection screening required by law. These new flights to Colombia come amidst troubling reports that your administration placed on hold plans to restart asylum processing at U.S. ports of entry and that high-level officials have resisted ending Trump-era asylum restrictions, including Title 42 expulsions.
Title 42 expulsions have nothing to do with protecting public health and are not necessary to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts, the UN Refugee Agency, and other humanitarian advocates have demonstrated that it is possible to protect public health and ensure access to asylum simultaneously. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) objected to the use of Title 42 for mass expulsions of migrants and confirmed such expulsions lacked a valid public health basis. Your Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has himself stated that immigrants are “absolutely not” driving a COVID-19 outbreak and that expelling migrants is not a solution to an outbreak.
Over the past twelve months, your administration expelled people—often expelling the same person repeatedly—from the U.S. southern border more than one million times. In just the first seven months of your administration, U.S. border officials carried out 704,000 expulsions, a significant increase from the Trump administration’s 400,000 expulsions conducted over ten months. In addition to the new expulsion flights to Colombia, DHS also carries out land expulsions to Mexico and expulsion flights to send individuals and families back to their countries of origin, including Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, and Brazil. Even though your administration has acknowledged that “Haiti is grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses…” – the U.S. has since September 2021, inexplicably chartered nearly 150 flights of almost 16,000 Haitians, including families with infants, back to a country that is unquestionably unsafe without offering them any opportunity to seek protection before expulsion. These expulsions under Title 42 violate the law and risk sending people back to dangerous conditions – sometimes the very ones that caused them to seek safety in the first place.
As you are aware, Venezuela is currently facing a severe economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. Millions of Venezuelans have left the country due to political persecution, a collapse of basic services, food insecurity, and rampant violence. Over 1.7 million Venezuelans are being hosted in Colombia and many have been granted temporary status there and only a small percentage of Venezuelans have sought asylum in the United States; however, Colombia is not safe for all Venezuelan migrants and refugees. Venezuelans, and all other individuals fleeing persecution have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law and to have their claims for protection assessed on a case-by-case basis. Your administration is blatantly violating the law by expelling these people to other countries in the region, such as Colombia, and we are deeply troubled by the informal and opaque arrangements with third countries that facilitate these expulsions. Your administration terminated several such agreements with Central American countries when you came into office, making these new flights especially concerning.
During its first year in office, your administration committed to a comprehensive regional approach to migration, aiming to strengthen asylum systems and refugee resettlement programs in the region and promote “safe, orderly, and humane migration.” Despite this pledge, your administration’s actions suggest that the United States seeks out negotiations with countries throughout Latin America that externalize its borders further south, shifts responsibility to countries already hosting millions of refugees, and impedes people’s ability to seek protection in the United States. Earlier this month, under pressure from your administration, the Mexican government implemented new requirements that Venezuelans obtain a visa to travel to Mexico. According to reports, your administration has also requested that Mexico sign a safe third country agreement, which could effectively block most individuals (except Mexicans) from seeking asylum in the United States.
We urge your administration to abandon efforts to prevent people from seeking asylum through externalized migration controls in the region and to undermine the right of people to seek protection in the United States. As you pursue other regional efforts, it is imperative that your administration operate with increased transparency and engage with asylum and human rights experts about potential efforts such as anticipated regional compacts on migration with other countries in the Americas. While regional protections must be strengthened, these efforts must not and need not come at the expense of existing protection mechanisms and access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, including at ports of entry.
Your administration has the responsibility to uphold U.S. refugee law and treaty obligations. We call on your administration to cease further expulsions of Venezuelan migrants to Colombia, and to immediately end its use of all expulsions under Title 42. Our organizations continue to welcome the opportunity to engage on and inform how to promote a protection centered approach to “safe, orderly, and humane migration,” including restoring access to asylum at the border, including at ports of entry.
immigrants’ rights = human rights = civil rights = racial justice = economic stability = common good
By failing miserably on the first, the Administration has found itself flailing and failing on the rest.
Nowhere is this more apparent than at DOJ! Garland has squandered the precious first year in office by NOT cleaning house at EOIR and bringing in practical experts in immigration/human rights/due process to remake and reform the system so that it can deal fairly, timely, and justly with asylum applicants applying at the border and and elsewhere in the U.S., as they are legally entitled to do.
Instead of expertly culling the vast majority of backlogged pending cases which are neither priorities nor viable removal cases at this point, Garland has built the unnecessary, largely self-created backlog at a record pace to more than 1.6 million with no end in sight! Add that to his disgraceful failure to stand up against illegal and immoral policies and clear violations of human rights at the border by his own Administration and you get today’s catastrophic situation.
“Standing tall” for the rule of law (and human decency) is supposed to be the Attorney General’s job. Why are these NGOs being forced to do it for him?
How bad have things gotten at Garland’s DOJ? This has already been a tough week that saw his DOJ attorneys “blow” a plea bargain in a major civil rights case, be excoriated by the 4th Circuit in a published case for a miserably botched performance in what should have been a routine “reasonable fear” case, and have Chairwoman Lofgren introduce her Article 1 bill with a broadside against DOJ’s horrible stewardship over EOIR.
As if to punctuate Chairwoman Lofgren’s critique, Garland topped it off with this gem: a beatdown in a pro se Salvadoran asylum case, which OIL basically failed to “pull” although the BIA decision conflicted with Garland’s own more recent precedent, from a Fourth Circuit panel that included two recent Trump appointees not heretofore known for vigorously defending asylum seekers’ rights!https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/pro-se-ca4-psg-remand-luna-deportillo-v-garland
Folks, this is NOT “good government.” Not by a long shot!
There is no more important task — NONE — facing DOJ than pumping some due process and quality back into immigration law and making the long overdue management, personnel, procedural, and legal quality reforms at EOIR.
Yes, that apparently would require Garland to take on some folks at the White House who obviously consider human rights to be a “political strategy,” integrity and courage optional, and live in mortal fear of Stephen Miller and far-right nativists. It would mean taking decisive actions to treat asylum seekers and other migrants (including many individuals of color) as “persons” under our Constitution. It would end the intentional “Dred Scottification of the other.” It would send some Sessions/Barr “plants and holdovers” packing from their current jobs!
Unquestionably, these moves would incite predictable, tiresome, apoplectic reactions by Miller and the GOP White Nationalist cabal on the Hill. They would put Garland “in the spotlight” and interrupt the serenity of his inner sanctum on the 5th floor of the DOJ where he apparently likes to contemplate the world and “things other than due process for immigrants.”
But, taking on folks like that is what good lawyers are supposed to do. As a public lawyer, it’s not just about being somebody’s “mouthpiece” — it’s standing up for the rule of law!
I among many others have said from the outset that Garland won’t be able to sweep the total meltdown at EOIR and in immigration legal positions under the table, much as he obviously would like them to go away! Yes, he inherited an awful mess from his Trump predecessors. But, almost a full year in, that doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for failing to initiate the common sense steps to fix it and to bring in experts who actually know what they are doing and have the guts and backbone to follow through — even when the going gets tough, as it undoubtedly will. The problems at DOJ go far beyond EOIR; but,EOIR must be the starting place for fixing them. There is no more time to lose!
It’s time for Garland to start worrying about running “America’s most unfair and dysfunctional courts,” defending grotesque human rights violations and scofflaw policies by his own Administration, and a DOJ that takes untenable and embarrassingly bad legal positions before the Federal Courts. Much as he’d like to pretend that “immigration doesn’t matter,” or expressed a different way “human lives don’t matter if they are only migrants,” he’s starting to get pressure from Congress, the Article IIIs, and NGOs to fix EOIR and “shape up” the DOJ’s lousy, sometimes unprofessional and ethically questionable, approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice issues. Justice for immigrants is the starting point for achieving racial justice in America. PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Garland’s failure to institute widely recommended common sense legal reforms — government for the common good — at EOIR undermines our democracy while endangering “real” human lives every day! That’s a toxic legacy that he won’t be able to avoid!
(CNN)The Biden administration, unable to return an increasing number of Venezuelans arrested at the US-Mexico border to their home country, is now sending those migrants to Colombia if they previously resided there, according to two Homeland Security officials.
White House officials have grown increasingly concerned about the large numbers of single adults continuing to cross the US southern border, particularly from countries that Mexico won’t accept under a controversial Trump-era policy, two sources familiar with discussions said.
The flights of Venezuelans to Colombia, which have not been previously reported, marks another effort by the administration to try to stem the flow of migrants, pushing those who arrive further away from the US-Mexico border including those seeking asylum.
In December, US Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 13,000 single adults from Venezuela on the US southern border, compared with 96 in December 2020, according to agency data.
A humanitarian crisis and political instability have taken hold of Venezuela in recent years. Around 6 million people have fled the country, according to the United Nations, usually fleeing to other parts of Latin America which have also struggled during the pandemic.
There’s been bipartisan acknowledgment of the deteriorating situation in Venezuela. Last year, Sens. Marco Rubio, a Republican, and Bob Menendez, a Democrat, introduced a Senate resolution expressing alarm over the situation in the country.
Colombia also granted temporary legal status to Venezuelans who had fled there, allowing them to legally work in the country. But for those who opted to journey to the US-Mexico border to seek protections in the US, expulsion to Colombia now puts them thousands of miles away from the possibility of claiming asylum in the US.
The handling of the US-Mexico border has dogged the Biden administration since the early days of Joe Biden’s presidency as a growing number of migrants journey to the United States, fleeing deteriorating conditions in the western hemisphere. Republicans have recently seized on the releases of migrants — some of whom can’t be expelled because of their nationality — citing it as another example of what they describe as the administration’s poor management of the border.
Under a public health authority, known as Title 42, authorities can swiftly remove migrants encountered at the US southern border, effectively barring those seeking asylum from doing so and marking an unprecedented departure from previous protocol. The authority was invoked at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, despite suspicions among officials that it was politically motivated.
The White House has repeatedly referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the future of the policy, saying the agency deems it necessary given the Delta and Omicron variants.
Last Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security returned two Venezuelan nationals to Colombia, where they had previously resided, the department told CNN, adding that flights to Colombia are expected to take place “on a regular basis.”
“As part of the United States COVID-19 mitigation efforts, DHS continues to enforce CDC’s Title 42 public health authority with all individuals encountered at the Southwest border. However, DHS’s ability to expel individuals may be limited for several reasons, including Mexico’s ability and capacity to receive individuals of certain nationalities,” DHS said in a statement, adding that the department has removed migrants to third countries in the region where they had lived or had status.
DHS has also acknowledged the precarious situation in Venezuela by granting a form of humanitarian relief for Venezuelans already in the United States.
Still, the Biden administration has continued to rely on the public health authority and recently defended it in court — a move that received criticism from immigrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers. The latest decision to expel migrants from Venezuela — a country in crisis — to Colombia reveals a further dependence on the public health authority amid a growing number of Venezuelans arriving at the US-Mexico border.
In December, US Customs and Border Protection encountered 24,819 Venezuelans at the US southern border including single adults, families and minors, up from the previous month and continuing an increasing trend. As a point of comparison, in December 2020, CBP encountered only around 200 Venezuelan migrants, according to agency data.
While tens of thousands of migrants have been turned away at the US-Mexico border, some, like South Americans, aren’t accepted by Mexico and therefore those nationals largely can’t be expelled. Under the public health authority, DHS has removed migrants to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Brazil.
Some migrants from Venezuela crossed the border in Yuma, Arizona — often flying to an airport in Mexico and then crossing at a gap along the Colorado River, cutting the journey down to just days. It’s the most viable option for many Venezuelans and Brazilians, for example, who can’t obtain a visa that allows them to work in the US — or can’t afford the years-long wait for the legal immigration process. Mexico recently put new visa restrictions in place for Venezuelans traveling to Mexico.
The US has previously taken measures to try to lower the number of migrants at the US-Mexico border. Last year, the administration started flying migrants apprehended at the southern border and subject to the Trump-era border policy linked to the pandemic to the interior of Mexico.
Forced migration is real, no matter what fictions and myths Administrations of both parties use to deny it.
Pretending otherwise, and that lawless deportations and “deterrence” will materially change the forces that drive it, is both immoral and ultimately futile.
