Liability of Government Officials – Page 3

🏴‍☠️👎🏽 IDEOLOGICALLY SPLIT SUPREMES USE “NATIONAL SECURITY FICTION” TO FREE BORDER PATROL AGENTS FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! — EGBERT v. BOULE

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf

Syllabus by Court staff:

EGBERT v. BOULE

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 21–147. Argued March 2, 2022—Decided June 8, 2022

Respondent Robert Boule owns a bed-and-breakfast—the Smuggler’s Inn—in Blaine, Washington. The inn abuts the international border between Canada and the United States. Boule at times helped federal agents identify and apprehend persons engaged in unlawful cross-bor- der activity on or near his property. But Boule also would provide transportation and lodging to illegal border crossers. Often, Boule would agree to help illegal border crossers enter or exit the United States, only to later call federal agents to report the unlawful activity.

In 2014, Boule informed petitioner Erik Egbert, a U. S. Border Pa- trol agent, that a Turkish national, arriving in Seattle by way of New York, had scheduled transportation to Smuggler’s Inn. When Agent Egbert observed one of Boule’s vehicles returning to the inn, he sus- pected that the Turkish national was a passenger and followed the ve- hicle to the inn. On Boule’s account, Boule asked Egbert to leave, but Egbert refused, became violent, and threw Boule first against the ve- hicle and then to the ground. Egbert then checked the immigration paperwork for Boule’s guest and left after finding everything in order. The Turkish guest unlawfully entered Canada later that evening.

Boule filed a grievance with Agent Egbert’s supervisors and an ad- ministrative claim with Border Patrol pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Egbert allegedly retaliated against Boule by re- porting Boule’s “SMUGLER” license plate to the Washington Depart- ment of Licensing for referencing illegal activity, and by contacting the Internal Revenue Service and prompting an audit of Boule’s tax re- turns. Boule’s FTCA claim was ultimately denied, and Border Patrol took no action against Egbert for his use of force or alleged acts of re- taliation. Boule then sued Egbert in Federal District Court, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for excessive use of force and a First Amendment violation for unlawful retaliation. Invoking Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, Boule asked the Dis- trict Court to recognize a damages action for each alleged constitu- tional violation. The District Court declined to extend Bivens as re- quested, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Held: Bivens does not extend to create causes of action for Boule’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and First Amendment retaliation claim. Pp. 5–17.

(a) In Bivens, the Court held that it had authority to create a dam- ages action against federal agents for violating the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Over the next decade, the Court also fashioned new causes of action under the Fifth Amendment, see Davis v. Pass- man, 442 U. S. 228, and the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14. Since then, however, the Court has come “to appreciate more fully the tension between” judicially created causes of action and “the Constitution’s separation of legislative and judicial power,” Her- nández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___, ___, and has declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations, see, e.g., Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296; Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367. Rather than dispense with Bivens, the Court now emphasizes that rec- ognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, ___.

The analysis of a proposed Bivens claim proceeds in two steps: A court asks first whether the case presents “a new Bivens context”—i.e., is it “meaningfully different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action,” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___, and, second, even if so, do “special factors” indicate that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to “weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” Id., at ___. This two-step inquiry often resolves to a single question: whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy. Further, under the Court’s precedents, a court may not fash- ion a Bivens remedy if Congress already has provided, or has author- ized the Executive to provide, “an alternative remedial structure.” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___. Pp. 5–8.

(b) The Court of Appeals conceded that Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim presented a new Bivens context, but its conclusion that there was no reason to hesitate before recognizing a cause of action against Agent Egbert was incorrect for two independent reasons. Pp. 9–13.

(1) First, the “risk of undermining border security provides reason to hesitate before extending Bivens into this field.” Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___. In Hernández, the Court declined to create a damages remedy for an excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent be- cause “regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications.” Id., at ___. That reasoning applies with full force here. The Court of Appeals disagreed because it viewed Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim as akin to a “conventional” exces- sive-force claim, as in Bivens, and less like the cross-border shooting in Hernández. But that does not bear on the relevant point: Permitting suit against a Border Patrol agent presents national security concerns that foreclose Bivens relief. Further, the Court of Appeals’ analysis betrays the pitfalls of applying the special-factors analysis at too gran- ular a level. A court should not inquire whether Bivens relief is appro- priate in light of the balance of circumstances in the “particular case.” United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669, 683. Rather, it should ask “[m]ore broadly” whether there is any reason to think that “judicial intrusion” into a given field might be “harmful” or “inappropriate,” id., at 681. The proper inquiry here is whether a court is competent to authorize a damages action not just against Agent Egbert, but against Border Patrol agents generally. The answer is no. Pp. 9–12.

(2) Second, Congress has provided alternative remedies for ag- grieved parties in Boule’s position that independently foreclose a Bivens action here. By regulation, Border Patrol must investigate “[a]lleged violations” and accept grievances from “[a]ny persons.” 8 CFR §§287.10(a)–(b). Boule claims that this regulatory grievance pro- cedure was inadequate, but this Court has never held that a Bivens alternative must afford rights such as judicial review of an adverse determination. Bivens “is concerned solely with deterring the uncon- stitutional acts of individual officers.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 71. And, regardless, the question whether a given remedy is adequate is a legislative determination. As in Her- nández, this Court has no warrant to doubt that the consideration of Boule’s grievance secured adequate deterrence and afforded Boule an alternative remedy. See 589 U. S., at ___. Pp. 12–13.

(c) There is no Bivens cause of action for Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim. That claim presents a new Bivens context, and there are many reasons to think that Congress is better suited to authorize a damages remedy. Extending Bivens to alleged First Amendment vi- olations would pose an acute “risk that fear of personal monetary lia- bility and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the dis- charge of their duties.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 638. In light of these costs, “Congress is in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be served” by imposing a damages ac- tion. Bush, 462 U. S., at 389. The Court of Appeals’ reasons for ex- tending Bivens in this context—that retaliation claims are “well-estab- lished” and that Boule alleges that Agent Egbert “was not carrying out official duties” when the retaliation occurred—lack merit. Also lacking merit is Boule’s claim that this Court identified a Bivens cause of ac- tion under allegedly similar circumstances in Passman. Even assum- ing factual parallels, Passman carries little weight because it predates the Court’s current approach to implied causes of action. A plaintiff cannot justify a Bivens extension based on “parallel circumstances” with Bivens, Passman, or Carlson—the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action—unless the plaintiff also satisfies the prevailing “analytic framework” prescribed by the last four decades of intervening case law. Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___–___. Pp. 13–16.

998 F. 3d 370, reversed.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion con- curring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S CONCURRENCE DISSENT (joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan):

This Court’s precedents recognize that suits for damages play a critical role in deterring unconstitutional conduct by federal law enforcement officers and in ensuring that those whose constitutional rights have been violated receive meaningful redress. The Court’s decision today ignores our repeated recognition of the importance of Bivens actions, particularly in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context, and closes the door to Bivens suits by many who will suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s treat- ment of Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim.

****************************

Thus, the Border Patrol is free to egregiously violate Constitutional rights of citizens and other “persons” in the U.S. without meaningful accountability. But, I suppose it’s what one might expect from a right-majority Court that generally views rights of corporations and guns as fundamental while treating most individual rights of persons in the U.S. as expendable.

As for Justice Thomas’s ludicrous suggestion that filing a complaint with the CBP hierarchy is a “remedy” for wrongdoing? That’s in the “sick joke” category as anyone who has actually tried to file such a complaint would know. See, e.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/aclu-asks-dhs-take-action-complaints-abuse-misconduct-u-s-n1259657. Clearly, Thomas and his colleagues live in a privileged “parallel universe” where they have never had to rely on the DHS’s internal bureaucracy for redress of Constitutional violations!

As cogently pointed out by Justice Sotomayor, the majority’s intentional misuse and mischaracterization of the “national security fiction” to immunize government conduct from meaningful review in a case that actually has little or nothing to do with national security or foreign relations should also be of grave concern to all of us. Right-wing judges’ propensity to use “fictions” and “pretexts” to mask their real intent and to arrive at preconceived results is a major exercise in intellectual dishonesty!

It also reinforces my observation that it is wrong to keep appointing Justices who lack personal experience with representing individuals within our broken, dysfunctional, and often lawless immigration bureaucracy, which currently includes the U.S. Immigration “Courts” at EOIR. In many professions and occupations, the “future movers and shakers” are required to “start at the retail level” — like the rest of us — so that they understand their “customers'” needs, wants, expectations, problems, and concerns. Why do we exempt our most powerful judges from this “basic training” in delivering justice to human beings at the “retail level” of our justice system?

While many folks are too blind to see it, the lack of informed judicial oversight of the Constitutional performance of DHS, DOJ, DHS, DOS, DOL and the rest of the often underperforming USG immigration bureaucracy undermines the Constitutional rights of everyone in America, including citizens!

Life-tenured Federal Judges might act as if they are “immunized” and “above the fray” (also, to a disturbing extent, above the law and our Constitution, particularly where migrants are concerned). Meanwhile, it’s “the people’s rights” that are on the chopping block with an unprincipled “out of touch” far-right judiciary too often wielding the ax!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-09-22

⚖️9TH CIR. SLAMS IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY FOR DEFICIENT FOIA RESPONSE ON DEATH OF TRANSGENDER ASYLUM APPLICANT IN “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)!

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/12/20-17416.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-foia-transgender-law-center-v-ice#

“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Irene Lax, Kimberly A. Evans and R. Andrew Free!]

*****************************

As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):

2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).

This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law to immigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-22

DISSENTING VIEW: LET THE SUN SHINE IN!☀️ — Unaccountable, Anti-Democracy, Out-Of-Touch Righty Supremes Need & Deserve Public Scrutiny Of Decision-Making! — The “Leak” Was “All Good” 😎 — The Retrograde Substance Of Alito’s “Draft,” Not So Much! 🤮

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Supreme-Court-leaks-are-good-actually-Let-s-17154277.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

Edward Wasserman writes in the SF Chron:

. . . .

No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.

That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.

But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.

To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.

But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.

So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”

At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.

That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.

Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.

And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.

Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.

Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.

**************************

Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.

He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.

Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-22

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮👎🏽 ILLEGAL & IMMORAL: HRC’s Stunning Indictment Of Biden Administration’s Continuing Abuse Of Legal Asylum Seekers — “The Title 42 policy discriminatorily targets Haitian and other Black asylum seekers, spurs disorder at the border, undermines security, and separates families.”

“Floaters” — Although most senior Biden Administration officials work hard to avoid the border and confronting scenes like this, trauma, death, destruction, and dehumanization of the world’s most vulnerable will remain as indelible parts of their toxic legacies. “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”
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)

Carrying on and defending this guy’s cruel, inhuman, deadly, dishonest, and illegal policies wasn’t part of the Biden-Harris campaign pledge. Or was it? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/two-years-of-suffering-biden-administration-continues-use-of-discredited-title-42-order-to-flout-refugee-law

Two Years of Suffering: Biden Administration Continues Use of Discredited Title 42 Order to Flout Refugee Law

Human Rights First, Mar. 16, 2022

“For two years, the U.S. government has illegally blocked and expelled people seeking refuge at the southern U.S. border despite U.S. laws and treaties created to protect them. Since March 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has used orders from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), purportedly issued under Title 42 of U.S. law, to prevent asylum seekers from requesting U.S. asylum and returning thousands to persecution, torture, and other horrific violence. In March 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the use of Title 42 to expel people to places where they would face persecution or torture is likely illegal, violating U.S. refugee laws and international treaty obligations.

The grave human rights abuses faced by people turned away under Title 42 continue to mount every day that U.S. officials allow this policy’s use to evade refugee law. Human Rights First has now tracked at least 9,886 kidnappings, torture, rape, and other violent attacks on people blocked in or expelled to Mexico due to the Title 42 policy under the Biden administration – a new record of suffering.

Flouting refugee protection laws as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic is not and never was justified as a public health measure. Initially issued by the CDC under orders from senior Trump administration officials and despite objections by CDC experts, the Biden administration has continued the policy for migration policy and/or political reasons, according to various reports. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky re-issued a new version of the Title 42 order in August 2021, and has subsequently repeatedly extended it. The CDC must review whether to continue, modify, or end the Title 42 order by March 30, 2022.

Epidemiologists and medical experts have exhaustively established that Title 42 does not protect public health, and in fact exacerbates the spread of COVID-19. The claimed public health justification for the Title 42 order has become even more transparently unjustified as the administration lifts other pandemic-related international travel restrictions and with mask mandates lifted in all 50 U.S. states. In March 2022, the CDC partially terminated the Title 42 order as to unaccompanied children following a federal court ruling that would have compelled the resumption of expulsions of unaccompanied children. In a notice explaining the decision, the CDC cited declining COVID-19 cases nationwide, including in communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, increased vaccination rates in the United States and countries of origin, and widespread availability of COVID-19 testing and other mitigation measures at facilities receiving migrants. Despite these factors applying equally to all people seeking refuge in the United States, the CDC has so far disingenuously maintained the Title 42 order to expel families and adults.

At this shameful second anniversary of the Title 42 policy, the Biden administration continues to illegally turn away asylum seekers without access to the U.S. asylum system. It is carrying out dangerous expulsions to countries refugees have fled, including: El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico, as well as expelling some Venezuelans to Colombia. The Title 42 policy discriminatorily targets Haitian and other Black asylum seekers, spurs disorder at the border, undermines security, and separates families. While some Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion have been allowed to cross into the United States at southern border ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to cite Title 42 to illegally block others and to discriminatorily turn away many asylum seekers of other nationalities and races who have often been waiting for months or years in danger in Mexico to seek U.S. asylum protection.

The Biden administration must immediately end this disastrous policy and restart the asylum processes required under U.S. law along the border, including at ports of entry, as Human Rights First has recommended. In recent weeks, dozens of members of Congress have publicly called for an end to the Title 42 policy with Senate leadership condemning the Biden administration’s decision to continuing sending asylum seekers “back to persecution and torture” as “wrong.” The United States has the capacity to welcome people seeking refuge. Many faith- and community-based organizations along the border and throughout the United States are standing by ready to assist the families, adults, and children seeking refuge.

This factsheet updates prior research on the Title 42 policy by Human Rights First in February 2022, January 2022, December 2021, November 2021 (with Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project), October 2021, August 2021, July 2021 (with Hope Border Institute), June 2021, May 2021 (with RAICES and Interfaith Welcome Coalition), April 2021 (with Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance), December 2020, and May 2020.”

********************

How will Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, Walenksy, and other senior Biden Administration officials who have spinelessly furthered these inexcusable, illegal, abusive, and deadly anti-humanitarian policies deal with their toxic legacies? Also, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, Associate AG Vanita Gupta, SG Liz Prelogar, and Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke stand out as irresponsible, “look the other way,” fundamentally flawed public officials who have failed to “rise to the occasion” in the time of democracy’s and humanity’s greatest needs! Carrying out “Miller Lite,” Jim Crow, xenophobic, racially targeted policies, often endorsing false narratives and using obvious pretexts, directed against some of the world’s most courageous, vulnerable humans, deserving of humane treatment and fair access to refuge, is “NOT OK!”

Perhaps the most telling observation about our exercise in national failure is this:

The United States has the capacity to welcome people seeking refuge. Many faith- and community-based organizations along the border and throughout the United States are standing by ready to assist the families, adults, and children seeking refuge.

It’s not rocket science! All it would have taken to get his right would be some political courage and empowering those with the skills and vision to change the way we treat refugees, asylees, and other immigrants!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-2.0-22

😒LOOKING THE OTHER WAY @ GARLAND’S DOJ: ☠️ Deadly Civil & Human Rights Violations Inflicted On Individuals Of Color By DHS/DOJ’s “New American Gulag!”

Alexandra Martinez
Senior Reporter
Prism
PHOTO: Prism

https://notify.dailykos.com/ss/c/atcYNHk4Eh2YdGnwBh-YDCxDIu4OO3SBv2TLoLPFt2czW0dtkj0znJv8y4_fpHhZU-HKs2U4–r_uxxFUTYhHuROxyBNaXybIMjYeD4ksiM97Shwx3b4Hq5WHNh5rUrm37DeupxU-lbnh-mAH_2w53MFbvc01bSsPa27VYNOiTFTIZoVASZIjao4JD7V00kVtSWTDOR1EfZJMNtRdbyStg/3k5/0Fp_rVbkQQqEJZKJd3JlJg/h4/jpbX9uAFBiBfKOSRVHl30U7E_t1pnXvo0RlNJi-44fA

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 Holt that “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?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-07-22

🤯TITLE 42 MADNESS: Even As DC Circuit Bars Returns To Persecution &/Or Torture, Trump Federal Judge In Texas Abuses Children!🤮☠️ — Circuit Findings Of Illegal Returns To “Stomach-Churning” Conditions & No Evidence Supporting Bogus Title 42 Orders Fails To Motivate “Robed Ones” To Reinstate The Rule Of Law! — Meanwhile, In Texas, Rogue Righty Judge Takes Over Immigration, Targets Vulnerable Kids For Rape, Torture, Death!

Here’s the DC Circuit Decision:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/F6289C9DDB487716852587FB00546E14/$file/21-5200-1937710.pdf

Here’s the decision by Trump scofflaw U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf

Here’s a link to “Instant Twitter Analysis” by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Council:

https://twitter.com/reichlinmelnick/status/1499891832569876481?s=21

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.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-22

📖 BOOK OF REVELATION: AFTER CARRYING TRUMP’S WATER @ DOJ, BILLY BARR COMES TO A NOT SO STUNNING CONCLUSION: TRUMP’S A COMPLETE SCHMUCK! 🤮

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-attorney-general-william-barr-urges-gop-to-move-on-from-trump-11645959600

Sadie Gurman describes Billy’s new 600-page “tome of discovery” in the WSJ:

. . . .

After the election, Mr. Barr said that Mr. Trump “lost his grip” and that his false claims of voter fraud led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters trying to thwart the certification of Mr. Biden’s November 2020 victory.

“The absurd lengths to which he took his ‘stolen election’ claim led to the rioting on Capitol Hill,” Mr. Barr writes.

***************************

Duh!

Trump Clown — Donald J. Trump
Famous American Clown
(Officially titled “Ass Clown”)
Artist: Scott Scheidly
Orlando, FL
Reproduced by permission

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-27-22

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️GARLAND’S FAILURES LOOM LARGE AS EOIR’S ABUSES OF BLACK REFUGEES EMERGE! 🤮 — Biased, Thinly Qualified “Judges” Fingered In HRF Report On Wrongful Returns To Cameroon Remain On Bench Under Garland — Anti-Asylum BIA & Ineffective Leadership From Trump Era Retained By Garland In EOIR Fiasco!

Kangaroos — 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

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/02/deported-cameroonian-asylum-seekers-suffer-serious-harm.html

From HRF:

. . . .

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!

How bad were things at EOIR? Judges who denied the most asylum cases were actually promoted to the BIA so they could spread their jaundiced views and anti-asylum bias nationwide. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/11/01/corrupted-courts-no-stranger-to-improper-politicized-hiring-directed-against-migrants-seeking-justice-the-doj-under-barr-doubles-down-on-biased-ideological-hiring-promot/

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!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-11-22

☠️⚰️BORDER DEATHS: Opaqueness & Lack Of Accountability Common Threads According To New Reports!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/border-patrol-migrant-deaths.html

Eileen Sullivan reports in The NY Times:

By Eileen Sullivan

Jan. 9, 2022, 5:00 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Angie Simms had been searching for her 25-year-old son for a week, filing a missing persons report and calling anyone who might have seen him, when the call came last August. Her son, Erik A. Molix, was in a hospital in El Paso, Texas, where he was strapped to his bed, on a ventilator and in a medically induced coma.

Mr. Molix had suffered head trauma after the S.U.V. he was driving with nine undocumented immigrants inside rolled over near Las Cruces, N.M., while Border Patrol agents pursued him at speeds of up to 73 miles per hour. He died Aug. 15, nearly two weeks after the crash; even by then, no one from the Border Patrol or any other law enforcement or government agency had contacted his family.

The number of migrants crossing the border illegally has soared, with the Border Patrol recording the highest number of encounters in more than six decades in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. With the surge has come an increase in deaths and injuries from high-speed chases by the Border Patrol, a trend that Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, attributes to a rise in brazen smugglers trying to flee its agents.

From 2010 to 2019, high-speed chases by the Border Patrol resulted in an average of 3.5 deaths a year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. In 2020, there were 14 such deaths; in 2021, there were 21, the last on Christmas.

The agency recorded more than 700 “use of force” incidents on or near the southern border in the last fiscal year. Customs and Border Protection does not disclose how many of those ended in death, or how many high-speed chases take place each year.

Crossing the border without documentation or helping people do so is full of risk regardless of the circumstances, and stopping such crossings — and the criminal activity of smugglers — is central to the Border Patrol’s job. But the rising deaths raise questions about how far the agency should go with pursuits of smugglers and migrants, and when and how agents should engage in high-speed chases.

Customs and Border Protection has yet to provide Ms. Simms, a fifth-grade teacher in San Diego, with an explanation of what happened to her son. She saw a news release it issued two weeks after the crash; officials say it is not the agency’s responsibility to explain. She said she understood that officials suspected her son was involved in illegal activity, transporting undocumented immigrants.

“But that doesn’t mean you have to die for it,” she said.

Customs and Border Protection, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, has a policy stating that agents and officers can conduct high-speed chases when they determine “that the law enforcement benefit and need for emergency driving outweighs the immediate and potential danger created by such emergency driving.” The A.C.L.U. argues that the policy, which the agency publicly disclosed for the first time last month, gives agents too much discretion in determining the risk to public safety.

In a statement to The New York Times, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, said that while “C.B.P. agents and officers risk their lives every day to keep our communities safe,” the Homeland Security Department “owes the public the fair, objective and transparent investigation of use-of-force incidents to ensure that our highest standards are maintained and enforced.”

But previously unreported documents and details of the crash that killed Mr. Molix shed light on what critics say is a troubling pattern in which the Border Patrol keeps its operations opaque, despite the rising human toll of aggressive enforcement actions.

. . . .

*******************

ACLU of Texas Released the following related fact sheet:

https://www.aclutx.org/en/fact-sheet-deadly-trend-border-patrol-vehicle-pursuits

FACT SHEET: THE DEADLY TREND OF BORDER PATROL VEHICLE PURSUITS

Vehicle pursuits may make for exciting movie scenes and reality TV, but in real life, police chases are dangerous and often deadly. Yet the United States Border Patrol, the largest law enforcement agency in the country, increasingly engages in vehicle pursuits that result in mounting injuries and deaths. The agency operates with almost no transparency. This culture of impunity puts lives and communities at risk of grave harm each time a chase occurs.

The ACLU of Texas and ACLU of New Mexico partnered to produce the following fact sheet on the disturbing trend of deadly Border Patrol vehicle pursuits. We analyzed Border Patrol’s recently released vehicle pursuit policy, which reveals troubling discretionary authority given to agents. We also evaluate the department’s deeply flawed oversight and investigation protocols surrounding the pursuits, including the involvement of Border Patrol’s Critical Incident Teams – internal investigative units tasked with protecting the agency from liability and further obscuring the truth behind deadly vehicle pursuits.

Click the link below to download and read the fact sheet.

STAY INFORMED

Email address *

Zip code *

RELATED ISSUES

Immigrants’ Rights

DOCUMENTS

PDFBorder Patrol Vehicle Pursuit Policy Fact Sheet

*******************************

Read Sullivan’s complete article and get the full version of the ACLU fact sheet at the above links.

ACLU of Texas Attorney Shaw Drake is one of my former Georgetown Law “Refugee Law & Policy” students and a proud member of the New Due Process Army. Proud of you Shaw! 😎It’s what the “new generation of practical scholars” or “applied scholars” does!👍🏼⚖️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-10-22

🤮👎🏽WASHPOST SLAMS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FOR ABANDONING NEGOTIATIONS WITH FAMILIES WHO SUFFERED CHILD ABUSE BY SESSIONS & MILLER! — “Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/05/president-biden-broke-his-promise-separated-migrant-families/

Opinion by the Editorial Board

January 5 at 2:18 PM ET

When the Trump administration wrenched migrant babies, toddlers and tweens from their parents as a means of frightening away prospective asylum seekers, it was guilty of emotionally torturing innocent children. Americans of every political leaning expressed revulsion toward the policy implemented in 2018, especially when it became clear that the government had kept no clear records linking parents with their children — in other words, no ready means to reunite the families.

President Biden, as a candidate and also once in office, made clear his own disgust at the so-called zero-tolerance policy, calling it “criminal.” He said, correctly, that it “violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”

Now the president, having explicitly endorsed government compensation that would address the suffering of separated migrant family members, has apparently had a change of heart — or political calculation. In mid-December, the Justice Department abruptly broke off negotiations aimed at a financial settlement with hundreds of affected families. Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.

The government has no means of alleviating the trauma inflicted by the previous president’s egregious treatment of those families. That is particularly true as regards the children, whose torment has been described and documented by medical professionals, advocates and journalists. The babies and toddlers who didn’t recognize their own mothers when they were finally reunited; the depression; the fear of further separations, even brief ones — the human aftershocks of Donald Trump’s heartlessness will linger for years, and for lifetimes in some cases.

The administration compounds the hurt by breaking off negotiations on compensating victims. The government must be held accountable; compensation is the most potent and credible vehicle for achieving that.

Granted, there may be a political price to pay. Republicans had a field day blasting the White House after media reports this fall suggested the government might pay $450,000 to separated family members — a settlement that could amount to $1 billion if applied to the several thousand affected migrants. Mr. Biden, apparently unaware of the status of negotiations at that time, said the reports, first published in the Wall Street Journal, were “garbage.” He later backed away from that remark, saying he did not know how much money would be suitable but that some amount was certainly due.

Now, it seems, all bets are off. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the government would enter into what would likely be years of costly litigation, in which Mr. Biden’s Justice Department would be in the awkward position of defending a policy that Mr. Biden himself — and most Americans — have condemned as evil. There is no predicting how individual judges or juries might react to documented accounts of harm done to children. No one should be surprised if some were to award enormous damages — conceivably in amounts that exceed the $450,000 contemplated in the now-stalled negotiations.

By walking away from the bargaining table, Mr. Biden has broken an explicit, repeated promise. Whatever the political calculus behind that decision, it is morally indefensible.

**********************

Garland fails to stand up for the rights of families of color — again. At the same time, he ties up resources on a frivolous DOJ defense of the indefensible!

“Replacement theory,” White Nationalism, and racism always have been and remain at the core of the GOP’s anti-democracy insurrection. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s plans to de-stabilize American democracy began with cowardly attacks on vulnerable migrants (enabled by a failed Supremes) and culminated in open insurrection.

The dots aren’t that hard to connect. But, Garland doesn’t seem to be able to do it!

If Garland can’t handle the “low hanging fruit” — like settling these cases and creating a progressive judiciary at EOIR who will stand up for the rights of all persons while using expertise and “practical scholarship” to replace dysfunction with efficiency, his pledge to hold the January insurrectionists and their leaders accountable rings hollow!

I’m not the only one to note and question Garland’s uninspiring performance as Attorney General at a time of existential crisis. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Merrick-Garland-isn-t-going-to-save-16752522.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_opinioncentral&sid=5bfc15614843ea55da6b8709

For those who read the LA Times, there was a “spot on” letter to the editors today accurately characterizing Garland as the “Attorney General for different era.”

As I’ve noted before, this is NOT Ed Levi’s, Griffin Bell’s, or Ben Civiletti’s DOJ. It isn’t even Janet Reno’s DOJ. (I ought to know, as I worked under each of the foregoing.)

It’s an organization that has become increasingly politicized over the last two decades (as it was during Watergate), and that allowed itself to be weaponized by Trump’s White Nationalist regime. EOIR, Executive Orders, and immigration litigation were perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, examples.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-07-22

☠️🤮⚰️ AMERICAN TRAVESTY — IN GARLAND’S TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL (NON) COURT SYSTEM, LIFE OR DEATH⚰️ IS A COMPLETE “CRAP SHOOT!” — WHY ISN’T THE PRESSURE ON BIDEN’S AG TO FIX IT BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE UNJUSTLY LOST?

https://www.kqed.org/news/11900535/a-simple-paperwork-error-can-get-asylum-seekers-deported-rosa-diaz-got-lucky-on-a-lunch-break

Tyche Hendricks reports for KQED:

A Simple Paperwork Error Can Get Asylum Seekers Deported. Rosa Díaz Got Lucky on a Lunch Break

Jan 4

Sitting in her home in Colusa County on Dec. 29, 2021, Rosa Díaz holds the papers she was given by immigration officials when she fled Honduras and asked for asylum at the U.S. border. Díaz was ordered deported ‘in absentia’ when she missed a hearing in immigration court due to a clerical error in her address. (Courtesy of Rosa Díaz)

Rosa Díaz vividly remembers the summer day in 2019 when she showed up for an appointment at the Sacramento office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“The surprise I got on July 12 was that I was going to be deported,” she said, speaking in Spanish.

An ICE officer told her that a judge had ordered her removed from the country after she missed an immigration court hearing in Los Angeles the previous November. Díaz was stunned.

She had left Honduras with her three children in 2018 after police failed to protect her from an abusive partner who beat her close to death while she was pregnant with her youngest child. Over two weeks, they walked, got rides and took buses to the U.S. border, hoping to find protection. They were sent to an ICE family detention center in Texas for three weeks.

Before she was released from detention, Díaz, 40, gave ICE agents the phone number for her adult son, who lived in Maxwell, a town in rural Colusa County in the Sacramento Valley. Her son provided officials with his address, where his mom and siblings would be living. But the address ICE sent to the immigration court got botched: ICE listed the city as Los Angeles.

“I never received a notice of that hearing. If I had, I would have been there,” Díaz said. “My intention was to do things the right way.”

‘I never received a notice of that hearing. If I had, I would have been there.’Rosa Díaz, asylum seeker from Honduras

When she was released from detention with a temporary status called “parole,” she was given a year before she had to check in with ICE. Díaz said she thought she had already been granted asylum.

“When a person first gets here, they don’t know how things work, and nobody explained it to me,” she said.

The asylum process can be baffling, and, as Díaz learned, navigating it without a lawyer can be disastrous. Unlike in criminal cases, people in federal immigration court have no right to a court-appointed lawyer if they can’t find their own.

Like Díaz, thousands of newly arrived asylum seekers never get their day in court. They can be tripped up by paperwork, and a clerical error can be enough to get them deported.

Last year a third of all immigrants in asylum cases did not have representation, according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, a research center at Syracuse University. And over the past two decades, just 10% of asylum seekers without legal representation won their cases, while those with lawyers were nearly four times as likely to win protection, according to TRAC’s data.

The luckiest lunch break

After passing an initial asylum screening, Díaz and her kids were released from family detention on June 20, 2018, and told to check in with ICE before her one-year parole document expired. So on June 13, 2019, Díaz voluntarily went to the ICE office in Sacramento. She was instructed to return on June 20 with all her documents, which she did. That day, ICE officials put her in a GPS ankle monitor. On July 12, they summoned her again, and that’s when she learned she had been ordered deported “in absentia” by a Los Angeles immigration judge on Nov. 27, 2018.

ICE officials told Díaz they planned to deport her that same day. But first, the office was closing for lunch.

“I went outside, sat down and burst into tears,” Díaz said. “I cried because I had gotten all the way here with my three children and I couldn’t imagine taking them back to Honduras.”

A pair of immigrant rights advocates with NorCal Resist who were leafleting outside the ICE building stopped to check on Díaz, said Katie Fleming, director of the removal defense program at the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in Sacramento. The advocates drove her to Fleming’s office and made an urgent plea for legal help.

“We were able to talk to her and then advocate with ICE to give her a few more days to be able to try to reopen that removal proceeding because she did not know about it,” Fleming said.

The swift response by the activists and lawyers was an incredible stroke of luck for Díaz. Attorneys succeeded in reopening her case. And in March, with Fleming representing her, she won asylum for herself and her children.

But what Díaz experienced is common for asylum seekers without a lawyer. Fleming said Díaz’s case shows how even people with legitimate claims to asylum can be ordered deported without getting a chance to make their case to a judge.

“She didn’t understand, as most people don’t, what the next process entailed in terms of applying for asylum,” she continued. “She didn’t realize that going to an ICE office is different from going to court.”

Judge Phan turned to a towering stack of blue folders for those not present. Then she signed deportation orders for 23 people who failed to appear.

Immigrant rights advocates have long argued for universal access to counsel for people in removal proceedings. In a January 2021 report, the American Bar Association made a series of recommendations for how the incoming administration of President Joe Biden could make the immigration system more fair and efficient by providing government funding for lawyers, among other things.

The stakes for people who are deported can include persecution, torture and death, the report noted.

“Unrepresented individuals in removal proceedings are inherently disadvantaged in an adversarial system in which the government is always represented by an experienced attorney,” the report warned.

The Biden administration has asked Congress to budget $15 million to provide representation to families and children, and $23 million for legal orientation programs, but Congress has yet to act.

Deported in absentia

When a person fails to appear for a hearing in immigration court, they can be ordered removed from the country in absentia. That’s what happened to Díaz, and it’s been happening with alarming regularity at San Francisco’s immigration court, according to Milli Atkinson, who runs the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Atkinson said judges handed out scores of deportation orders in absentia from August to November under a new system ostensibly aimed at correcting bad addresses when mail was returned as undeliverable.

“What the court started doing in August is purposely taking cases that they knew people were unlikely to get their mail and rescheduling their hearing and sending a new notice out to an address that the court knows is incorrect,” Atkinson said. “Some of the judges were just reading off their names and their case numbers and ordering them removed in bunches, without looking at the individual file, making sure the information was all correct and really making no attempt to contact the individuals.”

It’s a self-defeating system, Atkinson said, because most immigrants never get the new notice, so they miss their new court date.

She acknowledged that it’s the responsibility of individuals to notify the court within five days every time they move. But many people in removal proceedings are checking in regularly with ICE under a supervision program, she said.

“A lot of times ICE and the government attorneys have information about where these people are and what their current addresses are, and they have no legal obligation to share those with the court,” she said.

At one “returned notice” hearing in San Francisco in late October, Judge Susan Phan had 31 cases on her afternoon docket, but only six of the people were present.

One woman in the courtroom was Nichol Valencia, a fluent English speaker originally from the Philippines who’s married to a U.S. Coast Guard officer. She said she learned that her December hearing date had been rescheduled for October when she checked the court’s website, concerned that COVID-19 might interfere with court business.

“We called you in today because we were concerned you were not getting hearing notices,” Phan told Valencia. “Even though you submitted your new address to the ICE officer, you have to separately submit it to the court.”

“I did submit a blue form to the court,” responded Valencia, who again provided her new address.

After scheduling a new hearing for Valencia in February, Judge Phan turned to a towering stack of blue folders for those not present. She rescheduled two cases, telling the ICE prosecutor he needed to provide more evidence. Then Phan signed deportation orders for 23 people who failed to appear.

Atkinson said she thinks the new system was an effort to cope with the court’s massive backlog, which recently surpassed 1.5 million cases.

“This was a way to help some cases get back on track that might have otherwise lost contact with the court, but the actual result is they’re deporting people in very high numbers,” she said.

In November, Atkinson sent a letter on behalf of a group of Bay Area legal advocates to the presiding judge for the San Francisco court expressing “grave concerns” about the returned notice dockets, arguing they violate the constitutional due process rights of people who are ordered deported in absentia.

In addition, the letter said, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused housing instability for many immigrants and restricted their access to legal services, two reasons the court should be more understanding.

In December, an official for the court system replied, calling the approach a “longstanding practice” for immigration courts throughout the country.

Courts “routinely create dockets for cases with returned hearing notices for efficiency and docket management,” wrote Alexis Fooshé, the communications and legislative affairs division chief of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. “Like every case before the court, immigration judges make decisions based on the specific and unique factors of each case in accordance with applicable law.”

Atkinson said if people in immigration proceedings had the right to court-appointed counsel, attorneys would help with the simple but essential task of keeping contact information current.

“And all of your mail would go to the lawyer’s office, so that would be a huge problem solved right there,” she said.

Díaz did not have a lawyer to sort out the mess caused when ICE erroneously entered her brother’s address. She’s grateful that the two advocates stopped to help when they saw her weeping outside the Sacramento ICE office.

“If they hadn’t been there, I wouldn’t be here,” she said. “I’d be back in my country and God knows what would have happened to me there.”

*********************

Garland’s epic failure to address the festering mess in his wholly-owned Immigration Courts is an ongoing and ever-escalating national catastrophe with cosmic human consequences and implications that go to the very future of our nation as a Constitutional democracy!

It’s also a betrayal of not only Biden’s campaign promises, of almost every so-called American value, but also of basic human decency and morality.

For every “lucky individual” like Rosa, there are thousands, probably tens or even hundreds of thousands, who “fall through the gaping, largely Government-created holes” of Garland’s ridiculously broken system.

That includes tens of thousands of potential refugees improperly turned around at the border because Garland has failed to: 1) stand up for the rule of law; and 2) establish a functioning asylum system in his Immigration Courts with competent, qualified judges and professional administrators.

I simply don’t know how he gets away with it! But, he does!

And advocates, NGOS, and supposedly “progressive” Dems in Congress seem to be too discombobulated or too feckless to get his attention and demand that he change his behavior. So, the carnage continues!

The ones who play the biggest price for Garland’s failures are the “unlucky Rosas” — men, women, children, many legally entitled to protection, the most vulnerable among us, who deserve better!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-05-21

👍🏼⚖️🗽MAJORITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WIN THEIR CASES, EVEN IN A BROKEN & BIASED SYSTEM INTENTIONALLY STACKED AGAINST THEM — But, Only, If They Can Get To A “Merits Adjudication!” — Nativist Lies, Myths, Driving USG Policies Exposed! — Why USCIS & EOIR Self-Created Backlogs Primarily Shaft Those Deserving Legal Protection Of Some Type!

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/

*********************

. . . .

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.

According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.

However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.

The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.

Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021

(Click for larger image)

Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.

Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.

Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.

Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.

. . . .

Outcome on Asylum Cases Number Percent**

IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by IJ 249,413 26%

Other Relief, etc. 236,889 24%

Removal Order 403,252 42%

Voluntary Departure Order 77,998 8%

Total IJ Asylum Completions 967,552 100%

USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ 599,772 46%

Other Relief, etc by IJ 236,889 18%

Removal Order by IJ 403,252 31%

Voluntary Departure Order by IJ 77,998 6%

USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions 1,317,911 100%

. . . .

****************

Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.

Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!

And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”

Obviously, the “get to stay” rate would be much higher with better-qualified, better-trained, merit-selected judges, guided and kept in line by a BIA of America’s best and brightest appellate judges with proven expertise in asylum, immigration, human rights, due process, and racial justice, and dynamic, inspiring, well-qualified leadership. For a great example of what “could have been” with a better AG, see, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/18/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8courts-justice-courtside-proudly-announces-the-dream-bia-its-out-there-even-if-garland/.

Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.

The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.

There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!

Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.

Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”

Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?

Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:

Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)

On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!

Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.

In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.

Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-24-21

☠️🤮 “TEFLON MERRICK” — GROTESQUE DUE PROCESS MELTDOWN @ GARLAND’S EOIR CONTINUES UNABATED, WHILE AG AVOIDS ACCOUNTABILITY — 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES GARLAND’S BIASED & INCOMPETENT “STAR CHAMBERS” — “It is more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”

Alfred E. Neumann — As asylum applicants, other migrants, and their lawyers, receive grievous mistreatment by the “judges of his EOIR Star Chambers,” “Teflon Merrick” Garland has avoided accountability for the ongoing, systemic degrading of humanity and American justice carried out in his name!” Why?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-slams-ij-bia-nsimba-v-atty-gen#

CA3 Slams IJ, BIA: Nsimba v. Atty. Gen.

Nsimba v. Atty. Gen.

“Bob Lupini Nsimba petitions for review of a December 8, 2020 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum. In affirming that decision, the BIA misapplied and misinterpreted controlling precedent and imposed requirements on those seeking relief that would require petitioners to first endure torture or arrest. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the ruling of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[You MUST read the entire opinion; the panel really goes to town on the IJ and the BIA. Hats off to Valentine Brown!]

*****************

Not news for anyone who (unlike Garland) has even passing familiarity with the daily mockery of justice being carried out by Garland’s “wholly-owned bogus ‘court’ system.” These AREN’T aberrations or isolated incidents! They are “business as usual” in Garland’s totally dysfunctional and out of control Immigration “Courts.”

These aren’t “courts;” they are “adjuncts of DHS enforcement, masquerading as courts,” redesigned as such by Sessions and Barr with Stephen Miller’s influence and enabled to continue their disgraceful degradation of American justice by Garland!

DRC cases, if credible and documented, should be “slam dunk grants of asylum.” They could be put on the “30 minute docket.” Instead, EOIR has been allowed and encouraged to engage in this type of obscene, dilatory nonsense, with obvious racial overtones.

This case is a microcosm of how EOIR and the DOJ have built astounding due process denying backlog! The solution is NOT more Immigration Judges! It’s better Immigration Judges.

Congrats to NDPA Star Valentine Brown!

Obviously Garland has neither standards nor any shame!

Dishonest, biased, and incompetent decisions like this should long ago have resulted in the removal from the BIA and reassignment of the BIA “judge(s)” involved.

When are the Circuits going to catch on that this entire charade is a grotesque denial of due process, pull the plug, and hold Garland accountable for this unconstitutional (not to mention unethical) degradation of American justice?

BIA judges and EOIR judges AREN’T Article IIIs, and they DON’T have life tenure in their particular jobs.

When are Dems in both Houses going to start demanding accountability and competence from Garland? How long are the Article IIIs going to allow this mind-boggling misfeasance that materially affects millions of lives in America, and squanders an unconscionable amount of legal resources, to continue before finally “pulling the plug” on Garland’s “quasi-judicial farce?”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-23-21

🤡📺 “MUST SEE TV” FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND & HIS SENIOR STAFF! — YouTube Proudly Presents “Immigration Court, May I Help You?” — A Tragicomic Saga Of Enhanced Aimless Docket Reshuffling!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxFDdu_DbOY

As my friend and Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase quipped: “Sadly, funny because it’s so true!”

**********************

Compare and contrast what happens to a respondent who fails to appear for a hearing after receiving defective “notice” with what happens when EOIR and DHS “FTA” for a properly scheduled hearing, often with NO (or only brief) notice.

Ivory Towerists like Garland and his crew wouldn’t last 60 days “in the trenches” of our disgraceful Immigration (Non) “Courts!” How many times do you think the “Garlands of the world” would put up with being yelled at and demeaned by bad judges and burned out clerks? Having their cases that they have meticulously prepared and sweated over rescheduled without notice for no good reason! Dealing with traumatized clients and scared witnesses for whom a day off for court isn’t covered by “personal leave” but could actually cost them their job?

Allowing “elite ivory towerists,” who have never been subjected to Immigration Court, and who know and care little or nothing about what happens there and how it affects humanity, to run it is killing our justice system! ☠️💀⚰️ Literally!

Elizabeth Preloger — “Sorry, Liz, all of your cases have been reshuffled to October Term 2025. Notice, what notice?”PHOTO: Twitter

What if the Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar arrived at the Supremes, family, spear carriers, fan club, and press flackies in tow, only to find out that her “high profile” case had been “reset” to October Term 2025 without notice because the Chief Clerk (NOT the Chief Justice) had “re-prioritized” the docket?

Folks, I’m retired. I have no intention of ever appearing in Immigration Court again. I don’t have to rely on practicing law any more to feed my family and pay my bills.

But, whether you practice immigration law or not, the younger generation of our legal profession has a vested interest in stopping the ludicrous public degrading of justice in our totally dysfunctional and fundamentally unfair Immigration “Courts.” Injustice to one affects justice for all, to quote or paraphrase MLK, Jr.

YOU, the lawyers of the future, must demand and pressure Garland until he stops treating the most important “retail level” of our justice system — one he completely controls and where lives are on the line every hour of every working day — as a “comedy routine” rather than a serious court of law!

Otherwise, by the time you are my age, there will be no legal system left in America and quite possibly no democracy either!

Yes, folks, it can happen here! Each of YOU could be treated as a “non-person” without humanity or enforceable rights, just like migrants and minorities are being treated today by the arrogant elitists who have been allowed to control our legal system.

Garland might think it’s smart, or even funny, to run the Immigration Courts like a joke. But, those tens of thousands, perhaps millions, whose lives are destroyed by his incompetent leadership and tolerance for the intolerable are not laughing! Nor are the lawyers who are fighting in the trenches to save lives and or preserve our democracy!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-16-21

☹️OFTEN INDIFFERENT OR OVERTLY HOSTILE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS & WOMEN, SUPREMES’ MAJORITY MIGHT GREEN-LIGHT “OPEN SEASON ON HUMANITY” FOR CBP AGENTS!☠️

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

https://openingargument.substack.com/p/kings-and-queens-of-border-puzzle

‘Kings and Queens’ of Border Puzzle Courts Divided on Liability

Lydia Wheeler

Welcome back to Opening Argument, a column where I dig into complicated legal fights, unpack issues dividing appeals courts, and discuss disputes ripe for Supreme Court review. On tap today: a look at when border patrol agents can be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights.

Border patrol agents allegedly took Anas Elhady’s coat and shoes, and held him in a near-freezing cell without a blanket after he legally crossed the border back into the U.S. from Canada. Robert Boule was allegedly shoved to the ground by a border patrol agent who came onto his property without a warrant to check the immigration status of a guest at the inn Boule owns in Washington.

Can they each sue the agents for damages? The answer right now depends on which court is hearing their case.

The Supreme Court is expected to provide more clarity in a case it’s hearing later this term. Depending on how the justices rule, it could further insulate border patrol agents from liability.

If there’s no way to hold individual agents accountable for their conduct at the border, “then custom agents are kings and queens unto themselves,” said Elhady’s attorney Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

A 1971 Supreme Court decision gave people the right to hold federal officials liable when their constitutional rights are violated, but courts have been trying to figure out if or when that applies to immigration officials. So far, they’re coming to different conclusions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said Elhady, who claimed his detainment violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, didn’t have a right to sue the agents involved. The Ninth Circuit said Boule did.

. . . .

But the Supreme Court specifically refused to consider whether Bivens should be overruled when it agreed to hear the agent’s appeal in the Boule case. The justices will instead decide if you can bring a suit under Bivens for a First Amendment retaliation claim and whether you can sue federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating your Fourth Amendment rights. Oral arguments in the case haven’t yet been scheduled.

“I could imagine a Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito saying something like ‘Yes Bivens still is the law, but we find that in this case involving enforcement of the immigration laws, Bivens claims really don’t fit and don’t belong, and limit Bivens one step further and say immigration cases are different,” said Kevin Johnson, the dean of University of California Davis School of Law.

If the court does that, Johnson, who’s written extensively on immigration law and civil rights, said it would embolden border patrol agents to feel like they can act with a great deal of discretion that will never be questioned.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Wheeler in Washington at lwheeler@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Childers at achilders@bloomberglaw.com; Jo-el J. Meyer at jmeyer@bloombergindustry.com

***************

Read Lydia’s full report at the link.

Hard to argue with the analysis of Dean Kevin Johnson, the “most often cited” immigration scholar in America according to a recent survey.

Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
U.C. Davis Law, “Most Cited Immigration Practical Scholar”

The rampant abuses of legal and human rights by the CBP, systemic racial bias, and almost total lack of accountability have been well-documented by civil rights advocates. See, e.g., https://www.southernborder.org/border_lens_abuse_of_power_and_its_consequences

Here’s a telling excerpt from the foregoing report issued by the SPLC in 2020:

The number of deaths resulting from an interaction with CBP officers are indicators of the horrific culture of abuse, corruption, and disregard for human life that plagues the nation’s largest federal law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, these killings are not the only examples of abuse of power and corruption within CBP.

Numerous studies — both internal and external — have shown that CBP is plagued with a culture of impunity, corruption, and abuse. Its systemic problems also run deep. The discovery of a secret Facebook group full of racist, misogynist and xenophobic posts by Border Patrol agents brought to light more evidence of the agency’s culture of abuse. In it, agents routinely made sexist jokes, made fun of migrant deaths, and shared other hateful content. A year later, little action was taken by CBP, again pointing to the lack of transparency and accountability for the agency. Countless other reports have linked CBP to cases of officer misconduct, corruption and a general lack of accountability for criminal conduct and abusive actions.

Doesn’t sound to me like an ideal candidate for freedom from individual constitutional tort liability! Indeed, the reasons for applying Bivens to immigration agents appear quite compelling. Hard to think of a law enforcement agency more in need of “strict scrutiny.”

But, with the current Court majority, who knows? Kevin’s “highly educated guess” is as good or better than anyone else’s. After all, the Supreme’s majority had little difficulty enabling constitutional and human rights abuses carried out by the Trump regime on asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants — in other words, “Dred Scottification” of the “other!”

Valerie Bauman
Investigative Reporter
Bloomberg
PHOTO: Twitter

Many thanks to Val Bauman over at Bloomberg for bringing this article to my attention. I’ve missed Val’s lively and incisive reporting on the “immigration beat” for her previous employer. Come on back to immigration, Val! We miss you!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-14-21

Outcome on Asylum Cases	Number	Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ	249,413	26%
Other Relief, etc.	236,889	24%
Removal Order	403,252	42%
Voluntary Departure Order	77,998	8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions	967,552	100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ	599,772	46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ	236,889	18%
Removal Order by IJ	403,252	31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ	77,998	6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions	1,317,911	100%

Syllabus by Court staff:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Edward Wasserman writes in the SF Chron:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Sadie Gurman describes Billy’s new 600-page “tome of discovery” in the WSJ:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Eileen Sullivan reports in The NY Times:

ACLU of Texas Released the following related fact sheet:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Tyche Hendricks reports for KQED:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lydia Wheeler writes for Bloomberg Law’s Opening Argument:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: