Know-Nothings – Page 56 – immigrationcourtside.com

CORRUPTED “COURTS” – No Stranger To Improper Politicized Hiring Directed Against Migrants Seeking Justice, DOJ Under Barr Doubles Down On Biased Ideological Hiring & Promoting “Worst Practices”– “The idea that six judges with asylum denial rates astronomically above the national average of 57.1% were the ‘best qualified’ for these appellate jobs is simply absurd… It seems that a Congressional investigation into the selection process would be well warranted . . . .”

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/trump-officials-appoint-miami-immigration-judge-deborah-goodwin-to-top-appeals-court-11310052

Manuel Madrid reports for the Miami New Times:

Trump Officials Give Permanent Promotion to Asylum-Denying Miami Immigration Judge

MANUEL MADRID | NOVEMBER 1, 2019 | 11:00AM

Facebook

Twitter

email

Print Article

AA

A Miami immigration judge with less than two years of experience on the bench was fast-tracked for a permanent position on the nation’s highest immigration court. The move has raised concerns about politicized hiring at the Justice Department.

Deborah Goodwin was one of six judges handpicked by Justice Department officials to fill vacancies on the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a 21-member appellate court that sets binding legal precedents for more than 400 immigration judges serving in the nation’s 57 immigration courts. These six judges, who have little in common other than their markedly high rates of asylum denial, were permanently added to the board in August without undergoing any probationary period, according to documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by the investigative website Muckrock.

ADVERTISING

Memos sent to the office of Attorney General William Barr in July reveal that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the nation’s immigration courts, adopted new hiring procedures in March to evaluate candidates. It was “EOIR practice” to appoint a board member temporarily and require that person to complete a two-year probationary period, but the agency now believes that a sitting immigration judge has “the same or similar skills” as an appellate judge and should therefore be immediately installed permanently. The memos, obtained by Muckrock and shared with CQ Roll Call, were written by EOIR Director James McHenry.

RELATED STORIES

·       Florida Cities Would Need Governor’s Permission to Resettle Refugees Under New Trump Order

·       Miami’s Immigration Court Has Become a Well-Oiled Deportation Machine, New Data Shows

·       Despite What Trump Says, Most Immigrant Families Show Up for Court, Report Shows

“This is clearly a political move. There’s no question about it,” says Jason Dzubow, a D.C.-based immigration lawyer who runs the blog the Asylumist. “And there’s no way someone looking at the appearance of this can consider the hirings good for fairness in the immigration court system.”

Goodwin has a strong background in immigration enforcement: She worked as an associate legal adviser and assistant chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The judge, who presides over the court in Miami-Dade’s Krome migrant detention center, began hearing cases in 2017. As of the end of last year, she had an asylum denial rate of 89 percent, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. That’s far above the national average of 57 percent during the same period and almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for the Miami immigration court as a whole.

Of the six judges, Goodwin — who was appointed by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch — has received relatively little attention due to her limited time on the bench. Other appointees, such as Atlanta’s William Cassidy and Charlotte’s Stuart Couch, have been far more controversial. Cassidy, who had an asylum denial rate of 95 percent between 2013 and 2018, has been the subject of various complaints from immigration attorneys over the years. Couch, who had a rejection rate of 92 percent, issued ten rulings in 2017 that were found “clearly erroneous” by the Board of Immigration of Appeals. All ten of those of rulings involved the rejection of asylum claims by women who had been victims of domestic violence.

IF YOU LIKE THIS STORY, CONSIDER SIGNING UP FOR OUR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS.

SHOW ME HOW

In a recent interview with Dzubow, former U.S. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller said the recent BIA hirings were “stunning.”

“I think [immigration judges] are generally eminently qualified to be board members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that,” Keller told Dzubow. “I find these recent hires to be very unusual.”

Immigration judges, and appellate judges in particular, can come from a wide range of legal and professional backgrounds, although scandals of politicized hiring have cropped up in the past. In 2008, a report by the Office of the Inspector General revealed the George W. Bush administration had engaged in illegal hiring practices for years by selecting immigration judges based on their political views. Perhaps unsurprisingly, immigration judges selected during that time were found to have disproportionately denied asylum claims.

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge and former head of the Board of Immigration Appeals, responded to the new appellate court appointments on his blog, immigrationcourtside.com: “The idea that six judges with asylum denial rates astronomically above the national average of 57.1% were the ‘best qualified’ for these appellate jobs is simply absurd… It seems that a Congressional investigation into the selection process would be well warranted, including a look at the qaualifications [sic] of candidates who were passed over.”

Manuel Madrid is a staff writer for Miami New Times. The child of Venezuelan immigrants, he grew up in Pompano Beach. He studied finance at Virginia Commonwealth University and worked as a writing fellow for the magazine The American Prospect in Washington, D.C., before moving back to South Florida.

CONTACT:

Manuel Madrid

FOLLOW:

Twitter:@manueljmadrid

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

OK, so I can’t spell or proofread. That’s why I’m a “gonzo journalist.” (I actually went back and corrected the spelling after seeing Manuel’s article. But, it definitely was in the original posting.)

Every time a Court of Appeals signs off on a “removal order” generated by these blatantly unconstitutional (not to mention unqualified) “courts” that violate Due Process every day in numerous ways, those Article III Judges are betraying their duties to uphold the Constitution.

Manuel’s article also sheds some light on the opaque hiring practices of the Obama Administration under AG Loretta Lynch. Not only did Lynch incompetently administer the mechanics of Immigration Judge hiring — approximately two years to fill an average IJ vacancy (ridiculous) & dozens of open positions negligently left “on the table” for Sessions — she consistently filled the courts with “go along to get along government insiders” to the exclusion of many better qualified candidates from the private bar who could have added to the dialogue much-needed scholarship (particularly in the asylum and Due Process areas) and a more practical understanding of the predicament of asylum seekers.

Of course, some Government attorneys make outstanding, fair, scholarly Immigration Judges. I recommended numerous well-qualified INS and DHS attorneys for such appointments over the years, along with many from private practice and academia. But, along the lines of what former Chief Judge Keller said, Government attorneys can’t essentially be the “sole source” of judicial appointments.

To a large extent, Sessions and Barr have “weaponized” and accelerated Lynch’s already one-sided exclusionary hiring practices. While Lynch apparently didn’t want to “rock the boat” with any possible “pushback” while she promoted some of the Obama Administration’s worst anti-asylum policies and practices, including family detention, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and forcing toddlers to “litigate” in court, Sessions and Barr intend to “sink the boat” with all migrants on board!

Toxic as the GOP’s hiring practices and manipulation of the process have been under Bush and Trump, they at least understand the potential impact of who sits on the Immigration Courts and the BIA, and act accordingly. By contrast, the Democrats have been lackadaisical, at best, and inept at worst, in appointments to the Immigration Judiciary.

Under Obama, the Democrats. loved to complain that Mitch McConnell stood in the way of judicial appointments. But, given a chance to positively reshape an entire court system, perhaps the most important if least respected and appreciated courts in America, without any Congressional interference or roadblocks, they dropped the ball. And that explains lots of today’s atrocious dysfunction in the immigration justice system.

Assuming that we someday get much needed “regime change,” an independent U.S. Immigration Court must be the number one priority. The Dems could have gotten the job done in 2008. Their failure to do so has caused untold human suffering, including needless deaths, and a potentially fatal degradation of our entire justice system. Never again!

PWS

11-01-19

TRAC DOCUMENTS “MALICIOUIS INCOMPETENCE” IN EOIR‘S STATISTICS: “Of greatest concern is the lack of commitment from EOIR to ensuring the public is provided with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.”

Incomplete and Garbled Immigration Court Data Suggest Lack of Commitment to Accuracy

TRAC recently discovered gross irregularities in recent data releases from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency that oversees the US immigration court system. After attempting – unsuccessfully – to work with the EOIR to fix these problems, TRAC decided to make public our observations of the quality of the agency’s public data releases as well as express our concerns about the lack of commitment within the agency to responsible data management.

Policymakers and the public routinely put their faith in federal agencies to provide complete and accurate information about their work. The value of government transparency is even higher in the area of immigration law and the Immigration Courts, which have become topics of considerable concern for Americans from all walks of life and for all three branches of government. In the present context, TRAC views concerns about EOIR’s data inconsistencies – outlined below – as substantive, ongoing, and in need of prompt attention. Of greatest concern is the lack of commitment from EOIR to ensuring the public is provided with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.

“Significant Errors” in Past EOIR Data

This is not the first time the public has identified significant inaccuracies in EOIR’s reported data. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States relied upon figures provided by the EOIR as the basis for a major ruling affecting ICE detention practices. After the Supreme Court decided the case, the public discovered that the figures provided by the EOIR were fundamentally wrong. The EOIR did not uncover the data irregularities on its own. The EOIR’s mistakes were only recognized because the public obtained the underlying data through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and identified the relevant discrepancies.

After the public alerted the government to its inaccuracies, in 2016 the U.S. Solicitor General was compelled to issue a formal letter to the Supreme Court apologizing for providing inaccurate data. The following excerpt of the Solicitor General’s letter on August 26, 2016 attests to this error:

“This letter is submitted in order to correct and clarify statements the government made in its submissions. … EOIR made several significant errors in calculating those figures. … This Court’s opinion cites figures that ‘EOIR ha[d] calculated,’ …, and those are, in fact, the figures EOIR had calculated, albeit incorrectly. … The Court therefore may wish to amend its opinion…” (emphasis added)

This example illustrates the very real danger posed by the EOIR’s mishandling of data, as well as the value to society – and the government itself – of ongoing oversight through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Despite the EOIR’s past data mistakes, however, the quality of the agency’s data releases has recently declined to unacceptable levels, as we discuss in the following section.

Recent Data Trouble at the EOIR

As a result of TRAC’s ongoing FOIA requests, the Executive Office for Immigration Review releases a large batch of anonymized data about Immigration Court cases every month. Statistics on the operation of the Immigration Courts largely rely on information kept in a massive database maintained by the EOIR. The EOIR records information on each matter filed with the court and tracks subsequent events as the Court processes each case. This data is central to the Court’s ability to efficiently and effectively manage its workload.

Although this data is highly valuable to policymakers and the public, the EOIR’s mishandling of the data undermines its accuracy and public value. These data problems have been occurring with increasing regularity. Severe irregularities with the September 2019 data release set a new low.

On October 9, 2019, the EOIR responded to TRAC’s FOIA request for updated case-by-case data through September 2019. TRAC promptly began processing the data in order to update TRAC’s online tools and reports, and discovered serious inconsistencies that made the data unusable. TRAC alerted the EOIR to the problems we uncovered. The chronology below summarizes the cycle of data mishandling for the September data release, and TRAC’s attempts to work with the EOIR to obtain complete and corrected data.

Data Release, Batch 1. The initial release of the EOIR’s September data included 11 separate files of records on Immigration Court proceedings that were incorrectly formatted. The garbled data resulted in substantial confusion over the relationship between certain variables and values, with some values appearing to apply to the wrong variables in the file. If potential users were even able to read the garbled data, one could reach entirely erroneous conclusions about court events. As soon as TRAC discovered these issues, it alerted the EOIR directly. EOIR promised to look into the matter.

Data Release, Batch 2. In response to TRAC’s notification, the EOIR replaced the first release with a second release and informed TRAC that the problems had been fixed. However, when TRAC processed the second release, it found that while the first set of problems had been fixed, an entirely new set of problems had occurred. In Batch 2, thousands of records of court proceedings and 2.8 million records on scheduled hearings – hearings and proceedings which were included in the first release – had entirely disappeared. TRAC alerted the EOIR directly to the new set of data inconsistencies. EOIR promised once again to look into the matter.

Data Release, Batch 3. The EOIR informed TRAC that it had fixed these new problems, and that TRAC could trust Batch 3 of the EOIR’s data release. Note that EOIR doesn’t change the labels it uses for each release; the file name remains the same and hence on its face indistinguishable from any previous release. After processing millions of records contained in the series of separate tables that made up the new release, TRAC found that problems in batch three were identical to problems in batch two. We again notified EOIR that the problems remained. At first EOIR insisted that TRAC was wrong and that the problems had been fixed. It later emerged that while the General Counsel’s office of EOIR (TRAC’s point of contact) believed a third and corrected release was being supplied, the files had not been changed but were actually the same files that TRAC had received in Batch 2.

Data Release, Batch 3 (cont.) TRAC was finally provided access to what was again billed as the corrected September release. TRAC again processed these files. This time, based on total record counts it appeared that the missing 2.8 million records on scheduled hearings had reappeared. However, some court proceedings that had been contained in Batch 1 were still missing. And there were still other puzzling omissions which we describe in more detail below.

After this series of mistakes, TRAC urged the agency to implement basic quality control procedures to ensure that the EOIR’s data releases to the public were not inadvertently garbled or incomplete. Moreover, TRAC expressed concern about the EOIR’s underlying data management practices which posed a risk to both the public and the government if left unaddressed. We conveyed these concerns to EOIR noting specifically:

“There are standard procedures that anyone in charge of maintaining databases use. The pattern of repeatedly releasing files which are either unreadable or incomplete demonstrates the agency’s standard operating procedures are woefully inadequate.

This really needs to be taken seriously. Without answers to our questions that get to the bottom of what occurred, identifying what went wrong, and implementing a plan to catch mistakes before the agency publicly distributes bad data, means that history will keep repeating itself.”

On Friday, October 25, 2019, while admitting mistakes had been made, the EOIR dug in its heels. The agency responded to TRAC’s entreaties by sidestepping the underlying issue and avoiding responsibility for its routine inaccuracies:

“[T]he FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] does not require the Agency to create records in response to your specific questions, nor to certify the accuracy of data contained in responsive documents.”

TRAC was forced to take note of the EOIR’s unwillingness to fully correct their mistakes and to work with the public to resolve the declining quality in their data releases.

The Case of the EOIR’s Disappearing Data

After recognizing the seeming inability of EOIR to produce a correct and complete data release for September 2019, TRAC began digging deeper into the problem.

Our concern about EOIR’s data was already heightened. We recently discovered that some months ago the EOIR had begun silently deleting swaths of records in their entirety from the data releases that we and other members of the public received. EOIR belatedly told us that withholding of entire records was necessary to protect immigrants’ privacy. This rationale was perplexing since these records were already anonymized and all identifying details deleted. Regardless of the EOIR’s justification for withholding the records, the agency had started making these deletions without alerting us that it was doing so, and failed to mark the data in any way to indicate the magnitude of the deletions or indicate in which files the deletions occurred.

TRAC is in a fairly unique position to examine this problem. For many years, TRAC has been regularly requesting snapshots of anonymized data from EOIR’s database as part of our mission to provide the public (and often other government agencies themselves) with access to reliable, accurate data about the Immigration Courts. Because we receive and retain these monthly snapshots, we are able to monitor changes in these releases over time and assess whether releases are incomplete or inaccurate in some other way.

Therefore, TRAC undertook a careful comparison by matching the records received in the September 2019 release against the EOIR’s release for the previous month, August 2019, and with the release we received a year ago for September 2018. This time we matched records based on unique identification numbers rather than simply comparing total record counts. This allowed us to identify records which the EOIR released in the past but were missing entirely from the current shipment.

The results of this comparison were sobering. Compared to the August 2019 release, the (allegedly-accurate) final September 2019 release was inexplicably missing more than 1,500 applications for relief that were present the previous month. We further found that 896,906 applications for relief which were present in the September 2018 release from a year ago were missing from the September 2019 files we received. This discrepancy of nearly a million records largely occurred because the EOIR appears to have started silently but systematically deleting records.

Compared to the data from August 2019, the EOIR’s files for September were also missing records on over 600 charges DHS had filed. Also missing were over 700 case and/or court proceeding records, and over 900 records on scheduled hearings. An additional 1,200 records flagging various specific types of cases were also missing. For context, this flagging system is used to identify juveniles, recently arrived families seeking asylum, and immigrants required to remain in Mexico under the Migration Protection Protocols, and other special cases.

When the records in the September 2019 release TRAC received were matched with those from the September 2018 release a year earlier, the problems we uncovered multiplied. It was clear that the problem of missing records grew by leaps and bounds with the passage of time.

EOIR Data Management: Problems and Solutions

Based on the investigation above, TRAC identified key gaps in the EOIR’s data verification procedures that lead to unreliable and inaccurate data releases.

Unintentional data removal. The EOIR’s data is inconsistent because the agency apparently does not perform a simple yet essential data verification step: it does not compare the number of records in its source database and the number of records in its released files to ensure that no records have been lost along the way. This is not merely a best practice. It is an industry standard for agencies managing large databases, and it is a routine practice in many of the EOIR’s peer agencies that provide large data releases to TRAC.

Intentional data removal. The EOIR also does not appear to be keeping track of intentionally deleted records. If the EOIR is screening out records for specific reasons, then the number withheld for each reason in a file should be counted and these counts provided. The number withheld plus the number released should match the total number of records read in to ensure reliability.

Garbled data releases. The EOIR is paying insufficient attention to how data releases are produced and formatted. Columns and rows in each table need to properly line up; otherwise information becomes garbled. And since EOIR’s database consists of many closely interconnected tables, copying data in individual tables at widely separated points in time inherently means the information will be out of sync.

Possible data deletion in master database. Deletions of the EOIR’s original source records need to be carefully tracked and procedures in place to prevent unauthorized deletions from occurring. If applied systematically, such a verification process would also pinpoint whether there were deletions made in EOIR’s original source records. Any suspicious deletions need to be investigated to ensure the integrity and completeness of this master database is maintained.

If the EOIR does not implement basic data verification procedures, the public cannot tell if records were intentionally withheld and why they were withheld, or if records were accidentally omitted during the data copying process. The failure to address these problems also means that the public has no way to test for potential problem areas in EOIR’s underlying master data files.

Accuracy, Reliability, Cooperation

Under any circumstance, maintaining a massive database of this nature is challenging. Clearly it requires the resources necessary for day-to-day operations. More fundamentally, however, it requires a commitment on behalf of the agency to provide the public with complete, accurate, and reliable data about the agency’s operations. When TRAC uncovered unexplained data issues in the past, we have brought them to the attention of the EOIR and generally found the agency to be fairly responsive and committed to ensuring accurate reporting. The recent change in posture is therefore concerning. Moreover, because EOIR’s data are relied upon as part of the official record of court filings and proceedings that have taken place, one should not expect official records to simply go missing without explanation.

It is deeply troubling that rather than working cooperatively with TRAC to clear up the reasons for these unexplained disappearances, the agency has decided to dig in its heels and insist the public is not entitled to have answers to why records are missing from the data EOIR releases to the public. TRAC urges the EOIR to take the basic steps necessary for managing any large database, especially a database of as inestimable value and relevance as the one EOIR maintains for the Immigration Courts.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

Report date: October 31, 2019

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

Without accurate data, there can be no effective oversight, by Congress, the Judiciary, or the public (which contrary to their nasty attitude, is whom EOIR actually serves). TRAC’s experience with “malicious incompetence” is typical of the Trump Administration’s “stonewalling” and disregard of honesty and public service. They are too busy denying Due Process and evading the law to bother with facts.

Quality is simply not a factor, or even an objective, at the “New EOIR!” Unfortunately, that’s true not only in record keeping, but also in making life or death adjudications.

The only thing that makes any difference in this Administration is a preconceived White Nationalist agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with facts or public service and everything to do with racism, xenophobia, and political pandering. Obviously, because facts and data don’t support, and typically directly refute, this Administration’s draconian anti-immigrant initiatives, they have no interest in the truth or accuracy. Indeed, as in most things, facts and truth are quite damaging to the Trump Administration’s programs.

There is absolutely no excuse for EOIR’s continued existence. Much of the information that EOIR feeds to the Judiciary, through DOJ attorneys, is misleading, inaccurate, or perhaps even fabricated. By not putting a stop to EOIR’s nonsense and non-responsiveness, both Congress and the Article III Courts are demeaning themselves and shirking their Constitutional responsibilities.

PWS

11-01-19

HALLOWEEN HORROR STORY: Opaque & Biased Politicized Judicial Hiring Denies Migrants The Fair & Impartial Adjudication To Which They Are Constitutionally Entitled – Given The Generous Legal Standards, A Worldwide Refugee Crisis, & Asylum Officers’ Positive Findings In Most Cases, Asylum Seekers Should Be Winning The Vast Majority Of Immigration Court Cases — Instead, They Are Being “Railroaded” By A Biased System & Complicit Article III Courts!

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/doj-changed-hiring-promote-restrictive-immigration-judges?fbclid=IwAR2VfI3AKcttNoXlc_MX0sa-6X94bsOWF4btxb7tWDBz7Es4bvqB63oZA-0

Tanvi Misra reports for Roll Call:

DOJ changed hiring to promote restrictive immigration judges

New practice permanently placed judges on powerful appellate board, documents show

Posted Oct 29, 2019 2:51 PM

Tanvi Misra

@Tanvim

More non-Spanish speaking migrants are crossing the border DHS advances plan to get DNA samples from immigrant detainees White House plans to cut refugee admittance to all-time low

Error! Filename not specified.

James McHenry, director of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, testifies before a Senate panel in 2018. Memos from McHenry detail changes in hiring practices for six restrictive judges placed permanently on the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Department of Justice has quietly changed hiring procedures to permanently place immigration judges repeatedly accused of bias to a powerful appellate board, adding to growing worries about the politicization of the immigration court system.

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests describe how an already opaque hiring procedure was tweaked for the six newest hires to the 21-member Board of Immigration Appeals. All six board members, added in August, were immigration judges with some of the highest asylum denial rates. Some also had the highest number of decisions in 2017 that the same appellate body sent back to them for reconsideration. All six members were immediately appointed to the board without a yearslong probationary period.

[More non-Spanish speaking migrants are crossing the border]

“They’re high-level deniers who’ve done some pretty outrageous things [in the courtroom] that would make you believe they’re anti-immigrant,” said Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and past senior legal adviser at the board. “It’s a terrifying prospect … They have power over thousands of lives.”

Among the hiring documents are four recommendation memos to the Attorney General’s office from James McHenry, director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the nation’s immigration court system.

DOCUMENT

PAGES

TEXT

Zoom

«

Page 1 of 4

»

The memos, dated July 18, recommend immigration judges William A. Cassidy, V. Stuart Couch, Earle B. Wilson, and Keith E. Hunsucker to positions on the appellate board. McHenry’s memos note new hiring procedures had been established on March 8, to vet “multiple candidates” expressing interest in the open board positions.

A footnote in the memos states that applicants who are immigration judges would be hired through a special procedure: Instead of going through the typical two-year probationary period, they would be appointed to the board on a permanent basis, immediately. This was because a position on the appellate board “requires the same or similar skills” as that of an immigration judge, according to the memo.

Appellate board members, traditionally hired from a variety of professional backgrounds, are tasked with reviewing judicial decisions appealed by the government or plaintiff. Their decisions, made as part of a three-member panel, can set binding precedents that adjudicators and immigration judges rely on for future cases related to asylum, stays of deportation, protections for unaccompanied minors and other areas.

McHenry, appointed in 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, concludes his recommendation memos by noting that the judge’s “current federal service was vetted and no negative information that would preclude his appointment” was reported. He does not mention any past or pending grievances, although public complaints have been filed against at least three of the judges.

Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox

These documents, obtained through FOIA via Muckrock, a nonprofit, collaborative that pushes for government transparency, and shared with CQ Roll Call, reflect “the secrecy with which these rules are changing,” said Matthew Hoppock, a Kansas City-based immigration attorney. “It’s very hard to remove or discipline a judge that’s permanent than when it’s probationary, so this has long term implications.”

‘If I had known, I wouldn’t have left’: Migrant laments ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy

Volume 90%

The Department of Justice declined to answer a series of questions asked by CQ Roll Call regarding the new hiring practices, why exemptions were made in the case of these immigration judges and whether complaints against any of the judges were considered.

“Board members, like immigration judges, are selected through an open, competitive, and merit-based process involving an initial review by the Office of Personnel Management and subsequent, multiple levels of review by the Department of Justice,” a DOJ official wrote via email. “This process includes review by several career officials. The elevation of trial judges to appellate bodies is common in almost every judicial system, and EOIR is no different.”

Homestead: On the front lines of the migrant children debate

Volume 90%

Opaque hiring process

When the department posted the six board vacancies in March, the openings reflected the first time that board members would be allowed to serve from immigration courts throughout the country. Previously, the entire appellate board worked out of its suburban Virginia headquarters.

In addition, the job posts suggested that new hires would be acting in a dual capacity: They may be asked to adjudicate cases at the trial court level and then also review the court decisions appealed to the board. Previously, board members stuck to reviewing appeals cases, a process that could take more than a year.

Ultimately, all six hires were immigration judges, although past board candidates have come from government service, private sector, academia and nonprofits.

“This was stunning,” MaryBeth Keller, chief immigration judge until she stepped down this summer, said in a recent interview with The Asylumist, a blog about asylum issues. “I can’t imagine that the pool of applicants was such that only [immigration judges] would be hired, including two from the same city.”

Keller said immigration judges are “generally eminently qualified to be board members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that.”

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who headed the board under President Bill Clinton, said the panel always had arbitrary hiring procedures that changed with each administration and suffered from “quality control” issues. But the Trump administration has “pushed the envelope the furthest,” he said.

“This administration has weaponized the process,” he told CQ Roll Call. “They have taken a system that has some notable weaknesses in it and exploited those weaknesses for their own ends.”

The reputation and track record of the newest immigration judges has also raised eyebrows.

According to an analysis of EOIR data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, each of these newest six judges had an asylum denial rate over 80 percent, with Couch, Cassidy, and Wilson at 92, 96, and 98 percent, respectively. Nationally, the denial rate for asylum cases is around 57 percent. Previous to their work as immigration judges, all six had worked on behalf of government entities, including the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the military.

“It mirrors a lot of the concerns at the trial level,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). She said several new hires at the trial level have been Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys.

“Every day across the country, people’s lives hang in the balance waiting for immigration judges to decide their fate,” she said. “Asylum grant rates for immigration court cases vary widely depending on the judge, suggesting that outcomes may turn on which judge is deciding the case rather than established principles and rules of law.”

Immigration experts note that denial rates depend on a variety of factors, including the number and types of cases that appear on a judge’s docket. Perhaps a better measure of an immigration judge’s decision-making may be the rate that rulings get returned by the appeals board.

For 2017, the last full year for which data is available, Couch and Wilson had the third and fourth highest number of board-remanded cases — at 50 and 47 respectively, according to federal documents obtained by Bryan Johnson, a New York-based immigration lawyer. The total number of cases on their dockets that year were 176 and 416, respectively.

Some of the behavior by the newer judges also have earned them a reputation. In 2018, AILA obtained 11 complaints against Cassidy that alleged prejudice against immigrant respondents. In a public letter the Southern Poverty Law Center sent last year to McHenry, the group complained that Cassidy bullied migrants in his court. He also asked questions that “exceeded his judicial authority,” Center lawyers wrote.

Another letter, sent in 2017 by SPLC lawyers and an Emory University law professor whose students observed Cassidy’s court proceedings, noted the judge “analogized an immigrant to ‘a person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood’ and asked the attorney if he would let that person in.”

SPLC also has documented issues with Wilson, noting how he “routinely leaned back in his chair, placed his head in his hands and closed his eyes” during one hearing. “He held this position for more than 20 minutes as a woman seeking asylum described the murders of her parents and siblings.”

Couch’s behavior and his cases have made news. According to Mother Jones, he once lost his temper with a 2-year-old Guatemalan child, threatening to unleash a dog on the boy if he didn’t stop making noise. But he is perhaps better known as the judge who denied asylum to “Ms. A.B.,” a Salvadoran domestic violence survivor, even after the appellate board asked him to reconsider. Sessions, the attorney general at the time, ultimately intervened and made the final precedent-setting ruling in the case.

Couch has a pattern of denying asylum to women who have fled domestic violence, “despite clear instructions to the contrary” from the appellate board, according to Johnson, the immigration lawyer who said Couch “has been prejudging all claims that have a history of domestic violence, and quite literally copying and pasting language he used to deny other domestic violence victims asylum.”

Jeremy McKinney, a Charlotte-based immigration lawyer and second vice president at AILA, went to law school with Couch and called him “complex.” While he was reluctant to characterize the judge as “anti-immigrant,” he acknowledged “concerning” stories about the Couch’s court demeanor.

“In our conversations, he’s held the view that asylum is not the right vehicle for some individuals to immigrate to the U.S. — it’s one I disagree with,” McKinney said. “But I feel quite certain that that’s exactly why he was hired.”

Politicizing court system

Increasingly, political appointees are “micromanaging” the dockets of immigration judges, said Ashley Tabaddor, head of the union National Association of Immigration Judges. Appointees also are making moves that jeopardize their judicial independence, she said. Among them: requiring judges to meet a quota of 700 completed cases per year; referring cases even if they are still in the midst of adjudication to political leadership, including the Attorney General, for the final decision; and seeking to decertify the immigration judges’ union.

These are “symptoms of a bigger problem,” said Tabaddor. “If you have a court that’s situated in the law enforcement agency … that is the fundamental flaw that needs to be corrected.”

In March, the American Bar Association echoed calls by congressional Democrats to investigate DOJ hiring practices in a report that warned the department’s “current approach will elevate speed over substance, exacerbate the lack of diversity on the bench, and eliminate safeguards that could lead to a resurgence of politicized hiring.”

“Moreover, until the allegations of politically motivated hiring can be resolved, doubt will remain about the perceived and perhaps actual fairness of immigration proceedings,” the organization wrote. “The most direct route to resolving these reasonable and important concerns would be for DOJ to publicize its hiring criteria, and for the inspector general to conduct an investigation into recent hiring practices.”

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone.

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

One of the most disgusting developments, that the media sometimes misses, is that having skewed and biased the system specifically against Central American asylum seekers, particularly women and children, the Administration uses their “cooked” and “bogus” statistics to make a totally disingenuous case that the high denial rates show the system is being abused by asylum seekers and their lawyers. That, along with the “fiction of the asylum no show” been one of “Big Mac’s” most egregious and oft repeated lies! There certainly is systemic abuse taking place here — but it is by the Trump Administration, not asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers.

This system is a national disgrace operating under the auspices of a feckless Congress and complicit Article III courts whose life-tenured judges are failing in their collective duty to put an end to this blatantly unconstitutional system: one that also violates statutory provisions intended to give migrants access to counsel, an opportunity to fully present and document their cases to an unbiased decision maker, and a fair opportunity to seek asylum regardless of status or manner of entry. Basically, judges at all levels who are complicit in this mockery of justice are “robed killers.”

Just a few years ago, asylum seekers were winning the majority of individual rulings on asylum in Immigration Court. Others were getting lesser forms of protection, so that more than 60 percent of asylum applicants who got final decisions in Immigration Court were receiving much-needed, life-saving protection. That’s exactly what one would expect given the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in 1987 about the generous standards applicable to asylum seekers in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca.

Today, conditions have not improved materially in most “refugee sending countries.” Indeed, this Administration’s bogus designation of the Northern Triangle “failed states” as “Safe Third Countries” is absurd and shows their outright contempt for the system and their steadfast belief that the Federal Judiciary will “tank” on their responsibility to hold this Executive accountable.

As a result of this reprehensible conduct, the favorable trend in asylum adjudication has been sharply reversed. Now, approximately two-thirds of asylum cases are being denied, many based on specious “adverse credibility” findings, illegal “nexus” findings that intentionally violate the doctrine of “mixed motives”enshrined in the statute, absurdly unethical and illegal rewriting of asylum precedents by Sessions and Barr, intentional denial of the statutory right to counsel, and overt coercion through misuse of DHS detention authority to improperly “punish” and “deter” legal asylum seekers.

Right under the noses of complicit Article III Judges and Congress, the Trump Administration has “weaponized” the Immigration “Courts” and made them an intentionally hostile environment for asylum seekers and their, often pro bono or low bono, lawyers. How is this acceptable in 21^st Century America?

That’s why it’s important for members of the “New Due Process Army” to remember my “5 Cs Formula” – Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change. Make these folks with “no skin the game” feel the pain and be morally accountable for those human lives they are destroying by inaction in the face of Executive illegality and tyranny from their “ivory tower perches.”

We’re in a war for the survival of our democracy and the future of humanity. There is only one “right side” in this battle. History will remember who stood tall and who went small when individual rights, particularly the rights to Due Process and fair treatment for the most vulnerable among us, were under attack by the lawless forces of White Nationalism and their enablers!

PWS

10-31-19

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK: Trump Looking For Ways To Skirt Constitution, Appointments Statute To Make Ineligible White Nationalist Racist “Cooch Cooch” Acting Head Of DHS!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dhs-secretary-job-loophole-trump_n_5db91056e4b066da5528c76a

Dominique Mosbergen reports for HuffPost:

The White House is reportedly exploring a legal loophole that would allow President Donald Trump to pick “whomever he wants” to fill the top job at the Department of Homeland Security, potentially paving the way for a hardliner who’s vigorously defended Trump’s immigration agenda to lead the department.

The president has been searching for someone to take the reins at DHS since the department’s Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan announced his resignation earlier this month after just six months on the job.

Though McAleenan — the fourth DHS chief since Trump took office — implemented some of the president’s more extreme immigration policies and saw a drop in border crossings during his tenure, the official’s relationship with the White House was reportedly rocky from the get-go.

An “isolated” McAleenan admitted to The Washington Post in a recent interview that he’d struggled to control the department, which he viewed as a neutral law enforcement agency, and prevent it from being used as a partisan tool.

With McAleenan out, Trump was expected to tap a replacement whose views were more aligned with his own. The New York Times first reported on Tuesday that the White House was mulling a legal loophole so the president could potentially do just that. The Wall Street Journal corroborated the news.

Trump’s two favored picks for the top DHS job are reportedly Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Both officials, who were nominated to their roles by Trump earlier this year, have publicly defended and championed the president’s hardline immigration agenda.

But according to earlier reports by the Wall Street Journal and Politico, Trump was recently informed by his staff that neither Cuccinelli nor Morgan would be eligible for the role under a federal statute that dictates who can fill cabinet-level positions.

Under the federal Vacancies Act, acting officials taking on cabinet-level jobs must either be next in the line of succession, be confirmed by the Senate or have served for at least 90 days in the past year under the last Senate-confirmed homeland security chief, who in this case is Kirstjen Nielsen.

Nielsen resigned in April.

Neither Cuccinelli, who Politico reported was a favorite of immigration hawks inside the administration, nor Morgan would fulfill the requirements of the statute, Sean Doocey, head of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, reportedly told Trump.

It’s believed that both men would face a difficult path to Senate confirmation. Cuccinelli, for one, has made many enemies in the Senate, having repeatedly clashed with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other incumbent Republicans as president of the anti-establishment Senate Conservatives Fund.

McConnell has previously expressed his “lack of enthusiasm” at the prospect of Cuccinelli’s elevation to head the DHS.

According to the Times, however, the White House is considering a loophole that would allow Trump to bypass the Vacancies Act and potentially pick Cuccinelli or Morgan for the job anyway.

“Under this route, the White House would tap someone to be the assistant secretary of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, which is vacant, and then elevate that person to be the acting secretary of homeland security,” the Times said, citing an administration official familiar with the deliberations.

“The chief of that office is known as an ‘inferior officer,’ and under an exception in the laws governing appointments, such officials can be appointed to acting positions with the sole approval of the president,” the paper continued.

The Journal elaborated on how this plan would work.

Under a 2017 law, the DHS secretary has the authority to change the department’s line of succession beyond its top three positions, which all require Senate confirmation, the paper said. Those top three posts, however, have been vacant for months.

The White House has therefore considered asking McAleenan to change the line of succession by elevating the assistant secretary of the obscure CWMD office to the number four position, the Journal reported. Since Trump can appoint anyone to the CWMD role without the need of Senate approval, whoever is tapped for the job could then be next in the line of succession for the top DHS role.

“And then the Asst Sec for CWMD can serve … indefinitely as acting DHS Sec,” said Anne Joseph O’Connell, a Stanford law professor who specializes in administrative law and federal bureaucracy, in a Tuesday night Twitter thread.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Dominique’s story of massive Administration corruption, dishonesty, and clear abuse of public funds (we’re paying Trump and his gang of scofflaw thugs to look for ways around our Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress!) at the link.

- Remember, folks, these are the are the same corrupt officials who keep falsely referring to legitimate asylum and refugee laws as “loopholes.”
- So, given that Trump is thumbing his nose at Mitch McConnell, why doesn’t Congress step in and put an end to this illegal nonsense once and for all?
- Note that “Big Mac With Lies” is being asked to perform yet one final act of sleazy subservience to knowingly undermine the rule of law on his way out. Will he go down for Trump one final time? He claims he has “no plans to do so.” But, remember, “Big Mac” lies!
- The real problem here actually is the Supremes, who in the “Travel Ban Case” signaled that at they had no intention of requiring Trump to operate within the Constitution. Trump has taken this statement of judicial task avoidance to heart and used it to run over the rights of all Americans (not just migrants and asylum seekers).
- Think how things might be different if right off the bat the Supremes had unanimously applied the Constitution to stop Trump’s misdeeds and had also “just said no” to GOP gerrymandering which threatens our democracy. That’s what “profiles in judicial courage” might have looked like.

PWS

10-31-19

THE RETAINER: How Billy Barr Betrays America To Protect Trump!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/26/opinion/william-barr-trump.html

By Emily Bazelon in the NYT:

William Barr had returned to private life after his first stint as attorney general when he sat down to write an article for The Catholic Lawyer. It was 1995, and Mr. Barr saw an urgent threat to religion generally and to Catholicism, his faith, specifically. The danger came from the rise of “moral relativism,” in Mr. Barr’s view. “There are no objective standards of right and wrong,” he wrote. “Everyone writes their own rule book.”

And so, at first, it seemed surprising that Mr. Barr, now 69, would return after 26 years to the job of attorney general, to serve Donald Trump, the moral relativist in chief, who writes and rewrites the rule book at whim.

But a close reading of his speeches and writings shows that, for decades, he has taken a maximalist, Trumpian view of presidential power that critics have called the “imperial executive.” He was a match, all along, for a president under siege. “He alone is the executive branch,” Mr. Barr wrote of whoever occupies the Oval Office, in a memo to the Justice Department in 2018, before he returned.

William Barr in Senator Mitch McConnell’s office in January before hearings on his nomination to be attorney general.

Erin Schaff for The New York Times

Now, with news reports that his review into the origins of the Russian investigation that so enraged Mr. Trump has turned into a full-blown criminal investigation, Mr. Barr is arousing fears that he is using the enormous power of the Justice Department to help the president politically, subverting the independence of the nation’s top law enforcement agency in the process.

Why is he giving the benefit of his reputation, earned over many years in Washington, to this president? His Catholic Lawyer article suggests an answer to that question. The threat of moral relativism he saw then came when “secularists used law as a weapon.” Mr. Barr cited rules that compel landlords to rent to unmarried couples or require universities to treat “homosexual activist groups like any other student group.” He reprised the theme in a speech at Notre Dame this month.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Emily’s article at the link.

Like most bigoted theocrats, including his nominally Methodist predecessor Sessions, Barr “cherry picks” religious teachings. Barr’s White Nationalist cruelty and intolerance, particularly against migrants, the most vulnerable among us, flies directly in the face of Catholic social justice teachings.

Sessions planned to turn the DOJ into a “White Nationalist Law Firm,” targeting migrants, the LGBTQ community, African Americans, women, and lawyers, among others. Sure, he refused to violate ethics by quashing the investigation of Trump. But, that’s more a case of protecting himself than it is a courageous stand against Trump.

Barr has continued the assault on Due Process and the American justice system, while also adding the dimension of misrepresenting the Mueller investigation and ignoring ethics to protect Trump.

PWS

10-30-19

INSIDE TRUMP’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” THERE IS NEITHER DUE PROCESS NOR JUSTICE! – So, What Happened To The Legislative & Judicial Branches Who Are Supposed To Protect Against Such Outrageous Executive Overreach? — “Whatever we call them, America’s immigration prisons are antithetical to the free society we claim to be. We must do all we can to dismantle this system.”

https://apple.news/AsyQuZEMeR0mXWpvWd19-Mg

By Naureen Shah:

opinion

At detention facilities, legal rights ‘in name only’

Whether we call them ‘concentration camps’ or detention centers, the lack of justice for those seeking refuge must end.

7:42 pm EDT Oct. 25, 2019

As President Donald Trump prepares to pick a new secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is preparing to appear in a Brooklyn court. She is being sued for blocking a man on Twitter who criticized her for calling immigration detention sites “concentration camps.” Her opponents seized on the comment. One of their talking points: America’s hardworking immigration officers should not be equated with Nazis.

To some extent, I can understand their perspective.

I recently visited four Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention sites across the country. I met many of their workers. They carried clear plastic backpacks and lunchboxes as they filed through security in the morning, looking weary and bored. As I left each site, some asked me whether I had had a “nice visit” and wished me safe travels.

These workers don’t bring to mind cinematic villains. Yet they are part of a system that, no matter its appearances, is inflicting the horror of trapping people inside.

I saw it in the eyes of the people I interviewed in detention. A 28-year-old Cuban woman told me about spending five days sleeping on the ground in an outdoor cage run by Border Patrol, the “perrera” — a place for dogs. That was followed by 17 days in the “hielera,” a frigid room. She had been denied a shower the entire time.

She recounted this months later, when I met her at an ICE detention site in Adams County, Mississippi. She had not seen or talked to her husband for months, since U.S. authorities separated and detained them. She said that last summer, an asylum officer interviewed her and determined that her fear of persecution if she returned to Cuba was credible — the first step in an asylum case. But she said she had never seen a judge, had no court date, no lawyer, no ICE officer assigned to her. She was alone and trapped: She had no idea of what would happen to her next, how to move her asylum case forward and whether she would ever be released.

COLUMN: In the hands of police, facial recognition software risks violating civil liberties

Adams County is part of the immigration detention boom. Detention levels have skyrocketed to a record high of about 50,000 people a day, at an annual cost of more than $2 billion. Counties are grabbing at detention contracts that provide jobs, although many will be filled by out-of-town residents. New detention sites are opening in the Deep South — hours from urban areas with networks of pro bono or low-cost attorneys. Even in big cities, the number of people detained far outpaces the number of attorneys available to help them. The result is that these immigration jails are effectively legal black holes, where legal rights often exist in name only.

“You come to this place and you can never win,” another woman told me. She had spent three months in an ICE detention center near Miami, separated from her then 5-month-old baby. Her husband, a U.S. citizen, was driving her to Walmart when local police questioned them during a random traffic stop. She was not accused of a crime, and she was in the process of petitioning for residency based on her marriage to a citizen. But police took her to a local jail and held her for ICE.

COLUMN: After terrifying ICE raid, Mississippi is still fighting back

“I haven’t seen my baby in three months,” she said, and asked me what would happen to her.

Without a lawyer, she is likely to remain in detention for months or years — and ultimately be deported away from her husband and child. Just 3% of detained individuals without a lawyer succeeded in their cases, compared with 74% of nondetained and represented individuals who won in theirs, according to a study that focused on New York immigration cases. For asylum-seekers, the stakes are often life or death.

Yet immigrants have been denied the right to a government-appointed lawyer in their deportation proceedings. I met many who didn’t have enough money to make a phone call from prison, let alone pay a lawyer. Even those who could afford it struggled to find one, since they are stuck on the inside without access to Google, email or a cellphone.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Our immigration system is set up for them to fail, with Kafka-esque limits on their ability to apply for legal relief and appeal to federal courts. Navigating this complex and unforgiving set of legal rules is hard for lawyers, let alone for detained individuals. Some are offered release on bond, but in unaffordable amounts like $25,000.

Many people I met had never seen a judge, several months into their detention. They had no idea how or when they might ever be free. They were confused, scared and, in some cases, suicidal. A woman from Cameroon who fled its ongoing civil war after her father was murdered told me she prayed that God would provide her a way out.

We have an obligation to respond.

Local governments should end ICE detention contracts, if they exist, and prohibit new ones. Cities and states should robustly fund free legal service providers and bond funds. Major law firms should send their lawyers to the Deep South to work with local pro bono providers to address the drastic shortfalls in legal services. Community groups should lobby Congress to cut funding for detention and pass comprehensive reform legislation like the Dignity For Detained Immigrants Act.

Trump’s new Homeland Security secretary is likely to ramp up immigration detention to even higher levels, using the specter of prison to deter people from coming here and the reality of it to punish those who do. We cannot afford to be divided by semantics.

Whatever we call them, America’s immigration prisons are antithetical to the free society we claim to be. We must do all we can to dismantle this system.

Naureen Shah is the senior advocacy and policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, working on immigrant rights.

get our free app

7:42 pm EDT Oct. 25, 2019

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

DHS’s “New American Gulag” – the “brainchild” of Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, and Steve Bannon – is an affront to our Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Remember that the next time Trump’s “Gulag Enablers” like Kelly, Nielsen, Sessions, and Barr try to “reinvent themselves” as something other than the sleazy human rights violators they are and will always remain.

PWS

10-29-19

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: More Than Three Decades After The Supremes’ Decision On Well- Founded Fear In Cardoza-Fonseca, Immigration Judges and BIA Judges Continue To Get It Wrong — 2d Cir. Recognizes Problem, But Fails To Take Effective Corrective Action Through Publishing Its Important Decision!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/10/25/when-does-fear-become-well-founded

Oct 25 When Does Fear Become “Well-Founded?”

During a recent radio interview, the reporter interviewing me expressed surprise when I mentioned that an asylum applicant need only show a ten percent chance of being persecuted in order to succeed on her claim. That standard was recognized 32 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of INS v Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). The holding represented a dramatic shift in asylum eligibility, as prior to the decision, the BIA (and therefore, the immigration judges bound by its decisions) had interpreted “well-founded fear” to require a greater than fifty percent chance of persecution. But what was the practical impact of this change on the adjudication of asylum claims?

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the BIA and circuit courts set out to define what an asylum seeker must show to satisfy the lower standard. The general test adopted by the circuit courts requires a finding that the asylum seeker possess a genuine subjective fear of persecution, and that there is some objective basis for such fear in the reality of the circumstances so as to make such fear reasonable.1 Prof. Deborah Anker in her treatise The Law of Asylum in the United States emphasizes the link between the subjective and objective standards, noting that while the objective element is meant to ensure “that protection is not provided to those with purely fanciful or neurotic fears,” it is “critical, however, that the adjudicator view the evidence as the applicant – or a reasonable person in his or her circumstances – would and does not simply substitute the adjudicator’s own experience as the vantage point.” This is obviously quite different than the purely objective approach necessary under the prior “more likely than not” standard.

In Qosaj v. Barr, No. 17-3116 (2d. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an unpublished decision, once again considered the question of what is required for a fear of persecution to be “well-founded.” Although the primary target of the government’s persecution was the petitioner’s husband, an activist with the opposition Democratic Party in their native Albania, police twice sprayed the restaurant jointly owned by the couple with bullets, pushed the petitioner herself to the ground during raids of their home, and at one point threatened to kidnap the petitioner and sell her into prostitution if her husband did not back the ruling Socialist Party candidate for parliament. The local Socialist Party leader also threatened the petitioner that the restaurant would be burned to the ground with her family in it if they did not stop hosting Democratic Party meetings there.

The immigration judge found the petitioner to be completely credible and to have a genuine subjective fear of persecution. However, the IJ denied asylum on the ground that the fear was not objectively reasonable, because the authorities had opportunities to harm her when they were persecuting her husband, but in the IJ’s opinion, did not do so. The judge thus concluded that nothing suggests that the authorities would “suddenly” be inclined to harm the petitioner in the future if they had not done so in the past.

The Second Circuit rejected the above standard as “too exacting,” adding that the applicant’s fear can be objectively reasonable “even if it is improbable that he will be persecuted upon his return to his own country.” The court added that there only need be “a slight, though discernible, chance of persecution,” noting that the standard is whether “a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have such a fear.”

At oral argument, the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit, Hon. Robert Katzmann, directly asked the government attorney if she would be afraid to return to Albania if she faced the same facts as the respondent, adding that he himself would be.

The question of whether one in the asylum seeker’s shoes would be afraid to return is the proper approach to determining if the subjective fear is reasonable. Back in 1992, before either of us were appointed judges, my former colleague William Van Wyke, a brilliant legal mind, authored a much talked about article entitled “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear.’” Judge Van Wyke’s approach was to consider the asylum seeker the factfinder: having assessed all of the facts in the home country, the asylum seeker decided that the threat of persecution was enough to warrant fleeing the country. In Judge Van Wyke’s perspective, the asylum adjudicator is placed in the position of an appeals court, reviewing the asylum seeker’s decision for reasonableness. Although such approach sounds radical, it’s really just another way of applying the circuit court standard.

However, too many decisions deny asylum because they pose the wrong question. If a traveler is told that the flight she has booked has a 10 percent chance of crashing, the question isn’t whether it would thus seem unlikely under an objective analysis that that the plane would crash, or whether in fact the plane did actually crash, or whether those passengers that did board the same flight landed safely and went on with their lives without incident. The question is whether based on the knowledge she possessed, was it reasonable for the passenger not to board the flight? Of course, the answer is yes. The objective likelihood that all would be fine wouldn’t be enough to cause any of us to board the plane. Therefore, that slight risk of danger was enough to render the passenger’s subjective fear reasonable. Or as the Second Circuit held in Qosaj, “no reasonable factfinder could conclude that” the petitioner “did not show at least a ‘discernible [ ] chance of persecution,’” which the Second Circuit confirmed as enough “to render her subjective fear objectively reasonable.”

But how often is this standard applied correctly in asylum adjudication? For example, case law allows an asylum adjudicator to conclude that an asylum applicant’s fear is not objectively reasonable based on the continued safety of family members who remain in the country of origin. But if there is a sufficient ten percent risk of persecution, that means that there is 90 percent chance that nothing will happen. Wouldn’t that mean that it is overwhelmingly likely that the remaining family would suffer no harm? If so, why should their safety to present undermine the claim? Or in assessing whether the government is unable or unwilling to control a non-state actor persecutor, shouldn’t the proper inquiry be whether there is a ten percent chance that the government would not afford such protection?2

It’s a shame that Qosaj wasn’t issued as a published decision. Nevertheless, attorneys might find it useful to reference at least in the Second Circuit as a reminder of the proper application of the burden for determining well-founded fear. And Congrats to attorney Michael DiRaimondo (who argued the case) and fellow attorneys Marialaina Masi and Stacy Huber of DiRaimondo & Masi on the brief (Note: I am of counsel to the firm, but had no involvement with this case).

Notes:

1. See, e.g., Blanco-Comarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1987).

2. I thank attorney Joshua Lunsford for bringing this point to my attention.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

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

Here’s a link to the full decision in

Qosaj v. Barr, No. 17-3116 (2d. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019):

https://casetext.com/case/qosaj-v-barr

Jeffrey’s article raises two important points.

First, three decades after Cardoza-Fonseca, and nearly four decades after the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, EOIR Judges are still getting the fundamentals wrong: basics, like the correct legal standards to be used in evaluating asylum claims.

Getting that asylum standard correct should be neither complex nor difficult. Just look at how relatively short, concise, and to the point the Second Circuit’s reversal in Qosaj was, particularly in comparison with the legal gibberish spouted by Barr and Sessions in attempting to rewrite the law intentionally to screw migrants in some of their unconstitutional and unethical precedents.

Improper adjudication by Immigration Judges is hardly surprising in a system that emphasizes law enforcement and speedy removals over quality and Due Process. Then, it’s compounded by politicos attempting to improperly and unethically influence the judges by spreading false narratives about asylum applicants being malafide and their attorneys dishonest.

It’s really quite the opposite. There is substantial reason to believe that the system has been improperly, dishonestly, and politically “gamed” by the DOJ to deny valid claims (or even access to the system) to “discourage” legitimate asylum seekers and further to intentionally abuse those (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers courageously trying to help them.

Also, massive appointments of Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate levels, some with questionable qualifications, and all with no meaningful training on how to recognize and grant asylum claims have compounded the problem.

Does anyone seriously think that the “New Appellate Immigration Judges” on the BIA, some of whom denied asylum at rates upwards of 95%, were properly applying the generous legal standards of Cardoza-Fonseca to asylum seekers? Of course not! So why is this unconstitutional and dysfunctional system allowed to continue?

Which brings me to my second point. It’s nice that the Second Circuit actually took the time to correct the errors, unlike some of the “intentionally head in the sand Circuits” like the 5th and the 11th, who all too often compound the problem with their own complicity and poor judging. But, failing to publish important examples of DOJ/EOIR “malicious incompetence” like this is a disservice to both the country and the courts.

It leaves the impression that the Second Circuit doesn’t really value the rights of asylum seekers or view them as important. It also signals that the court doesn’t really intend to hold Barr and EOIR accountable for lack of quality control and fundamental fairness in the Immigration Court system.

Furthermore, it deprives immigration practitioners of the favorable Article III precedents they need to fight the abuses of due process and fundamental fairness being inflicted on asylum seekers every day at the “retail level” — in Immigration Court. It also fails to document a public record of the widespread “malicious incompetence” of DOJ and EOIR under Trump’s White Nationalist restrictionist regime.

It’s also horrible for the court. You don’t have to be a judicial genius to see where this is going. Unqualified, untrained Immigration Judges are being pushed to cut corners and railroad asylum seekers out of the country. The BIA has been “dumbed down” and weaponized to “summarily affirm” this substandard work product. That means that the circuit courts are going to be flooded with garbage — sloppy, unprofessional work. As the work piles up or is sent back for quality reasons, the Administration will blast and blame the Article III courts for their backlogs and for delaying deportations.

So why wait for the coming disaster? Why not be proactive?

The Second Circuit and the other Circuits should be publishing precedents putting the DOJ and EOIR on notice that Due Process, fair treatment, and quality work is required from the Immigration Courts. If it’s not forthcoming, why shouldn’t Barr and the officials at DOJ and EOIR responsible for creating this mess be held in contempt of court?

Two historical notes. First, our good friend and former colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks, then known as Dana Marks Keener, successfully represented the respondent before the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca (for the record, as DHS DGC. I was aligned with the SG on the “losing” side). Therefore, I sometimes call Judge Marks the “Founding Mother” of modern U.S. asylum law.

Second, immigration practitioner Michael DiRaimondo who successfully argued Qosaj before the Second Circuit began his career in the General Counsel’s Office of the “Legacy INS” during the “Inman-Schmidt Era.” He then went on to a distinguished career as the INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York before entering private practice. Way to go, Michael D!

PWS

10-27-19

FRESH CLAIMS OF CHILD ABUSE BY DHS IN YOUR “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” – Ever Wonder Why YOUR Tax Dollars Are Being Used To Fund What Medical Professionals Say Is An Inherently Abusive & Potentially Permanently Damaging “Kiddie Gulag?” – And, In Cases Like This, The Alleged Abuse Is Actually Individualized & Beyond the “Regular Damage” Intentionally Inflicted By The Trump DHS, Abetted By Complicit Courts!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/25/texas-immigration-detention-guard-assault-child-claims?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Amanda Holpuch reports for The Guardian:

A private prison guard physically assaulted a five-year-old boy at an immigration detention center in Texas, according to a complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

She raised her niece like a daughter. Then the US government separated them at the border

Read more

Advocates for the boy and his mother expect the family to be deported on Friday and asked the US government to halt the deportation to investigate the alleged assault. The advocates also said the family, who are anonymous for safety reasons, face imminent harm or death in their home country of Honduras.

The alleged assault occurred in late September, when the boy was playing with a guard employed by the private prison company CoreCivic who had played with the boy before.

The five-year-old tried to give the guard a high-five, but accidentally hit him instead, angering the guard, according to a complaint seen by the Guardian. The guard then allegedly grabbed the boy’s wrist “very hard” and would not let go.

“The boy’s mother told the guard to let go and tried to pull her son’s hand away, but the guard kept holding on,” according to the complaint. “He finally released the boy and threatened to punish him if he hit him again.”

The complaint said the boy’s hand was swollen and bruised and he was treated with pain medication and ice at the South Texas family residential center in Dilley, in a remote part of the state about 100 miles from the US-Mexico border.

The Dilley detention center has been controversial since it opened in 2014. Dilley can hold 2,400 people, the most of any family detention center in the country, and in March 2019 held at least 15 babies under one year old.

“Since the assault, the boy is afraid of male officials at the jail, goes to the bathroom in his pants, bites his nails until they bleed, and does not want to play, sleep, eat, or bathe,” the complaint said.

The Guardian contacted US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), the homeland security agency which oversees immigration detention, and CoreCivic for comment, but they had not provided a response at the time of publication.

Katy Murdza, advocacy manager for the Dilley Pro Bono Project, which sends volunteers into the Dilley detention center to help families, met with the mother on Wednesday.

Murdza said the mother is fearful of her imminent deportation and is upset about what happened to her son because she had little power to protect him.

“She was unable to prevent someone from hurting her child and while she has tried to report it, she hasn’t received any information on what the results are, so she still does not have control of whether the detention center let that staff member back in,” Murdza said.

“When people are detained and it’s hidden from the public, these sorts of things happen and there are probably many other cases that we have never learned about that could be similar to this,” Murdza added.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said in March 2017 that no migrant child in the custody of their parent should ever be detained because the conditions could harm or retraumatize them.

The US government can release asylum-seeking families in the US while they wait for their cases to be heard in court, but Donald Trump’s administration favors expanding detention and has tried to extend how long children can be held in detention centers.

Katie Shepherd, national advocacy counsel with the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign, filed the complaint on Thursday with the DHS watchdog, the office of the inspector general, and with its office for civil rights and civil liberties.

“The government has a long history demonstrating it’s not capable of holding people in their custody responsibly and certainly not children who require special protections and safeguards,” Shepherd said. “They require a different environment, not one where guards are going to be physically abusing them.”

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

Ever wonder how things might be different if Article III Judges’ children and grandchildren were being treated this way?

Please think about situations like this the next time you hear sleazy folks like Kelly, Nielsen, or “Big Mac With Lies,”and other former “Trump toadies” tout their “high-level executive experience” and how “proud” they were of their law enforcement initiatives at DHS and other parts of the Trump kakistocracy! What’s the relationship between abusing children and real law enforcement or protecting our national security? None!

Outrageously, these former Trump human rights abusers not only have escaped legal and moral accountability for their knowing and intentional human rights abuses, but they have the audacity to publicly attempt to “leverage” their experience as abusers into “big bucks gigs” in the private sector. How disgusting can it get.

Here’s Professor (and ImmigrationProf Blog guru) Bill O. Hing’s “spot on” description of the “despicable John Kelly:”

Despicable John Kelly – Profits from Detention of Children

By Immigration Prof

Share

I was recently reminded of how John Kelly, former DHS Secretary and former White House Chief of Staff, is now on the board of Caliburn International: the conglomerate that runs detention facilities for migrant children. He is despicable. This was reported in May:

Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly can now count on a second line of income.

In addition to his attempt at scoring paid speaking gigs, Kelly has now joined the board of Caliburn International, the company has confirmed to CBS News. Caliburn is the parent company of Comprehensive Health Services, which operates four massive for-profit shelters that have government contracts to house unaccompanied migrant children.

Kelly’s new job first became apparent when protesters gathered outside Comprehensive Health Services’ Homestead, Florida facility last month — it’s the biggest unaccompanied migrant child detention center in the country. They, along with a local TV station, spotted Kelly enter the facility, and CBS News later confirmed his affiliation. Read more..

When Kelly was DHS secretary, he began the implementation of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda in the early stages of the administration. Julianne Hing reported on Kelly’s record at DHS on the eve of becoming chief of staff for Trump.

Read here…

bh

October 20, 2019

Apparently, Kelly’s USG pension as a retired 4-star General wasn’t enough to support him in the style to which he aspired (perhaps after rubbing shoulders with the Trump family and its circle of grifters). So, he found it necessary to supplement his income off the misery of families and children in the “New American Gulag” he helped establish.

I had accurately predicted that Kelly wouldn’t leave his “service” to Trump with his reputation intact. Nobody does, except those with no reputation to start with.

Trump runs a kakistocracy. The private sector should treat the steady stream of spineless senior officials fleeing the Trump Circus accordingly.

Or compare the “achievements” of horrible frauds like these guys, who abused their time in the service of Trump by betraying our country’s most fundamental values, with that of a real American hero like the late Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) who was eulogized today. As President Obama said, “he was ‘honorable’ long before he was elected!”

PWS

10-25-19

TRAC: TRUMP DOJ’S “MALICIOUSLY INCOMPETENT POLICIES” SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO ASTOUNDING 1,346,302 BACKLOG AND 4+ YEAR WAITS FOR HEARINGS — Don’t Let The Villains Blame The Victims & Their Lawyers For This Largely Self-Created Mess!

Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times

==========================================

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

==========================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The current policies of the Trump Administration have been unsuccessful in stemming the rise in the Immigration Court’s backlog. Overcrowded dockets create lengthening wait times for hearings. At some locations, immigrants with pending cases now wait on average 1,450 days or more – over four years! – before their hearing is scheduled.

Despite promises to reduce the backlog, the latest case-by-case records show that the growth in the backlog has actually accelerated each year since President Trump assumed office. At the start of this administration, 542,411 cases were pending before immigration judges. By September 30, 2019, the backlog had grown to 1,023,767 “active” cases. This rises to 1,346,302 when cases that have not yet been calendared are added. Year-by-year the pace of increase has quickened. The active backlog grew 16.0 percent from January 2017 to the end of that fiscal year, climbed an additional 22.1 percent during FY 2018, and this past year jumped by a further 33.3 percent.

While many sources for this rise are outside the court’s control, policy decisions and practices by the Department of Justice which oversees the Immigration Court have significantly contributed to growing caseloads. For example, the decision to reopen previously closed cases has caused a much greater increase in the court’s backlog than have all currently pending cases from families and individuals arrested along the southwest border seeking asylum.

Despite accelerated hiring of new judges and the imposed production quotas implemented last year, the average caseload Immigration Court judges face has continued to grow. On average each judge currently has an active pending caseload of over two thousand cases (2,316) and over three thousand cases when the additional un-calendared cases are added (3,046). Even if the Immigration Court stopped accepting any new cases, it would still take an estimated 4.4 years to work through this accumulated backlog.

In the New York City Immigration Court which has the largest backlog in the country, hearings are currently being scheduled five years out – all the way into December of 2024. Four other courts are scheduling hearings as far out as December 2023. These include courts in Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Arlington, Virginia.

For full details, including the average wait times and pending cases at each hearing location, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/579/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

follow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

Suite 360, Newhouse II

Syracuse, NY 13244-2100

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

http://trac.syr.edu

———————————————————————————

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (http://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (http://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to http://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Obviously, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), stripping Immigration Judges of all authority to manage their individual dockets, the war on Attorney representation, and the complete absence of the type of prosecutorial discretion that all other enforcement systems in America, save for the DHS, use to make reasonable use of the available judicial time are taking a big toll here! A court run by maliciously incompetent political clowns is inevitably going to become “Clown Court.”

Congress and the Article III Courts are heading for an existential crisis in our justice system if they don’t step in and force some Due Process, judicial independence, and normal professional unbiased judicial administration into this corrupt and intentionally broken system that spews out illegal and unconstitutional “removal orders” every day.

Whatever happened to accountability and the supposedly independent role of the Article III Federal Judiciary? Why is a national disgrace like the “Trumped-Up” Immigration Courts operating within the rogue DOJ allowed to continue its daily abuses?

History will judge these failing institutions and those who ignored their sworn duties harshly!

PWS

10-25-19

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE LEE O’CONNOR EXPOSES MASSIVE DHS ILLEGALITY & FRAUD IN IMPLEMENTATION OF SO-CALLED MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS (“LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO”) – “Indeed, the vast majority of respondents subjected to the MPP program involve cases where DHS has compelled -without authorization of law – aliens who were present within the United States and were not arriving aliens to return to Mexico to await their removal proceeding. It appears that over 90 percent of the MPP cases involve aliens were not properly subject to INA § 235(b)(2)(C). The court finds that termination is the appropriate action.”

Here’s Judge O’Connor’s decision, dated 09-17-19:

9-17-19 IJ termination MPP

Here’s key language from Judge O’Connor’s decision:

Respondents appeared for a hearing on September 9, 2019, with counsel and were granted a continuance for attorney preparation. The court reset the case to September 17, 2019. Respondents moved to terminate removal proceedings on the ground that they are not arriving aliens and were therefore not properly subjected to the MPP program. The court concludes thatDHS has not proven its fundamental allegation that respondents are arriving aliens and that DHS has not acted properly in subjecting aliens who were apprehended within the United States to the MPP program. Indeed, the vast majority of respondents subjected to the MPP program involve cases where DHS has compelled -without authorization of law – aliens who were present within the United States and were not arriving aliens to return to Mexico to await their removal proceeding. It appears that over 90 percent of the MPP cases involve aliens were not properly subject to INA § 235(b)(2)(C). The court finds that termination is the appropriate action.

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

So this is the “legacy” of “Powerful Woman” Kirstjen Nielsen and her successor “Big Mac With Lies:” Massive violations of legal and human rights of asylum seekers!

And, don’t forget the complicit Article III Judges of the 9^th Circuit in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan whose mindless “green-lighting” of this abusive and clearly illegal program is responsible for daily mockeries of the very U.S. laws they were sworn to uphold as well as continuing human misery.

It also shows:

The great potential of an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court to stop DHS abuses in their tracks, at an early point in time (this would also save time and public money now being squandered on various illegal, ill-advised, and always inhumane “enforcement schemes and gimmicks”);
The potential of an independent Immigration Court with a true merit selection system for judges;
The value of effective representation of asylum seekers (which is either impeded or actively blocked by DHS and EOIR these days);
The corruption of leadership at DHS and DOJ and the lawyers representing them in court in defending the indefensible;
The dangers of abuses in a system run by a prejudiced Executive with no meaningful oversight and outside the public eye;
That while some Article III Judges have gone “belly up” in the face of massive illegality and abuses of our system, others like Judge O’Connor, even without the benefit of life tenure, have courageously continued to stand tall for Due Process and the legal rights of migrants to fair treatment under the law.

The current immigration system and those administering it in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner is a national disgrace! Something to remember when Kelly, Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies,” and other senior officials of DHS and DOJ try to “reinvent” themselves in the private sector and disguise or disavow their truly disgusting record of subservience to Trump and the massive human rights violations for which they are morally responsible.

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” Never!

PWS

10-25-19

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN’S “REINVENTION” AS A “POWERFUL WOMAN” SHOWS THAT CRUELTY, INHUMANITY, & INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AREN’T “JUST FOR MEN ONLY” – Ambitious, Amoral “Girl” Shows How To Penetrate The “Good Ol’ Boys’ Network” @ DHS, Destroy Lots Of Innocent Lives, Get On TV!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whats-the-point-of-a-most-powerful-women-summit-if-kirstjen-nielsen-is-one-of-them/2019/10/23/e3c5d80a-f5a6-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

Monica Hesse writes in the Washington Post:

Oct. 23, 2019 at 4:58 p.m. EDT

Fortune magazine’s Most Powerful Women Summit is the kind of event where you can’t walk 20 steps without being handed the business card of another Powerful Woman, who you know paid $13,500 to be there, because that is the membership fee you would have paid, too, if you were an attendee at Fortune magazine’s Most Powerful Women Summit.Hillary Clinton was supposed to be a featured speaker at the conference in Washington this week, but then she backed out, partly because former homeland security chief Kirstjen Nielsen, enforcer of the Trump administration’s loathsome child separation policy, was also speaking. Incidentally, so was Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the Hawaii Democrat whom Clinton had just called a “favorite of Russians” in the 2020 race, prompting Gabbard to accuse Clinton of being “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.”

Anyway, I decided to go.

Held at the posh Mandarin Oriental hotel, Fortune’s conference is the kind of event where the seminars have titles like, “Co-Opetition: From Competition to Cooperation,” and where the hallways are lined with pressed-juice stands, and pop-up Dior counters providing mini-makeovers, and many, many advertisements for M.M. LaFleur, which is a clothing brand you never need know exists unless you reach a certain age and income level, at which point its logo will stalk you on Facebook. “M.M. LaFleur Live with Purpose. Dress with Ease.”

Wandering around on Monday and Tuesday (using a press pass, not my life savings), I caught sessions featuring congresswomen Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Old Navy CEO Sonia Syngal and feminist icon Anita Hill. The COO of Rothy’s shoes was there, talking about how to build a viral brand, and so were dozen of audience members wearing Rothy’s shoes — evidence that the COO knows of what she speaks — and I am not going to lie, I was wearing Rothy’s, too.

The summit is one of those why-the-hell-not events, is what I’m saying. As in, Icertainly wouldn’t pay for it, but if you want to, go ahead. It’s no weirder than many manly conferences with booths showcasing the latest golf club technology. It’s Goop, but with its feet rooted more on the ground.

Except then, abruptly, it wasn’t. Because Anita Hill finished her Q&A, and the audience members ate our fancy “Networking Lunch,” and then suddenly it was Kirstjen Nielsen on the brightly lit ballroom stage, determinedly dodging every question posed to her by “PBS NewsHour’s” Amna Nawaz.

“I don’t regret enforcing the law because I took an oath to do that,” she said, after Nawaz repeatedly pressed her on whether she regretted signing the memo that greenlighted removing children from their parents at the Mexican border.

Nielsen insisted that she “spoke truth to power from the very beginning” of her tenure, and resigned when it became clear that “saying no” wasn’t enough. But then when Nawaz pointed out that Nielsen had just accepted another position with the administration, on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Nielsen defended the move: “Are you telling every CEO in here that they should never advise the government?” she asked incredulously.

Nielsen’s interview was over within 15 minutes, and then an event moderator appeared onstage and solemnly addressed the audience: “I know that was intense, and I just want to acknowledge that.”

And then I left the auditorium to get a mango-citrus juice and a perfume spritz and think about Powerful Women.

There’s no doubt that Nielsen is powerful; even before joining Homeland Security, she’d been one of the highest-ranking women in the White House. There’s no doubt that she’s a woman; in public appearances she plays up a traditionally womanly appearance with makeup and high heels.

Those were the basic qualifications for an invitation — but should they have been the only ones? When we talk about “Powerful Women,” should we applaud a woman who used her considerable power to make life difficult for the most powerless among us?

Fortune had titled Nielsen’s session “Hard Questions,” and the questions were appropriately pointed: Nobody tossed her softballs about how she balances work and home life, or how she shoehorns in “me” time. Nobody could have grilled Nielsen harder than Nawaz did, or tried to.

But her presence was so incongruous to the rest of the event — an innocuous, if privileged brand of go-get-’em corporate feminism — that it called into question why we were in that hotel at all.

What, in 2019, is the purpose and organizing principle of an event like the Most Powerful Women Summit? Is it like the Hall of Presidents at Disney World — a non-editorializing showcase of every boldfaced woman Fortune could rustle up to prove that many women are powerful?

Are we saying that Powerful Women are just like powerful men — some good and some bad? Which is true, of course, but then why do we need a separate event for them?

Are we just saying that women like green juice and Rothy’s?

Kirstjen Nielsen deserved to be questioned, hard, for her role in an immensely controversial administration policy. And maybe she accepted this particular engagement, her first since leaving the White House, because she thought she could expect a welcoming audience. One who would embrace her as one of their own because being a lady is rough, am I right? Toward the end of her interview, Nielsen wanly said she thought she was going to be asked more about cybersecurity.

But still, there was something off about it. Here she was, making her reputation-washing debut in a ballroom event celebrating aspirational women, smiling grittily as she informed us that, no, we’d all misremembered the whole past three years.

And most of us had paid $13,500 to be there.

Monica Hesse is a columnist writing about gender and its impact on society. For more visit wapo.st/hesse.

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

Perhaps cruelty, nastiness, dishonesty, illegality, and inhumanity know no gender bounds. Certainly, Nielsen proved to be every bit as bad and every bit the sycophant as her male counterparts, Kelly & “Big Mac with Lies.” The relatives of the dead and those who have suffered unnecessarily and continue to suffer because of her lack of integrity are out there to reflect on the true nature and consequences of her “power” and “legacy.”

One of Nielsen’s most notable “achievements,” in addition to child separation and “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico,” was assisting Sessions & Barr in stripping battered, abused, and tortured women of their ability to gain protection under our asylum laws. Indeed, Nielsen went one better: she was a key player in Trump’s scheme to make women, children, and everybody else fleeing the Northern Triangle of Central America ineligible to apply for asylum at all, thus reversing decades of U.S. commitment to human rights and fundamental fairness. Wow, that’s like “Superwoman” stuff!

Monica Hesse is a well-known author and talented storyteller in addition to being a great journalist. I hope that one of her future projects will be to tell the stories of those whose lives were turned into living hell just because they had the audacity to seek protection under our laws in an attempt to save or better their lives and those of their families. Survival, asserting rights, evincing humanity, expecting kindness, fairness, and compassion: what greater “crimes” could there be in Trump’s America?

Sure, Nielsen might not have quite gotten down to the moral depravity of neo-Nazis like Miller and “Cooch Cooch,” the “custom designers” of Trump’s cowardly attacks on migrants, refugees, and human dignity. That’s a low bar to get under. But, that makes her neither a good person nor an appropriate role model for women (or men) seeking to possess power and engage in true leadership.

It’s incredible to me that with all the brave, courageous, talented, and powerful women involved in leadership positions in the field of immigration and human rights – legislators, journalists, jurists, lawyers, artists, professors, ministers, social workers, NGO executives and managers, teachers, medical professionals, etc., — Nielsen was the best “role model” they could find!

Next year, the folks over at Fortune Maggie should give me a ring. I could give them the names of dozens of brilliant, talented, committed women who are “leading by example” – putting themselves and their values “on the line” every day to save lives and tend to the most vulnerable among us. And, of course, in doing so they actually are saving all of us. Because, to paraphrase MLK, Jr., harm to the most vulnerable among is harm to all of us.

I also have lots of suggestions as to where Fortune could donate the proceeds of the “Most Powerful Women Summit” to actually promote the responsible use of power for women and men: to actually make the world a better place, not just to “jack up” resumes or collect impressive, but largely meaningless, titles and accolades.

DUE PROCESS FOREVER, CORRUPT FORMER PUBLIC OFFICIALS NEVER!

PWS

10-24-19

TRUMP’S CHUMPS @ DHS UNQUALIFIED, IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE: White Nationalist Restrictionists “Cooch Cooch” and Morgan Aren’t Legally Eligible For “Acting” Appointments – Will That Actually Stop the Scofflaw-in-Chief?

https://apple.news/Aak3uZr8uS5GOKZLIhHEVHQ

By Michelle Hackman and Andrew Restuccia in the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The White House personnel office chief has told President Trump that his top two picks to fill the Homeland Security secretary job aren’t eligible under a federal law dictating who can fill the role without Senate confirmation, people familiar with the matter said.

During a meeting Friday at the White House, Sean Doocey, head of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, informed the president that neither Ken Cuccinelli nor Mark Morgan, who head two prominent immigration agencies at the Department of Homeland Security, were legally eligible to lead the department on an acting basis.

Mr. Trump and many of his top immigration advisers favored Messrs. Cuccinelli and Morgan, who have worked at DHS for only the past few months but are ardent defenders of the president’s immigration policies on television. The previous acting secretary, Kevin McAleenan, submitted his resignation this month but will remain on the job through the end of the month.

The two men were installed in the spring after the White House pushed out several officials, including former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, whom they felt were standing in the way of tougher immigration enforcement.

Mr. Cuccinelli heads the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency overseeing legal immigration and asylum applications, while Mr. Morgan leads Customs and Border Protection. Both men are serving on an acting basis, and neither has been nominated by Mr. Trump for permanent roles, which would require Senate confirmation.

Although he is popular with conservative immigration activists, Mr. Cuccinelli in particular isn’t a likely candidate to lead the department on a permanent basis. He made powerful enemies in the Senate, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), when he ran the Senate Conservatives Fund, an outside group that challenged incumbent Republicans. Mr. McConnell has said his nomination would inspire a “lack of enthusiasm.”

The federal statute that governs vacancies states that acting officials in cabinet-level positions must either be next in line for a position or hold a Senate-confirmed position.

Under a third option, the official being elevated must have served for at least 90 days in the past year under the previous secretary.

During the meeting Friday, Mr. Doocey briefed Mr. Trump on an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the past secretary was Ms. Nielsen, not Mr. McAleenan, the people familiar with the matter said. Under that interpretation, Messrs. Cuccinelli and Morgan wouldn’t qualify, as they joined the agency after Ms. Nielsen departed.

The meeting with Mr. Trump on Friday included Stephen Miller, a top adviser to the president, and Emma Doyle, deputy chief of staff, the people said.

An administration official said the president hopes to announce his next acting DHS secretary in the next few days. Another White House official said the administration doesn’t intend for that person to serve for as long as Mr. McAleenan did.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

White House officials are instead considering Chad Wolf, Ms. Nielsen’s former chief of staff, as acting secretary, administration officials said, a move supported by Mr. Miller. In February, Mr. Wolf was nominated to serve as the department’s undersecretary for policy.

The White House is also considering David Pekoske, the Transportation Security Administration head who is serving as acting deputy DHS secretary, and Chris Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, according to administration officials. Mr. Pekoske has already indicated to DHS colleagues that he doesn’t want the top job, though, and would prefer to return to the TSA full-time, according to a person familiar with the matter.

As Mr. Wolf’s possible appointment began to circulate on Monday, it drew public criticism from outside groups pushing a more restrictive immigration policy.

RJ Hauman, government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, pointed to Mr. Wolf’s past work for the National Association of Software and Services Companies, which lobbies for the U.S. government to issue more green cards to foreign workers each year. Advocates also said Mr. Wolf’s close relationship with Ms. Nielsen meant he likely wouldn’t steer the department in a more hard-line direction.

The legal ineligibility of Messrs. Morgan and Cuccinelli for the acting DHS post isn’t likely to have a big impact on Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda. The two men will continue at their respective agencies, where they have been given wide latitude to set policy and shape the administration’s immigration messaging—sometimes to the chagrin of Mr. McAleenan, the department’s top official.

A White House official said that if the next secretary formally nominated to lead the department doesn’t have a strong immigration background, the president may revive an idea to appoint a “border czar” to oversee the Department’s immigration policy and enforcement. That position wouldn’t require Senate confirmation.

Vivian Salama contributed to this article.

Write to Michelle Hackman at Michelle.Hackman@wsj.com and Andrew Restuccia at Andrew.Restuccia@wsj.com

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

Not hard to see the corruption here. DHS is actually supposed to protect our national security and fairly administer our immigration laws, which includes insuring that applicants for various benefits including asylum and legal immigration are promptly approved when eligible. It’s not supposed to be a repository for White Nationalist, racist, restrictionist, xenophobes and their extralegal policies. Enforcement is supposed to be professional, humane, even-handed, nonpartisan, and include reasonable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

But, given the DHS’s well-deserved reputation as the least trusted and most despised agency of the Federal Government, I’m sure that whomever gets the next “acting” role will serve up a steady diet of cruel, illegal, and counterproductive xenophobia.

PWS

10-22-19

RACE TO THE BOTTOM: Trump’s Cowardly, Racist War On The Most Vulnerable Humans Could Collapse International Refugee Protection System, Putting Millions Of Lives In Jeopardy!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/refugees-trump-third-country-refoulement.html

Stephanie Schwartz @ Slate:

Last month, the Trump administration announced the latest in a trio of bilateral agreements effectively barring refugees coming through Central America from seeking asylum in the United Sates. These agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and now Honduras, known as “safe third country” agreements, allow the U.S. to send back asylum-seekers who pass these countries on their way to the U.S. but do not apply for asylum there first. At first glance, this may seem like just one more way that the Trump administration is trying to keep refugees out—a diplomatic version of the president’s tactical snake fantasy. Nor do the agreements seem that different from how the EU tries to prevent refugees from seeking asylum. Indeed, a year ago I wrote about how Donald Trump sending troops to the Southern broader was consistent with a broader global trend of hollowing out asylum norms.

But this is different. These new agreements flout global asylum norms in a way others have not dared: They send refugees directly back into the danger they were fleeing in the first place.

A safe third country agreement is meant to be just that: safe. It provides a way for states to send refugees to an alternative (third) destination without sending them home, a practice that is prohibited under international law. While they have yet to be implemented, in the past three months, the United States has strong-armed Central America’s Northern Triangle countries into signing third-country agreements. Under the terms of these agreements asylum-seekers who pass through Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras on their way to the U.S. (which anyone traveling by land has to do) could be sent back from the U.S. border to one of those countries, so long as they are not a citizen of that country. So, while Honduran asylum-seekers would not be sent back to Honduras, they could be sent to Guatemala or El Salvador. Mexico has refused to sign a similar agreement, however the Trump administration has already begun implementing a new set of rules with regard to Mexico called the Migrant Protection Protocols. One of the stipulations of the MPP requires asylum-seekers who make it to the U.S. Southern border to stay in Mexico while they wait for the U.S. to process their claims.

On the surface, these policies look rather similar to the EU’s approach to asylum. Like the agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, the EU’s Dublin Regulation requires that all asylum-seekers entering the EU apply for asylum in the first country they reach in the union. The 2016 EU-Turkey deal also has a “safe third country” component, such that certain migrants passing through Turkey on their way to Greece can be sent back (though migrants are still allowed to apply for asylum when they reach the EU). Similar to the MPP, the EU has also said it is going to explore the use of “regional disembarkation platforms” such that refugees would have to wait in another country while their claims for asylum in Europe are evaluated.

The Trump approach, however, is much worse. First, the Dublin Regulation dictates which countries in the EU will provide asylum to those with valid claims; the new arrangements between the U.S. and the Northern Triangle countries dictate that U.S. will not provide asylum to certain individuals with valid claims. Put another way, in many ways the EU’s Schengen zone operates as a single governing body—there are common laws, a single currency, and freedom of mobility across states. Once you cross the border into one Schengen zone country, you are free to travel to the others without showing a passport. The Dublin Regulation, then, lets asylum-seekers into the European Union, but it cuts people off from arriving in one member state, for example Greece, and continuing on to apply for asylum in another, say Germany.

But there is no North American Union. The U.S. cedes its sovereignty to no one. And the administration is not saying refugees can enter the U.S., but they must stay in Arizona rather than go to New York. Instead, the agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras allow the U.S. to say that it will not provide asylum to certain people. If you can’t afford a plane ticket and show up at the Southern border, the United States does not have to hear your case. This is in direct contravention to the 1951 convention on refugees that requires states to provide asylum to those who qualify without discrimination. Refugee rights activists claim that the third safe country agreement between the U.S. and Canada is in breach of international asylum law for the same reason. The difference, though, is that asylum-seekers enjoy equally safe haven in the U.S. as the do in Canada (though some in Canada are questioning how safe the U.S. really is).

This brings us to the second, and most important issue, with the Trump administration’s policies.

Both the MPP and the agreements with Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala send asylum-seekers to places where their lives remain in danger. In some cases, it is precisely the same danger they were trying to flee. The violence from which people in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are fleeing stems from transnational criminal organizations, like MS-13 and MS-18. Per the United States’ own 2018 human rights report on Honduras, these transnational gangs “committed killings, extortion, kidnappings, human trafficking, and intimidation of police, prosecutors, journalists, women, and human rights defenders.” These organizations are not limited by borders. They operate throughout the Northern Triangle region. Gangs targeting someone in Honduras could easily get to that person if they were sent to Guatemala. Therefore, sending someone fleeing violence in Honduras to apply for asylum in Guatemala or El Salvador keeps them in harm’s way—the same harm.

While the MPP, which forces migrants to remain in Mexico, might not keep asylum-seekers from the Northern Triangle directly in the grasp of gangs like MS-13 and MS-18 that operate in the Northern Triangle, it does place them into a highly dangerous context. As has been extensively reported, gangs local to Mexico are targeting asylum-seekers with kidnapping, extortion, and violence. The U.S. knows how unsafe these places are, having issued its highest level of security warnings against travel to some of the cities in

Mexico where migrants are being kept.

Sending refugees back into the line of fire attacks the foundation of the international asylum regime: the norm of non-refoulement. Non-refoulement is the prohibition against states sending individuals to any territory in which there is threat of persecution or torture—country of origin or otherwise. Per the 1951 Refugee Convention, non-refoulement prohibits states from expelling or returning a refugee “in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The 1984 Convention Against Torture also prohibits refoulement, in some ways expanding its strength and application, stating that states cannot “expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Such grounds include a “consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”

Without non-refoulement, asylum is moot.

There are any number of things wrong with the Dublin Regulation and the EU-Turkey agreement, but the one line neither of these arrangements cross directly is defying non-refoulement. Requiring refugees to apply for asylum in Greece rather than proceeding on to Germany impinges on the spirit of refugee law and endangers refugees, but it doesn’t refoule them. With the EU-Turkey agreement, many observers have challenged the designation of Turkey as a safe third country given that the Turkish government has been accused of imprisoning migrants and sending refugees back to Syria. Turkey has outright stated that one of the goals of its military incursion into Syria is to send refugees back to recaptured territory. The veil of non-refoulement in this case is whisper thin. But at least in sending refugees to Turkey, the EU is not forcing Syrian refugees directly back into the line of fire from which they originally fled. Neither Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces nor the myriad rebel groups active in Syria are equally active in Turkey.

The Trump administration’s new policies, on the other hand, outright deny that non-refoulement is a rule the U.S. needs to follow—at least for a particular class of people. There is no pretending that Mexico is safe when migrants are being attacked left and right. By flouting non-refoulement, the U.S. threatens the principle on which the entire asylum system rests.

And the world is watching. If the United States can send asylum-seekers back into danger, why can’t other countries do the same? While the Trump administration’s policies are likely illegal, and are currently being challenged in court, there is reason to fear the administration will be allowed to proceed unchecked. A recent order from the U.S. Supreme Court allows the administration to continue implementing these policies until a final decision on their legality is reached. In the meantime, many asylum-seekers are living in danger.

Finding a way to deal with displacement crises requires political leadership. For once, the U.S. is taking on this leadership role, setting a road map for how countries can respond to asylum claims. It just so happens that the proposal is to pull the one thread that could unravel the asylum system as we know it.

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

Someday, Trump and his toadies will be classified as the notorious human rights violators that they are. And, his racist, fascist reign will be remembered as one of the low-points in U.S. history.

But, we shouldn’t forget that “MPP” a/k/a “Remain in Mexico,” a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” is only in force because of a complicit Ninth Circuit. See Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan (incoherent order vacating proper injunction against statutory and Constitutional abuses of “Remain in Mexico” policy). The judges responsible for this travesty and for continuing to “sit on” this clear case of illegal and unconstitutional policies should also be considered human rights violators.

PWS

10-22-19

“BIG MAC” SAYS EL SALVADOR IS A “SAFE” COUNTRY – HE LIES! — Mounting “Disappearances” & Government Acquiescence Show Why “Big Mac,” Pompeo, Pence, Trump & Other Corrupt Architects Of Unlawful Policies Designed To Kill Asylum Seekers (For “Deterrence”) Should Be Charged With “Crimes Against Humanity!” – “The legacy of fear in El Salvador is profound. Three decades after the war, there are people who are only now revealing the disappearance of a relative in that conflict. Back then the scourge was death squads. Now it’s gangs and rogue police.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/disappeared-in-el-salvador-amid-a-cold-war-nightmares-return-a-tale-of-one-body-and-three-grieving-families/2019/10/19/d806d19a-e09d-11e9-be7f-4cc85017c36f_story.html

Anna-Catherine Brigida
Freelance Reporter

Mary Beth Sheridan and

report for the WashPost:

By

Mary Beth Sheridan and

Anna-Catherine Brigida

Oct. 19, 2019 at 2:58 p.m. EDT

LAS ANIMAS, El Salvador — For Daisy Flores, Day 135 began like so many others. She soaked corn in a bucket on the dirt floor for tortillas. She washed the kids’ clothes in a blue plastic bin. And she thought, again, about that afternoon in May when her 18-year-old son Edwin rode off on his brother’s motorcycle.He still hasn’t come home.

Twenty miles away, in a working-class neighborhood in San Salvador, Karen was plodding through Day 297. She coped by writing notes to her absent husband and taping them to the bedroom wall.

“I send you a little kiss,” she’d scrawled to the man who had disappeared last year while delivering electricity bills. And: “I can’t take it anymore.”

Not far from her, a third family endured another Monday without their loved one. The middle-aged man had gone missing on his way home from his plumbing job. Was it already Day 192? They’d searched everywhere. Nothing.

AD

Three decades after a brutal civil war characterized by never-explained, never-resolved disappearances, Salvadorans are again vanishing.

The phenomenon is resurrecting one of the most chilling elements of Cold War Latin America. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, tens of thousands of people disappeared as right-wing governments — many supported by the United States — fought to extinguish leftist insurgencies.

These days, countries such as Mexico, Brazil and El Salvador are battered by criminal wars. The governments aren’t fighting Marxist guerrillas, but gangs and drug cartels instead.

In Mexico, more than 3,000 clandestine gravesites have been unearthed as families search for the 40,000 missing. In El Salvador, few of the burial sites have been found.

Which is why, when the government discovered one outside the capital last month, TV reporters rushed to the scene — and dozens of families began to wonder if their mystery would finally end.

AD

“I know he’s here,” said the mother of a 14-year-old.

“I am always hoping,” Karen said.

“They haven’t told me anything,” Flores said.

But for one family, things were about to change.

Mexican government says more than 3,000 hidden graves found in the search for the disappeared

A soldier guards a farm in El Limon, where investigators found a clandestine grave with human remains. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)

Disappearances bring back a Cold War nightmare

No one knows exactly how many people in El Salvador have gone missing. National police say at least 2,457 people were reported disappeared in 2018, the most in a dozen years. The attorney general’s office puts the figure at 3,437 — more than the total of homicides. Both numbers are widely seen as undercounts.

For Flores, her son’s disappearance was a new version of an old nightmare. Her two uncles were among the at least 8,000 people who vanished during El Salvador’s 12-year civil war.

That was another era — of death squads, the Reagan Doctrine against communism, guerrillas wielding red banners and AK-47s. El Salvador today is a democracy, with free elections and onetime Marxists in congress.

AD

So why are disappearances back?

One reason is they make it easier for killers to avoid investigation. That goes both for gang members killing their rivals and for cops secretly executing suspects.

“If there is no body, there’s no evidence,” said Marvin Reyes, who spent 20 years in the national police.

But the disappearances also reflect a political strategy. That became evident when El Salvador’s top two gangs reached a government-backed truce in 2012. The homicide rate — among the highest in the hemisphere — plunged. But disappearances rose.

“If violence needed to be carried out [by gangs], it needed to be invisible, to avoid attention from state authorities,” said Angélica Durán Martínez, who studies Latin American violence at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

Analysts suspect the gangs and the government hide corpses to keep the homicide rate down.

AD

It’s so dangerous to police MS-13 in El Salvador that officers are fleeing the country

Karen looks through the window of her bedroom. Her husband went missing in San Salvador last November. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)

Trump administration reaches deal to send asylum seekers to El Salvador in an effort to deter migrants from entering the United States

For victims’ families, the uncertainty is cruel: There’s no resolution, no body to bury, no hope of closure. “We have so much stress,” said Karen, a 39-year-old mother of three.

She and her kids try to keep their minds on work and school, but their bodies betray them: Karen’s insomnia, her son’s overeating, her daughter’s wildly oscillating periods.

She believes her husband was abducted because he refused to hide a gang’s weapons in the family’s home. She is so frightened of retaliation that she spoke on the condition that her last name not be used.

Daisy Flores, 47, also suspects her son was hauled away by gang members.

Edwin was perhaps the most affectionate of her seven kids. The kind of boy who would sneak up behind her at the stove and grab her in a bear hug. Who wasn’t embarrassed to accompany his mama to the market.

AD

She doesn’t think he was a gang member. But: “I can’t tell you what kind of friends he had.” Everyone knew that MS-13 dominated their hamlet, a woodsy patch of small, concrete homes surrounded by fields where campesinos grew corn and raised cows and chickens. Nearby villages were ruled by the rival gang Barrio 18 .

Edwin’s absence is a constant torment. One of his brothers was so terrified that he considered migrating to the United States, like tens of thousands of Salvadorans in recent years.

Whenever Daisy thought of her missing son, she’d lose her appetite.

“I can’t live like this, learning nothing,” she said.

But in recent months, there was a new reason for hope.

Nayib Bukele, the charismatic young mayor of San Salvador, was elected president in February on promises of change.

“They say the president, now, he’s helping people,” Daisy said. “And that if you go to the attorney general, he’s helping to find the disappeared.”

A crusading attorney general promises answers

El Salvador Attorney General Raúl Melara and investigators arrive at the clandestine gravesite, under heavy guard, in Barrio 18 territory. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)

U.S. officials said aid to El Salvador helped slow migration. Now Trump is canceling it.

Attorney General Raúl Melara hopped out of an SUV and strode toward the yellow police tape.

“Is it up here?” he asked.

At 47, Melara was part of El Salvador’s tiny business elite, with a doctorate in law and years of leading the National Association of Private Enterprise. He had swept-back dark hair and wire-framed glasses and favored starched white shirts. But on this afternoon, he had donned jeans, a gray polo shirt and a windbreaker to visit the village outside San Salvador known as El Limon — notorious territory of Barrio 18.

Melara scrambled up a nearly vertical dirt path alongside a dying cornfield, trampling vines and brushing through shoulder-high grass. A quarter-mile up lay a clearing, with mounds of freshly dug dirt and a body.

It had been a man in jeans and work boots.

More bodies would probably be dug up in the coming weeks, Melara told journalists. The new government, he said, was committed to finding the disappeared and punishing the culprits.

AD

“This is a phenomenon that, in past years, was hidden. They didn’t want it to be visible,” he told the TV cameras. “But we’re all seeing it.”

In just a few months, Melara had made some aggressive moves. He’d formed a team of prosecutors to focus on the disappeared. He’d promoted tougher penalties for those involved in the crime. He was working with the police to produce more accurate numbers.

Reform and revival: Gang members find Christianity in El Salvador prisons

Some were skeptical. It wasn’t until 2017 — a quarter-century after the civil war’s end — that the government finally created a commission to search for the disappeared from that conflict. And locating the more recent victims could be politically unpalatable in a country obsessed with the murder rate.

“Finding and identifying these bodies will inevitably imply a rise in the homicide index,” said Celia Medrano of the human-rights group Cristosal .

AD

Arnau Baulenas, legal coordinator of the Human Rights Institute at the José Simeón Cañas University of Central America, said Melara’s initiatives were positive but insufficient.

“The attorney general has a very small team,” he noted. There are so few forensic criminologists that one of them — Israel Ticas — has become a celebrity for helping mothers find the remains of their children.

Melara knows he lacks money, equipment and expertise. It sometimes seems the only thing that’s not in short supply is fear.

“In Mexico, the families of the victims are visible,” he told The Washington Post. “They’ve generated social pressure.”

El Salvador is different. Indeed, at El Limon, as the investigators shoveled dirt, a mother in blue flip-flops approached. Her son vanished a year ago, at age 14.

“I’m going to find him,” she said, weeping, in a TV interview. “Even if he’s not alive, and it’s just to bury him.”

But she begged the cameraman not to identify her. He filmed her feet.

There was no sign of her son. On Day 2 of the dig, though, investigators discovered a tantalizing clue near the body.

It was a wallet. Inside was an ID card.

During Pompeo’s visit, El Salvador’s new president says migrant problem ‘starts with us’

The site where investigators found the remains of a man. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)This pick belongs to Israel Ticas, El Salvador’s most prominent forensic criminologist. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)As does this shovel. Ticas uses both implements to dig up clandestine graves. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)

A discovery brings new hope, and fear

The call came that day. It had been six months since the middle-aged plumbing worker vanished. Now his family was being summoned to the Justice Ministry.

Maybe, at last, they’d have an answer. But they couldn’t even grieve in peace. They begged reporters not to release his identity.

“We don’t want to make a lot of noise,” said one of the man’s relatives. “The neighborhood is really dangerous.”

Another relative was more blunt: “Saying the wrong thing could get you killed.”

The legacy of fear in El Salvador is profound. Three decades after the war, there are people who are only now revealing the disappearance of a relative in that conflict. Back then the scourge was death squads. Now it’s gangs and rogue police.

“There’s silence — exactly like during the armed conflict,” said Eduardo García, who heads Pro-Búsqueda, a group searching for war victims.

Ten days after the discovery at El Limon, investigators still were trying to match the corpse with the DNA submitted by the plumbing worker’s relatives.

The families waited.

For Karen, the news had generated a brief flicker of possibility. Then authorities told her the corpse wasn’t her husband. “I am not going to stop calling the attorney general’s office,” she said. Maybe they’d discover some sign of him, somewhere.

Daisy hasn’t given up, either. In her son’s bedroom, she unlatched a suitcase stuffed with neatly folded shirts and slacks.

“Here are his clothes,” she said. “I’m keeping them here so they don’t get all dusty.”

She has vivid dreams of her son. In one, he was trapped in a room. “I couldn’t get him out,” she said. One day she heard her 3-year-old grandson shouting outside the house. “Edwin is coming,” he yelled, pointing at the dirt path. No one was there.

By Day 145, Daisy was thinking of paying another visit to the attorney general’s office.

“God willing, they’ll have some news soon.”

Daisy Flores touches a favorite shirt of her son, Edwin, at her home. (Fred Ramos/FTWP)

Fred Ramos in San Salvador and Gabriela Martínez in Mexico City contributed to this report.

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

Through their lies about conditions in the Northern Triangle and extralegal programs directed against legitimate asylum seekers, folks like “Big Mac with Lies,” “Cooch Cooch,” Pompeo, Miller, and Trump are literally “getting away with murder.” Why?

It’s critically important not to let guys like “Big Mac” attempt to “rehabilitate” their images in the private sector by touting their “management experience” and claiming the “Nazi defense” of “just carrying out my duties” or the totally disingenuous “just carrying out the law.” No other Administration, GOP or Democrat, has even hinted that the dangerous and corrupt countries of the Northern Triangle without functioning asylum systems would be considered “Safe Third Countries” or that our overseas refugee program would essentially be ended at the time of the world’s greatest need (even as we are complicit in genocide and creating more refugees in Syria).

In this respect, it is heartening to see the “pushback” against the disingenuous attempt of former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to “repackage” herself as a “leading female executive.” No, she was a Trump sycophant and a major human rights violator who is lucky not to be in jail. And, the same goes for many of the other current and former “Senior Executives” at DHS.

PWS

10-20-19

ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS: In An Asylum System Designed To Abuse & Discourage Legitimate Asylum Seekers, U.S. Immigration Judge Robert Hough’s Persistence Saves Two Lives, At Least For Now

https://apple.news/ALbbeLJpzTOWr1LCa2mcLQg

Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports for the LA Times:

Identical twins. Identical asylum claims. Very different luck at the border

The system gives enormous power to U.S. customs officers, Border Patrol agents and asylum officers, whose whims and judgment calls decide the fate of many migrants.

The 12-year-old identical twins entered Texas from Mexico days apart in the foothills of Mt. Cristo Rey. One came with their father. The other arrived with their mother.

It was June. The family’s plan was to get caught by Border Patrol agents as quickly as possible, then claim asylum so they could stay in the U.S. legally while awaiting immigration court hearings.

The parents had hoped that crossing the border separately, each with one son, would improve the chance that they all would be allowed into the country legally.

But that’s not what U.S. immigration officials decided. They released Nostier Leiva Sabillon and his father in Texas, and sent Anthony Leiva Sabillon and his mother back to Mexico.

The difference in treatment shows how arbitrary the U.S. immigration system has become as the Trump administration tries to stem the flow of migrants from Central America.

More than 54,000 migrants have been subjected to the controversial policy known as “Remain in Mexico,” which took effect this year and requires most asylum seekers who are not from Mexico to wait there while the U.S. weighs their cases.

Homeland Security Department leaders credit the program — along with a new requirement that migrants apply for asylum first in the countries they travel through before reaching the U.S. — with dramatically reducing apprehensions at the southern border.

Migrant advocates say the new policies give enormous power to U.S. customs officers, Border Patrol agents and asylum officers, whose whims and judgment calls decide the fate of many migrants.

Things looked grim for Nostier and his 39-year-old father, Carlos Leiva Membreño, when they were picked up by the Border Patrol.

“The good news is that you are already in the United States,” an agent told them, according to Leiva. “The bad news is that you are going back to Juarez.”

The pair was detained.

But days later their luck changed. With minimal questioning, they were released with instructions to appear in immigration court in Maryland, where they planned to join relatives.

The decision remains a mystery to them. Leiva described it as a miracle.

“God had his angels protect me and my son,” he said.

They appeared in court in Baltimore, then moved in with Nostier’s great aunt in Houston and had their case transferred there this fall. They are not scheduled to appear in court until Aug. 21, 2020, giving them at least a year of freedom.

Through relatives, Leiva found a construction job in Idaho and left Nostier in Houston.

After some trouble getting vaccinated — parental consent is usually required — his aunt managed to register him for school.

He had been the chubbier twin, outgoing and older by a minute, with dreams of becoming a military commander to protect his family.

Having never been without his brother, he grew shy, quiet and brooding.

Anthony and their mother were 740 miles away in the Mexican city of Juarez.

Dilcia Sabillon Aceituno, 40, told immigration officials that the family had fled Naco, Honduras, because members of the 18th Street gang — an organization that she said had killed two of her cousins — were pressuring her to put her twins to work for them dealing drugs.

She didn’t want her sons to become criminals.

Border Patrol agents listened, but it didn’t seem to matter. Sent back to Mexico, she and Anthony moved into a migrant shelter in the dangerous Anapra neighborhood to await an Aug. 15 court appearance in El Paso.

They and four other migrants shared a room without electricity or a lock on the door. There was a school next door, but Anthony’s mother couldn’t afford to send him.

On the dirt streets, boys bullied him, and men shouted threats, beat his mother and cursed her for being Honduran.

Hiding in their room, Anthony, who wanted to be a doctor, helped his mother with daily blood tests and insulin for her diabetes. She noticed he was losing weight, growing pale and depressed.

“I tell him not to be sad, he will be with his twin soon,” she said as they sat in their room at the shelter last month.

She filled out an asylum application in English with the help of an American immigration lawyer from Minnesota who visited the shelter to provide free legal assistance. It was a lucky break: Most migrants in the Remain in Mexico program have no lawyers.

At the August court hearing, Sabillon told the judge she was afraid of returning to Mexico. Anthony said he wanted to be with his brother.

The judge sent them to be interviewed by an asylum officer by phone, a common arrangement over the last year as the government has struggled to keep up with the flood of new cases.

The officer rejected their claim, returning them to Mexico days later.

“They don’t listen,” she said.

There was nothing to do but wait a month for their next immigration hearing.

Anthony traded daily audio messages with his brother in Houston. Nostier was enjoying school, where he made friends who spoke Spanish and began learning English. An older cousin helped him with his homework.

He had also started playing soccer with other Honduran boys at his great aunt’s apartment complex.

“Don’t worry,” he told Anthony. “You will be playing with us here soon.”

His mother wasn’t so sure.

The lawyer who had helped them was moving to Washington and could no longer represent them. Sabillon would have to represent herself.

On Sept. 26, Sabillon woke her son at 3:30 a.m. so they could dress by flashlight at the shelter, gather their paperwork and board a shelter van to the bridge. She slipped a wooden rosary around her neck.

“We’re going to our destiny,” she said as she hugged fellow asylum seekers goodbye.

After she and Anthony crossed the border bridge, U.S. officials collected their belongings to place in storage, then drove the pair and 23 other asylum seekers to their 8:30 a.m. hearing.

They were among the last to appear before the judge at 12:45 p.m. When he asked for their asylum application, Sabillon said she didn’t have it: It was in a bag Border Patrol agents had taken.

“Do you want more time to fill out an application?” Judge Robert Hough asked through a court interpreter.

“No,” she said.

“You understand if you don’t submit an application, you can be removed to Honduras. Is that what you want?” the judge said.

Sabillon began to cry.

“No, I have it over there, I just need to find someone to help me,” she said in Spanish between sobs as Anthony looked on. “Please, for his twin!”

The court interpreter said he couldn’t understand her. The judge referred her to be interviewed by an asylum officer, just like she was after her last hearing, and reset her case for Dec. 12. Mother and son were led from court looking stunned. It appeared they would be returned to Mexico.

But their luck was about to change. This time, the asylum officer who interviewed Sabillon by phone was sympathetic.

She told her story, the same one she had already been over with other immigration officials. But this time the officer decided to release her and Anthony until their asylum case was decided.

They spent a week in detention before being freed on Oct. 4. They arrived in Houston by bus the next day.

The twins have been inseparable since, clambering around the yard of the apartment complex where they’re staying and making TikTok videos with their cousins.

By last week, Nostier had grown talkative, preparing his brother to attend school next week. Anthony showed off Band-Aids to his cousins where he had received the required vaccinations.

He has also gained weight — along with a taste for spicy chicken wings. His mother predicted his cheeks would fill out soon and make the twins look identical again.

Neither had learned the details of why their family fled Honduras, and Sabillon was proud of that.

“They’re still innocent,” she said as she watched them roughhouse.

Sabillon wasn’t sure how to change her next court appearance from El Paso to Houston. She wondered if she should ask the court to combine her case with that of her husband, who was due to return from Idaho this weekend.

She was determined to find a lawyer. Without one, she figured their immigration case would be left to chance. She didn’t want to get sent back to Mexico again.

“My sons’ future is here,” she said.

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

The key to this outcome was Judge Hough’s asking questions and sending the case back to the Asylum Office for a second look. Unfortunately, many Immigration Judges, pushed to crank out numbers, not justice, and falsely told by their “superiors” that all asylum claims are fraudulent anyway, would merely have ordered deportation.

The problem of arbitrary and capricious decision making in “life or death” asylum cases is hardly a new one. Indeed, it was well documented and publicly exposed by my colleagues Professors Andy Schoenholtz, Phil Schrag, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales in their seminal 2007 book Refugee Roulette.

Despite some stabs at addressing the problem in subsequent years, it has remained a persistent feature of a broken system and is worse now that ever. That’s because this Administration actually views cruel, arbitrary, and capricious adjudication as both a demonstration of absolute Executive Power and a way of punishing and discouraging legal asylum seekers.

Some favorable precedents correctly applying asylum law, particularly in the area of domestic violence and family-based “particular social groups,” were moving the system slowly toward “consensus grants” on a significant number of clearly deserving Central American cases. They could eventually have been used to act favorably on perhaps one-third of the Northern Triangle Asylum cases without resorting to the Immigration Court system. These precedents could also have formed a basis for establishing a robust refugee program in the Northern Triangle itself, thus eliminating the need for the dangerous overland journey to the U.S. and reducing the influence of smugglers.

Instead of building on these modest, yet important, human rights successes, unethical Trump Administration politicos, including Sessions and Barr, illegally and maliciously removed them and replaced them with the idea, again unethically communicated to adjudicators, that denial should be the “preferred result” in every case.

The corrupt system now encourages arbitrary and capricious decision-making on asylum cases and elimination or manipulation of judicial review as as a tool for discouraging those who should get our protection from daring to use our legal system.

Perhaps worse yet, with very transparent evidence of what is going on (the Administration largely admits that they are using the asylum system as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers) the Article III Courts, starting with the Supremes, have failed in their duty to require an asylum adjudication system that meets both the Due Process and Equal Protection requirements of our Constitution.

Every life saved is a life saved. That’s why the “little things” like Judge Hough is doing matter. With lawyers and a chance to document and present their asylum cases, and to seek review before the Article III Courts, Dilcia and Anthony at least have a fighting chance to gain protection.

(Unfortunately, neither the El Paso nor Houston Immigration Courts nor the Fifth Circuit have reputations for fair and impartial treatment of asylum seekers. Indeed, some of the most grotesque and legally unjustifiable abuses of Due Process and fundamental fairness have taken place right under the noises of 5th Circuit judges. That probably explains the unusual eagerness of DHS and DOJ to locate many branches of the “New American Gulag,” and their embedded “Kangaroo Courts” including absurdly unjust “Tent Courts” within the Fifth Circuit. How else would you explain places like Jena, Louisiana and many other obscure locations within that state where counsel is often unavailable and access to clients is often illegally restricted or cut off. Indeed, complicity breeds contempt for human life and the legal system, something that smug Article III Judges refusing to do their Constitutional duties might live to regret. Without “regime change” in 2020, the reprieve for this family might be only temporary.)

But the fact that there are pockets of fairness, caring, and impartiality in a clearly unconstitutional system merely demonstrates the arbitrary and capricious way in which this system deals with life or death decisions and the complicity of both Congress and the Article IIIs in allowing this disgraceful, outrageous mockery of justice to continue!

Those who have weaponized the asylum system against the most deserving and vulnerable among us and the life-tenured judges who are unethically allowing this to happen on their watch should not escape accountability.

PWS

10-20-19

Trump Officials Give Permanent Promotion to Asylum-Denying Miami Immigration Judge

RELATED STORIES

· Florida Cities Would Need Governor’s Permission to Resettle Refugees Under New Trump Order

· Miami’s Immigration Court Has Become a Well-Oiled Deportation Machine, New Data Shows

· Despite What Trump Says, Most Immigrant Families Show Up for Court, Report Shows

IF YOU LIKE THIS STORY, CONSIDER SIGNING UP FOR OUR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS.

SHOW ME HOW

Related posts:

Related posts:

DOJ changed hiring to promote restrictive immigration judges

New practice permanently placed judges on powerful appellate board, documents show

Opaque hiring process

Politicizing court system

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

She raised her niece like a daughter. Then the US government separated them at the border

Related posts:

Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Disappearances bring back a Cold War nightmare

A crusading attorney general promises answers

A discovery brings new hope, and fear

Related posts:

Related posts: