Sexual Harassment – Page 13 – immigrationcourtside.com

INCONVENIENT TRUTH: HALEY SWEETLAND EDWARDS @ TIME TELLS WHAT TRUMP, MILLER, COTTON, SESSIONS, & THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST GANG DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: Human Migration Is A Powerful Force As Old As Human History; It’s A Plus For Receiving Nations; It Won’t Be Stopped By Walls, Jails, Racist Laws, Or Any Other Restrictionist Nonsense; But, It Can Be Intelligently Controlled, Channeled, Harnessed, & Used For The Benefit Of The U.S. & The Good Of The Migrants! — “But to maximize that future good, governments must act rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.”

Haley Sweetland Edwards writes in Time Magazine:

But they were willing to do whatever it took. Going back to Guatemala was simply not an option, they said. Monterroso explained that in October, their family was forced to flee after a gang threatened to murder the children if they didn’t pay an exorbitant bribe, five months’ worth of profits from their tiny juice stall. The family hid for a day and a half in their house and then sneaked away before dawn. “There is nobody that can protect us there,” Monterroso said. “We have seen in the other cases, they kill the people and kill their children.” Her voice caught. “The first thing is to have security for them,” she said of her kids, “that nothing bad happens to them.”

All told, more than 159,000 migrants filed for asylum in the U.S. in fiscal year 2018, a 274% increase over 2008. Meanwhile, the total number of apprehensions along the southern border has decreased substantially—nearly 70% since fiscal year 2000. President Donald Trump has labeled the southern border a national crisis. He refused to sign any bill funding the federal government that did not include money for construction of a wall along the frontier, triggering the longest shutdown in American history, and when Democrats refused to budge, he threatened to formally invoke emergency powers. The President says the barrier, which was the centerpiece of his election campaign, is needed to thwart a dangerous “invasion” of undocumented foreigners.

But the situation on the southern border, however the political battle in Washington plays out, will continue to frustrate this U.S. President, and likely his successors too, and not just because of continuing caravans making their way to the desert southwest. Months of reporting by TIME correspondents around the world reveal a stubborn reality: we are living today in a global society increasingly roiled by challenges that can be neither defined nor contained by physical barriers. That goes for climate change, terrorism, pandemics, nascent technologies and cyber-attacks. It also applies to one of the most significant global developments of the past quarter-century: the unprecedented explosion of global migration.

. . . .

They abandoned their homes for different reasons: tens of millions went in search of better jobs or better education or medical care, and tens of millions more had no choice. More than 5.6 million fled the war in Syria, and a million more were Rohingya, chased from their villages in Myanmar. Hundreds of thousands fled their neighborhoods in Central America and villages in sub-Saharan Africa, driven by poverty and violence. Others were displaced by catastrophic weather linked to climate change.

Taken one at a time, each is an individual, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, hope and despair. But collectively, they represent something greater than the sum of their parts. The forces that pushed them from their homes have combined with a series of global factors that pulled them abroad: the long peace that followed the Cold War in the developed world, the accompanying expansion of international travel, liberalized policies for refugees and the relative wealth of developed countries, especially in Europe and the U.S., the No. 1 destination for migrants. The force is tidal and has not been reversed by walls, by separating children from their parents or by deploying troops. Were the world’s total population of international migrants in 2018 gathered from the places where they have sought new lives and placed under one flag, they would be its fifth largest country.

The mass movement of people has changed the world both for better and for worse. Migrants tend to be productive. Though worldwide they make up about 3% of the population, in 2015 they generated about 9% of global GDP, according to the U.N. Much of that money is wired home—$480 billion in 2017, also according to the U.N.—where the cash has immense impact. Some will pay for the passage of the next migrant, and the smartphone he or she will keep close at hand. The technology not only makes the journey more efficient and safer—smugglers identify their clients by photos on instant-messaging—but, upon arrival, allows those who left to keep in constant contact with those who remain behind, across oceans and time zones.

Yet attention of late is mostly focused on the impact on host countries. There, national leaders have grappled with a powerful irony: the ways in which they react to new migrants—tactically, politically, culturally—shape them as much as the migrants themselves do. In some countries, migrants have been welcomed by crowds at train stations. In others, images of migrants moving in miles-long caravans through Central America or spilling out of boats on Mediterranean shores were wielded to persuade native-born citizens to lock down borders, narrow social safety nets and jettison long-standing humanitarian commitments to those in need.

. . . .

The U.S., though founded by Europeans fleeing persecution, now largely reflects the will of its Chief Executive: subverting decades of asylum law and imposing a policy that separated migrant toddlers from their parents and placed children behind cyclone fencing. Trump floated the possibility of revoking birthright citizenship, characterized migrants as “stone cold criminals” and ordered 5,800 active-duty U.S. troops to reinforce the southern border. Italy refused to allow ships carrying rescued migrants to dock at its ports. Hungary passed laws to criminalize the act of helping undocumented people. Anti-immigrant leaders saw their political power grow in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Italy and Hungary, and migration continued to be a factor in the Brexit debate in the U.K.

These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.

. . . .

But protocols and treaties can, at best, hope to respond to the human emotions and hard realities that drive migration. No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented Monterroso and Calderón, or Yaquelin and Albertina Contreras, or Sami Baladi and Mirey Darwich from leaving their homes. Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children.

The question now is whether the world can come to define the enormous population of international migrants as an opportunity. No matter when that happens, Eman Albadawi, a teacher from Syria who arrived in Anröchte, Germany, in 2015, will continue to make a habit of reading German-language children’s books to her three Syrian-born kids at night. Their German is better than hers, and they make fun of her pronunciation, but she doesn’t mind. She is proud of them. At a time when anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise, she tells them, “We must be brave, but we must also be successful and strong.” —With reporting by Aryn Baker/Anröchte, Germany; Melissa Chan, Julia Lull, Gina Martinez, Thea Traff/New York; Ioan Grillo/Tijuana; Abby Vesoulis/Murfreesboro, Tenn.; and Vivienne Walt/Paris •

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

I strongly encourage everyone to read Haley’s outstanding article at the link. It is one of the best and most easily understandable explanations of a complex phenomenon that I have seen recently. As I always say, “lots of moving parts.” But Haley and her colleagues have distilled the fundamental truths concealed by this complexity. Congrats and appreciation to Haley and everyone who worked on this masterpiece!

Haley debunks and eviscerates the restrictionist, racist “fear and loathing” baloney that Trump and his White Nationalist gang peddle. The simple truth always has been and continues to be that America needs more immigration.

The only real question is whether we are going to be smart and funnel it into expanded legal and humanitarian channels or dumb like Trump and push the inevitable migration into an extra-legal system. The latter best serves neither our country nor the humans pushed into an underground existence where they can be exploited and are artificially prevented from achieving their full potential for themselves and for us. Right now, we have a mix skewed toward forcing far, far too many good folks to use the extra-legal system.

We’ll only be able to improve the situation by pushing the mix toward the legal and the humanitarian, rather than the extra-legal. That’s why it’s virtually impossible to have a rational immigration debate with folks like Trump who start with the racist-inspired fiction that migrants are a “threat” who can be deterred, punished, and diminished.

Contrary to Trump and the White Nationalists, the real immigration problems facing America are 1) how can we best integrate the millions of law-abiding and productive undocumented individuals already residing here into our society, and 2) how can we most fairly and efficiently insure that in the future individuals like them can be properly screened and come to our country through expanded humanitarian and legal channels. Until we resolve these, American will continue to founder with immigration and fail to maximize its many benefits. That’s bad for us, for migrants, and for the future of our nation.

As a reminder, in the context of Congressional negotiations on border security, I recently put together a list of “practical fixes” to the immigration system which would address border security, humanitarian relief, and improved compliance with Constitutional Due process without major legislative changes — mostly “tweaks” and other common sense amendments that would make outsized improvements and certainly would be an improvement on squandering $5.7 billion and getting nothing but a largely symbolic “instant white elephant” border wall in return. So, here it is again in all its hypothetical glory: “THE SMARTS ACT OF 2019:

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3E3

SECURITY, MIGRATION ASSISTANCE RENEWAL, & TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ACT (“SMARTS ACT”) OF 2019

Federal Employees

Restart the Government

Retroactive pay raise

Enhanced Border Security

Fund half of “Trump’s Wall”

Triple the number of USCIS Asylum Officers

Double the number of U.S. Immigration Judges and Court Staff

Additional Port of Entry (“POE”) Inspectors

Improvements in POE infrastructure, technology, and technology between POEs

Additional Intelligence, Anti-Smuggling, and Undercover Agents for DHS

Anything else that both parties agree upon

Humanitarian Assistance

Road to citizenship for a Dreamers & TPSers

Prohibit family separation

Funding for alternatives to detention

Grants to NGOs for assisting arriving asylum applicants with temporary housing and resettlement issues

Require re-establishment of U.S. Refugee Program in the Northern Triangle

Asylum Process

Require Asylum Offices to consider in the first instance all asylum applications including those generated by the “credible fear” process as well as all so-called “defensive applications”

Immigration Court Improvements

Grants and requirements that DHS & EOIR work with NGOs and the private bar with a goal of achieving 100% representation of asylum applicants

Money to expand and encourage the training and certification of more non-attorneys as “accredited representatives” to represent asylum seekers pro bono before the Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts on behalf of approved NGOs

Vacate Matter of A-B-and reinstate Matter of A-R-C-G-as the rule for domestic violence asylum applications

Vacate Matter of Castro-Tum and reinstate Matter of Avetisyan to allow Immigration Judges to control dockets by administratively closing certain “low priority” cases

Eliminate Attorney General’s authority to interfere in Immigration Court proceedings through “certification”

Re-establish weighing of interests of both parties consistent with Due Process as the standard for Immigration Court continuances

Bar AG & EOIR Director from promulgating substantive or procedural rules for Immigration Courts — grant authority to BIA to promulgate procedural rules for Immigration Courts

Authorize Immigration Courts to consider all Constitutional issues in proceedings

Authorize DHS to appeal rulings of the BIA to Circuit Courts of Appeal

Require EOIR to implement the statutory contempt authority of Immigration Judges, applicable equally to all parties before the courts, within 180 days

Bar “performance quotas” and “performance work plans” for Immigration Judges and BIA Members

Authorize the Immigration Court to set bonds in all cases coming within their jurisdiction

Fund and require EOIR to implement a nationwide electronic filing system within one year

Eliminate the annual 4,000 numerical cap on grants of “cancellation of removal” based on “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”

Require the Asylum Office to adjudicate cancellation of removal applications with renewal in Immigration Court for those denied

Require EOIR to establish a credible, transparent judicial discipline and continued tenure system within one year that must include: opportunity for participation by the complainant (whether Government or private) and the Immigration Judge; representation permitted for both parties; peer input; public input; DHS input; referral to an impartial decision maker for final decision; a transparent and consistent system of sanctions incorporating principles of rehabilitation and progressive discipline; appeal rights to the MSPB

International Cooperation

Fund and require efforts to work with the UNHCR, Mexico, and other countries in the Hemisphere to improve asylum systems and encourage asylum seekers to exercise options besides the U.S.

Fund efforts to improve conditions and the rule of law in the Northern Triangle

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

No, it wouldn’t solve all problems overnight. But, everything beyond “Trump’s Wall” would make a substantial improvement over our current situation that would benefit enforcement, border security, human rights, Due Process, humanitarian assistance, and America. Not a bad “deal” in my view!

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

PWS

01-27-19

BUZZFEED NEWS: “Our Gang” Leader Judge Jeffrey Chase Blasts Nielsen’s Latest Disingenuous Attack On Legal Asylum Seekers — “Outrageous Move”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/the-trump-administration-will-start-sending-some-asylum

Hamed Aleaziz reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — Central American migrants seeking asylum at the US–Mexico border will be forced to remain in Mexico while their cases in the US are being processed, the Trump administration said Thursday.

The unprecedented policy change will take effect on Friday with the return of the first group of migrants at the border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, according to Vox.

The policy, titled the Migrant Protection Protocols, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to discourage migrants, including asylum-seekers, from trying to enter the United States. Previous attempts, such as banning asylum for those who crossed without authorization, were blocked by the courts, and this effort also is likely to face a challenge in court.

Under the policy, certain migrants at the border will receive a “notice to appear” in US immigration court and will be returned to Mexico until their hearing, according to a Department of Homeland Security fact sheet. The Mexican government, according to the agency, has provided the ability for those individuals to stay in the country until their court dates in the US. On the day of their hearing, migrants will be taken to US immigration courts for their cases to be heard.

Unaccompanied children will be excluded from the policy and those from “vulnerable populations” may be excluded on a case-by-case basis.

“We have implemented an unprecedented action that will address the ongoing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. “For far too long, our immigration system has been exploited by smugglers, traffickers, and those who have no legal right to remain in the United States. The Migrant Protection Protocols represent a methodical commonsense approach to exercising our statutory authority to require certain individuals to await their court proceedings in Mexico.”

A US official close to the process who is critical of the policy told BuzzFeed News it would lead migrants to “revert to sneaking in rather than going to ports of entry” and cause “more deaths in the desert.”

The Trump administration informed the Mexican government that it was going to be enacting the policy based on a statute stating that certain individuals can be sent back to the contiguous country they arrived from.

BuzzFeed News first reported that the administration was considering such a policy back in November.

Trump administration officials have accused asylum-seekers of gaming the US system, requesting asylum that they know they won’t qualify for so that they can remain in the country for months or years while immigration courts hear their cases.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, said the policy was a circumvention of the country’s immigration laws.

“Today’s announcement creates more questions than answers. Even putting aside the unlawfulness of this action, we do not know where these asylum-seekers will be held, who will be responsible for their safety, how and where their hearings will take place, or how access to counsel will be handled,” she said in a statement Thursday.

Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge, said the move was outrageous.

“We should be allowing asylum-seekers to enter and pursue their claims according to the international legal norms,” he said. “It will obviously be much more difficult for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel and to meaningfully participate in increasingly complex legal claims from outside the country.”

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

Right on, Jeffrey! Thanks for expressing our outrage in the dishonest, deceitful, inhumane, and counterproductive actions of shallow Trump sycophant Nielsen. Another mess is sure to follow. Despite her claims, and Nielsen is an established liar, everything I’ve read indicates that Mexico is unready to implement this if it involves more than a few hundred individuals. And, if the program were that small, it wouldn’t be worth doing. The Trump Administration of incompetents has yet to carry out any major new program without screwups.

What if Trump, Nielsen, DOJ, and EOIR just did their jobs by generously and efficiently granting asylum as mandated by the Refugee Act, the Supremes in Cardoza–Fonseca, and, ironically, the BIA’s own well-established but seldom enforced precedent Mogharrabi?

What if we took 50,000 refugees directly from the Northern Triangle, as we easily could and should do?

What if the Administration worked with, rather than against, pro bono groups and NGOs so that asylum seekers could fairly and efficiently move through the system consistent with Due Process?

What if DHS enforcement actually concentrated on potential “bad guys” rather than getting sidetracked by treating refugee families like criminals?

What if Trump treated refugees like the deserving and productive human beings that they have been throughout our history and welcomed and integrated them into our society?

What if he stopped using false narratives and restrictionist White Nationalist racist lies to make policy?

What if he cut the often illegal, always “built to fail,” and grossly fiscally wasteful gimmicks, smoke, mirrors, and job avoidance and just got the job done?

We’d actually be on the way to making America great again. Too bad that neither the Trump Administration nor the GOP seems interested in doing the real work of making government function within the law and advancing the real general public interests!

PWS

01-25-19

JUDGE SULLIVAN STUFFS TRUMP’S REQUEST TO KEEP ON VIOLATING ASYLUM LAW PENDING APPEAL — Stay Denied In Grace v. Whitaker!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/sullivan-asylum-ruling/index.html

Dan Berman reports for CNN:

Washington (CNN)Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan on Friday rejected a Justice Department request to stay his earlier ruling blocking the Trump administration’s policy that makes it difficult for victims fleeing domestic and gang violence to qualify for asylum in the United States.

Last month, Sullivan agreed with a group of women and children who said the policy imposed a heightened standard in reviewing their claims, concluding that the administration must stop deporting migrants currently in the US “without first providing credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”

Friday, he wrote: “The government now requests a stay, pending appeal of the Court’s Order, to enable the unlawful policies to continue to apply in all expedited removal cases, except the plaintiffs. … Defendants’ motion for stay is DENIED.”

The attorney general has full authority over the immigration courts — a separate court system which operates under the Justice Department.

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

We have an Administration without shame, human decency, or, obviously, the will and skill to govern. And, a DOJ where lawyers act not as legal guardians of the people’s rights, but continue to defend the indefensible, ill serves the American people.

PWS

01-25-19

THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/cgrs-and-hrw-release-video-call-government-restore-protections-domestic-violence-survivors

Professor Karen Musalo

CGRS and HRW Release Video, Call on Government to Restore Protections for Domestic Violence Survivors

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

The United States government should uphold refugee protections for survivors of domestic violence, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) and Human Rights Watch said today.

In December 2018, a federal judge delivered a sharp rebuke to the Trump Administration’s most significant attempt to undermine asylum protections for domestic violence survivors. A June decision by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a case involving a woman whose initials were A.B. attempted to place a sweeping ban on domestic violence claims. Following a lawsuit filed by CGRS and the American Civil Liberties Union over the summer, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Administration could not impose such a ban and that people who make domestic violence claims must have a fair opportunity to apply for asylum.

But despite Sullivan’s favorable ruling, Ms. A.B.’s case remains in limbo. Until Sessions’ decision is overturned, she and thousands of women like her will continue to face an uphill battle in the courts.

Today CGRS and HRW released a video in which Ms. A.B. shares her story of abuse in El Salvador, the impossibility of finding protection in her home country, and her quest to find safety in the U.S.

“Ms. A.B. suffered brutal physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and every time she sought protection from the Salvadoran authorities, the police would not protect her,” said Karen Musalo, one of the woman’s attorneys and director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. “In denying her asylum, the former attorney general not only overturned clearly established case law recognizing the right to asylum for survivors of domestic violence, but also repudiated the well-accepted principle that women’s rights are human rights.”

The incoming attorney general should rescind Sessions’ decision, the groups said. If not, Congress should enact legislation that protects the right to asylum for domestic violence survivors and others whose claims have been undermined by the ruling in Ms. A.B.’s case.

Sessions’ administrative decision denying Ms. A.B. asylum overruled the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling in a seminal 2014 case, Matter of A-R-C-G-, which recognized that domestic violence survivors may qualify for asylum. Under U.S. and international law, to be eligible for asylum, a person must show a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Domestic violence survivors who are unable to secure protection in their home countries have been able to obtain asylum on the ground of membership in a particular social group, among others.

In his December ruling, Judge Sullivan struck down many of the new policies to carry out Sessions’ decision, writing that there is “no legal basis for an effective categorical ban on domestic violence and gang-related claims.”

Under international law, governments have a clear obligation to prevent domestic violence, as well as to protect, support, and ensure access to justice and services for victims. But around the world, in Central America and elsewhere, women struggle to have governments ensure, or in some cases recognize, their right to protection. In some countries, criminal law does not adequately address domestic violence. More often, domestic violence is outlawed but rates of domestic violence, including violence that ends in homicide, remains high as authorities fail to ensure justice.

“This is absolutely the case in El Salvador, where the government’s utter failure to protect Ms. A.B. forced her to flee for her life,” said Andrés López, her co-counsel.

The Trump Administration’s move to severely limit asylum eligibility for domestic violence survivors is consistent with other regressive actions it has taken in recognizing violence against women as a human rights issue. The State Department’s annual human rights country reports since 2017 have excluded detailed analysis of violence against women, as well as reporting on women’s and girls’ reproductive health care.

“The Trump Administration’s fallacious view that domestic violence is a matter between private actors fails to recognize the systemic abuse of women’s rights in countries where authorities cannot or do not protect women threatened with domestic violence,” said Grace Meng, senior US researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The serious and persistent problem of domestic violence cannot be eliminated unless the U.S. and other countries recognize domestic violence, and the related acts or omissions of the government, as violations of women’s basic human rights.”

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

Please check out the great 4 minute video at the link in the press release!

As noted in the press release, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan recently found that much of Session’s twisted and biased ruling in A-B-‘s case violated the Refugee Act, international norms, and directly contradicted Congressional intent.

This is but an example of the egregious attacks on the rule of law and the rights of asylum seekers being carried out by the scofflaw Trump Administration and its minions on a daily basis.

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight to restore the rule of law, human decency, Due Process, and a “guarantee of fairness and Due Process for all” to our broken, captive, and often lawless U.S. Immigration Courts!

PWS

01-25-19

COLBERT I. KING @ WASHPOST: NATION IN REGRESSION: Trump & His White Nationalist Flunkies Are An Insult To All That Rev. Martin Luther King & His Supporters, Of All Races & Religions Stood For! — From the promise of guaranteed rights to a return to the insecurity of injustice. A pluralistic America is being cynically drawn along racial lines by a president who is as far from the civility of his predecessors Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama as the charter of the Confederacy was from the Constitution.” — But, The New Due Process Army Continues MLK’s Legacy!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/martin-luther-king-jr-would-be-outraged/2019/01/18/e4a7b4c6-1a75-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Colby King writes:

. . . .

The greatest contrast between the time King led the struggle for America’s legal and social transformation and now is a White House occupied by Donald Trump.

The federal government, once a powerful legal and moral force to make real the promise of democracy, is in the hands of adversaries who seek to restore a hierarchy in which the interests of the bigoted, the xenophobic, the sexist and the defender of white male privilege always come out on top.

There is a long list of ways in which backtracking on civil and human rights has occurred since the election of a president who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. It ranges from discriminatory travel bans against Muslims to turning a federal blind eye to intentionally racially discriminatory state voter-suppression schemes, to opposing protections for transgender people, to inhumanely separating children from families seeking to enter the country.

Sadly, that’s not all that stands out.

Once the federal locus of the nation’s quest for racial reconciliation, today’s White House is a source of racial divisiveness and a beacon to the prejudice-warped fringes of American society. It’s no surprise that the FBI found hate crimes in America rose 17 percent in 2017, the third consecutive year that such crimes increased. In King’s day, racially loaded, hateful rhetoric could be heard across the length and breadth of the Deep South. Now, mean, disgusting and inflammatory words come out of the mouth of the president of the United States.

How far have we traveled?

From the promise of guaranteed rights to a return to the insecurity of injustice. A pluralistic America is being cynically drawn along racial lines by a president who is as far from the civility of his predecessors Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama as the charter of the Confederacy was from the Constitution.

King, and the movement he led, would be outraged. The rest of us should be, too.

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

Read the full op-ed at the above link.

Very powerful! King speaks truth, reason, and humanity — in the spirit of Dr. King. Contrast that with the vile slurs, bogus race-baiting narratives, and non-policies spewing from the mouth of our racist (and incompetent) Liar/Grifter-in-Chief!

Two of my favorite MLK quotes (from the Letter from the Birmingham Jail — with acknowledgment to the Legal Aid and Justice Center from their poster hanging in my “office”)):

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Thanks to those many courageous and dedicated individuals tirelessly serving America in the New Due Process Army by resisting Trump’s illegal and anti-American policies! You, indeed, are the 21st Century continuation of Dr. King’s legacy to our country and the world! Dr. King would be proud of you! Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-21-19

JIM WALLIS @ SOJOURNERS: Things Will Get Worse Under Trump; Moral Resistance Is Essential: “[Trump] almost perfectly exemplifies the worst of America — the ugliest things in our history and the greatest dangers to our future.“

https://sojo.net/articles/its-going-get-worse-america-it-gets-better-2019-opportunity

Jim Wallis writes:

Most people have consistently underestimated Donald Trump. When he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by attacking and demonizing non-white immigrants, people should have understood that Trump would likely win the Republican nomination and possibly the election.

Why? Because Donald Trump appeals to the worst of America. His promotion of fear, division, hate, racism, xenophobia, rallying of white nationalism, mistreatment of women, purposeful denial of truth, and consummate love of money, power, and fame are, of course, nothing new in America. Neither are his desire to destroy democracy, love for authoritarian rulers or desire to be one. Indeed, there is nothing new about Donald Trump, but he almost perfectly exemplifies the worst of America — the ugliest things in our history and the greatest dangers to our future.

Now let’s move from the political and moral to the theological and spiritual: These traits and actions also represent the worst of humanity. To seek money and power over all else, to consistently put yourself over all others, to make private self-interest the only the goal of life and overturn any sense of the common good, to create conflict to win and make all others into losers, to constantly lie and try to kill the truth, to make exploitation and abuse the definition of sexuality, to be as violent in word and deed as you can get away with, to never answer to God or seek forgiveness — there are examples of these sins throughout the Bible and human history. They are also, unfortunately, what our country’s leader seems to stand for, what he promotes in our culture, and what he models for our children.

Given all of this, we are in great danger. Strongmen are rising all over the world, and Donald Trump supports them — and even wants to be one of them. Trump started out the New Year tweeting the country’s support to Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new right-wing nationalist leader. Just this week, he articulated an ahistorical understanding of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that seemed to condone or even endorse the Soviet action. His version of that chapter in world history is one that sounds much closer to what Moscow propaganda might say rather than what an American president or relatively neutral historians would describe. Among the current global strongmen, Trump is certainly not the most intelligent, but he may be the most dangerous because of his political position.

READ: #EleNão Movement Confronts ‘Brazilian Trump’

Strongmen, autocrats, and dictators don’t all do the same things. They do whatever they can to maximize their own wealth, power, and fame. The only thing that prevents them from going as far as they can is the resiliency of a society’s institutions and social sectors — like the media, the judiciary, political parties, law enforcement, civil society, and places of vocational or historical moral authority like faith communities.

So how are we faring on those fronts?

Press: In our current political situation, a new generation of young reporters are showing great resiliency in the new Trump era, revealing the facts that undermine official lies and offering analysis that seeks to hold power accountable.

Judiciary: Trump appointments at the Supreme Court and Circuit Court levels are gradually politicizing the judiciary to rule in favor of his interests, white interests, and corporate interests.

Political Parties: After winning the midterm elections, the Democratic Party has retaken the House of Representatives. For the first time, we have 100 women in the Congress and the most diverse House in our history. With Speaker Nancy Pelosi retaking the gavel, we will now see what kind of checks and balances to the executive branch that can provide. But the Republican Party has been taken over by the president’s base and retained a Senate majority that has been unwilling to oppose him — or ever vote to remove him from office, which only the Senate can do with a 2/3 majority vote, even if the House were to impeach him.

Law Enforcement: Trump has continued to attack the Justice Department and relentlessly seeks to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation into his campaign’s involvement with Russia. Trump’s behavior in response to the investigation of him and his campaign puts the rule of law into jeopardy, depending on how his administration reacts to the results and reports of the Robert Mueller-led investigation.

Civil Society: Will the civil society seek to hold the government responsible for civility in the way that it governs? So far, nonprofit organizations focused on good government, exposing corruption, and protecting the vulnerable have done important work in galvanizing massive protests at key moments of danger or significance, as well as leading or joining key court cases that have sought to rein in some of the worst travesties of the administration, like the monstrous policy of family separation at the border.

Faith Communities: On the religion side, white evangelicals have been the most supportive of Trump as their Religious Right has entered a transactional, Faustian bargain with his administration, agreeing to look away from Trump’s immoral behavior and brutal treatment of those Jesus called “the least of these” in exchange for the judicial appointments and conservative economic policies they support. Others, like the Reclaiming Jesus movement, with Sojourners involvement, have proclaimed that the gospel itself is at stake in the faith community’s response to Trump. This year will be “an hour of decision,” to use Billy Graham’s old language, for the faith community’s testimony in the face of Donald Trump’s corrupt and cruel practices and policies, which are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

WATCH: Reclaiming Jesus in a Time of Crisis

In 2019, I believe things are going to get worse in America before they get better. We now face grave dangers to democracy itself, and to societal moral decency. But that danger also provides us an opportunity: to go deeper into our faith and into our relationships to each other, especially across racial lines, and into relationship with the most vulnerable people in our society — a practice our faith says will change us. If we do go deeper, this moment could become a movement for all the things that many of us have consistently lived and fought for all our lives. If we don’t go deeper, but just continue to react or ultimately retreat into frustration and cynicism, we will indeed be in great danger.

Many of us faith leaders believe a constitutional crisis is coming in 2019, which will also create a crisis of faith to which we will be called to respond. A dangerous overreach of presidential power could come in response to the ultimate results of the Special Counsel’s report and potential further indictments of Trump’s associates, potentially his family members, or even himself for criminal behavior. Attempts to cover up or obscure the results could be a serious obstruction of justice that undermines the very rule of law in this country. We could also see other executive overreaches like choosing to shut down the government over vanity projects, the prosecution of dangerous wars, the censorship of the press, attacks on opponents, more assaults on migrants and the most vulnerable, and, most frighteningly, the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

If we start to see that executive overreach as distraction, there must be a moral response. And the response of faith communities could be a game changer. I believe it is time to prepare for that response from the followers of Jesus. Stay tuned and prayerfully get ready.

Jim Wallis

Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners. His new Audible spoken-word series, Jim Wallis In Conversation, is available now, as is his book, America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a

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

Amen! That’s why the efforts of the New Due Process Army are so important to the survival of our republic.

PWS

01-06-19

PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY IN USA TODAY: Gender Is Clearly a “Particular Social Group” – Congress Must Amend The Law To Insure That Neither Bureaucratic Judges Nor Political Hacks Like Sessions & His Ilk Can Deprive Women & LGBTQ Individuals Of The Protections They Need & Deserve!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/02/gender-related-violence-grounds-asylum-refugee-women-congress-column/2415093002/

When women arrive at our shores asking only that they not be beaten, raped or murdered, delivering them to their tormentors isn’t an option.

(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

CONNECTTWEET LINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

Our asylum laws have some gaping holes. These gaps endanger many groups, but none more so than women and girls who are fleeing domestic violence, honor killings, mass rape in wartime, gang rape by criminal gangs, and other gender-related violence. Congress must explicitly recognize gender-based persecution as a potential asylum ground.

Asylum requires a “well-founded” fear of being persecuted. But not just any persecution will do. The persecution has to occur for one of five specific reasons — your race, your religion, your nationality, your political opinion, or what the law calls your “particular social group.” Gender is notably missing from this list.

That omission is not surprising. U.S. asylum laws, like those of most other western countries, track the language of an international refugee convention that was adopted in 1951. Gender-related violence was simply not on the public radar at that time.

But it is now 2019. The historical excuse will no longer wash. With women’s marches, the MeToo movement, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process and women’s stunning midterm electoral successes, gender-related violence is now part of our national consciousness.

Read more commentary:

As a Syrian refugee in US, I watched my country collapse. But there is a path to hope.

Refugees at US-Mexico border are treated like criminals

Bring more refugees to America. They’ll fill vacant jobs and boost our economy.

Without specific congressional recognition of gender-based persecution, women and girls fleeing the most horrific violence imaginable have had to argue that they will be persecuted because of their “particular social group.” Today that is easier said than done. The nation’s highest administrative tribunal that decides asylum claims — the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals — has been adding more andmore roadblocks to asylum claims that are based on “particular social group.”

This was not always the case. In 1985, the board defined “particular social group” as one in which membership is “immutable.” Gender, of course, meets that definition.

The immutability test makes perfect sense. If you will be persecuted only because of an innocuous characteristic that you can easily change, then you don’t need asylum. But if that characteristic cannot be changed, you have no other practical way to protect yourself. The immutability test thus allows asylum for those who need it and withholds it from those who don’t.

Justice constraints are harmful, irrational

But the board could not leave well enough alone. Along the way it invented two additional requirements. One is “social distinction.” If you claim persecution because of your membership in a “particular social group,” you must now prove that your home society describes that class of individuals as a “group.” Second, you must now prove what the board calls “particularity.” By this it means you must prove that your home society can figure out whether hypothetical other individuals are members of the group.

There are only four problems with those requirements: The board has no convincing legal authority to impose them. No one really understands what they mean. They are nearly impossible to prove. And they make no policy sense: why should the U.S. decision whether to grant asylum to someone depend on whether her home society thinks of the particular class as a “group,” or on whether the home society can tell which other individuals belong to that “group”?

Last June, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions made this bad situation worse. Overruling board precedent, he announced that, henceforth, anyone fleeing domestic violence (or, for that matter anyone fleeing gang violence) will “generally” be unable to prove either social distinction or particularity and therefore should be denied asylum. Although a federal court has blocked that decision for now, the Supreme Court will likely determine its ultimate fate.

But the problems go beyond that specific case. First, the artificial constraints that the board has imposed for all claims based on “particular social group” are both harmful and irrational. Second, it is only because gender is not on Congress’s list of specifically protected grounds that women and girls have had to fit their claims into “particular social group” in the first place.

Women would still prove need for asylum

What arguments could possibly be made for protecting people from racial or religious persecution but not from gender persecution?

Perhaps the fear is that domestic violence is too endemic, that allowing asylum would open the floodgates. We need not worry, for a woman or girl fleeing domestic violence has multiple legal burdens that minimize the numbers: She must prove that her fear is both genuine and well-founded, that the harm she fears is severe, that her government is unable or unwilling to protect her, that no place anywhere in her country would be safe, and — even if gender is added to the list — that the persecution will be inflicted because of her gender. These are all high bars, and proof requires meticulous, persuasive documentation. Canada has recognized domestic violence asylum claims since the 1990s, and no floodgates have opened.

The U.S. cannot singlehandedly eradicate all violence against women and girls — even here at home. But we can at least avoid being an accomplice. When women and girls arrive at our shores asking only that they not be beaten, raped or murdered, delivering them to their tormentors is not an option. Congress should restore the original meaning of “particular social group,” and it should recognize that gender, like race and religion, belongs in the list of specifically protected grounds.

Stephen Legomsky is a professor emeritus at the Washington University School of Law, the principal author of “Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy,” and the former Chief Counsel of US Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama Administration.

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

Steve is absolutely right! This needs a legislative solution. And, while they are at it, Congress also needs to insulate the Immigration Court against future bureaucratic and political shenanigans by creating an independent Article I Immigration Court with a merit-based judicial selection system.

Not coincidentally, the BIA added the intentionally unduly restrictive “particularity” and “social distinction” (formerly “social visibility”) requirements (remarkably, without dissent or even full en banc treatment) only after a group of BIA Judges, including me, who understood both asylum law and women’s rights, and weren’t afraid to vote accordingly, had been removed by Attorney General Ashcroft in a bogus and disingenuous politically motivated “downsizing” following the election of President George W. Bush in 2000. Since then, asylum seekers generally have had a hard time finding justice at the “captive” and politically controlled BIA.

And, the situation has become critical following the tenure of the White Nationalist, misogynist political hack Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Sessions abandoned even the pretense of fairness, deliberation, impartiality, and judicial temperament in his anti-asylum, anti-Due-Process, anti-women campaign to rewrite the law to fit his preconceived White Nationalist xenophobic agenda — one that he (understandably & fortunately) never was able to push through Congress during his tenure as a Senator.

PWS

01-04-19

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM COURTSIDE! — I Take A Look Forward @ 2019’s Big Immigration Stories

2019 Immigration Stories

Dreamer Litigation
Asylum Procedures Litigation
Continuing Collapse of Immigration Courts
- - - More bogus, anti-immigrant, anti-Due Process certification decisions from AG
    - Pereira mess in scheduling
    - Cancellation mess; hundreds of thousands eligible for relief; no plans for adjudication
    - Dockets will continue to be screwed up by failure of responsible enforcement policies by DHS, failure of prosecutorial discretion exercised by virtually all other law enforcement authorities, and mindless, inappropriate “re-docketing” of previously Administratively Closed cases for no particular reason except White Nationalist inspired meanness
    - Massive returns of asylum and other improperly decided cases to Immigration Courts by Article IIIs
- More deaths, illness, abuses resulting from Trump’s cruel, ill-conceived detention and border policies
- Mexico and Article IIIs will,”push back” against Administration’s ill-conceived plans to “dump” legitimate asylum seekers over Mexican border
- Public Charge Controversy
- TPS Termination & Litigation
  - One of Trump’s dumbest, most unnecessary, & disruptive moves will wreak havoc on the economy and the legal system
- Lots of fraud, waste, and abuse at DOJ and DHS will be exposed by House Committees
- Will new AG prove to be “Button Down Version of Jeff Sessions?”

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

HAPPY NEW YEAR

😎👍🏼🍻🍾🏈❄️☃️🥳

PWS

01-01-19

PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO: Persecution Of Women In El Salvador On The Basis Of Gender Is Real & Endemic – The Administration’s Attempts To Skew The Law Against Women Refugees Is Totally Dishonest, Immoral, & Illegal!

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Musalo_El%20Salvador_A%20Peace%20Worse%20Than%20War_30%20Yale%20J.L.%20&%20Fem.%203_20018.pdf

Here’s part of the conclusion of Karen’s article “EL SALVADOR–A PEACE WORSE THAN WAR: VIOLENCE, GENDER AND A FAILED LEGAL RESPONSE” published at 30 Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 3 (2018):

Historical and contemporary factors have given rise to the extremely high levels of violence that persist in El Salvador today. Many of the Salvadorans interviewed for this article referred to a “culture of violence” going back to the brutal Spanish Conquest and continuing into more recent history, including the 1932 Matanza and the atrocities of the country’s 12-year civil war. Gender violence exists within this broader context. However, as almost every Salvadoran source noted, violence against women is even more deeply rooted than other expressions of societal violence as the result of patriarchal norms that tolerate and affirm the most extreme forms of domination and abuse of women.

. . . .

Levels of violence, including the killings of women, have continued to rise, while impunity has remained a constant. Criticism of the persistent impunity for gender violence resulted in El Salvador’s most recent legal development: the enactment of Decree 286, which created specialized courts. However, the exclusion of the most commonly committed gender crimes–intrafamilial violence and sexual violence–from the specialized courts’ jurisdiction, and the courts’ hybrid structure, which requires that cases still be initiated in the peace courts, do not inspire optimism for positive outcomes.

Notwithstanding these considerable obstacles, the Salvadorans interviewed for this article, who have long struggled for access to justice and gender equality, maintain the hope and the belief that change is possible. In the course of multiple interviews over a six-year period (2010 to 2016), Salvadoran sources have expressed deep frustration and disappointment but have not articulated resignation or defeat.

. . . .

The Salvadorans who I interviewed for this article have provided information, insights, and perspectives that are simply not available in written reports or studies. Although they come from a range of backgrounds–governmental and non-governmental; legal professionals as well as grassroots activists–they all acknowledge the complex causes of societal violence. As discussed throughout this article, they also have specific critiques and prescriptions for what must be done in order to see any real progress. Discussions of the country’s crisis, as well as of the international community’s response, must start by listening to the voices of the Salvadorans who, despite the seemingly intractable situation of violence and impunity in which they live, have refused to abandon the struggle for justice and equality. They are inspiring in their courage and resilience. By quoting extensively from these sources, this article has sought to amplify their voices.

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

Read Karen’s complete article at the above link.

Compare real scholarship and honest reflection of the experiences of women in El Salvador affected by this seemingly unending wave of persecution with the intentionally bogus picture painted by Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-. Hopefully, advocates will be able to use the research and expertise of Karen and others like her to enlighten fair-minded Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, support their efforts to grant women the protection they merit as contemplated by the Refugee Act and the Convention Against Torture, and force the Article III Courts and eventually Congress to consign Sessions’s intentionally perverted reasoning to the dustbin of “Jim Crow Misogynist History” where it belongs.

Many thanks to my good friend and colleague in “Our Gang,” Judge Jeffrey Chase, for passing this link to Karen’s important scholarship along.

Due Process For All Forever!

PWS

12-31-18

NQRFPT: I’M ALREADY PROVED RIGHT ON NIELSEN’S LATEST HAREBRAINED SCHEME TO SCREW ASYLUM SEEKERS: Mexico is “Completely Unprepared,” DHS is Massively Incompetent, The “Real Experts” Among Advocacy Groups & NGOs Are Sharpening Their Litigation Knives, & The House Is Getting Ready To Hold Nielsen & Her Toadies Accountable For The Inevitable Deaths, Rapes, & Assaults On Asylum Seekers In Mexico!

https://apple.news/ABxGIu1zQSumaDYsJutu1uA

Scott Bixby reports for The Daily Beast:

Opponents of the Trump administration’s plan requiring all migrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings have vowed to challenge the policy, which they say—like nearly every other aspect of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda—almost certainly violates constitutional protections, international treaties, and federal law.

The policy, dubbed the “Migration Protection Protocols” by the Department of Homeland Security, is “disgraceful and illegal” and “will result in the loss of life for vulnerable people seeking safety,” said Michelle Brané, director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission. “This president has, again, chosen to exploit and endanger the lives of women and children to advance his own self-serving agenda.”

“Pushing asylum-seekers back into Mexico is absolutely illegal under U.S. immigration law,” Eleanor Acer, senior director for refugee protection at the nonprofit Human Rights First, told reporters on a conference call on Friday morning. “This scheme will increase, rather than decrease, the humanitarian debacle at the border.”

Under the proposed rule change, migrants who attempt to claim asylum in the United States at the southern border will almost universally be held in Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings, a process that could take years.

Calling the move “a historic measure,” the Department of Homeland Security revealed the plan on Thursday, at the same time Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was being grilled by members of the House Judiciary Committee on the Trump administration’s numerous immigration controversies, including its family separation policy (the existence of which Nielsen denied) and the recent death of a 7-year-old migrant girl in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In the announcement, Nielsen said that “aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.” Instead, “they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico. ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’ ”

Mexico’s foreign ministry, contradicting the foreign policy platform that helped sweep the country’s new president into power, said that it “will authorize, for humanitarian reasons and temporarily, the entry of certain foreign persons from the United States who have entered the country through a port of entry or who have been apprehended between ports of entry, have been interviewed by the authorities of migratory control of that country, and have received a summons to appear before an immigration judge.” (The country’s top immigration official now says that Mexico is completely unprepared to fulfill its end of the bargain.)

Organizations on the ground say that the policy is a clear violation of both federal and international law, as well as constitutional guarantees of due process—and plan to fight it in court.

“This administration knows that the border area is unsafe for women and children,” Brané said, “and still, this administration doubles down on policies that make everyone less safe.”

“The administration seems to have no plan for implementation,” said Kennji Kizuka, a senior researcher and refugee protection policy analyst at Human Rights First. “Will lawyers be able to visit their clients before hearings? Where will those hearings take place?… Access to counsel is one of the most important factors in whether or not an asylum seeker is able to live in safety in the United States.”

In addition to Article 33 of the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which prevents the forcible return of asylum-seekers to countries where they face persecution, torture or death—dubbed the principle non-refoulement in international law—advocates pointed to laws passed by Congress that mandate the admission of unaccompanied children seeking asylum at the U.S. border as being blatantly violated by the president’s policy.

“Refusing to process children very clearly violates the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, written specifically to protect this vulnerable population,” said Lisa Frydman, vice president for regional policy and initiatives at Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), a nonprofit that works on behalf of unaccompanied children who enter the U.S. immigration system alone. Speaking on a call with reporters, Frydman recounted interviews with unaccompanied children held in shelters in Tijuana, the conditions of which are “squalid,” Frydman said.

“Unaccompanied children are being systematically denied access to apply for protection in the United States” as they seek asylum protections, Frydman said, and their efforts to avoid both U.S. and Mexican immigration authorities are putting them in even more danger of exploitation.

Some of the children have even taken to living on the streets of Tijuana, Frydman said, where they have no access to medical treatment, food, or protection from those who might exploit them. The dangers are extreme: just this week, two Honduran children were murdered in Tijuana after being stopped by would-be robbers as they attempted to move from one shelter to another.

“All of our organizations have been on the ground in Tijuana recently and are united in our assessment that conditions there are very unstable and very unsafe,” said Wendy Young, president of KIND. Those conditions, Young continued, “are going to further deteriorate” as the number of asylum-seekers stuck at the border increases.

A 2017 study by Human Rights First documented 921 crimes against migrants committed by federal or state officials in Mexico, where nearly 70 percent of migrant children are held in “prison-like” immigration detention facilities, according to a report from Human Rights Watch, despite Mexican laws prohibiting children from being held in such facilities.

These unsafe conditions in Mexico make forcing asylum-seekers to remain their a blatant violation of the principle of non-refoulement, advocates said, and therefore a violation of international law.

“These migrant camps are not safe for children,” said Dr. Alan Shapiro, a pediatrician who co-founded Terra Firma, an organization that provides medical care to undocumented children. “They are not enclosed camps, they do not have roofs over their head.” On a recent visit to one camp in Tijuana, Dr. Shapiro said, he saw a two-year-old child who had recently suffered a seizure and had no access to medical care, or even proper food.

“This child was eating powdered baby formula out of the can—there was no water for them to mix it with,” Shapiro said.

“There are very real risks to unaccompanied children,” said Leah Chavla, a policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission. “This is a system that is ripe for exploitation… Mothers that we’ve spoken with have flagged that there are a lot of new faces around the camps and they don’t necessarily feel comfortable leaving their children with strangers.”

Advocates also pointed to serious logistical hurdles for asylum-seekers to receive proper legal counsel as they navigate the labyrinthine immigration system from outside the United States, pointing to those difficulties as potential violations of due process.

“It is unclear how attorneys in the United States would be able to work in and access their clients in Mexico—if at all,” said Jennifer Podkul, senior director for policy and advocacy at KIND. “Moreover, legal services capacity in Mexico would be insufficient to address these needs or to ensure the provision of accurate legal information and preparation of cases in accordance with U.S., rather than Mexican, law.”

Those difficulties are doubled for unaccompanied children, Podkul said, in light of their age and limited ability to testify in their own defense. “Without quality legal representation, unaccompanied children and other asylum seekers will be unable to fully present their cases for protection, and as a result, may be returned to harm, danger, or death.”

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

Imagine what it would be like to have a Government committed to following the law, including the generous humanitarian standards for asylum, rather than coming up with costly, impractical, and often illegal schemes to avoid the law.

Of course, following the law would likely result in many more asylum seekers being rapidly accepted after screening and settling down to lead peaceful, law-abiding, productive lives in the U.S. That would be good for the country, but bad for the racist White Nationalist agenda that this Administration peddles to its so-called “base” (which actually represents a minority of U.S. opinion, but a minority that strategically props up a minority government controlled by a minority party and an incompetent, out of control, would-be autocrat).

PWS

12-23-18

HERE’S WHY NIELSEN’S LATEST ATTACK ON REFUGEES AND THE RULE OF LAW COULD BACKFIRE! – ALSO, AN ADDENDUM: “MY MESSAGE TO THE NDPA”

WHY NIELSEN’S LATEST ATTACK ON REFUGEES COULD BACKFIRE

“The Devil is in the Details.” Typical for this group of incompetents, nobody at DHS or in the Mexican Government actually appears to be ready to implement this “historic change.”
Expect chaos. After all, the ink wasn’t even dry on Judge Sullivan’s order in Grace v. Whitaker for USCIS to rewrite its credible fear “Policy Memorandum” to comply with law. Want to bet on whether the “credible fear” interviews in Mexico or at the border will be lawful? How about the reaction of Judge Sullivan if they ignore his order? (Nielsen and her fellow scofflaws might want to consult with Gen. Flynn on that one. This is one judge with limited patience for high level Government officials who run roughshod over the law, are in contempt of court, or perjure themselves.)
By screwing around with procedures, the Administration opens itself up for systemic challenges in more U.S. District Courts instead of being able to limit litigation to Courts of Appeals on petitions to review individual removal orders.
Every “panic attack” by this Administration on the rule of law and the most vulnerable energizes more legal opposition. And, it’s not just within the immigration bar and NGOs any more. “Big Law” and many of the brightest recent graduates of top law schools across the country are getting involved in the “New Due Process Army.”
By concentrating asylum applicants at a limited number of ports of entry, pro bono legal groups could actually find it easier to represent almost all applicants.
Representation of asylum seekers generally improves results, sometimes by as much as 5X.
It could be easier for individuals who are free and authorized to work in Mexico to obtain counsel and prepare their cases than it is for individuals detained in substandard conditions in obscure locations in the U.S.
Freed of the intentionally coercive and demoralizing effects of DHS detention, more applicants will be willing to fully litigate their claims, including taking available administrative and judicial appeals.
As more cases reach the Courts of Appeals (primarily in the 5th & 9th Circuits) more “real” Article III Judges will “have their eyes opened” to the absolute travesty that passes for “justice” and “due process” in the Immigration Courts under Trump.
Shoddily reasoned “precedents” from the BIA and the AG are already failing in the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Three “bit the dust” just within the last week. Expect this trend to accelerate.
The 5th and 9th Circuits will find their dockets overwhelmed with Not Quite Ready For Prime Time (“NQRFPT”) cases “dumped” on them by DOJ and EOIR and are likely to react accordingly.
The last massive assault on Due Process in Immigration Court by the DOJ under Ashcroft basically caused a “mini-rebellion” in the Article III Courts. There were numerous “remands for redos” and Circuit Court rulings harshly reversing and publicly criticizing overly restrictive treatment of asylum cases by Immigration Judges and the BIA, particularly in the area of credibility determinations. Expect the Circuit Courts to “reverse and revise” many of the current anti-asylum precedents from the BIA and the AG.
With almost universal representation, a level playing field supervised by Article III Courts, and all Immigration Judges actually forced to fairly apply the generous standards for asylum enunciated by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and by the BIA in the (oft cited but seldom actually applied) Matter of Mogharrabi, I wouldn’t be surprised to see grant rates for Northern Triangle applicants exceed 50% (where most experts believe they belong).
Overall, there’s a respectable chance that the end result of this ill-conceived policy will be an exposure of the rampant fraud, intellectual dishonesty, and disregard for the true rule of law in this Administration’s treatment of bona fide asylum seekers.
Inevitably, however, asylum seekers will continue to die in Mexico while awaiting hearings. DHS politicos probably will find themselves on a regular basis before enraged House Committees attempting to justify their deadly, cruel, and incompetent policies. This will be a “culture shock” for those used to the “hear no evil, see no evil” attitude of the GOP House.
The Administration appears to have “designed” another of their “built to fail” systems. If they shift the necessary Immigration Judges to the border, the 1.1 million backlog elsewhere will continue to mushroom. If they work on the backlog, the “border waiting line” will grow, causing extreme pressure from the Mexican Government, Congress, and perhaps the Article III Courts. Every death of an asylum seeker (there were three just within the last week or so) will be laid at DHS’s feet.

NOTE TO THE NDPA:

The outstanding historical analysis by Judge Emmet Sullivan in Grace v. Whitaker illustrates what we already know: For years, the Executive Branch through EOIR has been intentionally applying “unduly restrictive standards” to asylum seekers to artificially reduce the number of grants in violation of both the Refugee Act of 1980 and our international obligations. This disingenuous treatment has particularly targeted bona fide asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, those asserting claims based on a “particular social group,” unrepresented individuals, women, and children.

Worse yet, this totally cynical and disingenuous Administration is using the intentionally and unlawfully “skewed system” and “illegal denials” as well as just downright fabricated statistics and knowingly false narratives to paint a bogus picture of asylum seekers and their lawyers as the “abusers” and the Government as the “defenders of the rule of law.” What poppycock, when we all know the exact opposite is the real truth! Only courageous (mostly pro bono) lawyers and some conscientious judges at both the Immigration Court and Article III levels are standing up for the real rule of law against a scofflaw Administration and its outrageous plan to send genuine refugees back into harm’s way.

Nowhere in the racially charged xenophobic actions and rhetoric of Trump, Sessions, and Whitaker, nor in the intentionally derogatory and demonstrably dishonest rhetoric of Nielsen, nor in the crabbed, intentionally overly restrictive interpretations of asylum law by today’s BIA is there even a hint of the generous humanitarian letter and spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or the “non-narrow” interpretation of “particular social group” so well described and documented by Judge Sullivan. On the contrary, we can well imagine folks like this gleefully and self-righteously pushing the refugee vessel St. Louis out to sea or happily slamming the door in the face of desperate Jewish refugees from Europe who would later die in the Holocaust.

Now is the time to force the Article III Courts and Congress to confront this Administration’s daily violations of law and human rights. We can develop favorable case precedents in the Article III Courts, block unethical and intentionally illegal interference by the Attorney General with Due Process in Immigration Court, and advocate changes in the law and procedures that will finally require the Executive Branch and the Immigration Courts to live up to the abandoned but still valid promise of “becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all.” And, the “all” certainly includes the most vulnerable among us: refugees claiming asylum!

In the end, through a combination of the ballot box, Congress, the Article III Courts, and informed public opinion we will be able to thwart the rancid White Nationalist immigration agenda of this Administration and return honest, reasonable Government that works within the Constitution and governs in the overall best interests of our country to the United States.

Thanks for all you do! Keep fighting the “good fight!”

Go for it!

Due Process Forever! Scofflaw Administration Never!

PWS

12-21-18

FORMER BORDER AGENT DECRIES “CULTURE OF DEHUMANIZATION” — “What happened to Jakelin is not an aberration, but rather the predictable outgrowth of the dehumanizing practices that define U.S. border policy. “

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=260e391c-8096-4f5b-8c8a-51ca0171aa2d

Former USBP Agent Francisco Cantu writes in the LA Times:

Ever since the U.S. Border Patrol admitted that Jakelin Ameí Rosmery Caal Maquin, a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl seeking asylum with her father, had died in their custody, government officials have been trying to deflect blame for her death.

What is clear so far, according to news reports, is that Jakelin and her father turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents on Dec. 7 along with 163 other migrants in the New Mexico desert. According to a Department of Homeland Security incident report, they were screened at a remote substation and found to be in good condition. DHS cannot confirm whether Jakelin consumed food or water at the facility, but eight hours later, she became “feverish and vomiting” on a transport bus headed for the Lordsburg Border Patrol station. She was met by Border Patrol emergency medical technicians who twice revived her, recorded her temperature at 105.9 degrees and called for a helicopter to El Paso’s Providence Children’s Hospital, where she died about 27 hours later.

The U.S. government claims Jakelin had journeyed for days through the desert without food and water and was beyond help before she was taken into custody. However, her father says he saw to it that she was eating and drinking. The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics says her death was without doubt preventable. But Department of Homeland Security Director Kirstjen Nielsen blames the victim in this “heartwrenching” story: “This family,” she said on Friday, “chose to cross illegally.”

A Customs and Border Protection spokesman insisted to the Washington Post that “Border Patrol agents took every possible step to save the child’s life under the most trying of circumstances.” That may well be technically true. But even if individual Lordsburg agents rushed to save Jakelin’s life, it won’t erase another truth: The institutional culture of the Border Patrol regularly dismisses even the most basic needs of detained migrants.

In early 2009, when I arrived at my first Border Patrol duty station in Arizona, I was assigned to a training unit and placed under the supervision of senior agents selected to coach newcomers like me. When I read about Jakelin’s death, I couldn’t help but recall the night our training unit first apprehended a group of migrants.

My memories from this night are not precise. I remember the group of migrants was small, maybe eight to 10 people, all of them adult males. We picked them up in the open desert not far from the area’s lone highway, and I can no longer recall how long they had been walking or how many days they might have been without food or water.

What I do remember with certainty is what happened at the processing center. The men had noticed that I spoke fluent Spanish and asked me for water. I went to a nearby storeroom, grabbed a case of bottled water, and was about to walk through the door to the processing room when one of my training agents blocked the way.

What are you doing? she asked me. I told her I was bringing water to the group we brought in. They’ll be fine, she said, come join us in the computer room. But they asked for water, I said, gesturing at the door. It wouldn’t have taken more than a second for me to drop off the water.

Her face and tone changed. Leave it, she ordered, “They’ll live.”

As strange as it may sound, I don’t remember if I obeyed her or what I ended up doing with the water, but I never forgot the message I was given that night: Don’t dare be soft.

Senior agents like her lamented the end of the “old patrol” when migrants weren’t so “coddled” and agents could get away with “tuning up” detainees who got out of line. Callousness toward migrants is evident even in the language agents use to refer to them: “aliens,” “illegals,” “bodies” or “toncs” (a term with disputed origins, which some say means “temporarily out of native country,” though others say it alludes to the sound of a Maglite hitting a migrant’s skull).

As agents-in-training, we were taught to carry ourselves as hardened law enforcers and to treat migrants as lawbreakers. We were told to regard migrant requests with suspicion — if they asked for something or complained, they were likely trying to take advantage of us. We were meant to offer our captives the bare minimum and pass them on like a hot potato — field agents passed migrants to transport agents, who passed them to processing agents, who passed them to bus contractors, who passed them to sector headquarters, where they would be immediately deported or thrust into the immigration detention system.

After more than a year of working as a field agent, I signed up for emergency medical technician training. When I was called to help, agents usually described a migrant’s situation with dismissal and annoyance: This one keeps complaining about blisters, this one claims she needs medication, this one won’t shut up about seeing a doctor. Migrants, the thinking went, always bore responsibility for their own misfortune — an attitude echoed in Nielsen’s insistence last week that Jakelin’s family “chose to cross illegally.”

There will be an investigation into Jakelin’s death, but in broad terms its causes are clear enough: heedlessness, a lack of compassion, poor accountability at the border. Since January 2010, San Diego’s Southern Border Communities Coalition has cataloged at least 81 deaths at the hands of U.S. border agents, and since 2000, more than 6,000 have died as a result of “deterrence” policies that force migrants to cross in remote and dangerous areas, like the one Jakelin and her father passed through.

What happened to Jakelin is not an aberration, but rather the predictable outgrowth of the dehumanizing practices that define U.S. border policy. It will not be enough to conduct an audit of the Lordsburg Border Patrol station and shuffle its hierarchy, or to increase the ranks of Border Patrol EMTs and give them pediatric training. We must demand, instead, that the entire culture of cruelty that underlies our border enforcement system be remade.

Francisco Cantú was as an agent for the U.S. Border Patrol from 2008-12. He is the author of “The Line Becomes a River: Dispatches From the Border.”

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

I represented the Border Patrol for a number of years at the “Legacy INS” when I was the Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel. Among other things, I taught Search and Seizure Law at the Border Patrol Academy and visited a number of Border Patrol Stations. I rode along on patrol, flew in helicopters, walked the border at night, even went off the tower on a zip line during one basic training session at Ft. Polk.

Overall, I enjoyed working with the agents. I thought they were dedicated and hard-working, doing a largely thankless job for which they received insufficient salary and credit, and overall doing it well. I learned from hearing their stories and questions based on “law in action.”

One of the things that the late INS General Counsel “Iron Mike” Inman and I achieved was starting a “Sector Counsel” program in some of the busier sectors so that the agents could get some “on site” legal advice and assistance dealing with U.S. Attorneys and Federal Courts.

That’s not to say that there were no “bad moments.” I did notice an overall “lost battalion” mentality, particularly among some of the older supervisors. Their attitude toward me and my colleagues in the Legal Program probably fluctuated with how much trouble they were in and how much they needed our help to bail them out.

I remember one particularly tense moment visiting a station where some of the officers were under investigation for Civil Rights violations. I accepted their offer of a cup of coffee. When the agent left the room to get it, my friend and then Western Regional Counsel the late Bill Odencrantz whispered: “I wouldn’t drink that if I were you, Schmidt.”

I also recognized that patterns of behavior were probably different when “visitors from headquarters” were there. Undoubtedly, we saw and heard what they wanted us to see and hear when we were riding in the patrol cars, flying in helicopters, or looking through surplus Vietnam era “infrared night scopes” at the folks crossing the border. And, I do remember hearing the second of the two definitions offered by Cantu for the term “toncs.” I think it actually came up in connection with one of the internal investigations in which I was involved.

As I judge, I tended to view the Forms I-213, “Reports of Deportable Alien,” from CBP with “healthy skepticism,” knowing the pressures and conditions under which they were prepared. I also observed over time that many of them said the same things in the same words, much like the “canned paragraphs” that my colleague the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu used to rail against during my time at the BIA.

As with ICE, in the future there needs to be better professional leadership and training at CBP, as well as a more focused mission. “Culture change” is critical to an effective, cost-efficient, humane, and professional immigration enforcement strategy. However, my experience is that such “culture change,” while not impossible, is a “hard nut to crack,” even under the best of circumstances.

It won’t be achieved simply by “messages from on high.” And, it certainly isn’t going to come under a leader who constantly sends racially charged xenophobic messages and encourages false narratives, dehumanization, and White Nationalism.

PWS

12-18-18

WINNING ASYLUM & SAVING LIVES IN THE “ERA OF A-B-“ – Seven Steps To Success

WINNING ASYLUM

WINNING ASYLUM & SAVING LIVES IN THE “ERA OF A-B-“ – Seven Steps To Success*

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

United States Immigration Judge (Retired)

NEW YORK CITY BAR

DECEMBER 4, 2018

Good evening, and thanks so much for inviting me. In the “old days,” I would have started with my comprehensive disclaimer. But, now that I’m retired, I’m just going to hold the Bar Association, my fellow panelists, and anyone else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my remarks tonight. They are solely my views, for which I take full responsibility. No sugar-coating, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no “party line,” no BS – just the unvarnished truth, as I see it!

“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence; therefore, they are entitled to enter the United States. Well, that’s obviously false but some judges have gone along with that.” “Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day—like water seeping through an earthen dam—to get around the plain words of the INA to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the act. That is our most serious duty.”

Those, my friends, are obviously not my words. They are the words of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Incredibly, this totally biased, xenophobic, misinformed, and glaringly unqualified individual was in charge of our U.S. Immigration Court system which helps explains why it is such a total mess today. And Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s certification of two cases yesterday promises a continuation of improper political interference with the Immigration Courts in derogation of Due Process.

One of Sessions’s most cowardly and reprehensible actions was his atrocious distortion of asylum law, the reality of life in the Northern Triangle, and Due Process for migrants in Matter of A-B-. There, he overruled the BIA’s important precedent in Matter of A-R-C-G-, a decision actually endorsed by the DHSat the time, and which gave much need protection to women fleeing persecution in the form of domestic violence. Take it from me, Matter of A-R-C-G-was one of the few parts of our dysfunctional Immigration Court system that actually worked and provided a way of consistently granting much needed protection to some of the most vulnerable and most deserving refugees in the world.

Sessions is gone. But, his ugly legacy of bias and unfairness remains. Fortunately, because he was a lousy lawyer on top of everything else, he failed to actually accomplish what he thought he was doing: wiping out protection for refugee women, largely from Central America. That’s why it’s critically important for you, as members of the “New Due Process Army” to fight every inch of the way, for as long as it takes, to restore justice and to force our U.S Immigration Courts to live up to their unfulfilled, and now mocked, promise of “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all!”

I’m going to give you seven very basic tips for overcoming Matter of A-B-. I’m sure that my colleagues, who are much more involved in the day to day litigation going on in the courts than I am, can give you lots of additional information about addressing specific issues.

First, recognize that Matter of A-B- really doesn’t change the fundamental meaning of asylum.It just rejected the way in which the BIA reached its precedent in A-R-C-G-— by stipulation without specific fact-findings based on the administrative record. Most of it is mere dicta. On a case by case basis, domestic violence can still be a proper basis for granting asylum in many cases. Indeed, such cases still are being granted by those Immigration Judges committed to following the rule of law and upholding their oaths of office, rather than accepting Sessions’s invitation to “take a dive.”

Just make sure you properly and succinctly state your basis, establish nexus, and paper the record with the overwhelming amount of reliable country condition information and expert opinion that directly contradicts the bogus picture painted by Sessions.

Second, resist with all your might those lawless judges in some Immigration Courts who are using, or threatening to use, Sessions’s dictum in Matter of A-B- to deny fair hearings or truncate the hearing process for those claiming asylum through domestic violence.If anything, following the overruling of A-R-C-G-,leaving no definitive precedent on the subject, full, fair case-by-case hearings are more important than ever. Under Due Process, asylum applicants are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present their claims in Immigration Court. Don’t let wayward, biased, or misinformed Immigration Judges deny your clients’ constitutional and statutory rights.

Third, keep it simple. Even before A-B-, I always said that any proposed “particular social group” (“PSG”) longer than 25 words or containing “circular” elements is D.O.A. I think that it’s time to get down to the basics; the real PSG here is gender! “Women in X country” is clearly a cognizable PSG. It’s undoubtedly immutable or fundamental to identity; particularized, and socially distinct. So, it meets the BIA’s three-part test.

And, “gender” clearly is one of the biggest drivers of persecution in the world. There is no doubt that it is “at least one central reason” for the persecution of women and LGBT individuals throughout the world.

Fourth, think political. There is plenty of recent information available on the internet showing the close relationship between gangs and the governments of the Northern Triangle. In some cases, gangs are the “de facto government” in significant areas of the country. In others, gangs and local authorities cooperate in extorting money and inflicting torture and other serious harm on honest individuals who resist them and threaten to expose their activities. In many cases, claiming political or religious persecution will be a stronger alternative ground than PSG.

Fifth, develop your record. The idea that domestic violence and gang-based violence is just “common crime” advanced by Sessions in A-B-is simply preposterous with regard to the Northern Triangle. Establish records that no reasonable factfinder can refute or overlook! Use expert testimony or expert affidavits to show the real country conditions and to discredit the watered down and sometimes downright false scenarios set forth in Department of State Country Reports, particularly under this Administration where integrity, expertise, and independence have been thrown out the window.

Sixth, raise the bias issue. As set forth in a number of the Amicus Briefs filed in Matter of A-B-, Sessions clearly was a biased decision maker. Not only had he publicly dismissed the claims of female refugees suffering from domestic violence, but his outlandish comments spreading false narratives about immigrants, dissing asylum seekers and their “dirty lawyers,” and supporting DHS enforcement clearly aligned with him with one party to litigation before the Immigration Courts. By the rules governing judicial conduct there was more than an “appearance of bias” here – there was actual bias. We should keep making the record on the gross violation of Due Process caused by giving a biased enforcement official like Sessions a quasi-judicial role.

Seventh, and finally, appeal to the “real” Article III Courts. What’s happening in Immigration Court today is a parody of justice and a mockery of legitimate court proceedings. It’s important to “open the eyes” of the Article III Judges to this travesty which is threatening the lives of legitimate refugees and other migrants.

Either the Article III’s do their jobs, step in, and put an end to this travesty, or they become complicitin it. There’s only one “right side of the law and history” in this fight. Those who are complicit must know that their actions are being placed in the historical record – for all time and for their descendants to know – just like the historical reckoning that finally is happening for so- called “Confederate heroes” and those public officials who supported racism and “Jim Crow.”

Now is the time to take a stand for fundamental fairness and decency! Join the New Due Process Army and fight to vindicate the rights of asylum seekers under our laws against the forces of darkness and xenophobic bias! Due process forever!

*This is not a “verbatim transcript” of what I said. Rather it is a compendium and extension of the “talking notes” that I used as a member of the panel.

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: DHS’S ARROGANT “IN YOUR FACE” APPROACH TO “PEREIRA NOTICE” CASES APPEARS TO BE BACKFIRING WITH ARTICLE IIIs — US District Judge in Nevada Latest To Find That “Pereira Defective NTAs” Gave Immigration Judge No Jurisdiction Over Removal Case!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/8/interpreting-pereira-a-hint-of-things-to-come

I haven’t posted for a while. I’ve been extremely busy, but there was something else: my response to so many recent events has been just pure anger. Although I’ve written the occasional “cry from the heart,” I don’t want this blog to turn into the rantings of an angry old man.

So I resume posting with a case that provides a glimmer of hope (and, hopefully, a hint of things to come?). Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a court generally known for its conservatism, issued an order granting an emergency stay of removal in the case of Manuel Leonidas Duran-Ortega v. U.S. Attorney General. As is common in such types of grants, the three-judge panel issued a decision consisting of two sentences, granting the stay, and further granting the request of interested organizations to allow them to file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief.

What made this decision noteworthy is that one of the judges on the panel felt the need to write a rather detailed concurring opinion. Among the issues discussed in that opinion is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions (which I wrote about here: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/9/1/the-bia-vs-the-supreme-court) on Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case. As in Pereira, the document filed by DHS with the immigration court in order to commence removal proceedings lacked a time and date of hearing. In her concurring opinion, Judge Beverly B. Martin observed that under federal regulations, jurisdiction vests, and immigration proceedings commence, only when a proper charging document is filed. The document filed in Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case purported to be a legal document called a Notice to Appear. But as Judge Martin noted, “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira appears to suggest, as Duran-Ortega argues, that self-described “notice to appears” issued without a time or place are not, in fact, notice to appears” within the meaning of the statute.

Judge Martin (a former U.S. Attorney and Georgia state Assistant Attorney General) continued that the Pereira decision “emphasized” that the statute does not say that a Notice to Appear is “complete” when it contains a time and date of the hearing; rather, he quotes the Pereira decision as holding that the law defines that a document called a “Notice to Appear” must specify “at a minimum the time and date of the removal proceeding.” The judge follows that quote with the highlight of her decision: “In other words, just as a block of wood is not a pencil if it lacks some kind of pigmented core to write with, a piece of paper is not a notice to appear absent notification of the time and place of a petitioner’s removal proceeding.”

As this Reuters article reported (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-terminations/u-s-courts-abruptly-tossed-9000-deportation-cases-heres-why-idUSKCN1MR1HK) enough immigration judges had a similar reading of Pereira to terminate 9,000 removal cases in the two months between the Supreme Court’s decision and the issuance of a contrary ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, in which the BIA’s judges, out of fear of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, chose appeasement of their boss over their duty to reach fair and independent decisions.

Judge Martin referenced that BIA decision, Matter of Bermudez-Cota, but stated: “This court need not defer to Bermudez-Cota if the agency’s holding is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the statutes and regulations involved, or if its holding is unambiguously foreclosed by the law…In light of Pereira and the various regulations and statutes at issue here, it may well be the case that deference is unwarranted.”

For those readers who are not immigration practitioners, attorneys with ICE (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) (which is part of the Department of Justice, along with the BIA) have been filing briefs opposing motions to terminate under Pereira using language best described as snarky. A recent brief fled by OIL called the argument that proceedings commenced with a document lacking a time and date must be terminated under Pereira “an unnatural, distorted interpretation of the Supreme Court’s opinion,” and a “labored interpretation of Pereira.” A brief recently filed by ICE called the same argument an “overbroad and unsupported expansion of Pereira [which] is unwarranted and ignores the Court’s clear and unmistakable language.”

There is an old adage among lawyers that when the facts don’t favor your client, pound the law; when the law doesn’t favor your client, pound the facts; and when neither the law nor the facts favor your client, pound the table. I find the tone of the government’s briefs as sampled above to be the equivalent of pounding the table. The government is claiming that to interpret the Supreme Court’s language that “a notice that lacks a time and date is not a Notice to Appear” as meaning exactly what it says is an unnatural, distorted interpretation that is labored and ignores the clear language of the Court. The government then counters by claiming that the natural, obvious, clear interpretation is the exact opposite of what Pereira actually says.

So although it is just the view of one judge in one circuit in the context of a concurring opinion, it nevertheless feels very good to see a circuit court judge calling out the BIA, OIL, and DHS on their coordinated nonsense. Three U.S. district courts have already agreed with the private bar’s reading of Pereira, in U.S. v. Virgen Ponce (Eastern District of Washington); in U.S. v. Pedroza-Rocha (Western District of Texas); and just yesterday, in U.S. v. Soto-Mejia (D. Nev.). At this point, this is only cause for cautious optimism. But as an immigration lawyer named Aaron Chenault was articulately quoted as saying in the above Reuters article, for now, Pereira (and its proper interpretation by some judges) has provided “a brief glimmer of hope, like when you are almost drowning and you get one gasp.” Well said.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

JEFF CHASE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL SOTO-MEJIA, Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00150-RFB-NJK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

December 6, 2018

ORDER

        Before the Court is Mr. Soto-Mejia’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 21] the Indictment in this case, for the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.

        I. Factual Findings

        Based upon the record, including the joint stipulation of fact submitted by the parties [ECF No. 41], the Court makes the following factual findings. Mr. Soto-Mejia was encountered by immigration officials on February 7, 2018 in California. On that same day, February 7, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear for Removal Proceedings (NTA) against Soto-Mejia. The Notice to Appear stated that Soto-Mejia was to appear before an immigration judge on a date and time “[t]o be set” and at a place “[t]o be determined.” Soto-Mejia was personally served with the Notice to Appear at 10400 Rancho Road in Adelanto, California, 92401. The Notice to Appear contained allegations and provided a potential legal basis for Soto-Mejia’s removal from the United States. The Notice to Appear was filed with the Immigration Court in Adelanto, California on February 12, 2018.

        On February 27, 2018 an order advancing the removal hearing was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. On February 27, 2018, a letter entitled “Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings” addressed to Soto-Mejia at the Adelanto Detention Facility on 10250 Rancho Road

Page 2

in Adelanto, California, 92301 was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. The letter indicated that a hearing before Immigration Court was scheduled for March 7, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. The Notice of Hearing did not reference the nature or basis of the legal issues or charges for the removal proceedings. The Notice of Hearing also did not reference any particular Notice to Appear.

        On March 7, 2018, the “Order of the Immigration Judge” indicates that Soto-Mejia appeared at the Immigration Court hearing and that he was ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Soto-Mejia was deported on March 8, 2018. Subsequently, Soto-Mejia was encountered in the United States again and was ordered removed on March 19, 2018. The March 19 Order, as a reinstate of the prior order, derived its authority to order removal from the March 7 Order. The Indictment in this case explicitly references and relies upon the March 7 and March 19 removal orders as a basis for establishing a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by Soto-Mejia.

        II. Legal Standard

        Since a prior order of removal is a predicate element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a defendant may collaterally attack the underlying removal order.United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a collateral challenge to a deportation order, the individual must demonstrate that (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies he could have used to challenge the order (or is excused from such exhaustion); (2) the deportation proceedings deprived the individual of judicial review (or is excused from seeking judicial review); (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. 1326(d); Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680.

        A removal order is “fundamentally unfair” if (1) an individual’s due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying proceeding, and (2) the individual suffered prejudice as a result. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1048.

        III. Discussion

        The Defendant argues that this case must be dismissed because his criminal prosecution derives from a defective immigration proceeding in which the immigration court did not have

Page 3

jurisdiction to commence removal proceedings against him because the Notice to Appear initiating the proceeding was defective. He argues that the March 7 Order is thus void as the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue an order. He further argues that, as the initial March 7, 2018 deportation order is void, the subsequent reinstatement removal order of March 19, 2018 is also void as it derived its authority from the March 7 Order. Specifically, Soto-Mejia argues that the initial Notice to Appear that issued in his case did not include a time and location for the proceeding. Relying upon the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018), Soto-Mejia argues that a notice to appear must contain a location and time for a removal hearing in order to create jurisdiction for the immigration court. Id. at 2110. As the Notice to Appear in this case did not contain such information, the immigration court, according to Soto-Mejia, did not have jurisdiction to issue a removal or deportation order.

        The government responds with several arguments. First, the government argues that Soto-Mejia waived his argument regarding jurisdiction—claiming that it is personal rather subject matter jurisdiction which is at issue—by not raising a jurisdictional objection in the immigration proceeding and conceding to the immigration court’s jurisdiction by appearing. Second, the government avers that the immigration court’s jurisdiction is determined by the federal regulations and that the Notice to Appear in this case contained the information it must pursuant to those regulations to vest the immigration court with jurisdiction. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1003.15(b) and (c). Third, the government argues that the holding in Pereia is limited to the cases in which a court must determine the validity of a particular notice to appear as it relates to the triggering of the “stop-time rule.” Id. at 2116. Fourth, the government argues that there is no prejudice to Soto-Mejia as any defect was cured by the Notice of Hearing and Soto-Mejia’s participation in the removal proceedings. The Court rejects all of the government’s arguments.

        A. The Removal Orders of March 7 and March 19 Violated Due Process As the Immigration Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction

        The Court finds that Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira to be applicable and controlling in this case. First, the Court finds pursuant to the plain language of the regulations that the jurisdiction of the immigration court “vests” only “when a charging document is filed with the

Page 4

Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.14. A “Notice to Appear” is such a “charging document.” Id. at § 1003.13. Relying upon the reasoning of Pereira, this Court finds that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” is controlled by statute and not regulation, as the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Pereira the regulation-based interpretation by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (2011). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-14. And, pursuant to Pereira, a Notice to Appear must include the time and location for the hearing. Id. at 2114-17. As the Notice to Appear in this case failed to include the time and location for the hearing, the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue its March 7 deportation order.

        The Court rejects the government’s argument that Soto-Mejia waived his jurisdictional argument by not raising it earlier and by participating in the underlying immigration proceeding. The government’s argument conflates personal jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction. Soto-Mejia’s argument is founded upon his assertion that the immigration court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and not personal jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a limitation on “federal power” that “cannot be waived” so “a party does not waive the requirement [of subject matter jurisdiction] by failing to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 702-03 (1982). Moreover, the plain language of the regulation establishing the immigration court’s jurisdiction explicitly notes that an immigration court’s authority only “vests” with the filing of a “charging document” and the regulation makes no reference to a waiver exception to this requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a).

        The Court also rejects the government’s argument that the holding in Pereira is limited to cases determining the applicability of the stop-time rule. As noted, the Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira was based upon the plain language of the text of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 and 1003.14 and 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-13. Section 1003.13 specifies which documents can constitute a “charging document” for immigration proceedings after April 1, 1997. The parties all concede in this case that the only document in this record that is a “charging document” is the Notice to Appear. Id. The Court in Pereira explained that the text of Section 1229(a) lays out the statutory definition of and requirements for a “Notice to Appear” which includes the time and

Page 5

location for the hearing. 138 S. Ct. at 2114. The Supreme Court unambiguously proclaimed: “A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a).“‘” Id. at 2113-14 (emphasis added). While the Supreme Court applied this definition to the determination of the applicability of the stop-time rule, the express language of this holding does not suggest any limitation on the Court’s definition of what is and is not a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) with respect to the requirement for the notice to contain a time and location.

        There is no basis to assume or conclude that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) would be different without reference to the stop-time rule. That is because the fundamental question that the Supreme Court was answering in Pereira is whether a notice must contain the time and location of the hearing to be a “notice to appear” under Section 1229(a). 138 S. Ct. at 2113-17. In answering this foundational question, the Court did not rely upon the stop-time rule to determine the definition of a notice to appear under Section 1229(a). To the contrary, the Court spent considerable time explaining why consideration of the stop-time rule’s “broad reference” to all of the paragraphs of Section 1229(a) did not alter the fact that the essential definition of and requirements for the notice arise in the first paragraph. 138 S. Ct. at 2114 (noting that the “broad reference to §1229(a) is of no consequence, because as even the Government concedes, only paragraph (1) bears on the meaning of a ‘notice to appear'”). This first paragraph requires that the notice contain the time and location for the removal proceeding.

        The Court is also unpersuaded that a defect in a “Notice to Appear” can be ‘cured’ as the government suggests by the filing and/or serving of the Notice of Hearing on Soto-Mejia. That is because such an argument is contrary to the plain text of the regulation, Section 1003.14(a), which unequivocally states that an immigration court’s jurisdiction only “vests” or arises with the filing of a “charging document.” A Notice of Hearing is not one of the “charging documents” referenced in Section 1003.13. A Notice of Hearing cannot therefore commence an immigration proceeding by subsequently providing a time and location for a removal hearing. Consequently, if the immigration court’s jurisdiction never arose because the Notice to Appear was invalid, then there is no proceeding in which a Notice of Hearing could properly be filed. There is nothing to cure.

Page 6

        Moreover, the Court also finds that the Notice of Hearing in this case did not reference a specific Notice to Appear. Indeed, the government conceded and the Court finds that the Notice of Hearing form does not generally, or in this case, reference a prior specific Notice to Appear and it does not contain information about the legal issues or charges which serve as a basis for the removal proceedings. The two documents only common identifying information is the A-file number of the particular person—Soto-Mejia in this case. This means that if an individual had multiple potential charges or legal issues related to his immigration status, the Notice of Hearing could not inform him about which charges were at issue in the upcoming hearing and the Notice of Hearing could be filed months or years after the Notice to Appear. Indeed, this is the very reason that the Supreme Court in Pereira rejected the argument that the “Notice to Appear” did not have to include the time and location of the removal proceeding, because that would defeat the ultimate objective of requiring notice—allowing the person to prepare for the hearing and potentially consult with counsel. 138 S. Ct. at 2114-15. As the Court noted, if there was no requirement for this information “the [g]overnment could serve a document labeled ‘notice to appear’ without listing the time and location of the hearing and then, years down the line, provide that information a day before the removal hearing when it becomes available.” Id. at 2115. Under such an interpretation “a noncitizen theoretically would have had the ‘opportunity to secure counsel,’ but that opportunity will not be meaningful” as the person would not truly have the opportunity to consult with counsel and prepare for the proceeding.” Id. As a Notice of Hearing, like the one here, is not explicitly connected to a particular Notice to Appear and the associated charges, the Court finds that it cannot serve to ‘cure’ a defective Notice to Appear such as in this case.

        B. The Defendant Suffered Prejudice¹

        The Court further finds that the Soto-Mejia suffered prejudice as a result of the defect in the underlying proceeding. Specifically, he was subjected to removal twice based upon the initial

Page 7

March 7 Order which the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue. The government’s argument that Soto-Mejia was not prejudiced because he “participated” in the removal proceedings misses the point. It is immaterial if he participated in the proceedings. He suffered prejudice by the issuance of the deportation orders because the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to order his removal on March 7, 2018.

        IV. Conclusion

        For the reasons stated, the Court finds that the March 7 and March 19 deportation orders are void due to the immigration court’s lack of jurisdiction. As these orders are void, the Court finds that the government cannot establish a predicate element—the prior removal or deportation of Soto-Mejia—of the sole offense in the Indictment. The Indictment in this case must therefore be dismissed.

        Accordingly,

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Indictment in this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as this Court has no authority to detain Defendant Soto-Mejia pursuant to this case, he is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED.

        DATED this 6th day of December, 2018.

        /s/_________

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

——–

Footnotes:

        ^1. The Court finds that Soto-Mejia is not required to have exhausted any possible administrative remedies, because (a) the Supreme Court decision in Pereira issued after his March 7, 2018 proceeding and (b) defects as to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. at 702-03.

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

Unlike the BIA’s convoluted reasoning in Matter of Bemudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), Judge Boulware’s analysis is very straightforward and complies with both the statutory language and the Supreme Court decision. What’s not to like about that?

As I’ve pointed out before, Sessions was so busy artificially “jacking up” the backlog and intimidating the Immigration Judges working for him that he never bothered to address the many solvable legal and administrative problems facing the Immigration Courts. That could mean not only more failed criminal prosecutions, but perhaps more significantly, could invalidate the vast majority of the 1.1 million case backlog that Sessions artificially increased with his short-sighted, racially motivated “gonzo” polices and interpretations.

And Whitaker is following in his footsteps by taking issues off the “restrictionist checklist” for screwing asylum seekers and migrants, rather than addressing the real legal and administrative deficiencies that make the Immigration Court a parody of justice in America.

Sadly, I wouldn’t expect any improvement under Barr, whose recent totally revolting “paean to Jeff Sessions” (co-authored with former GOP AGs Meese & Mukasey) projects that until we get “regime change,” justice in America will continue to be reserved for well-to-do straight evangelical White men. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-can-look-back-on-a-job-well-done/2018/11/07/527e5830-e2cf-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.aaad2f8e6250

People of color and other vulnerable minorities should continue to beware of the “Department of Injustice.”

Here’s a very compelling article by ACLU Legal Director David Cole on why Bill Barr is likely to be a “Button Down Corporate Version of Jeff Sessions.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/no-relief-william-barr-bad-jeff-sessions-if-not-worse

Darn, perhaps carried away with all the tributes to Bush I, I had hoped for a conservative, law enforcement oriented, but non-racist, non-White-Nationalist approach to immigration. Something like firm, but fair, unbiased, professional, and rationally managed. Guess that just isn’t going to happen under a GOP that has made racist appeals, xenophobia, false narratives, and anti-democracy part of its official agenda. I have a tendency to give everyone the “benefit of the doubt” at least until proven otherwise. I guess I have to alter that when dealing with anyone associated with today’s GOP.

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

PWS

12-10-18

GONZO’S WORLD: STILL A BIG LOSER! – He’s Gone, But His Scofflaw Positions Continue To Be Hammered By The Real (“Article III”) Courts! – Federal Judges Smoke Illegal “Sanctuary Cities” & “Transgender Troops” Abuses By Administration!

https://apple.news/Aw1vvPVvPTMGBMle4Z4fXow

Sophie Tatum reports for CNN:

US judge rules against Trump administration in suit over policing grants to ‘sanctuary cities’

Updated 5:21 PM EST November 30, 2018
Washington

A federal judge ruled against the Justice Department on Friday in a lawsuit over withholding federal money from so-called sanctuary cities, the latest blow to the Trump administration’s hardline immigration tactics.

The lawsuit challenged the Justice Department’s efforts to punish sanctuary cities by withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.

In July 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that applicants for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants would have to comply with federal immigration enforcement in ways that were unlike years past, like allowing federal law enforcement agents to have access to detainees in jails for questioning about their immigration status.

According to the ruling, the seven states involved in the lawsuit, as well as New York City, had been receiving the grant money since Congress created the fund for the “modern version of the program in 2006,” and the funds “collectively totaled over $25 million.”

“In 2017, for the first time in the history of the program, the U.S. Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) and Attorney General (collectively, ‘Defendants’) imposed three immigration-related conditions that grantees must comply with in order to receive funding,” wrote Judge Edgardo Ramos, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, in his ruling.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood led the suit and was joined by New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington state and Virginia.

Underwood said in a statement on Friday that the ruling was “a major win for New Yorkers’ public safety.” CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

This isn’t the first ruling of its kind — in April, a panel of three judges from the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in favor of the city of Chicago that blocked the Justice Department from adding new requirements for the policing grants.

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

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/419170-judge-refuses-to-hold-or-limit-ruling-on-transgender-military-ban

Lydia Wheeler reports in The Hill:

A federal district court judge on Friday denied the Trump administration’s request to block or limit the scope of a ruling that temporarily prohibits the government from enforcing its ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the court is not convinced the government will suffer irreparable harm without a stay of the court’s October 2017 preliminary injunction.

The government had asked for a stay pending any potential, future proceedings in the Supreme Court. Bypassing normal judicial order, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court last week to review the case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Arguments before the appeals court are scheduled for Dec. 10.

At the very least, the government asked the district court to limit the nationwide scope of the injunction while the court weighs in, but Kollar-Kotelly refused. She said the government had not convinced the court that a more limited injunction is appropriate.

“Without supporting evidence, defendants’ bare assertion that the Court’s injunction poses a threat to military readiness is insufficient to overcome the public interest in ensuring that the government does not engage in unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct,” she said.

“After all, ‘it must be remembered that all Plaintiffs seek during this litigation is to serve their nation with honor and dignity, volunteering to face extreme hardships, to endure lengthy deployments and separation from family and friends, and to willingly make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives if necessary to protect the Nation, the people of the United States, and the Constitution against all who would attack them,’ ” she said.

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

Not surprisingly, policies stemming from racism and homophobia being advanced for crass political reasons aren’t doing very well in Federal Courts. There, the judges tend to prefer cogent legal arguments. The latter is something for which Gonzo was never known. Indeed, a number of the biased based positions he advanced in support of the Administration were so outlandish that the judges actually gave the Government additional time to develop a legal rationale. But, that also proved to be time wasted, because there never was any legal rationale for these policies and legal positions. Just hate and bias, and an ignorance of the real meaning of our Constitution.

There’s lots of irony, indeed total absurdity, in Sessions’s audaciously bogus claim that he “stood for the rule of law.” Safe to say that no Attorney General since “John the Con” Mitchell has done so much to undermine our Constitutional system and the real “rule of law.”

PWS

12-03-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

CGRS and HRW Release Video, Call on Government to Restore Protections for Domestic Violence Survivors

Join the New Due Process Army today and fight to restore the rule of law, human decency, Due Process, and a “guarantee of fairness and Due Process for all” to our broken, captive, and often lawless U.S. Immigration Courts!

PWS

01-25-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

When women arrive at our shores asking only that they not be beaten, raped or murdered, delivering them to their tormentors isn’t an option.

Justice constraints are harmful, irrational

Women would still prove need for asylum

Related posts:

2019 Immigration Stories

HAPPY NEW YEAR

😎👍🏼🍻🍾🏈❄️☃️🥳

PWS

01-01-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

Related posts:

Related posts: