"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Statement on DOJ OIG Report on Executive Office for Immigration Review Fiscal Year 2019 Financial Management Practices
DOJ OIG Report Highlights the Structural Flaw of Entrusting a Law Enforcement Agency with Administering the Immigration Court
WASHINGTON- The United State Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) June 9, 2020 report, assessing the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s (EOIR) financial management practices, revealed significant leadership and structural failures at EOIR. Although Congress fully funded EOIR’s 2019 budget request, EOIR nevertheless announced on March 6, 2019 that it was “considerably short of being able to fulfill all of [EOIR’s] current operational needs.” In its audit, OIG determined that EOIR’s statement was not accurate. Nor was a subsequent EOIR claim that its interpreter costs would spike to approximately 150% of its budgeted amount. OIG also found that the EOIR director knowingly failed to correct his inaccurate statements because of concerns of “backlash.”
“EOIR failed court administration 101” said NAIJ President, Ashley Tabaddor in response to the OIG report: “The mismanagement uncovered by OIG in yesterday’s report is only the tip of the iceberg of persistent systemic and structural failures at EOIR. EOIR has failed to implement an electronic filing system, failed to properly hire judge teams as instructed by Congress, failed to secure adequate space to properly run the court and has persistently shuffled immigration judge dockets resulting in the unprecedented backlog of over 1 million immigration court cases.” The prestigious Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse (TRAC) recently announced that EOIR’s data releases are so deficient that the public should not rely on the accuracy of those records, and despite calls for correction, EOIR’s data irregularities are approaching the point of no return.
These problems all stem from the structural flaw of having the immigration court housed in the Department of Justice, a law enforcement agency. The OIG report findings are just another example of systemic flaws plaguing the immigration court and bolster the widespread call on Congress to establish an independent immigration court.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), founded in 1971, is a voluntary organization formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court.
###
2
**********
“Malicious incompetence” unchecked! Truly a corrupt regime and a broken justice system in a downward spiral.
· ICE officials acknowledged that they couldn’t handle the volume of arrests their own agents made; the major clog was in getting a legal review from the agency’s understaffed legal unit.
· In 11 of the 55 venues that heard more than 500 cases last year, detainees spent six weeks or more in jail before an initial hearing. Such long waits would be unconstitutional in criminal cases; the right to due process requires authorities to not only get a case filed but also to provide an arraignment promptly, generally in no more than 48 hours.
· Among the 55 venues that handled 500 or more detainee cases last year, the longest waits from arrest to initial hearing were in hearing locations at privately run lockups under contract with ICE: Winn Correctional Center in Winnifield, Louisiana, a median of 140 days; T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, 72 days; Richwood Correctional Center in Richwood, Louisiana, 64 days…
**********************
Ironically, by his own overt corruption and open disdain for our Constitution and the rule of law, Trump has exposed the deep flaws, grotesque derelictions of duty, and unethical complicity throughout our Constitutional institutions that are supposed to protect all of us, particularly the most vulnerable among us like civil immigration detainees and asylum seekers, from abuses by would-be authoritarian tyrants like Trump!
Here’s a gem:
“The larger question behind this mass of numbers is why DHS is detaining so many people when both its legal office and the court lack the staffing—not only judges but support staff as well—to handle them.
‘I would just say, they are the prosecuting agency and in this context, they have complete control over the timeline,’ said Aaron Hall, an immigration lawyer who practices at the court in Aurora, Colorado, which has had substantial delays. ‘If the charging document isn’t ready to go, why are they arresting them?’”
Good question! But don’t expect a straight answer from the “malicious incompetents” at DHS. Nor will today get anything except misleading nonsense from their “partners” at EOIR (“ICE Jr.”).
DOJ was forewarned of this disaster by an independent consultant back in 2017. But, rather than solving the problem, then AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions intentionally made things even worse at EOIR. You might remember “Gonzo” as the “mastermind” behind the regime’s unconstitutional child separation policy. His victims were returned to abuse, scarred for life, or imprisoned for the “crime” of asserting their Constitutional and legal rights to fair treatment.
All of this is wrong, plain and simple! It’s part of “Dred Scotiffication” — now playing out across our nation in many ways. Finally, the systematic “dehumanization of the other” as aided, abetted, and actually encouraged by a majority of the Supremes, is getting some much-needed and long overdue “pushback.”
But the abuses of our Constitution and our values, and the unaccountability of corrupt public officials, present and former, of the Trump immigration kakistocracy, won’t cease until we get “regime change.” That requires substantial personnel and attitude changes across all three branches of our reeling Federal Government! And that definitely includes accountability for those who have failed to insure “equal justice for all” and instead permitted and sometimes aided and abetted the existence of “Constitution-Free Zones” right under their noses!
Due Process Forever! Complicit Officials & Institutions, Never!
CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA Partner Wilmer Hale Los AngelesSOUVIK SAHA Counsel Wilmer Hale Washington, D.C.Knightess of the Round Table
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Amici curiae have served as Immigration Judges and as members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving tghe fairness and
2
efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.
INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY
Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.
1
Amici are invested in the resolution of
2
efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.
INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY
Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.
1
Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
Amici have filed substantially similar briefs in other cases involving burden of proof issues in proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, no party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief. Only amici or their counsel contributed money to prepare or submit this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
2
A complete list of amici is included in this brief’s addendum.
Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page13 of 56
Such restraint violates the Due Process Clause “unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow nonpunitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Yet, federal law provides far greater protections to criminal defendants than it does to noncitizens in civil proceedings—even though the distinctions between criminal and non-criminal proceedings mean very little to a person sitting behind bars.
Accordingly, noncitizens already face significant hurdles in detention proceedings brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At issue in this appeal is whether another, even higher and more fundamental, barrier to due process can be erected in this Circuit: do noncitizens bear the burden of justifying their freedom from detention? For noncitizens, the answer to this question is no mere technicality—it can mean the difference between freedom and confinement. This burden’s allocation, therefore, “reflects the value society places on individual liberty.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).
Given their collective experience in adjudicating immigration bond hearings, amici are particularly well-suited to address the monumental question in this case. To that end, amici wish to share the following observations for this Court’s benefit:
-2-
Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page14 of 56
First, noncitizens already enjoy fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. We contrast the procedural rules for detaining criminal defendants and noncitizens to underscore the challenges that noncitizens face in immigration bond hearings, and to highlight the need for a presumption against detention as one of the last remaining bulwarks to protect noncitizens’ liberty.
Second, detention of noncitizens consumes the government’s already- limited administrative and judicial resources. Amici highlight the staggering costs that are associated with immigration detention, as well as the strain on immigration courts resulting from the unnecessary detention of noncitizens.
Third, contrary to the government’s position, placing the burden of proof on the government would not generate fiscal or administrative hardship. Amici advance that position with confidence because the government previously shouldered that exact burden over a fifteen-year period. Several of the amici served as Immigration Judges within that period and found that this older system did not cause additional costs or administrative hurdles.
Fourth, in amici’s experience, detaining noncitizens actually increases the burden on the immigration court system. While in detention, noncitizens face significant challenges in adequately preparing their cases. Further, the Executive Branch now utilizes “performance metrics” to encourage Immigration Judges to accelerate the fact-finding process in detention proceedings. With less time for
-3-
Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page15 of 56
individualized fact-finding, noncitizens will have even less opportunity to marshal the facts needed to satisfy the burden to avoid detention. Reallocating the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings, therefore, would reduce costs.
Fifth, and finally, amici offer alternatives to noncitizen detention that would inject much-needed resources to the immigration court system. The government’s aversion to such alternatives rest on a single statistic suggesting that the vast majority of noncitizens abscond upon release on bond. That statistic, however, is misleading and inconsistent with other available data, and bears little resemblance to the reality that amici encountered in years of adjudicating immigration cases.
Together, these observations should lead this Court to conclude that due process requires the government to make some sort of individualized showing before it may place noncitizens under lock and key.
Thanks again not only to the signatory members of our Round Table, but especially to CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA, SOUVIK SAHA, and the other members of their pro bono team over atWILMER HALE.Without assistance like yours, the “Voices of the Round Table” would not be heard in support of justice in so many cases throughout our nation!
The lead plaintiffs claim that Fifth Amendment due process entitles them, and all members of the proposed class, to a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, dangerousness or risk of flight. As explained above, neither the INA nor its implementing regulations speak to the burden of proof at § 1226(a) bond hearings, and the BIA has held that the burden lies with the noncitizen. See Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 37, 40. But, as the lead plaintiffs point out, when faced with challenges to the constitutionality of these hearings, district courts in the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have concluded that due process requires that the government bear the burden of justifying a noncitizen’s § 1226(a) detention. See, e.g., Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1017 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the Government to bear the burden of proving . . . that continued detention is justified at a § 1226(a) bond redetermination hearing.”); Diaz-Ceja v. McAleenan, No. 19-CV-00824-NYW, 2019 WL 2774211, at *11 (D. Colo. July 2, 2019) (same); Darko v. Sessions, 342 F. Supp. 3d 429, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (same); Pensamiento, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 692 (same). While jurisdictions vary on the standard of proof required, compare, e.g., Darko, 342 F. Supp. 3d at 436 (clear and convincing standard) with Pensamiento, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 693 (“to the satisfaction of the IJ” standard), the “consensus view” is that due process requires that the burden lie with the government, see Darko, 342 F. Supp. 3d at 435 (collecting cases).
The defendants concede that “a growing chorus of district courts” have concluded that due process requires that the government bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) bond hearings. (Opp’n at 22). But the defendants also point out that some courts to consider the issue have
15
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 29
concluded otherwise. In Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cty. Corr. Facility, the Third Circuit analyzed a § 1226(a) detainee’s claim that due process entitled him to a second bond hearing where “[t]he duration of [] detention [was] the sole basis for [the] due process challenge.” 906 F.3d 274, 276 (3d Cir. 2018). The Borbot court noted that the detainee “[did] not challenge the adequacy of his initial bond hearing,” id. at 276–77, and ultimately held that it “need not decide when, if ever, the Due Process Clause might entitle an alien detained under § 1226(a) to a new bond hearing,” id. at 280. But, in analyzing the detainee’s claims, the Borbot court stated that it “perceive[d] no problem” with requiring that § 1226(a) detainees bear the burden of proof at bond hearings. Id. at 279. Several district courts in the Third Circuit have subsequently concluded that Borbot compels a finding that due process does not require that the government bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) bond hearings. See, e.g., Gomez v. Barr, No. 1:19-CV- 01818, 2020 WL 1504735, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2020) (collecting cases).
Based on its survey of the case law, the court is more persuaded by the reasoning of the district courts in the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. “Freedom from imprisonment— from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (citation omitted). While detention pending removal is “a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process,” such detention must comport with due process. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Although the Supreme Court has not decided the proper allocation of the burden of proof in § 1226(a) bond hearings, it has held, in other civil commitment contexts, that “the individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence.” See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427 (1979)
16
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 29
(addressing the standard of proof required for mental illness-based civil commitment) (emphasis added).
Application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test lends further support to the lead plaintiffs’ contention that due process requires a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof. In Mathews, the Supreme Court held that “identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors”: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). While the court acknowledges that requiring the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) hearings would impose additional costs on the government, those costs are likely outweighed by the noncitizen’s significant interest in freedom from restraint, and the fact that erroneous deprivations of liberty are less likely when the government, rather than the noncitizen, bears the burden of proof. (See Decl. of Former Immigration Judge Denise Noonan Slavin ¶ 6, ECF 1-8 (“On numerous occasions, pro se individuals appeared before me for custody hearings without understanding what was required to meet their burden of proof. . . . Pro se individuals were rarely prepared to present evidence at the first custody hearing[.]”))
With respect to the quantum of proof required at § 1226(a) bond hearings, the court notes that “the overwhelming majority of district courts have . . . held that, in bond hearings under § 1226(a), due process requires the government to bear the burden of justifying detention by clear and convincing evidence.” Hernandez-Lara v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, Acting Dir., No.
17
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 29
19-CV-394-LM, 2019 WL 3340697, at *3 (D.N.H. July 25, 2019) (collecting cases). As the Hernandez-Lara court reasoned, “[p]lacing the burden of proof on the government at a § 1226(a) hearing to show by clear and convincing evidence that the noncriminal alien should be detained pending completion of deportation proceedings is more faithful to Addington and other civil commitment cases,” id. at *6, “[b]ecause it is improper to ask the individual to ‘share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual’—deprivation of liberty—is so significant,” id. (quoting Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 2011)) (further citation omitted).
Moreover, on the quantum of proof question, the court finds instructive evolving jurisprudence on challenges to prolonged detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). As noted in note 2, supra, § 1226(c) mandates detention of noncitizens deemed deportable because of their convictions for certain crimes. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 846. Although § 1226(c) “does not on its face limit the length of the detention it authorizes,” id., the Supreme Court has not foreclosed the possibility that unreasonably prolonged detention under § 1226(c) violates due process, id. at 851. Indeed, many courts have held that when § 1226(c) becomes unreasonably prolonged, a detainee must be afforded a bond hearing. See, e.g., Reid v. Donelan, 390 F. Supp. 3d 201, 215 (D. Mass. 2019); Portillo v. Hott, 322 F. Supp. 3d 698, 709 (E.D. Va. 2018); Jarpa, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 717. Notably, courts in this district and elsewhere have ordered § 1226(c) bond hearings where the government bears the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. See Duncan v. Kavanagh, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2020 WL 619173, at *10 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2020); Reid, 390 F. Supp. 3d at 228; Portillo, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 709–10; Jarpa, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 721. As the Jarpa court explained, “against the backdrop of well-settled jurisprudence on the quantum and burden of proof required to pass constitutional muster in civil detention
18
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 19 of 29
proceedings generally, it makes little sense to give Mr. Jarpa at this stage fewer procedural protections than those provided to” civil detainees in other contexts. See Jarpa, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 722 (citing United States v. Comstock, 627 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2010)).
In light of the above, the court is satisfied that the lead plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that due process requires § 1226(a) bond hearings where the government must bear the burden of proving dangerousness or risk of flight. As to the quantum of proof required at these hearings, the court is persuaded that requiring a clear and convincing standard is in line with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Addington, as well as consistent with the bond hearings ordered in cases involving § 1226(c) detention.
ii. Due process claim: ability to pay and suitability for release on alternative conditions of release
The lead plaintiffs also claim that Fifth Amendment due process entitles them, and all members of the proposed class, to a bond hearing where the IJ considers the noncitizen’s ability to pay a set bond amount and her suitability for release on alternative conditions of supervision. The defendants counter that due process does not so require, and also asserts that at Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s bond hearing, the IJ did consider his ability to pay, (Opp’n at 26).
As an initial matter, the court considers whether the IJ at Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s bond hearing considered his ability to pay. According to the Complaint, there is no requirement that IJs in Baltimore Immigration Court consider an individual’s ability to pay when setting a bond amount. (Compl. ¶ 27 & n.8). The defendants assert that because Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s motion for bond included arguments about his financial situation, the IJ did, in fact, consider his ability to pay. (Opp’n at 26). The court is not persuaded. The fact that an argument was raised does not ipso facto mean it was considered. Neither the transcript of Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s bond hearing, (ECF 15-11), nor the IJ’s order of bond, (ECF 1-18), suggest that the IJ actually
19
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 20 of 29
considered ability to pay. Accordingly, without clear evidence to the contrary, the court accepts the lead plaintiffs’ allegation that the IJ did not consider Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s ability to pay when setting bond.
The question remains whether due process requires that an IJ consider ability to pay and suitability for alternative conditions of release at a § 1226(a) bond hearing. As explained above, detention pending removal must comport with due process. See Demore, 538 U.S. at 523. Due process requires that detention “bear[s] [a] reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual [was] committed.” See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (quoting Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972)). Federal regulations and BIA decisional law suggest that the purpose of § 1226(a) detention is to protect the public and to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19, 1236.1; Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 38. But, the lead plaintiffs argue, when IJs are not required to consider ability to pay or alternative conditions of release, a noncitizen otherwise eligible for release may end up detained solely because of her financial circumstances.
Several courts to consider the question have concluded that § 1226(a) detention resulting from a prohibitively high bond amount is not reasonably related to the purposes of § 1226(a). In Hernandez v. Sessions, the Ninth Circuit held that “consideration of the detainees’ financial circumstances, as well as of possible alternative release conditions, [is] necessary to ensure that the conditions of their release will be reasonably related to the governmental interest in ensuring their appearance at future hearings[.]” See 872 F.3d at 990–91. While the Hernandez court did not explicitly conclude that a bond hearing without those considerations violates due process, see id. at 991 (“due process likely requires consideration of financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release” (emphasis added)), the court in Brito did reach that conclusion, see 415 F.
20
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 21 of 29
Supp. 3d at 267. The Brito court held that, with respect to § 1226(a) bond hearings, “due process requires an immigration court consider both an alien’s ability to pay in setting the bond amount and alternative conditions of release, such as GPS monitoring, that reasonably assure the safety of the community and the alien’s future appearances.” Id. at 267. Relatedly, in Abdi v. Nielsen, 287 F. Supp. 3d 327 (W.D.N.Y. 2018), which involved noncitizens held in civil immigration
Hernandez—held that “an IJ must consider ability to pay and alternative conditions of release in setting bond for an individual detained under § 1225(b).” Id. at 338. To hold otherwise, the Abdi court reasoned, would implicate “the due process concerns discussed in Hernandez, which are equally applicable to detentions pursuant to § 1225(b).”10
The court is persuaded by the reasoning of Hernandez, Brito, and Abdi. If an IJ does not make a finding of dangerousness or substantial risk of flight requiring detention without bond (as in Mr. de la Cruz Espinoza’s case), the only remaining purpose of § 1226(a) detention is to
11
that an individual may not be imprisoned “solely because of his lack of financial resources.” See
9 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) authorizes indefinite, mandatory detention for certain classes of noncitizens. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 842 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2)).
10 The court notes that both Hernandez and Abdi reference now-invalidated precedent in both the Ninth and Second Circuits requiring the government to provide civil immigration detainees periodic bond hearings every six months. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015), abrogated by Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 852; Lora v. Shanahan, 804 F.3d 601, 616 (2d Cir. 2015), abrogated by Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 852. But Jennings, which was decided on statutory interpretation grounds, explicitly did not include a constitutional holding. See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 851 (“[W]e do not reach th[e] [constitutional] arguments.”). And, as the Hernandez court noted, “the Supreme Court’s review of our holding . . . that noncitizens are entitled to certain unrelated additional procedural protections during the recurring bond hearings after prolonged detention does not affect our consideration of the lesser constitutional procedural protections sought at the initial bond hearings in this case.” 872 F.3d at 983 n.8.
11 The defendants offer no purpose for § 1226(a) detention beyond protecting the community and securing a noncitizen’s appearance at future proceedings.
The set bond amount, then, must be reasonably related to this purpose. But where a bond amount is set too high for an individual to pay, she is effectively detained without bond due to her financial circumstances. It is axiomatic
secure a noncitizen’s appearance at future proceeding.
21
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 22 of 29
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 661–62, 665 (1983) (automatic revocation of probation for inability to pay a fine, without considering whether efforts had been made to pay the fine, violated due process and equal protection); cf. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 398 (1971) (“The Constitution[’s equal protection clause] prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.”). In the pretrial detention context, multiple Courts of Appeals have held that deprivation of the accused’s rights “to a greater extent than necessary to assure appearance at trial and security of the jail . . . would be inherently punitive and run afoul of due process requirements.” See Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053, 1057 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333, 336 (2d Cir. 1974)) (quotation marks omitted); accord ODonnell v. Harris Cty., 892 F.3d 147, 157 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Duran v. Elrod, 542 F.2d 998, 999 (7th Cir. 1976); accord Villarreal v. Woodham, 113 F.3d 202, 207 (11th Cir. 1997).
There is no suggestion that the IJs in Baltimore Immigration Court impose prohibitively high bond amounts with the intent of denying release to noncitizens who do not have the means to pay. But without consideration of a § 1226(a) detainee’s ability to pay, where a noncitizen remains detained due to her financial circumstances, the purpose of her detention—the lodestar of the due process analysis—becomes less clear. As the Ninth Circuit explained,
Setting a bond amount without considering financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release undermines the connection between the bond and the legitimate purpose of ensuring the non-citizen’s presence at future hearings. . . . [It is a] common-sense proposition that when the government detains someone based on his or her failure to satisfy a financial obligation, the government cannot reasonably determine if the detention is advancing its purported governmental purpose unless it first considers the individual’s financial circumstances and alternative ways of accomplishing its purpose.
Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 991.
The defendants assert that an IJ need not consider a noncitizen’s ability to pay a set bond
22
Case 1:20-cv-01110-CCB Document 25 Filed 05/29/20 Page 23 of 29
amount because it had a “reasonable basis to enact a statute that grants the Executive branch discretion to set bonds to prevent individuals, whose ‘continuing presence in the country is in violation of the immigration laws,’ from failing to appear,” and that § 1226(a) passes muster under rational basis review. (Opp’n at 25–26 (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 491 (1999)). But the appropriate analysis for a procedural due process challenge is the Mathews balancing test, not rational basis review, which is used to analyze equal protection claims, see, e.g., Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 234–35 (1981), and substantive due process claims, see, e.g., Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 739 (4th Cir. 1999). And, in applying the Mathews test, the court agrees with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that “the government’s refusal to require consideration of financial circumstances is impermissible under the Mathews test because the minimal costs to the government of [] a requirement [that ICE and IJs consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release] are greatly outweighed by the likely reduction it will effect in unnecessary deprivations of individuals’ physical liberty.” See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 993.
Accordingly, the court is satisfied that the lead plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that due process requires a § 1226(a) bond hearing where the IJ considers a noncitizen’s ability to pay a set bond amount and the noncitizen’s suitability for alternative conditions of release.
Y. . . .
*************************
Thanks and congratulations to Judge Denise Slavin for “making a difference.” It’s a true honor to serve with you and our other colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!Judge Slavin’s Declaration is cited by Judge Blake at the end of the first full paragraph above “17” in the quoted excerpt.
fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun SentinelKnightess of the Round Table
To be brutally honest about it, Denise is exactly the type of scholarly, courageous, due-process-oriented Immigration Judge who in a functioning, merit-based system, focused on “using teamwork and innovation to develop best practices and guarantee fairness and due process for all” would have made an outstanding and deserving Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA. Instead, in the totally dysfunctional “World of EOIR,” the “best and brightest” judges, like Denise, essentially are “pushed out the door” instead of being honored and given meaningful opportunities to use their exceptional skills to further the cause of justice, establish and reinforce “best judicial practices,” and serve as outstanding role models for others. What an unconscionable waste!
It’s a great decision! The bad news: Because the Immigration Courts remain improperly captive within a scofflaw, anti-immigrant, and anti-due-process DOJ, respondents in many other jurisdictions will continue to be denied the fundamentally fair bond hearings required by Constitutional Due Process.
A 34-year-old Guatemalan man who tested positive for COVID-19 died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at a Georgia hospital on Sunday, according to an internal government report obtained by BuzzFeed News.
Santiago Baten-Oxlaj, 34, had been in ICE custody at Stewart Detention Center, in Lumpkin, since early March and was granted a voluntary departure to Guatemala, ICE later confirmed in a press release.
Baten-Oxlaj was arrested on March 2 at a probation office in Marietta, Georgia “pursuant to his conviction for driving under the influence,” ICE said. On March 26, an immigration judge granted him voluntary departure. “At the time of his death, Baten was awaiting departure from the United States,” ICE added.
On April 17, he was admitted to a local hospital for treatment of decreased oxygen saturation levels, hospital officials tested the man for COVID-19 and the result was positive.
On Sunday, he died at the hospital, according to the report, which listed his preliminary cause of death as COVID-19.
ICE said it “is undertaking a comprehensive agency-wide review of this incident, as it does in all such cases.”
His death comes weeks after a 57-year-old man in ICE custody in San Diego died after testing positive for COVID-19. The San Diego County medical examiner’s office said the man, Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia, died of acute respiratory failure due to pneumonia resulting from COVID-19. He was the first immigrant in ICE custody to die of the disease.
As of May 16, 1,201 immigrant detainees have tested positive for the disease in ICE custody out of 2,394 who had been tested.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Hamed’s article at the above link.
Unfortunately, this won’t be the last victim. According to the article, over 50% of those detainees tested for COVID-19 were positive.
With the BIA basically taking a “pass/dive” on requiring health and safety considerations to be serious factors in custody decisions, custody cases will continue to be litigated in U.S. District Courts throughout the country. Why have a BIA incapable of functioning as an independent tribunal consistent with due process?
For the foregoing reasons, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that his release would endanger the public or that he is a flight risk, coupled with the known risks associated with the presence of COVID-19 at Pulaski, this Court concludes that Galan-Reyes’ continued indefinite detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The government’s interests in continuing his detention must therefore yield to his liberty and safety interests.6
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.
Respondents are ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Omar Galan-Reyes, pursuant to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner will reside at a certain residence, will provide his address and telephone contact information to Respondents, and will quarantine there for at least the first 14 days of his release;
2. If Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that Petitioner is an appropriate candidate for Alternatives to Detention (ATD), then Petitioner will comply with DHS instructions as to any ATD conditions;
3. Petitioner will comply with national, state, and local guidance regarding staying at home, sheltering in place, and social distancing and shall be placed on home detention;
4. The Court’s order for release from detention shall be revoked should Petitioner fail to comply with this order of release;
5. This Order does not prevent Respondents from taking Petitioner back into custody should Petitioner commit any crimes that render him a threat to public safety or otherwise violate the terms of release;
6. Petitioner will be transported from Pulaski County Detention Center to his home by identified third persons;
7. Petitioner will not violate any federal, state, or local laws; and
8. At the discretion of DHS and/or ICE, to enforce the above restrictions, Petitioner’s whereabouts will be monitored by telephonic and/or electronic and/or GPS monitoring and/or location verification system and/or an automated identification system.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
6 In light of the Court’s conclusion on Petitioner’s due process claim, it is not necessary to address his Administrative Procedures Act claim.
********************************
Many thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along. And congrats to NDPA members A. Ross Cunningham, Esquire, and Jake Briskman, Esquire, for their representation of the prisoner rotting in the New American Gulag (“NAG”) in this case!
This decision reads like an indictment of the entire badly failed and fundamentally unfair DHS Enforcement and Immigration Court systems as mismanaged, weaponized, and politicized by the Trump regime Politicos and their toadies:
Abuse of detention system by detaining non-dangerous individuals who are not flight risks;
Uselessness of bond determinations by Immigration Judges who are functioning like enforcement officers, not independent judicial decision-makers;
Extraordinarily poor judgment by DHS Detention officials;
Delays caused by backlogged dockets driven by failure of DHS Enforcement to exercise prioritization and reasonable prosecutorial discretion compounded by the Immigration Judges who lack the authority, and in some cases the will, to control their dockets — dockets structured by politicos for political, rather than practical or legal, reasons (see, e.g., “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR”);
Adangerously useless BIA that fails to set reasonable national bond criteria and fails to properly and competently consider Due Process interests in bond cases;
The importance of placing the burden of proof in bond cases where it constitutionally belongs: on DHS, rather than on the individual as is done in Immigration Court;
In this case, the US District Judge had to do the careful analytical work of individual decision making that should have been done by the Immigration Court, and which the Immigration Court should have, but has failed to, require DHS to adopt;
Leaving the big question: Why have Immigration Courts at all if the meaningful work has to be done by the U.S. Courts and U.S. Magistrates?
Why not “cut out the useless middleman” and just have U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of U.S. District Judges conduct all removal and bond proceedings in accordance with the law, Due Process, and the Eighth Amendment until Congress replaces the current constitutionally flawed Immigration Courts with an independent immigration judiciary that can do the job and that functions as a “real court” rather than an arm of DHS Enforcement thinly disguised as a “court?”
Suzanne Monyak Senior Reporter, Immigration Law360Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesLaura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
U.S. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook didn’t mince words earlier this year when sharing his thoughts on a recent decision by the immigration courts’ appellate board: “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.”
The Seventh Circuit judge, a Reagan-appointee, said the board had ignored the court’s directions to grant protection to an immigrant fighting deportation, instead ruling against the immigrant again. The rebuke wasn’t the first time the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reprimanded by the federal judiciary for seemingly prejudiced decisions under the Trump administration.
Just a month earlier, a judge on the Third Circuit tackling an appeal from the BIA wrote in a concurring opinion that it didn’t appear the board “was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring [an immigrant’s] removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be.”
“That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly,” U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote.
While President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees and U.S. Supreme Court picks grab headlines for rtheir potential to shape the judiciary for years to come, the administration is staffing the lesser known BIA with former immigration judges who have high asylum-denial rates and individuals with backgrounds in law enforcement. Some of the picks have prompted advocates for immigrants and lawmakers to claim the hiring process is too politicized.
Documents newly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Trump administration has aimed to fast-track the hiring process while giving the director of U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, and the U.S. attorney general more say in who gets the nod.
Unlike the federal and appellate courts, the BIA, an administrative appellate board that hears appeals from immigration trial courts, is not independent but rather is housed with the EOIR.
Yet the board can issue precedential decisions that shape immigration policy — and the lives of immigrants facing deportation — well into the future.
“That the reasonably ordinary citizen has not heard of the BIA does not take away from the fact that it is the most important agency establishing immigration jurisprudence in the country, and when you politicize that, you’re obviously politicizing immigration jurisprudence,” said Muzaffar Chishti, head of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s New York office.
A spokesperson for EOIR told Law360 that the office sped up the hiring process as part of “commonsense changes” and in response to criticism from Congress.
She also said that EOIR “does not choose board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” and that “all board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”
During the most recent hiring cycle, every panelist evaluating candidates was a career employee, not a political appointee, according to the spokesperson.
“Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious,” the spokesperson said.
High Rates of Asylum Denials
Since August, the Trump administration has installed nine of the 19 current permanent members of the BIA, and most of the newcomers have asylum-denial rates above 80% and backgrounds in law enforcement or the military.
All but one of the nine were previously immigration judges, and according to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the average asylum-denial rate among those eight judges was just over 92%. The denial rate for each of those eight judges ranged from 83.5% to 96.8%.
The average asylum-denial rate for immigration courts nationally is 63.1%, according to TRAC.
Asylum-denial rates aren’t perfect metrics; controlling asylum law varies by circuit, and the viability of asylum claims can vary based on location. New York’s immigration courts for instance, tend to see more asylum claims from Chinese citizens fleeing political oppression, which are more frequently successful, while courts near detention centers may see harder-to-win claims from longtime U.S. residents with less access to counsel.
However, Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360 that no one deciding cases fairly could have a 90% asylum denial rate.
“You’re looking to deny cases at that point,” he said.
The one recent Trump administration BIA hire who wasn’t previously an immigration judge had been a trial attorney at the Justice Department, while many of the other former judges had prior experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its predecessor agency.
One, V. Stuart Couch, was previously a senior prosecutor for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“There’s overall just a lack of diversity on the immigration judge bench, which is deeply concerning,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I think the mark of justice is the idea that decision makers come from a diverse background.”
A hire to the BIA announced earlier this month, Philip J. Montante Jr., has come under fire not only for a sky-high asylum-denial rate — 96.3% — but for a history of ethics complaints.
In 2014, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Judge Montante’s handling of an immigration case was “inappropriate” after an attorney accused him of showing bias when deciding a client’s case.
In March, not long before his promotion to the BIA was announced, the New York Civil Liberties Union accused Judge Montante in a proposed class action in federal court of denying detained immigrants’ bond requests nearly universally.
According to the advocacy organization, Judge Montante rejected 95% of bond requests between March 2019 and February 2020, bringing him within the top five lowest bond grant rates among the more than 200 immigration judges nationwide.
. . . .
**************************
Read the rest of Suzanne’s excellent article, with more quotes from my fellow members of the NDPA, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Laura Lynch, at the above link.I have been told that this article is “outside” the Law360 “paywall,” so you should be able to read it even if you don’t have a subscription.
I find the Article III Courts’ recognition of the Due Process travesty going on in individual cases, while they ignore the systemic unfairness that makes a mockery out of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution, the rule of law, our entire justice system, and humanity itself, perhaps the most disturbing institutional failure under the Trump regime. While Article III Judges are “shocked and offended” by contemptuous actions directed at them in particular cases, they remain willfully “tone deaf” to the reality of our dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and their impact on “real human lives.” ☠️
This is how individuals seeking justice and the courageous lawyers representing them, many serving at minimal or no compensation to inject a modicum of integrity into our system, are treated every day. Not every wronged individual has the ability to reach the Article IIIs.
And, given the Article IIIs failure to take the courageous, systemic steps necessary to stop abuses of migrants, the Trump regime has “taken it to a new level” by coming up with various illegal schemes and gimmicks to keep individuals seeking asylum from even getting a hearing in Immigration Court. Due Process? Fundamental Fairness? Rule of Law? No way!
Yet, this unfolds before us daily as the Article IIIs basically “twiddle their collective thumbs” 👎🏻 and “nibble around the edges” of a monumental Constitutional disaster and blot on the humanity and integrity of our nation and our own souls. The complicity starts with the Supremes who have “passed” ona number of critical opportunities to “just say no” to blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, international human rights conventions, and misuse and clear abuse of “emergency authority” to achieve a White Nationalist, racist agenda.
In other words, the Supremes’ majority is knowingly and intentionally encouraging the regime’s program of “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization or “de-personification” before the law — of “the other.” This disgusting and fundamentally un-American “resurrection and enabling” of a “21st Century Jim Crow Regime” might be “in vogue” with the “J.R. Five” and their right-wing compatriots right now. But, they are squarely on the “wrong side of history.” Eventually, the “truth will out,” and they will be judged accordingly!👎🏻
That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”
Former GULG prisoner Nicholas Morales writes in the LA Times:
I consider myself an American. I came to the United States from Mexico when I was a teenager. I’m now 37 years old. My wife and son are U.S. citizens. For years, I ran my own mechanic shop in New Jersey. I have paid taxes and nearly all my family members live in and around New Jersey, including my brothers, mother, cousins, nephews and nieces. This is the only home I know.
My life shattered on Nov. 21, 2019, when immigration officers picked me up right after I had dropped off my 5-year-old son at school. Although I had been living in the U.S. for almost 20 years, I had not managed to get the right paperwork to be here. The immigration officers took me to the Elizabeth Detention Center — a prison-like structure run by the private corporation CoreCivic. I didn’t have a chance to say goodbye to my son or my wife.
I spent five months at the Elizabeth Detention Center. As the coronavirus pandemic hit our nation and New Jersey became an epicenter, I grew increasingly worried because neither I nor hundreds of immigration detainees had any way to protect ourselves from getting sick.
I first heard rumors of COVID-19 in February. I heard it was a highly contagious illness, that it was worse than the flu, and that it was killing many people. The detention center personnel told us nothing. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervisor told us not to believe the news, that the danger of the virus was exaggerated. But by mid-March, we started hearing that someone in the medical unit was showing symptoms.
The Elizabeth Detention Center has capacity for just over 300 people. At nearly all times, I was packed into a large room with other immigrants. Our beds were close together, with only two to three feet between them. We shared toilets, showers, sinks, communal surfaces and breathing air. We did not have hand sanitizer or masks. We could not disinfect our shared surfaces. We could not maintain any meaningful distance among us, let alone six feet of distance. We were never permitted outside; there is no meaningful outdoor space.
As the days passed, we grew increasingly anxious about COVID-19, especially those of us who had health issues or were older. I have bad asthma and I wasn’t alone in wanting to get out. Everyone wanted out. I didn’t have a lawyer, but I was in regular contact with pro bono attorneys who wanted to help me.
Then, on March 13, the detention center halted all visitations, including by attorneys. On March 19, an ICE employee at the facility tested positive for the virus. Still, the facility staff refused to communicate with us about the pandemic, their plans to keep us safe, or whether we might be released. We still did not have access to hand sanitizer or masks to protect ourselves. The facility’s supervisors told us that we couldn’t have any hand sanitizer. The dormitories were still packed with approximately 40 people per unit.
One day in March, I watched a detainee collapse. He was taken away. I do not know if he had the virus. In mid-March, I was diagnosed with bronchitis. I could hear rattling noises in my chest and could not seem to get enough air.
My fellow detainees and I worried we were being left to die. Some of us, in desperation, decided to go on a hunger strike on March 20. The guards then put me in isolation to punish me. While in the box, I felt some relief to be away from the masses.
My breathing continued to worsen. I finally ate food again on March 25, hoping that would improve my condition. On March 31, a pro bono lawyer made an emergency request for my release, which immigration officials denied even though I had such trouble breathing that I needed treatment with an albuterol machine. On April 3, an immigration judge denied my request for release on bond.
Every way I turned seemed to be another dead end. The guards commented disapprovingly when they heard I had been talking to the media about our dire predicament. No help came for us.
I had one last hope for release. I had been included in a group habeas petition filed before the federal district court in New Jersey. Thankfully, I was let out on April 20 because a federal judge determined that COVID-19 posed a particularly serious health risk to me and four others and ordered our immediate release.
I have since returned to my family and isolated myself for 14 days. I lost my mechanic shop while I was in detention because I wasn’t able to pay rent, but I am grateful to be released. I’m now in the process of appealing my deportation order.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of this first-hand account at the link.
Many, many thanks to the pro bono attorneys from the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”) who stepped in to save Nicholas’s life snd the lives of many others abandoned in the Gulag. You are the real “warriors” and heroes of our age!🏅🥇😇 Hats off!🎩
It’s clear from accounts like this across the country that the only “real” bond hearings for Gulag inmates that comply with Due Process take place before U.S. District Judges or the U.S. Magistrate Judges who work for them.
So what’s the purpose of a bogus “Court System” run by Sessions and now Billy Barr to function as a subservient branch of DHS Enforcement? None, obviously!
But, it’s worse than that. Because of the outward trappings of a judiciary, the Immigration “Courts” put a “false veneer of justice” on an inherently tainted and unfair process. This wastes time, unnecessarily prolongs detention, squanders public funds, and sometimes leads Article III Judges who are unwilling or unable to understand the process to give “undeserved deference” to the decisions of these kangaroo 🦘courts.
An independent Article I Immigration Court could provide the expertise and efficiency necessary for fair impartial adjudications that comply with due process and develop “best practices.” This, in turn, would relieve the Article III Courts of the burden of having to constantly intervene to correct basic errors in legal analysis, judgment, and process inevitably caused by the improper political objectives driving EOIR’s dysfunction.
Going on five decades in the law has shown me that problems are best corrected by getting things right at the earliest point in the system. That’s clearly not happening with today’s inept, inefficient, and intentionally unjust, politicized, and weaponized Immigration “Courts.”
Until Congress and/or the Article IIIs do their jobs and put an end to this deadly nonsense, it will continue to endanger lives☠️⚰️, burden the justice system⚓️⚖️, and waste public funds 🔥💰.
A 57-year-old detainee at ICE’s Otay Mesa facility, which is run by private contractor CoreCivic, died early Wednesday of complications of the coronavirus disease after being hospitalized since late April, according to San Diego County officials. This is the first reported COVID-19 death of an immigrant in ICE custody.
Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia was from El Salvador, according to a government report obtained by BuzzFeed News. He’d been held by ICE since January and was hospitalized April 24 after exhibiting coronavirus symptoms. He had hypertension and self-reported diabetes but was denied release from custody in mid-April by an immigration judge.
ICE and CoreCivic did not immediately respond to a request for further details.
(CoreCivic in mid-April said it had given masks to detainees at Otay Mesa and was quarantining positive cases in “housing pods” and separating those at high medical risk.)
Of nearly 30,000 immigrants in ICE detention centers nationwide, the agency has so far tested only 1,460 for COVID-19, and more than 705 immigrants have tested positive.
Activists have been calling for the release of all people from immigration detention, warning that there is no realistic way to keep immigrants safe during a pandemic in such facilities, which have long been reported to have substandard health care and sanitation.
“This is a terrible tragedy, and it was entirely predictable and preventable,” Andrea Flores, deputy director of immigration policy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement Wednesday.
“For months, public health experts and corrections officials have warned that detention centers would be Petri dishes for the spread of COVID-19 — and a death trap for thousands of people in civil detention,” she added. “Unless ICE acts quickly to release far more people from detention, they will keep getting sick and many more will die.”
That means that responsibility for meaningful custody review passes to the U.S. District Courts.
Why have an Immigration Court at all if it’s going to function as a mindless “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement driven by White Nationalist extremist politicos like Miller? If the Immigration Courts are no longer willing or able to guarantee fair and impartial adjudications, which unfortunately appears to be the case under Billy Barr, maybe all removal proceedings and bond hearings should just be held before U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. District Judges until Congress establishes an independent Article I Immigration Court!
Due Process 🧑🏽⚖️🧑🏽⚖️ Forever! More Deaths ⚰️ in the New American Gulag, ☠️ Never!
In late March, I argued in an earlier version of this paper that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should immediately embark on an aggressive program of release, supervised release and alternative-to-detention (ATD) programs for immigrant detainees in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.[1] Since that time, the number of immigrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention has fallen by nearly 8,400, but not nearly as fast or dramatically as necessary, given the perilous conditions in which nearly 30,000 immigrant detainees remain and how rapidly the virus has swept through immigrant detention facilities throughout the country and beyond.
The Size of the Crisis
On March 17, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that there were no “confirmed” cases of COVID-19 in its detention centers, a meaningless claim given the paucity of testing and the certainty of “unconfirmed” cases, as affirmed by ensuing lawsuits.[2] A month later, ICE reported 124 confirmed cases. Six weeks later, as of May 1, this number had more than quadrupled to 522 cases in 34 facilities, as well as 39 confirmed cases among ICE employees in those facilities (ICE 2020b).[3]
Yet ICE’s figures point to only the tip of the iceberg. By mid-April, ICE had tested only 300-400 detainees for COVID-19 infection (Misra 2020). By May 1, it had tested 1,073 detainees, a very low percentage of those in its custody during the course of the pandemic (ICE 2020b). Moreover, ICE figures do not count former detainees who contracted COVID-19 in its custody,[4] a large number of whom were deported prior to being tested (Dickerson and Semple 2020). Nor do they count the infected staff of ICE contractors, including employees of the private corporations that own and operate its largest detention centers and that administer many state and local ICE contract facilities.[5] On April 2, for example, ICE reported no confirmed cases of infected detainees, but one suspected case, at the massive Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia (Stewart). CoreCivic, one of ICE’s largest private detention contractors, operates Stewart.[6] By April 10, ICE “knew of” 30 suspected and five confirmed cases at Stewart.[7] As of April 28, 42 CoreCivic employees and one ICE employee at Stewart had tested positive for COVID-19 (Stokes 2020). In an April 21 email to Mark Dow, Amanda Gilchrist, the Director of Public Affairs at CoreCivic said there had been 98 positive cases among CoreCivic staff since the onset of the pandemic, a number that did not count staff who had “recovered from COVID-19” and received “a doctor’s clearance to return to work” (on file with author).
ICE has confirmed that “a number of non-ICE employees (contractors) in facilities that hold ICE detainees have contracted COVID-19, and some of them died from COVID-19” (Tanvi 2020). However, it has been “unable to determine how many non-ICE personnel in state and local jails have contracted COVID-19 or died from COVID-19” (ibid.). Finally, it reports that “some non-ICE detainees in non-ICE facilities, shared with ICE detainees, also contracted COVID-19, and some of them died from COVID-19” (ibid.).
As of March 21, 38,058 immigrants were in ICE custody. By April 25, this number had dropped to 29,675 including 15,855 persons apprehended by ICE and Homeland Security Investigations, and 13,820 referred by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (ICE 2020a). By way of comparison, Canada – which detains many times fewer immigrants than the United States – released more than one-half of those in its custody between March 17 and April 19 (Global News 2020).
As of April 25, ICE still unconscionably held 5,261 persons who had established “persecution” and “torture” claims, and who should not be detained in any circumstances, much less the present. It also continues to detain persons approved for release. In a particularly disturbing report, detainees in New York cannot post bond because of the closure of ICE’s New York City office (Katz 2020). Finally, it continues to detain families and minors. On April 13, the Washington Post reported that the population at ICE’s three family detention centers had fallen from 1,350 to 826 persons (Hsu 2020). By April 21, the number had fallen to 698 persons, including 342 minors.[8]
On March 28, a federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to “make and record continuous efforts” to release the more than 5,000 minors in ICE family detention facilities and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelter-like facilities for unaccompanied minors.[9] Her decision recognized the “severity of the harm” to which children in these facilities, particularly ICE facilities, “are exposed and the public’s interest in preventing outbreaks of COVID-19 … that will infect ICE and ORR staff, spread to others in geographic proximity, and likely overwhelm local healthcare systems.” On April 24, the judge ordered ORR and ICE to continue “to make every effort to promptly and safely release” children with “suitable custodians.”[10]
ICE Policies and Procedures
ICE can decrease its detention population in two main ways, by admitting fewer immigrants into its system and by more generous and, in the circumstances, appropriate release standards. It has failed to move decisively enough in either direction.
. . . .
********************
Read Don’s complete article at the link.
Thanks Don!
In this regime, the Gulag is all about using the “facade” of euphemistically-named “civil immigration detention” as a way of punishing those who have the audacity to assert their legal rights, to limit their Fifth Amendment and statutory rights to counsel, to inhibit their ability to understand the applicable legal criteria and prepare their cases, to coerce them into abandoning claims for relief and waiving appeals, and to send “deterrent messages” to others.
What it doesn’t have much connection with these days is insuring appearance and protecting the public. Relatively few detained individuals have criminal records that present a realistic threat. Also, all reputable studies show that when individuals are represented by counsel, community alternatives to detention are used, and individuals actually understand the requirements, the appearance rate for those with asylum or other claims for relief approach 100%.
So, the Gulag is largely an expensive and dangerous fraud. That’s not to say that other Administrations haven’t misused detention of non-criminals. It been more or less increasing over the past four decades — ever since the Mariel Boatlift. But, this regime has gone “above and beyond” in the intentionally cruel, unnecessary, and coercive expansion and abuse of the Gulag.
The BIA has abandoned any attempt to bring integrity and uniformity to the bond system. Instead, they have adopted a “screw the individual, kiss up to Barr, Miller, & the White Nationalist politicos who run this dysfunctional system.”
The response from the Article IIIs has been mixed.
Hopefully, the extensive U.S. District Court detention litigation across the country will finally “open the eyes” of the Article III Judiciary to the callous disregard of human life and welfare and the abusive, racially driven, punitive intent fueling the regime’s “Gulag expansion.”
A San Diego federal judge ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review for release a list of newly identified detainees at the Otay Mesa Detention Center who would be at high risk for serious health complications if they get COVID-19.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request to create a subclass of people at high risk under the pandemic, which has spread widely within the facility. The judge made his decision after learning that the facility’s warden had undercounted the number of people in that category in his initial declaration for the case.
“That information is significant,” Sabraw told attorneys during a telephonic hearing Thursday. “It does change measurably the underlying facts and whether or not the petitioners are entitled to relief.”
A spokeswoman for CoreCivic, the private prison company that runs the facility, said that the initial report sent to the judge was compiled with data from ICE Health Service Corps, which provides the medical care at the facility, and the report “was made with the best available information we had from our partners at the time.”
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of Kate’s article at the link.
There was a time, long ago, when a Government agency’s submission of false, materially incomplete, or misleading information to a Federal Court would have earned sanctions up to and including threats of contempt from a U.S. District Judge. Sadly, bending the truth, omitting material information, and outright lies have become “the norm” for DHS and DOJ under Trump.
Indeed, the burden is now on the plaintiffs, often serving pro bono and stretched to the limit, to show and document for the courts each false, incomplete, or misleading affirmation from the Government. Against reason and the clear record over the past three years, FederalCourts continue to presume the proven unlikely — nay, likely impossible — that a regime led by a pathological liar and his toadies will provide them true, accurate, and complete information about anything!
Instead of asylum applicants being given “the benefit of the doubt,” as our law is supposed to require, that benefit of the doubt is now being given to an overtly bigoted and dishonest Executive who in no way has earned or deserved it. Everything has been turned upside down.
But, until the Article III Courts take actions to insure that this regime respects the integrity of the process, the practice of “lie, obfuscate, and mislead first and see if they catch you” will continue largely unabated. Vulnerable migrants aren’t the only victims here. Failing to force the regime to act in an honest, ethical, and professional manner in Federal litigation is eroding the integrity of the Article III Courts all the way up to the complicit Supremes.
Remember, several years ago, the DHS and DOJ lied to Federal Courts and the public about the existence of Sessions’s “child separation policy.” Two years later, they continue to feed erroneous information to the courts with impunity. But, who’s surprised when in the meantime the Supremes’ majority has sent such a powerful and consistent message that “Brown Lives Don’t Matter” and they won’t examine the truth or actual motivation behind any Executive attack on the rights, lives, and safety of migrants.
Here’s a report from a member of the NDPA and a Courtside reader on the front lines of the battle to save humanity: “[T]wo of our clients detained in Otay Mesa Detention Center were finally released after a Federal Judge issued a TRO. I am relieved. ICE has been unreasonable and in my opinion reckless with the lives of people in detention and even their own employees. . . .And the attorneys at the ACLU are the true heroes here and . . . students.”
Why is this abject failure of responsible Government and absence of powerful, coordinated, courageous judging that puts an end to these human rights abuses acceptable? Why isn’t our Supreme Court delivering a powerful message that Executive dishonesty, denials of due process, systemic detentionabuses, and disregard of established human rights principles aren’t acceptable in 21st Century America? Why is “Dred Scottification” the new policy endorsed by the “JR Five” on the Supremes?
Until we get better Federal Judges willing to stand up to Executive abuses and a Congress that retakes its responsibility to legislate and oversee the Executive in the area of immigration and human rights, it will continue to fall to the private bar and NGO lawyers to force officials among our failed institutions in all three Branches to do their jobs in accordance with the law and the Constitution. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. But, it’s the only way it does work in today’s America. Thank goodness for the (non-regime) lawyers!
“Today U.S. District Court Judge Richard Martinez ordered the federal government to release an immigrant detained at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC), AKA Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC), who is at high risk of serious illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. The Court ordered the release of Mr. Pimentel, a 65-year old man who has been a lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1996, but was placed in removal proceedings after pleading guilty to a drug offense. After completing his sentence, Mr. Pimentel returned to live with his family in Salt Lake City, Utah, but was subsequently arrested by ICE in May of 2019 after he appeared for an appointment. ICE ultimately transferred Mr. Pimentel to the detention center in Tacoma, Washington.
Judge Martinez found that federal immigration authorities “detain Petitioner at the NWIPC in conditions that create a substantial risk he will be exposed to the coronavirus and contract COVID-19.”
Judge Martinez relied on declarations from public health experts stating that once COVID-19 reaches the detention center it will spread like “wildfire.” The Court noted that experts have attributed a mortality rate as high as 15% for high risk individuals who contract COVID-19. Judge Martinez ultimately concluded that “Petitioner has made a clear showing that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm due to the conditions of his present confinement and the fact that he is at higher risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19.”
Judge Martinez ordered that Mr. Pimentel be immediately released. He will now be permitted to return to live with his son and daughter-in-law in Salt Lake City while he waits for his immigration case to be completed.
Wonder how many more “Mr. Pimentels” are out there in the Gulag but in the wrong jurisdiction or without the good fortune to get the legal representation necessary to secure release?
What if we had a functional, impartial, expert U.S. Immigration Court that could order release of folks like this without protracted litigation in the U.S. District Courts? Indeed, what’s the purpose of a so-called “court system” that’s incapable of doing much of anything except “rubber stamping” the unconstitutional actions and extraordinarily poor judgments of DHS officials and their contractors?
Malathi Nayak Reporter Bloomberg NewsHon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges
As President Donald Trump prepares to pause immigration into the U.S., the court system that handles the removal of immigrants is projected to issue nearly 60% more deportation orders than last year.
With the rest of the U.S. legal system grinding to a near halt amid the pandemic, at the nation’s 69 federal immigration courts cleaning crews clad in hazmat suits are regularly used to make sure in-person hearings can continue. The courts are moving at speed to reduce a massive backlog of cases despite outdated technology and criticism from advocacy groups and a union representing most of the nation’s 460 immigration judges, who say the pace is putting people at risk of infection.
“The deportation machine has not stopped,” said Florida immigration lawyer Ira Kurzban. “It’s somewhat outrageous given the current circumstances.”
While the number of people deported from the U.S. fell in March, one research group predicts that the total number of deportation orders will rise for the 2020 fiscal year, despite the pandemic. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University group that tracks government enforcement actions, estimates there will be 340,500 deportation orders in the year ending Sept. 30, 2020, up from 215,535 for the prior year. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on the projection, saying it doesn’t certify third-party statistics.
The National Association of Immigration Judges says the continued operation of the courts is unsafe and has called for them to be closed. The Trump administration in 2018 set a quota for each immigration judge to close 700 cases a year, a requirement that remains in force during the pandemic, said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the union.
‘Hobbesian Choice’
U.S. immigration judges are “being forced into this Hobbesian choice of risking their health and having to keep their jobs,” said Tabaddor. She cites a colleague who is trying to meet his quota while minimizing his health risk as a throat cancer survivor.
Along with the judges, 1,200 support staff work in the nation’s immigration courts. Those courts are taking precautionary steps similar to those elsewhere in the federal system “to reduce the likelihood of exposure to Covid-19,” including holding hearings via phone or video conference whenever possible, according to Kathryn Mattingly, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Hearings involving people not in custody have also been suspended until May 15.
But judges and lawyers said it is harder for the immigration courts to operate remotely than other federal courts. While electronic document filing is routine in other federal courts, the immigration courts have struggled to introduce it, leaving most documents in paper form. Though some filings are now accepted by email, the many court employees without laptops need to come into the office to access them.
“The immigration courts are probably 20 years behind federal courts in terms of technology,” said Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge. Moreover, some immigration courts have rules where opting for a phone hearing means giving up the right to object to documents submitted by ICE, he said.
The current situation has immigration lawyers choosing between their personal well-being and a client’s future, Chase said. “Lawyers should not be put in this position.”
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Nice quotes from Judges Tabaddor and Chase!
Actually, when the “off docket”cases are factored in, the backlog exceeds 1.4 million cases. Even with artificially accelerated production, and if no new cases were filed by DHS (reality check — receipts have been exceeding completions for years) it would take until 2024 to “clear” the existing backlog. But, the reality is that even by speeding up the “Deportation Railroad,” adding new often inadequately trained judges largely from the ranks of prosecutors, eliminating Due Process, demeaning their own employees, and unethically skewing the law against migrants, EOIR has been unable to reduce the backlog by even one case under the Trump regime!
Indeed, when all of the pending and “off docket” cases are considered, the already large backlog left behind by the Obama Administration has more than doubled, and is well on its way to tripling, under the Trump regime’s “malicious incompetence” and pattern of often illegal and irrational behavior. Many of the “final orders of deportation” being cranked out by EOIR are either legally wrong or counterproductive — deporting harmless individuals who actually are productive members of our society, often with U.S. citizen family members. This system, including the mindless abuse of docket space by DHS Enforcement and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR, is broken! Yet, it’s allowed to continue grinding away, putting lives in danger in more ways than one.
And, speaking of incompetence, whether malicious or not, I was on the initial “E-Filing Group” that submitted comprehensive recommendations and a detailed plan for implementing e-filing to ”EOIR management” back in 2001 or 2002. Since then, successive waves of EOIR “management” have squandered time, money, and public trust without producing a usable product. Meanwhile, almost every other court in America has designed and implemented e-filing systems. This catastrophic failure in and of itself would more than justify eliminating EOIR and replacing it with a judicially-managed, independent, professionally administered court system that would guarantee due process, efficiency, and fundamental fairness for all.
But, that’s by no means the only problem at EOIR. It’s unconstitutional, unfair, dysfunctional, unprofessional, and downright dangerous. I have posted recently about how Courts of Appeals continue to find that the BIA has grossly misinterpreted, distorted, and/or misapplied both law and facts in “life or death cases.” Is “good enough for government work” really OK for human lives? That neither Congress nor the Article III Courts have had the guts and decency to put an end to this life-threatening farce staining our justice system is an unforgivable national disgrace.
Those of us who understand exactly what’s happening at EOIR under the Trump kakistocracy might at the moment be powerless to change it. But, we’re continuing to challenge the unacceptable status quo and making a public record of this grotesque malfeasance and of those in all three branches of Government who are “papering over” (and by doing so enabling) EOIR’s abuses. Eventually, positive change will come. The only question is how many lives and futures will unnecessarily be lost before it does?
Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!
Immigration judges and employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review said the agency’s informal policy to keep offices and courts open puts deportations over workers’ safety.
APRIL 20, 2020 05:31 PM ET
For weeks, employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s immigration courts and offices have noticed a trend: whenever someone exhibits coronavirus symptoms, the agency quietly shuts the facility down for a day or two, cleans the office, and then reopens.
The frequency of these incidents, combined with the apparent refusal by management to take more proactive steps, like temporarily closing immigration courts altogether or instituting telework for EOIR support staff, have employees and judges fearing that the Trump administration is more concerned with keeping up the volume of immigration case decisions than the health of its own workforce.
Since Government Executive first reported on an instance of an employee with COVID-19 symptoms at a Falls Church, Virginia, EOIR office last week, there have been three additional incidents at that facility, including one where the person eventually tested positive for coronavirus. An office in the Dallas-Fort Worth area also was closed for two days in March after someone exhibited symptoms of the virus.
Additionally, the agency has announced on its official Twitter account more than 30 immigration court closures, most only for one or two days, across the country. Although in most instances officials do not explain the closures, National Association of Immigration Judges President Ashley Tabaddor said that if there is no reason listed, “you can be sure” it is a result of coronavirus exposure.
“Everything is reactive,” Tabbador said. “They put everyone at risk, and then when there’s an incident reported, they shut down the court for a day and then force people to come back to work. At Otay Mesa [in San Diego] there’s a huge outbreak, but they still haven’t shared that information . . . Sometimes we get the info and sometimes we don’t, so we don’t know how accurate or complete it is. There’s no faith that everyone who needs to be notified has been notified.”
Nancy Sykes, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2525, which represents staff at EOIR’s office in Falls Church said the amount of information provided to employees about coronavirus-related incidents has actually decreased in recent weeks. Although after the first incident, EOIR Director James McHenry emailed staff and provided information about when the employee was symptomatic and in the office, subsequent notifications were sent out by Acting Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Garry Malphrus and omitted key information about when symptomatic individuals were in the building.
“Employees are scared, they’re concerned,” Sykes said. “They don’t really trust what’s coming from management just because of the lack of details being shared. There’s a lag in information: by the time something is revealed, so much time has passed, so nobody’s clear how that process works and why it takes so long to get notice out to employees.”
In a statement, EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said that the agency “takes the safety, health and well-being of employees very seriously,” but that the workforce is critical to ensuring the due process of detained suspected undocumented immigrants.
“Accordingly, EOIR’s current operational status is largely in line with that of most courts across the country, which have continued to receive and process filings and to hold critical hearings, while deferring others as appropriate,” Mattingly wrote. “Recognizing that cases of detained individuals may implicate unique constitutional concerns and raise particular issues of public safety, personal liberty, and due process, few courts have closed completely.”
A Series of Half Measures
Agency management has taken some steps to mitigate employees’ exposure to COVID-19. On March 30, the agency postponed all hearings related to individuals who are not being detained while they await adjudication. The agency is also encouraging the use of teleconferencing, video-teleconferencing and the filing of documents by mail or electronically, and some attorneys, paralegals and judges have been able to make use of telework to reduce the amount of time they spend in the office.
But thus far, the agency has refused to postpone hearings for detained individuals, a matter that is now the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by immigration advocates and attorney groups. And the agency has denied telework opportunities to support staff in EOIR offices and immigration courts across the country.
Sykes said the lack of telework is in part a capacity issue—the agency does not have the amount of laptops on hand to distribute to employees. But she suggested that local management may be prohibited from encouraging workplace flexibilities by agency or department leadership.
“We’ve asked management about doing something where you could have employees come in shifts every other day, or over a week’s time in rotation to pick up and drop off work materials, so that there’s less exposure when coming into the office,” she said. “But they said they have not been authorized to make those types of changes to our business. When my board management says they don’t have the authority, that means it’s over their heads.”
Tabaddor said she has heard similar stories that everything judges and supervisors authorize regarding coronavirus response must be “cleared” by someone up the chain of command.
“Supervisory judges, our first line of supervisory contact, they were told that they cannot put anything in writing about the pandemic or COVID,” she said. “Anything they want to do related to that has to be cleared by HQ and, essentially, the White House. So, to date, they haven’t been told what standards and protocols are to be used. The only thing they’ve been told is if there’s a report of any incident, they are to kick it up to HQ and wait for instructions.”
On Monday, McHenry sent an email to EOIR employees announcing that the agency has ordered face masks for employees to wear when they report to the office, and said they would be available “next week.”
“Once delivered, supervisors will provide their staff with information regarding distribution to employees who are not telework eligible and are working in the office,” McHenry wrote. “Even while using face coverings, however, please continue to be vigilant in maintaining social distancing measures to the maximum extent practicable and in following CDC guidance.”
Production Over People
Agency employees said what they have seen over the last month suggests that the agency is prioritizing working on its more than 1 million case backlog, and enabling the Homeland Security Department to continue to apprehend suspected undocumented immigrants, at the expense of the wellbeing of its workforce.
“Everything is designed under the rubric that the show must go on,” Tabbador said. “While we’ve been focused on public health first . . . the department says, ‘Nope, we need to make sure that the machinery continues. To the extent that we can acknowledge social distancing as long as business continues, we can do it. But between business and health considerations, business as usual supersedes health.”
Sykes said the agency’s resistance to making basic changes to protect its employees is troubling.
“To me, the only other explanation is the immense backlog that we have of immigration appellate cases building up, and the need to continue working on that backlog even in light of the current pandemic,” she said. “It’s very unnerving, because I believe this will continue, and I don’t have any other indication that we’re not going to just continue operations as is. We now finally have a confirmed case [in the building] and there’s still no change.”
In an affidavit filed in response to the lawsuit seeking to postpone immigration court hearings for detained individuals, McHenry said he has given individual immigration courts leeway to respond as needed to the COVID-19 outbreak in their communities.
“Because COVID-19 has not affected all communities nationwide in the same manner and because EOIR’s dockets vary considerably from court to court, the challenges presented by COVID-19 are not the same for every immigration court,” McHenry wrote. “In recognition of these variances and of the fact that local immigration judges and court staff are often in the best position to address challenges tailored to the specifics of their court’s practices, EOIR has not adopted a ‘one size fits all’ policy for every immigration court, though it has issued generally-applicable guidance regarding access to EOIR space, the promotion of practices that reduce the need for hearings, and the maximization of the use of telephonic and means through which to hold hearings.”
But he also suggested it could hamper the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the ability of the Border Patrol to keep arresting suspected undocumented immigrants.
“The blanket postponement of all detained cases in removal proceedings, including initial master calendar hearings for aliens recently detained by DHS, would make it extremely difficult for DHS to arrest and detain aliens prospectively, even aliens with significant criminal histories or national security concerns, because of the uncertainty of how long an alien would have to remain in custody before being able to obtain a hearing in front of an [immigration judge] that may lead to the alien’s release,” he wrote.
*******************************
Thanks, Laura, for “packaging” this so neatly for further distribution! And many thanks to Erich Wagner over at Government Executive for “keeping on” this story he originally reported and that I also posted @ Courtside. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-5mO
Nice to know that someone is looking out for the public interest here, even if EOIR isn’t.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Wow, these self-serving “GrimGrams” ☠️⚰️ from McHenry must be very comforting to the EOIR employees 😰🧫 whose health 🤮 and safety ☠️ is on the line, not to mention the possibility that they will eventually infect their own families.😰
Deportations over safety, sanity and public health at EOIR. It’s just “business as usual” in the Clown Courts! 🤡
