😢BIG TPS DEFEAT: UNANIMOUS SUPREMES AGREE WITH BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, DENY TPS HOLDERS ELIGIBLE FOR PERMANENT IMMIGRATION OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST STATUS — That’s Exactly The Result Congress Wanted, Says Justice Kagan, Writing For Court! — Sanchez v., Mayorkas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf

SYLLABUS BY COURT STAFF:

Syllabus

SANCHEZ ET UX. v. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 20–315. Argued April 19, 2021—Decided June 7, 2021

Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez is a citizen of El Salvador who challenges the denial of his application to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. Sanchez entered the United States unlaw- fully in 1997. In 2001, the Government granted him Temporary Pro- tected Status (TPS). The TPS program allows foreign nationals of a country designated by the Government as having unusually bad or dangerous conditions to live and work in the United States while the conditions last. See §1254a. In 2014, Sanchez applied under §1255 of the immigration laws to obtain LPR status. Section 1255 provides a way for a “nonimmigrant”—a foreign national lawfully present in this country on a temporary basis—to obtain an “[a]djustment of status” to LPR. 8 U. S. C. §1255. The United States Citizenship and Immigra- tion Services determined Sanchez ineligible for LPR status because he entered the United States unlawfully. Sanchez successfully chal- lenged that decision before the District Court, which reasoned that Sanchez’s TPS required treating him as if he had been lawfully admit- ted to the country for purposes of his LPR application. The Third Cir- cuit reversed, finding Sanchez’s unlawful entry into the country pre- cluded his eligibility for LPR status under §1255, notwithstanding his TPS.

Held: A TPS recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely by dint of his TPS. Section 1255 provides that eligibility for LPR status generally requires an “ad- mission” into the country— defined to mean “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” §1101(a)(13)(A). Sanchez did not enter lawfully.

2

SANCHEZ v. MAYORKAS Syllabus

And his TPS does not eliminate the effect of that unlawful entry. Sec- tion 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient who applies for perma- nent residency will be treated as having nonimmigrant status—the status traditionally and generally needed to invoke the LPR process under §1255. But that provision does not aid the TPS recipient in meeting §1255’s separate admission requirement. Lawful status and admission are distinct concepts in immigration law, and establishing the former does not establish the latter. Sanchez resists this conclu- sion, arguing that the statute’s directive that a TPS recipient “shall be considered . . . as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of §1255 means he must also be considered as admitted. But the immigration laws no- where state that admission is a prerequisite of nonimmigrant status. So there is no reason to interpret the TPS provision’s conferral of nonimmigrant status as including a conferral of admission. In fact, contrary to Sanchez’s position, there are immigration categories in which individuals have nonimmigrant status without admission. See, e.g., §§1101(a)(10), 1101(a)(15)(U), 1182(d)(14). Thus, when Congress confers nonimmigrant status for purposes of §1255, but says nothing about admission, the Court has no basis for ruling an unlawful entrant eligible to become an LPR. Pp. 4–9.

967 F. 3d 242, affirmed.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

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

So TPSers who are long time residents and meet the requirements for a green card will continue to twist in the wind. I wouldn’t hold my breath for Congress to help them out. Many of us believed there were better interpretations available that would have produced a more sensible and humane result. But, we were wrong!

I guess the opportunity to rule against migrants is uniting an otherwise often divided Court!

PWS

06-07-21

TRASVINA RESTORES “PD” @ ICE; 6TH CIR. REJECTS CASTRO-TUM! BUT GARLAND’S FAILURES @ EOIR CONTINUE TO HAMPER BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, CAUSE CONFUSION, INCREASE BACKLOGS! — “In performing their duties, including through implementation of this memorandum, OPLA attorneys should remain mindful that ‘[i]mmigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.’”

John D. Trasvina
Principal Legal Adviser
ICE — Finally, some common sense, practical scholarship, leadership, and “good government” from someone in the Biden Administration’s Senior Immigration Team! Not surprisingly, it’s from one of the few who has actually “walked the walk” on the relationship between racial justice and immigrants’ rights. He appears to be the “right person” for ICE. Would he have been a better choice to clean up the mess at DOJ?
PHOTO: Wikipedia

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/opla/OPLA-immigration-enforcement_interim-guidance.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM:

SUBJECT:

May 27, 2021 All OPLA Attorneys

John D. Trasvifia Principal Legal Advisor

JOHN D TRASVINA

DigitallysignedbyJOHN0 TRASVINA

Date:2021.05.27 07:04:19 -07’00’

Interim Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13993, Revision ofCivil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities, 86 Fed. Reg. 7051 (Jan. 20, 2021), which articulated foundational values and priorities for the Administration with respect to the enforcement of the civil immigration laws. On the same day, then-Acting Secretary ofHomeland Security David Pekoske issued a memorandum titled, Review o fand Interim Revision to Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities (Interim Memorandum).

The Interim Memorandum did four things. First, it directed a comprehensive Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department)-wide review of civil immigration enforcement policies. Second, it established interim civil immigration enforcement priorities for the Department. Third, it instituted a 100-day pause on certain removals pending the review. Fourth, it rescinded several existing policy memoranda, including a prior U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office ofthe Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) memorandum, as inconsistent with EO 13993.2 The Interim Memorandum further directed that ICE issue interim guidance implementing the revised enforcement priorities and the removal pause.

On February 18, 2021, ICE Acting Director Tae D. Johnson issued ICE Directive No. 11090.1,

1

On January 26, 2021, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining DHS and its components from enforcing and implementing Section C ofthe interim Memorandum titled, Immediate JOO-Day Pause on Removals. See Texas v. United States, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2021 WL 247877 (S.D. Tex. 2021); see also Texas v. United States, 2021 WL 411441 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021) (extending TRO to February 23, 2021). On February 23, 2021 , the district court issued an order preliminarily enjoining DHS from “enforcing and implementing the policies described in … Section C.” Texas v. United States, 2021 WL 723856 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2021). In light of the expiration of the 100-day period described in Section C, that case has been dismissed as moot. Similarly, in light ofthe preliminary injunction, and the fact that the 100-day period described in the Interim Memorandum has now expired, this interim OPLA guidance does not implement Section C of the Interim Memorandum.

2 The Interim Memorandum revoked, as inconsistent with EO 13993, the memorandum from former Principal Legal Advisor Tracy Short, Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding the Implementation ofthe President’s Executive Orders and the Secretary’s Directives on Immigration Enforcement (Aug. 15, 2017). OPLA attorneys should no longer apply that prior guidance.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Office o fthe Principal Legal Advisor

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20536

U.S. Immigration

and Customs Enforcement

www.1ce.gov

1

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 2 of 13

Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities (Johnson Memorandum). And, on May 27, 2021, Acting General Counsel Joseph B. Maher issued a memorandum titled, Implementing Interim Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities (Maher Memorandum). In accordance with these memoranda, and pending the outcome of the Secretary’s review and any resulting policy guidance, I am providing this additional interim direction to OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing the Department’s and ICE’s interim enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion is an indispensable feature of any functioning legal system. The exercise ofprosecutorial discretion, where appropriate, can preserve limited government resources, achieve just and fair outcomes in individual cases, and advance the Department’s mission of administering and enforcing the immigration laws ofthe United States in a smart and sensible way that promotes public confidence. In performing their duties, including through implementation ofthis memorandum, OPLA attorneys should remain mindful that “[i]mmigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.” 3 As a result, they are both authorized by law and expected to exercise discretion in accordance with the factors and considerations set forth in the Interim Memorandum, the Johnson Memorandum, the Maher Memorandum, and in this guidance at all stages of the enforcement process and at the earliest moment practicable in order to best conserve prosecutorial resources and in recognition o f the important interests at stake.

I. Enforcement and Removal Priority Cases

The Johnson Memorandum identifies three categories of cases that are presumed to be enforcement and removal priorities for ICE personnel. Subject to preapproval from supervisory personnel, other civil immigration enforcement or removal actions also may be deemed priorities. OPLA attorneys assigned to handle exclusion, deportation, and removal proceedings are directed to prioritize agency resources consistent with those presumed priorities and other matters approved as priorities under the Johnson Memorandum or by their Chief Counsel. The presumed priority categories are:

1. NationalSecurity.Noncitizens.4 whohaveengagedinoraresuspectedof

3 Matter ofS-M-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997) (en bane). In remarks delivered at the Second Annual Conference of United States Attorneys more than 80 years ago, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson said, “[n]othing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are ofsuch independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won ifjustice has been done.” Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. AM. JUD. Soc’Y 18, 18-19 (1940).

4 Consistent with ICE guidance, this memorandum uses the word “noncitizen” to refer to individuals described in section 10l(a)(3) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). See Memorandum from Tae Johnson, ICE Acting Director, Updated Terminologyfor Communications and Materials (Apr. 19, 2021). OPLA attorneys should familiarize themselves with this ICE guidance and use the appropriate terminology set forth therein when engaged in outreach efforts, drafting internal documents, and communicating with stakeholders, partners, and the general

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 3 of 13

ten-orism or espionage or terrorism-related or espionage-related activities, or whose apprehension, arrest, or custody, is otherwise necessary to protect the national security ofthe United States..5

2. Border Security. Noncitizens who were apprehended at the border or a port ofentry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020, or who were not physically present in the United States before November 1, 2020.

3. Public Safety. Noncitizens who have been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as that term is defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or who have been convicted ofan offense for which an element was active pa1ticipation in a criminal street gang, as defined in

18 U.S.C. § 52 l(a), or who are not younger than 16 years of age and intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang or transnational criminal organization to further the illegal activity ofthe gang or transnational criminal organization; and are determined to pose a threat to public safety.6

Neither the presumed priorities nor the guidance regarding other priority cases subject to preapproval are intended to require or prohibit taking or maintaining a civil immigration enforcement or removal action against any individual noncitizen. Rather, OPLA attorneys are expected to exercise their discretion thoughtfully, consistent with ICE’s important national security, border security, and public safety mission. Civil immigration enforcement and removal efforts involving a noncitizen whose case fits within the three areas just listed are presumed to be a justified allocation ofICE’s limited resources. Enforcement and removal efforts may also be

justified in other cases, under appropriate circumstances. 7 Prioritization of finite agency

public. Formal legal terminology (e.g., “alien,” “alienage”) should continue to be used by OPLA attorneys when appearing before judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals, and when quoting or citing to sources of legal authority or other official documents like immigration forms.

5 For purposes of the national security presumed enforcement priority, the tenns “terrorism or espionage” and “terrorism-related or espionage-related activities” should be applied consistent with (I) the definitions of”terrorist activity” and “engage in terrorist activity” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv) of the INA, and (2) the manner in which the term “espionage” is generally applied in the immigration laws. In evaluating whether a noncitizen’s “apprehension, arrest, and/or custody, or removal is otherwise necessary to protect” national security, officers and agents should determine whether a noncitizen poses a threat to United States sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interests, or institutions. General criminal activity does not amount to a national security threat.

6 In evaluating whether a noncitizen currently “pose[s] a threat to public safety,” consideration should be given to the extensiveness, seriousness, and recency ofthe criminal activity, as well as to mitigating factors, including, but not limited to, personal and family circumstances, health and medical factors, ties to the community, evidence of rehabilitation, and whether the individual has potential immigration relief available. See Johnson Memorandum at 5.

7 As reflected in the Johnson Memorandum, Field Office Director (FOD) or Special Agent in Charge (SAC) approval is generally required in advance ofcivil immigration enforcement or removal actions taken by ICE officers and agents in cases other than presumed priority cases. Where exigent circumstances and public safety concerns make it impracticable to obtain pre-approval for an at-large enforcement action (e.g., where a noncitizen poses an imminent threat to life or an imminent substantial threat to property), approval should be requested within 24 hours following the action. See Johnson Memorandum at 6.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 4 of 13

resources is a consideration in all civil immigration enforcement and removal decisions, including but not limited to the following:

• Deciding whether to issue a detainer, or whether to assume custody of a noncitizen subject to a previously issued detainer;

• Deciding whether to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear (NTA);

• Deciding whether to focus resources only on administrative violations or conduct;

• Deciding whether to stop, question, or arrest a noncitizen for an administrative violation of the civil immigration laws;

• Deciding whether to detain or release from custody subject to conditions or on the individual’s own recognizance;

• Deciding whether to settle, dismiss, oppose or join in a motion on a case, narrow the issues in dispute through stipulation, or pursue appeal in removal proceedings;

• Deciding when and under what circumstances to execute final orders of removal; and

• Deciding whether to grant defe1Ted action or parole.

This non-exhaustive list ofcivil immigration enforcement and removal decisions identifies opportunities at every stage ofthe process to ensure the most just, fair, and legally appropriate outcome, whether that outcome is a grant of relief, an order of removal, or an exercise of discretion that allows the noncitizen to pursue immigration benefits outside the context of removal proceedings. This memorandum provides interim guidance regarding the following enforcement decisions within OPLA’s purview: filing or canceling an NTA; moving to administratively close or continue proceedings; moving to dismiss proceedings; pursuing appeal;

joining in a motion to grant reliefor to reopen or remand removal proceedings and entering stipulations; and taking a position in bond proceedings, as discussed below..8 While discretion may be exercised at any stage of the process and changed circumstances for an individual denied prosecutorial discretion at one stage may warrant reconsideration at a later stage, discretion generally should be exercised at the earliest point possible, once relevant facts have been established to properly inform the decision.

8 While resources should be allocated to the presumed priorities enumerated above, “nothing in [the Interim M]emorandum prohibits the apprehension or detention ofindividuals unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein.” Interim Memorandum at 3. See also Johnson Memorandum at 3 (“[J]t is vitally important to note that the interim priorities do not require or prohibit the atTest, detention, or removal ofany noncitizen.”); Maher Memorandum at 3 (“Neither the presumed priorities nor the guidance regarding other priority cases subject to preapproval are intended to require or prohibit taking or maintaining a civil immigration enforcement action against an individual noncitizen.”). OPLA may dedicate its resources to pursuing enforcement action against a noncitizen who does not fall into one of the presumed enforcement priorities where the FOD or SAC has approved taking enforcement action in the case, where the NTA-issuing agency has exercised its own discretion to prioritize the noncitizen for enforcement under the Interim Memorandum, or where the ChiefCounsel, in their discretion, decides that OPLA resources should be committed to the case.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 5 of 13

This memorandum is intended to provide guidance pending completion ofthe DHS-wide comprehensive review of civil immigration enforcement and removal policies and practices contemplated in the Interim Memorandum. To that end, additional guidance will be fo1thcoming.

II. Prosecutorial Discretion

OPLA will continue to fulfill its statutory responsibility as DHS’s representative before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) with respect to exclusion, deportation, and removal proceedings. See 6 U.S.C. § 252(c). In that capacity, prosecutorial discretion plays an important role in OPLA’s enforcement decision making. The following general guidance on prosecutorial discretion should inform how OPLA attorneys apply the enforcement priorities of DHS and ICE.

OPLA attorneys may exercise prosecutorial discretion in proceedings before EOIR, subject to direction from their chain ofcommand and applicable guidance from DHS. In exercising such discretion, OPLA attorneys will adhere to the enduring principles that apply to all o f their activities: upholding the rule oflaw; discharging duties ethically in accordance with the law and professional standards of conduct; following the guidelines and strategic directives of senior leadership; and exercising considered judgment and doing justice in individual cases, consistent with DHS and ICE priorities.

Prosecutorial discretion is the longstanding authority o f an agency charged with enforcing the law to decide where to focus its resources and whether or how to enforce, or not to enforce, the law against an individual. In the context of OPLA’s role in the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws, prosecutorial discretion arises at different stages of the removal process, takes different forms, and applies to a variety ofdeterminations. As the Supreme Court explained more than two decades ago when discussing the removal process, “[a]t each stage the Executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor . . . .”.9

OPLA’s policy is to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a manner that furthers the security ofthe United States and the faithful and just execution ofthe immigration laws, consistent with DHS’s and ICE’s enforcement and removal priorities. While prosecutorial discretion is not a formal program or benefit offered by OPLA, OPLA attorneys are empowered to exercise prosecutorial discretion in their assigned duties consistent with this guidance. Among other decisions, the exercise of discretion also generally includes whether to assign an attorney to represent the department in a particular case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.2(b) (creating expectation that DHS will assign counsel to cases involving mental competency, noncitizen minors, and contested removability, but that otherwise, “in his or her discretion, whenever he or she deems such assignment necessary or advantageous, the General Counsel may assign a [DHS] attorney to any other case at any stage of the proceeding”) (emphasis added). OPLA Chief Counsel are permitted to exercise this discretion on my behalf, in appropriate consultation with their chain of command.

In determining whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion, OPLA should consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Relevant mitigating factors may include a noncitizen’s length

9 Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 47 1, 483-84 ( 1999). FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 6 of 13

of residence in the United States; service in the U.S. military; family or community ties in the United States; circumstances ofarrival in the United States and the manner oftheir entry; prior immigration history; current immigration status (where lawful permanent resident (LPR) status generally warrants greater consideration, but not to the exclusion ofother noncitizens depending on the totality ofthe circumstances); work history in the United States; pursuit or completion of education in the United States; status as a victim, witness, or plaintiff in civil or criminal proceedings; whether the individual has potential immigration relief available; contributions to the community; and any compelling humanitarian factors, including poor health, age, pregnancy, status as a child, or status as a primary caregiver ofa seriously ill relative in the United States. Relevant aggravating factors may include criminal history, participation in persecution or other human rights violations, extensiveness and seriousness ofprior immigration violations (e.g., noncompliance with conditions of release, prior illegal entries, removals by ICE), and fraud or material misrepresentation. Where a criminal history exists, OPLA should consider the extensiveness, seriousness, and recency ofthe criminal activity, as well as any indicia of rehabilitation; extenuating circumstances involving the offense or conviction; the time and length ofsentence imposed and served, ifany; the age ofthe noncitizen at the time the crime was committed; the length oftime since the offense or conviction occurred; and whether subsequent criminal activity supports a determination that the noncitizen poses a threat to public safety. These factors are not intended to be dispositive or exhaustive. Discretion should be exercised on a case-by-case basis considering the totality ofthe circumstances.

Requests for prosecutorial discretion may be made in accordance with the instructions provided in Section IX of this guidance. Where a request for prosecutorial discretion is made, the OPLA attorney handling the case must document that request in PLAnet, identifying the requester and the substance of the request and uploading any supporting documentation consistent with standard operating procedures (SOPs). 10 Based on my experience working with you over the past few months, I believe strongly in the professionalism, legal skill, and judgment of OPLA’s attorneys, working through their supervisors to advise our clients and manage an enormous workload with limited resources. I trust and expect that all OPLA field attorneys, under the leadership ofourChiefCounsel, will work strenuously to ensure the timely and appropriate exercise ofdiscretion in meritorious removal cases. That being said, given the tremendous importance of achieving just and correct outcomes on these issues, it is entirely pe1missible for any OPLA attorney to raise prosecutorial discretion decisions through their chain ofcommand to OPLA headquaiters (HQ) for additional review or discussion.

Appropriate exercises ofprosecutorial discretion are in the mutual interest of both the person benefitting from the exercise ofdiscretion and the government itself. This mutual interest is no less significant because a noncitizen does not affirmatively request prosecutorial discretion. In the absence of an affirmative request for prosecutorial discretion by a noncitizen or a noncitizen’s representative, OPLA attorneys should nonetheless examine the cases to which they are assigned to determine independently whether a favorable exercise ofdiscretion may be

10 If the case involves classified information, the OPLA attorney must transmit such information only in accordance with the DHS Office ofthe ChiefSecurity Officer Publication, Safeguarding Classified & Sensitive But Unclassified Information Reference Pamphlet (Feb. 2012, or as updated), and all other applicable policies governing the handling ofclassified information.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 7 of 13

appropriate. This affirmative duty to evaluate assigned cases is central to an OPLA attorney’s job. Chief Counsel should include in their local SOPs ways to address these cases including how

OPLA attorneys should document their affirmative consideration ofprosecutorial discretion in PLAnet.

III. Notices to Appear

When a legally sufficient, appropriately documented NTA has been issued by a DHS component consistent with the component’s issuing and enforcement guidelines, 11 it will generally be filed with the immigration court and proceedings litigated to completion unless the Chief Counsel exercises prosecutorial discretion based on their assessment of the case. 12 As prosecutorial discretion is expected to be exercised at all stages of the enforcement process and at the earliest moment practicable, it may be appropriate for the Chief Counsel to conclude that a legally

sufficient, a ro riatel documented administrative immi ration case warrants non-filin of an

NTA_ (b)(S) (b)(5)

(b)(S) Where an NTA is issued but not filed with the immigration court pursuant to this section, OPLA should document the reasoning for this position in PLAnet and the OPLA Field Location should work with its local Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office to cancel the NTA and inform the noncitizen of the cancellation. 13

IV. Administrative Closure and Continuance of Proceedings

In the past, OPLA had broad authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion by agreeing to

administrative closure of cases by EOIR. However, due to conflicting court of appeals decisions

11 This includes NTAs submitted to OPLA by ICE operational components as well as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for review. “Appropriately documented” in this context means that, in OPLA’s litigation judgment, sufficient information has been provided by the NTA-issuing component to carry any DHS burden of proof. See INA§ 240(c), 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8.

12 Separate and apart from the enforcement priority framework outlined in the Interim Memorandum and Johnson Memorandum, certain noncitizens have an established right to be placed into removal proceedings. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. §§ 208. l4(c)(l) (requiring referral for removal proceedings ofa removable noncitizen whose affirmative asylum application is not granted by USCIS); 216.4(d)(2) (requiring NTA issuance to noncitizen whose joint petition to remove conditional basis ofLPR status is denied by USCIS); 216.S(f) (same; USCIS denial ofapplication for waiver of the joint petition requirement). In other cases, USCIS may issue an NTA on a discretionary basis to a noncitizen who wishes to pursue immigration benefits before the immigration court. Although such cases do not fall within the priority framework, absent an affirmative request by the noncitizen prior to the merits hearing for the favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion to dismiss removal proceedings, OPLA attorneys should generally litigate them to completion. If such noncitizens are ordered removed, requests for prosecutorial discretion would then most properly be made to ERO for evaluation in accordance with the Department’s and ICE’s stated priorities.

13 The NTA cancellation regulation vests immigration officers who have the authority to issue NTAs with the authority to also cancel them. 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a). The regulation expresses a preference for certain NTAs to be cancelled by the same officer who issued them “unless it is impracticable” to do so. Id. § 239.2(b). Given the enormous size ofthe EOIR docket, current OPLA staffing levels, and complexities associated with routing any significant number ofNTAs back to specific issuing officers stationed around the country, it would be impracticable to require OPLA attorneys to do so. By contrast, the local ERO Field Offices with which OPLA Field Locations routinely interact are well suited to assist with this function promptly and efficiently.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 8 of 13

on the validity ofMatter ofCastro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018) (limiting administrative closure by EOIR adjudicators to circumstances where a previous regulation or judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action), the availability ofadministrative closure as a form ofprosecutorial discretion for ICE and a tool ofdocket management for EOIR is limited in certain jurisdictions for certain types of cases. 14 Nevertheless, OPLA retains authority to handle pending cases on EOIR’s docket by deciding whether to agree to a continuance for “good cause shown” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, see also Matter ofL-A-B-R-, I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) (interpreting this regulation), and whether to seek, oppose, or join in a motion for dismissal of proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c).

The presumed priorities outlined above will be a significant factor informing the position that OPLA attorneys take in response to continuance motions made by noncitizens in removal proceedings. Indeed, given the comprehensive review of immigration enforcement and removal policies and practices directed by Section A ofthe Interim Memorandum, OPLA attorneys are authorized to take the general position that “good cause” exists in cases in which noncitizens who fall outside the presumed priorities seek to have their cases continued to await the outcome of that comprehensive review. 15 Continuing cases in these circumstances may conserve OPLA resources in cases where the ultimate arrest, detention, and removal of a noncitizen are unlikely. Accordingly, while immigration judges (Us) will make case-by-case assessments whether continuance motions are supported by “good cause shown” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, and OPLA attorneys should assess each continuance motion on its own terms, in the absence ofserious aggravating factors, the fact that a noncitizen is not a presumed priority should weigh heavily in favor of not opposing the noncitizen’s motion. Before opposing a continuance in such cases, OPLA attorneys should confer with their supervisors. The reason for opposing the motion should also be documented in PLAnet.

V. Dismissal of Proceedings

With approximately 1.3 million cases on the immigration courts’ dockets nationwide, and the varied procedural postures of such cases, including many set for future merits hearings on re.lief or protection from removal, OPLA will cover, at a later date and in a comprehensive fashion, how to address the potential dismissal ofproceedings consistent with its limited resources and DHS and ICE guidance. The size ofthe court backlog and extraordinary delays in completing cases impede the interests ofjustice for both the government and respondents alike and underminepublicconfidenceinthis importantpillaroftheadministrationofthenation’s

14 Compare Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2020) (agreeing with Castro-Tum), with Arcos Sanchez, 2021 WL I774965, — F.3d — (3d Cir. 2021) (rejecting Castro-Tum and finding that EOIR regulations giving broad case management authority to its adjudicators includes administrative closure authority), Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2020) (Coney Barrett, J.) (same), and Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019) (same). Notwithstanding this variation in circuit law, administrative closure remains available under Castro-Tum for T and V nonimmigrant visa applicants. See 8 C.F.R. §§ I214.2(a) (expressly allowing for administrative closure for noncitizens seeking to apply for T nonimmigrant status), 1214.3 (same; V nonimmigrant status).

15 This does not imply that “good cause” cannot exist in cases ofnoncitizens who fall into the presumed priority categories or are otherwise a civil immigration enforcement or removal priority. OPLA attorneys retain discretion to, as appropriate, agree to continuances in such cases.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 9 of 13

immigration laws. In advance of future guidance, cases that generally will merit dismissal in the absence of serious aggravating factors include:

I. MilitaryServiceMembersorImmediateRelativesThereof16

A favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion (i.e., concurrence with or non-opposition to a motion for dismissal ofproceedings without prejudice) generally will be appropriate if a noncitizen or immediate relative is a current or former member (honorably discharged) of the Armed Forces, including the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force, or a member of a reserve component of the Anned Forces or National Guard, particularly if the individual may qualify for U.S. citizenship under sections 328 or 329 ofthe I N A . _1 1

2. Individuals Likely to be Granted Temporary or Permanent Relief

When a noncitizen has a viable avenue available to regularize their immigration status outside of removal proceedings, whether through temporary or pennanent relief, it generally will be appropriate to move to dismiss such proceedings without prejudice so that the noncitizen can pursue that relief before the appropriate adjudicatory body. 18 This may be appropriate where, for instance, the noncitizen is the beneficiary of an approved Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and appears prima facie eligible for either adjustment of status under INA section 245 or an immigrant visa through consular processing abroad, including in conjunction with a provisional waiver of unlawful presence under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e), immediately or in the near future; appears prima facie eligible to register for Temporary Protected Status (TPS);.19 or is a child who appears prima facie eligible to pursue special immigrant juvenile status under INA section 101(a)(27) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.11. In such a circumstance, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion itselfcan help to promote the integrity ofour immigration system by enhancing the ability of certain noncitizens to come into compliance with our immigration laws.

3. Compelling Humanitarian Factors

The favorable exercise ofprosecutorial discretion- including agreeing to dismissal of proceedings without prejudice-generally will be appropriate when compelling humanitarian factors become apparent during NTA review or litigation of the case. While some factors will weigh more heavily than others, this can include cases where, for instance, the noncitizen has a serious health condition, is elderly, pregnant, or a minor; is the primary caregiver to, or has an

16 See Email from Kenneth Padilla, DPLA, Field Legal Operations, to all OPLA attorneys, Refresher Guidance Regarding United States Veterans and Military Service Members in Removal (Nov. 18, 2019).

17

citizenship. See ICE Directive 16001 .2, Investigating the Potential U S. Citizenship o fIndividuals Encountered by

Relatedly, OPLA attorneys must continue to follow ICE guidance related to the evaluation of claims to U.S. ICE (Nov. 10, 2015).

18 DHS regulations expressly contemplate joint motions to tenninate removal proceedings in appropriate cases in which the noncitizen is seeking to apply for U nonimmigrant status. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(I)(i).

19 Stipulation to TPS in such cases may also be an option, in the exercise ofdiscretion. Cf Matter ofD-A-C-, 27 I & N . D e c . 5 7 5 ( B I A 2 0 I 9 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y o f I J s t o g r a n t T P S ) ; S e c t i o n V I I , i n fr a .

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 10of13

immediate family or household member who is, known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness; is a victim ofdomestic violence, human trafficking, or other serious crime;.20 came to the United States as a young child and has since lived in the United States continuously; or is party to significant collateral civil litigation (e.g., family court proceedings, non-frivolous civil rights or labor claims).

4. Significant Law Enforcement or Other Governmental Interest

Where a noncitizen is a cooperating witness or confidential informant or is otherwise significantly assisting state or federal law enforcement, it may be appropriate in certain cases to agree to the dismissal ofproceedings without prejudice. “Law enforcement” in this context includes not only conventional criminal law enforcement, but also enforcement of labor and civil rights laws. In exercising discretion related to law enforcement equities, OPLA attorneys should be guided by the perspectives of the relevant investigating agency components (e.g., the Office ofInspector General, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Libe1ties, Depa1tmentofJustice Immigrant and Employee Rights Section, Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, other federal agencies, ERO, Homeland Security Investigations, and any relevant state counterparts). Additionally, such law enforcement entities may have tools at their disposal that OPLA does not, including stays of removal, deferred action, T and U nonimmigrant status law enforcement certification, and requests for S nonimmigrant classification. In any event, national security, border security, and public safety are paramount in deciding whether to continue litigating removal proceedings.

5. Long-TermLawfulPermanentResidents

A favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion should also be considered for LPRs who have resided in the United States for many years, paiticularly when they acquired their LPR status at a young age and have demonstrated close family and community ties. Dismissal ofsuch cases that do not present serious aggravating factors will allow the noncitizen to maintain a lawful immigration status and conserve finite government resources.

When OPLA agrees to dismissal of removal proceedings as an exercise ofprosecutorial discretion in the categories above, the reasoning for this position should be recorded in PLAnet.

VI. Pursuing Appeal

In our immigration system, DHS initiates removal proceedings while IJs and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) exercise the Attorney General’s delegated authority to adjudicate issues ofremovability and reliefand protection from removal. OPLA attorneys continue to possess the discretion to take legally viable appeals ofIJ decisions and make appropriate legal arguments in response to noncitizen appeals and motions..2 1 Appellate advocacy should generally

20 See generally ICE Directive No. 10076.1, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs (June 17,2011).

21 OPLAheadquartersdivisionsshouldcontinuetocoordinatewithimpactedDHSOfficeoftheGeneralCounsel (OGC) headquarters and component counsel offices when preparing briefs and motions in significant litigation.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 11 of13

focus on priority cases- national security, border security, and public safety. Of course, other considerations, such as significant aggravating and mitigating factors and the need to seek clarity on an important legal issue, are appropriate for OPLA attorneys to take into account, consistent with direction from their respective Chief Counsel.

Consistent with any local guidance issued by their respective Chief Counsel,.22 OPLA attorneys may waive appeal in a case that is not a priority. OPLA attorneys may also decline to appeal where there is little likelihood ofsuccess before the BIA. While OPLA attorneys may reserve appeal to ensure the articulation ofa fully reasoned decision by an IJ to help inform whether the appeal should ultimately be perfected, OPLA attorneys may also waive appeal, where appropriate, in the interest ofjudicial efficiency and in recognition of limited resources.

OPLA Field Locations generally coordinate appellate advocacy before the BIA with the Immigration Law and Practice Division (ILPD)..23 OPLA Field Locations and ILPD should continue to work together, along with any other relevant OPLA HQ divisions, to craft strong and nationally consistent appellate work product. Again, in committing OPLA resources to perfecting appeal and drafting appellate pleadings, Field Locations and ILPD should focus their efforts on presumed priority cases. Furthermore, to ensure efficiency in litigation, OPLA attorneys should generally limit briefing schedule extension requests before the BIA and should not request briefing extensions in detained matters without prior approval from a supervisor. However, it is permissible to agree to briefing extension requests filed by non-detained noncitizens whose cases are not presumed priorities.

VII. Joining in Motions for Relief and Motions to Reopen and Entering Stipulations

In order to conserve resources and expedite resolution of a case- as well as where doing so would fulfill the duty to do justice and achieve the best outcome- OPLA attorneys have the discretion to join motions for relief (oral or written), consistent with any local guidance issued by their respective Chief Counsel. An OPLA attorney should be satisfied that the noncitizen qualifies for the reliefsought under law and merits reliefas a matter ofdiscretion or qualifies

22 ChiefCounsel should review existing local practice guidance to ensure that it confonns to current interim enforcement priorities and amend such guidance where necessary. Similarly, any new local practice guidance should conform to this memorandum and the presumed priorities.

23 See Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Promoting Excellence in OPLA ‘s Advocacy Before the Board o fimmigration Appeals (Feb. 22, 2016); Email Message from Kenneth Padilla and Adam Loiacono, Final Rule – Appella..t.,e,,.,..,,,,._ _,

Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immif!ration Proceedinf!s; Administrative Closure (Jan. 22, 2021).l(b)(S) b)(S)

(b)(S) IFurther, special procedures apply in the context ofnational security and human rights violator cases. See Email Message from Rjah Ramlogan, OPLA Supplemental Guidance on the Proper Handling ofNational Security and Human Rights Violator Cases (May 28, 2015), as supplemented and modified by OPLA Memorandum, Proper Handling o f OPLA National Security (NS) Cases (May 21, 2015) and OPLA Memorandum, Proper Handling ofOPLA Human Rights Violator (HRV) Cases (May 2I, 20I5).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 12of13

24

under law for protection from removal when agreeing to such motions.. Such decisions to join

in motions should be made in a manner that facilitates the efficient operation ofOPLA Field Locations in immigration court. The same applies with respect to narrowing disputed issues through stipulation in order to promote fair and efficient proceedings.

OPLA intends to address in future.guidance when to join in motions to reopen cases with final removal orders. In the meantime, OPLA should continue addressing requests for joint motions to reopen on a case-by-case basis, giving favorable consideration to cases that are not priorities and where dismissal would be considered under Section V, supra.

VIII. Bond Proceedings

OPLA attorneys appearing before EOIR in bond proceedings must follow binding federal and administrative case law regarding the standards for custody redeterminations. 25 OPLA attorneys should also make appropriate legal and factual arguments to ensure that DHS’s interests, enforcement priorities, and custody authority are defended. In particular, in bond proceedings OPLA attorneys should give due regard to custody determinations made by an authorized immigration officer pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236. l(c)(8), while not relinquishing the OPLA attorney’s own responsibility to consider and appropriately apply the factors and considerations set forth in the Interim Memorandum, the Johnson Memorandum, the Maher Memorandum, and this guidance. Where a noncitizen produces new information that credibly mitigates flight risk or danger concerns, OPLA attorneys have discretion to agree or stipulate to a bond amount or other conditions of release with a noncitizen or their representative, and to waive appeal of an IJ’s order redetermining the conditions ofrelease in such cases..26

24 See, e.g., INA §§ 208 (asylum), 240A(a) (cancellation of removal for certain pennanent residents), 240A(b) (cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents), 240B (voluntary departure), 245 (adjustment ofstatus), 249 (registry). Additionally, OPLA attorneys represent DHS in cases where noncitizens apply for withholding of removal under INA section 241(b)(3) and protection under the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). See, e.g. , 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-.18. Withholding and CAT protection both impose significant burdens ofproof(i.e., qualifying mistreatment must be “more likely than not” to occur). When a noncitizen moves to reopen their proceedings to pursue such non-discretionary protection, and the motion is supported by evidence that strongly suggests the noncitizen will be able to meet their burden, OPLA attorneys should ordinarily not oppose reopening and can also consider joining in such motions, as resources permit

25 See, e.g., Matter ofR-A-V-P-, 27 l&N Dec. 803, 804-05 (BIA 2020) (assessing whether respondent had met burden to demonstrate that he did not pose a risk of flight in INA section 236(a) discretionary detention case); Matter ofSiniausl«is, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2018) (addressing interplay between flight risk and dangerousness considerations in INA section 236(a) discretionary detention case involving recidivist drunk driver); Matter of Kotliar, 24 l&N Dec. 124 (BIA 2007) (discussing general parameters of INA section 236(c) mandatory detention).

26 DHS and EOIR regulations recognize that, as a prerequisite for even being considered for discretionary release by an ICE officer under INA section 236(a), a noncitizen “must demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the [noncitizen] is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(c)(8), 1236.l(c)(S) (emphasis added). Additionally, prior to agreeing to non monetary conditions of release, OPLA attorneys should consult with their local ERO Field Offices to ensure that such conditions are practicable (e.g., GPS monitoring, travel restrictions).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OPLA Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities Page 13 of13

IJ custody redetermination decisions that are factually or legally erroneous are subject to appeal to the BIA. Decisions on whether to appeal or to continue to prosecute an appeal should be guided by the presumed priorities and the sound use of finite resources. See Section VI, supra. It may also be appropriate for an OPLA Field Location to seek a discretionary or automatic stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l 9(i) in conjunction with a DHS bond appeal, particularly where issues of public safety are implicated. OPLA Field Locations should work closely with ILPD and other relevant OPLA HQ divisions to identify instances where use ofthis authority may be warranted..27

IX. Responding to Inquiries

Each OPLA Field Location should maintain email inboxes dedicated to receiving inquiries related to this memorandum, including requests for OPLA to favorably exercise its discretion, and socialize the existence and use ofthese mailboxes with their respective local immigration bars including non-governmental organizations assisting or representing noncitizens before EOIR. OPLA Field Locations and sub-offices should strive to be as responsive to such inquiries as resources permit.

X. Oversight and Monitoring

This memorandum serves as interim guidance, and OPLA’s experience operating under this guidance will inform the development of subsequent guidance aligning with the outcome of the comprehensive review directed by the Interim Memorandum. It is therefore critical that prosecutorial discretion decision-making information be promptly and accurately documented in PLAnet and that SOPs be implemented to ensure consistent PLAnet recordkeeping. Field Legal Operations (FLO) should issue such SOPs within two weeks ofthis memorandum. FLO’s regular review ofPLAnet and the SOPs will form the basis ofrecommendations on process improvements, if and as necessary.

Official Use Disclaimer

This memorandum, which may contain legally privileged information, is intended For Official Use Only. It is intended solely to provide internal direction to OPLA attorneys and staff regarding the implementation of Executive Orders and DHS guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create or confer any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any individual or other party, including in removal proceedings or other litigation involving DHS, ICE, or the United States, or in any other form or manner whatsoever. Likewise, this guidance does not and is not intended to place any limitations on DHS’s otherwise lawful enforcement of the immigration laws or DHS’s litigation

prerogatives.

27 Existing OPLA guidance on automatic and discretionary stays remains in effect. See, e.g., Barry O’Melinn, Revised Proceduresfor Automatic Stay ofCustody Decisions by Immigration Judges (Oct. 26, 2006).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/

21a0127p-06.pdf

Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6th Cir., 06-11-21, published

PANEL: MOORE, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

KEY QUOTE:

Here, we squarely confront this question and conclude that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii), in conjunction with 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), provides IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers. Administrative closure is “appropriate and necessary” in this circumstance for the disposition of Garcia’s immigration case. Absent administrative closure, Garcia and other noncitizens in removal proceedings who are seeking permanent residency would be unable to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver despite the authorizing regulation.

Permitting administrative closure for the limited purpose of allowing noncitizens to apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii) will not lead to non-adjudication of immigration cases. Thus, the concern raised in Hernandez-Serrano that a general authority to grant administrative closure results in non-adjudication of immigration cases is not present. Administrative closure for the purpose of applying for a provisional unlawful presence waiver “bring[s] an end to the removal process” and permits “the non-citizen [to] voluntarily depart the U.S. for an immigrant visa appointment abroad.” Pet. Br. at 14. Generally, a noncitizen will, upon USCIS’s approval of their provisional unlawful presence waiver, seek to recalendar and terminate their removal proceedings. See, e.g., Romero, 937 F.3d at 287 (“Romero advised that if his case were administratively closed, then once the waiver had been approved, he intended to move to re-calendar and terminate removal proceedings so that he could then go through the consular process in Honduras.”); see also Ariel Brown, Immigr. Legal Res. Ctr., I-601A Provisional Waiver: Process, Updates, and Pitfalls to Avoid, at 7 (June 2019), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/i- 601a_process._updates._and_pitfalls_to_avoid_june_2019.pdf (advising noncitizens to move to recalendar and then terminate their removal proceedings upon approval of their provisional unlawful presence waiver or upon receiving their immigrant visa).

**********

After five months, John Trasvina is the first Biden Administration senior official in to take any responsible, practical steps to deal with the out of control Immigration Court backlog of 1.3 million that continues to grow under Garland’s flailing non-leadership at DOJ. But, he can’t do it by himself.

Without some progressive reforms at EOIR (and I’m NOT talking about an ill-thought-out uncoordinated “Dedicated Docket” or putting more Barr picks on the already compromised Immigration Bench, both of which are likely to build backlog and further reduce quality from its already “sub-basement levels”), the backlog and systemic denials of due process in Garland’s failed Immigration Courts will continue to grow.

That means some new progressive leadership at EOIR and some progressive judges at both the trial and appellate levels. Judges who know how to “leverage” PD with recalcitrant attorneys on both sides.

It also requires an immediate recession by Garland of Sessions’s abominable precedent Matter of Castro-Tum that has been panned by experts and rejected, at least in some form, by every Circuit that has considered it. Additionally, as a practitioner just reminded me, it will depend on whether Trasvina has the will, status, and power to force compliance on what are likely to be some resistant ICE Chief Counsels and Field Office Directors. In the past, local DHS officials have sometimes simply ignored or undermined PD policies with which they disagreed. So, stay tuned!

The quote from the Trasvina memo in the headline above comes from Matter of S-M-J-, 21 l&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997) (en banc), a leading “Schmidt BIA” case! Compare this with the White Nationalist absurdist nonsense put out by Sessions about prosecuting every case, no matter how absurd, marginal, or counterproductive, to a conclusion. Sessions spewed forth total, unadulterated BS! 💩

No, and I mean NO, other law enforcement agency in America (save the Trump DHS) operates in such an irresponsible, dishonest, and unrealistic manner! Particularly one whose bad policies and lack of self-restraint helped build a largely unnecessary backlog of 1.3 million cases. Indeed, according to the latest TRAC report, a simply astounding 96% of pending Immigration Court cases involve individuals without criminal charges! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir. This suggests that with competent leadership at DOJ and EOIR the backlog could be, and already should have been, dramatically slashed without adversely affecting ICE’s legitimate enforcement priorities!

“The government wins when justice is done.” Wow! What a novel idea! Sounds like something right out of one of my old speeches to newly-hired INS prosecutors when I was the Deputy General Counsel at INS.

Probably, no coincidence that BIA Appellate Judge Michael J. Heilman, who wrote S-M-J-, once worked with me at INS General Counsel (although, as the record will show, by the time we both became “independent appellate judges” at a BIA that for a brief time functioned more like a “real court of independent experts” — as opposed to the current “deportation railroad” — our views often diverged).

The 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th Circuits have rejected Sessions’s, malicious, racist, incorrect and idiotic, backlog-building decision in Castro-Tum. At the time of the Trasvina memo it appeared that the 6th Circuit was “trending in favor of” Castro-Tum, but the more recent 6th Circuit case featured above emphatically rejects Castro-Tum as applied to those seeking “provisional waivers.”

So, the 6th is a little confusing. As I read it, there is no Administrative Closing for those approved for SIJS status and waiting for numbers. But, Administrative Closing is available for a “provisional waiver.” This doesn’t make any sense to me. But, what really doesn’t make sense is the unnecessary confusion caused by Garland’s failure to act and his continuation of improper White Nationalist, anti-due process, “worst practices” instituted by his Trumpist predecessors.

To my knowledge, no Circuit has endorsed Castro-Tum in its entirety. Yet, Garland inexplicably and mindlessly has neither vacated Castro-Tum nor has he directed OIL to stop defending this legally incorrect, backlog-building, due-process-killing “Sessions-Miller” bogus “precedent.” “Part IV” of the Trasvina memo describes the unnecessary confusion and potential for more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” caused by Garland’s failure to rescind Castro-Tum and reinstate “Administrative Closing” as an essential docket management (and due process) tool in Immigration Court.

Trasvina “gets it” (at least so far). Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, not so much! Maybe Trasvina should have been the AG!

As a practitioner recently put it: “Repubs are bold, Dems are wimps when it comes to EOIR!” To date, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke seem determined to follow in the footsteps of their ineffective predecessors! If they don’t get smarter, braver, bolder, and much more aggressively progressive, they will continue to fail American democracy in our hour of great need!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-21

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, 🚀 BUT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION LACKS EXPERT PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP WHO “GETS IT” — Will VP Harris Be Able To Break Out Of The “Death Spiral” ☠️ Of “Proven, Guaranteed To Fail” Racist Immigration Deterrence? — “It’s Groundhog Day at the border, and Biden is mindlessly laying the foundation for more problems in a few years. We’ve watched it all play out before. Immigration deterrence doesn’t work.”

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”. — “The reality of racial justice and the rule of law for people of color at our Southern Border is rather sobering, as the Biden Administration fails to usher in needed progressive reforms. How many more people will die because this Administration won’t follow the Constitution, The Refugee Act, and our international obligations? We’ll never achieve racial justice so long as dehumanization of people of color is our official policy, carried out by a broken and dysfunctional DOJ!”
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

Vice President Kamala Harris — Vice President Kamala D. Harris
Vice President of the United States — “Will she be able to get beyond the mistakes of the past and put rationality, humanity, and the rule of law in place at the Southern Border. So far, the results of her leadership are NOT encouraging for those who believe in progressive, humanitarian, legal policies.”
(Official Senate Photo)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/03/immigration-mexico-guatemala-kamala-harris-biden-border-reform/

Opinion by James Fredrick in WashPost

June 3 at 3:44 PM ET

James Fredrick is a multimedia journalist based in Mexico City and covers migration, crime, politics and sports.

. . . .

Obama tried deterring migrants with his characteristic lawyerly tact. Trump did it with his cruel, petty impulsiveness. Biden is doing it with his folksy toughness. The styles are different, but the results of immigration deterrence will always be the same.

We’re trapped in this cycle because the U.S. government refuses to listen to migrants. Having met hundreds of migrants during my years reporting in Mexico and Central America, it’s obvious why deterrence doesn’t work: What’s at home is worse than anything the United States could threaten. Most migrants don’t want to leave home. But they do because violent death or crippling destitution is all that’s left.

Failing to actually come up with a solution, we of the “greatest country on Earth” become tremendously feeble and defensive at the arrival of a few thousand immigrant children. But there is another way.

We must treat immigration as a civil and humanitarian issue, not a criminal one. Criminalizing people fleeing violence, persecution, climate change or economic hardship exacerbates these problems. So decriminalize border crossings and rebuild border facilities as welcome centers, not jails. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents at the border should be social workers, not cops.

If Trump’s family separation atrocity showed us anything, it’s that millions of Americans want to help immigrants in need. The United States should cooperate more with these groups. There are already large networks around the country that can provide housing, food, legal services, education and medical services to immigrants. Why rely on expensive armed border agents instead of willing, motivated humanitarian groups?

Immigration laws should also address the challenges of the 21st century. In addition to decriminalizing border crossings, our immigration laws rely on outdated quotas and corrupt, abusive worker programs. Asylum law is a relic of the Cold War and doesn’t reflect the world today.

Finally, Washington should stop making the problems worse with bad foreign policy. Despite numerous abuses, scandals and criminal allegations involving Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, the Biden administration refuses to denounce him, though many think he is responsible for the conditions Hondurans are fleeing. In fact, Biden administration officials are working with Hernández to try to prevent Hondurans from fleeing. He’s just one example in a long history of U.S. meddling to prop up corrupt, abusive, U.S.-friendly regimes. No amount of U.S. dollars in aid can make up for bad foreign policy.

President Biden can’t stop the crisis today. After all, he helped create it. But he can make sure this is the last “border crisis” we face.

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

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

Ah, “mindlessly” — one of my favorite terms, usually applied these days to Garland and his inept team at DOJ! Actually, Frederick isn’t the only one to figure this out!

The problem remains, as I have stated over and over, the toxic failure of the Biden Administration to bring progressive experts in immigration, human rights, civil rights, and “applied due process” into Government and empower them to solve the problems! It’s bizarrely compounded by the disgraceful unwillingness of those few in the Biden Administration, like Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, who actually know better, to speak up for racial justice, social justice, human rights, and human dignity at the DOJ!

Unless VP Harris wakes up, convinces her boss, and brings in the progressive experts, she’s headed for the abyss, taking thousands of vulnerable refugees and, perhaps, American democracy down with her!

Refusal to listen: to migrants, their representatives, experts, our “better angels,” and common sense! The same problems, over and over, Administration after Administration, decade after decade! The same “built to fail” policies repeated!

The truth is in front of the Biden Administration! But, like Garland, Mayorkas, and others leading the way over the cliff, Biden and Harris can’t see it! They appear to have “tuned out” those desperately trying to keep them from plunging over the precipice! So tragic, so unnecessary, so threatening to American democracy and the future of humanity!

🇺🇸🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-05-21

🇺🇸🗽⚖️GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE REPORT: GENDER VIOLENCE ☠️⚰️DRIVES CONTINUING REFUGEE FLOW TO U.S. — Dishonesty Of Sessions’s Misogynistic Attack In Matter Of A-B- 🤮 Exposed Again! — Yet, Garland Fails To Take Action To End Misogyny, Anti-Asylum Culture @ EOIR, Even As He Also Fails To Insist On The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law @ Our Borders! — WHY?🤯

Gender Violence in Central America — Gender Violence continues to to be endemic in Latin America! Yet, shockingly, its victims, refugee women of color, can expect little protection in Garland’s Immigration Courts still applying Jeff Sessions’s inaccurate, misogynistic precedent in Matter of A-B- and continuing to be staffed by too many “judges” selected or promoted by the Trump Administration because of their perceived willingness to support anti-asylum policies targeting many women of color! Recently Garland outraged progressives by appointing 17 “Miller/Barr Holdovers” to powerful, life or death, Immigration Judge positions while eschewing better-qualified progressive experts from the private sector who could bring diversity and gender and racial justice to his dysfunctional Immigration “Courts!”
PHOTO: UNHCR website

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/06/03/abuse-of-women-and-children-at-root-of-immigration-crisis/

Abused women at border — Migrant women carry children in the rain at an intake area after turning themselves in upon crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, late Tuesday, May 11, 2021, in La Joya, Texas. The U.S. government continues to report large numbers of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border with an increase in adult crossers. But families and unaccompanied children are still arriving in dramatic numbers despite the weather changing in the Rio Grande Valley registering hotter days and nights. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)(Gregory Bull)

By Natalie Gonnella-Platts and Jenny Villatoro In the Dallas Morning News:

When U.S. Border Patrol found him in the Texas desert, 10-year-old Wilton was crying, “they abandoned me.” Exhausted and alone, his image went viral — a poignant visual of the struggle faced by thousands seeking safety.

But Wilton’s story actually began in Nicaragua when his mother, Meylin, wasn’t able to get legal protection from an abusive partner. Mother and son fled to the United States, seeking asylum, but were expelled under a public health rule and sent to Mexico, where they were kidnapped, according to an account in El Pais. Meylin’s brother in Miami could pay only half the ransom — enough for Wilton alone to be released.

Although Meylin was ultimately released and reunited with her son, the tale that led to Wilton’s arrival at the border as an unaccompanied minor isn’t unique. It illustrates the fact that gender-based violence, revictimization and lack of justice affect children, families and communities thousands of miles away. It also highlights the importance of a safe and legal pathway into the United States for survivors of gender-based violence and other asylum-seekers. For many, arriving at the U.S. border seeking asylum is the only legal pathway available.

Immigration reform in the United States is essential to assuring that we have a secure and efficient border, a system flexible enough to handle changes in migrant flows, and the capacity to treat each migrant with dignity. But more needs to be done in the migrants’ home countries, too, so that they are not forced to flee for their safety in the first place.

Any comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform should address gender inequity and gender-based violence.

They are not siloed issues to acknowledge only when horrific stories of femicide and human trafficking force us to pay attention. Rather, they are deeply entangled with broader challenges of corruption and poverty. Proposed solutions shouldn’t overlook the impact of gender-based violence on migrant flows, economic development, education and health.

Fourteen of the 25 most dangerous places for women are in the Western Hemisphere, including countries within Central America. Patriarchy and gang violence subject women and girls to abhorrent actions of abuse and control.

Honduras and El Salvador saw some of the highest incidences of femicide within Latin America in 2019, at rates of 6.2 and 3.3 per 100,000, respectively. In Guatemala, adolescent girls are at a high risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.

COVID 19-related lockdowns are being exploited by gangs looking to strengthen control: El Salvador alone has seen a 70% increase in gender-based violence since the beginning of the pandemic. And lockdowns have forced vulnerable individuals to stay in close proximity to their perpetrators. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador reported an increase in intrafamily violence, with El Salvador reporting an increase in intrafamily femicides as well.

Justice systems and access to services need to be strengthened to ensure adequate protection for all under the law. Legal protections often are inhibited by weak institutions, corruption and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators.

According to a 2017 national survey, two-thirds of Salvadoran women over the age of 15 have experienced violence, but only 6% have ever reported it. While laws against child marriage exist across the region, in some countries about 1 in 3 young women are in a union before age 18. Post-trauma support and efforts that inform Central American women of their rights and agency are critical interventions that could help women like Meylin.

Females have been disproportionately affected by the devastating impact of hurricanes Eta and Iota, but the status of women and girls is chronically overlooked in response efforts, exacerbating the risk of violence.

Women and girls must be seen and heard. Greater focus on gender and age-disaggregated data collection and in tracking the effectiveness and efficiency of legal systems is crucial. And women and their lived experiences need to be more fully represented at all leadership levels.

Finally, direct outreach to local communities should be a priority for U.S. government and private sector-led programs. This includes resource and capacity support for advocates and organizations that serve as lifelines for those affected by violence, often at great personal risk. Engagement with men and boys is equally imperative.

How can anyone be expected to thrive when her day-to-day priority is simply to survive? The United States needs to recognize that gender-based violence and gender inequity drive migration.

Immigration reform must include strategies to address the root causes of migration from Central America in effective and lasting ways to prevent situations like Wilton’s and Meylin’s. Women and girls must be front and center in these solutions.

Natalie Gonnella-Platts serves as the director of the Women’s Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute.

Jenny Villatoro is an associate for the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative.

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

“Deterrents” and illegally abusing asylum seekers DON’T WORK! It’s not that difficult a concept. Indeed, these misguided attempts at deterrence have been failing consistently under Administrations of both parties for the past four decades. One would think that an “enlightened nation” would try a different approach rather than simply repeating the costly failures of the past in various forms.

What we need are functioning refugee and asylum systems, led and staffed by progressive experts, operating from INSIDE Government, that will grant status to qualified refugee women in a fair and timely manner and set favorable precedents even while separately addressing the endemic problems in the “refugee-sending countries.” Of course, it will result in more legal immigration of refugees and asylum seekers to the U.S. That’s a good thing for both us and those individuals, not something to be feared or unlawfully and dishonestly “deterred!”

With stagnating population growth, we should welcome and facilitate legal immigration of courageous, talented, dedicated refugee women from all countries and their children through the refugee, asylum, and a much more robust legal immigration system!

Thanks to NDPA warrior-queen Debi Sanders for sending in this item. This report should be great evidence for those litigating to halt the Garland misogyny mess at EOIR and, sadly, to some extent in U.S. Courts of Appeals that have chosen to sweep both reality of what’s happening in the Northern Triangle and the patent unconstitutionality of a system governed by bogus precedents entered or promoted by AG’s affiliated with DHS Enforcement who also packed and reshaped the immigration “judiciary” in the image of nativist restrictionists! However, compelling as it is, the report only adds to the existing body of documentation of the dishonest approach by Administrations of both parties to Latin American asylum claims, particularly those of women and children.

For Pete’s sake, first and second year law students know that the EOIR travesty is unconstitutional! Why are life-tenured Article III Judges covering it up? Hopefully, history will take note of their mal-performance on the bench! These guys are life-tenured! So, what’s their excuse for not upholding the Constitution against clear Congressional and Executive abuses?

Hard for me to say this. But, former President George W. Bush is doing more for human rights, gender rights, civil rights, and immigrants rights’ than Garland or anyone else at the Biden DOJ! At least he speaks out publicly for the humanity and contributions of migrants and for their fair and generous treatment, which is more than any member of the Biden Administration has done as they continue to mistake softening the rhetoric with taking firm action to reverse White Nationalist policies and replace them with readily achievable progressive ones.

Meanwhile, despite pleas from nearly every expert, progressive, human rights, immigrants’ rights, and gender rights group in the U.S., Garland continues to allow Sessions’s wrong, toxic, and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B – to remain in place and threaten the lives of female refugees while ignoring the misogynistic, anti-asylum, culture inculcated by Sessions and Barr at EOIR that continues to flourish and daily dish out abuse to migrants and their representatives without meaningful consequences.

Judge Merrick Garland — “ . . . while this guy continues to apply misogynistic precedents, eschew progressive experts, recycle failed ‘Aimless Docket Reshuffling’ gimmicks, and allow the Trump-era anti-asylum culture to continue to flourish at EOIR and DOJ?” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

What, indeed, is someone like AAG Vanita Gupta doing with herself at Garland’s anti-progressive, and anti-due-process mess at DOJ? Why are folks like her and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke there in the first place if they aren’t going to stand up to Garland’s tone-deaf, inept approach to gender rights, human rights, and racial justice @ EOIR? How, on earth, do you lead a “Civil Rights Division” while turning a blind eye to grotesque violations of civil and human rights going on daily in your “Boss’s” wholly owned “court” system that functions like no “real court” in America? What’s DAG Lisa Monaco doing presiding over a gender disaster at EOIR? It’s straight out of “Jim Crow!”

James “Jim” Crow
Symbol of American Racism, still right at home at Garland’s EOIR!

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — “Do Garland, Monaco, Gupta, & Clarke work in ‘sound-proofed offices’ where they can’t hear our tortured screams and moans? What’s wrong with those guys? We’re suffering and dying while they are fiddling and diddling!”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

And, I wouldn’t say that Vice President Harris is looking very good either, as she “swallows the whistle” on notorious scofflaw human rights violations that she was well aware of from her time in the Senate! Doesn’t anyone in the Biden Administration have the backbone to speak up for human rights, human decency, and restoring the rule of law? Is it REALLY our position that following the Constitution, our statutory laws, and the international treaties to which we are party is beyond the capabilities of the U.S. Government? If so, what, may I ask, is the difference between us an any third world dictatorship where laws have no meaning?

I can’t figure it out! But, I do know that Garland’s lousy stewardship at EOIR, failure to speak out for fundamental fairness, usher in progressive changes, and restore due process @ EOIR has reached “crisis proportions” affecting our entire justice system and threatening democracy!

Hopefully, progressive advocacy, human rights, and civil rights groups will keep up the pressure and demands for long, long, long overdue and readily achievable changes at EOIR: in leadership, precedents, culture, and administration of justice! (Get this: Garland just created yet another bogus “Dedicated Docket” without a functional e-filing system to make it work! That’s “Aimless Docket Reshuffling 101,” as anyone who has actually had to deal with the mess in his Immigration Courts could tell him. But, he’s apparently not interested!) Right now, it’s an unmitigated “disaster zone” continuing to spiral downward!

There is a direct link between the “Dred Scottification of the other” that Garland countenances at EOIR and the overall failure of our justice system to deal effectively with institutionalized racism! The U.S. has a long, disreputable history of treating women and persons of color as “non persons” under the Constitution. Much of it traces to our immigration laws where “the others” are routinely dehumanized, stereotyped, demonized, and abused by those who falsely claim to be furthering the “rule of law!” We will NOT achieve racial justice for all in America until we deal with the festering wounds intentionally inflicted on women, children, and people of color in our immigration system, at EOIR, and illegally continuing at our borders!

By choice, Garland now “owns” the misogynistic, anti-due-process, anti-asylum disaster @ EOIR. Make him deal with it in a constructive way!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Garland’s continued tolerance of misogyny and the anti-due-process, anti-asylum culture at EOIR, NEVER! Stop Garland’s continuing misogynistic nonsense before more refugee women and people of color needlessly die! What’s it going to take finally to get some “real justice @ Justice?”

PWS

06-05-21

⚖️🌟🗽NDPA SUPERSTARS, PRACTICAL EXPERT PROFESSORS LINDSAY M. HARRIS AND SARAH R. SHERMAN-STOKES SCORE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S CONTINUED RELIANCE ON BOGUS 🏴‍☠️ TRUMP-ERA, WHITE NATIONALIST COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS TO RETURN REFUGEES TO DANGER & DEATH @ SOUTHERN BORDER!☠️🤮⚰️

https://apple.news/A9hXjuI8xTQ6Zle8aVf4Dgg

Lindsay and Sarah write in USA Today:

. . . .

However, despite advice from public health experts and condemnation by UNHCR, expulsions under Title 42 continue and the human cost has been devastating. Though refugees come from countries all over the world, the Department of Homeland Security expels them to Mexico, just on the other side of the border.

Reports by Human Rights First document the terrifying realities they face once there: kidnappings, violence, sexual assault, extortion and even murder in border towns where criminal gangs and cartels prey on recently expelled children and families. Just this spring, a 4-year-old Honduran boy and his asylum-seeking mother were kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo immediately after they were expelled under Title 42.

Expulsions don’t just impact migrants from Mexico and Central America. Despite the recent designation of temporary protected status for Haitian migrants within the United States, the Biden administration has sent plane after plane of asylum-seeking families back to Haiti, with some Haitians being expelled to Mexico. The UndocuBlack Network and the Haitian Bridge Alliance, for example, document a Haitian woman expelled to Mexico with her three-day-old baby, where she will face extreme anti-Black discrimination and be at risk of violence and homelessness.

Just the start: Biden will no longer detain migrants at two county jails. That’s good but not enough.

Public health has often been used as a pretext for restrictionist immigration policies. Beginning as early as 1793, when Haitians were blamed for bringing yellow fever to Philadelphia, nativism and xenophobia have long merged with concerns about public health to exclude immigrants and refugees. These concerns were not justified by science then, and they certainly are not justified now.

. . . .

Lindsay M. Harris (@Prof_LMHarris) is associate professor and director of the Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia’s Law School. Sarah Sherman-Stokes (@sshermanstokes) is clinical associate professor and associate director of the Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program at Boston University School of Law.

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

Read the rest of the USA Today op-ed at the link!

Thanks, my friends, for speaking out about the continuing outrages perpetrated by the Biden Administration at our Southern Border. So many, many “practical experts” out here in the “real world,” like Lindsay and Sarah, who would be heads and shoulders above current immigration “leadership” at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR and who would bring “real, qualified, expert judging” to the BIA and the Immigration Courts.

The Biden Administration’s failure to actively recruit, attract, and promptly bring on board the “best and the brightest” that American law has to offer for these critical jobs (which do NOT require Senate confirmation) is a disgrace! Betcha Stephen Miller could tell them how to do it! But, curiously, the Biden Immigration Team seems to think that alienating the best progressive minds in the business, the folks who helped them get elected and can fix their immigration problems, is smart politics and great public policy! Go figure!

Suspending the rule of law and international treaty obligations is never “OK” and it’s not something to be “studied.” “Gee whiz, should we comply with the law or continue to violate it; should we continue to send people to possible kidnapping, rape, torture, extortion, and/or death with no process or should we give them fair hearings; should we continue unqualified Trump hacks in key positions and keep defending illegal policies or should we hire qualified experts from the NDPA to restore and promote due process?” These are the “questions” that folks like Garland, Mayorkas, and their “spear carriers” are being paid to “study” while innocent humans are daily being abused and dying in the “real world” that these Biden Cabinet officers appear to have absented themselves from? Gimme a break!

We need an end to the deadly nonsense at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR NOW! Keep the outrage, the op-eds, the law suits, and the exposure and documenting of Mayorkas’s and Garland’s illegal, immoral, and incompetent actions coming until we get change and our Government delivers on the Constitutionally-required promise of due process, equal protection, and racial justice for all persons!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! The Garland/Mayorkas “Miller Lite Nonsense” at the border, never!

PWS

06-04-21

🗽⚖️🇺🇸LEE GELERNT @ ACLU SAYS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION “cannot farm out the asylum system.” Yet, That Appears To Be Largely What They Are Doing Under New, Previously Unpublicized Program!

https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-united-nations-donald-trump-immigration-health-98d4da6cb6f2999787c3fcd3579de695?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=June4_MorningWire&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers

Elliott Spagat
Reporter
Associated Press

Elliot Spagot and Julie Watson report for AP:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration has quietly tasked six humanitarian groups with recommending which migrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. instead of being rapidly expelled from the country under federal pandemic-related powers that block people from seeking asylum.

The groups will determine who is most vulnerable in Mexico, and their criteria has not been made public. It comes as large numbers of people are crossing the southern border and as the government faces intensifying pressure to lift the public health powers instituted by former President Donald Trump and kept in place by President Joe Biden during the coronavirus pandemic.

Several members of the consortium spoke to The Associated Press about the criteria and provided details of the system that have not been previously reported. The government is aiming to admit to the country up to 250 asylum-seekers a day who are referred by the groups and is agreeing to that system only until July 31. By then, the consortium hopes the Biden administration will have lifted the public health rules, though the government has not committed to that.

So far, a total of nearly 800 asylum-seekers have been let in since May 3, and members of the consortium say there is already more demand than they can meet.

The groups have not been publicly identified except for the International Rescue Committee, a global relief organization. The others are London-based Save the Children; two U.S.-based organizations, HIAS and Kids in Need of Defense; and two Mexico-based organizations, Asylum Access and the Institute for Women in Migration, according to two people with direct knowledge who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not intended for public release.

Asylum Access, which provides services to people seeing asylum in Mexico, characterized its role as minimal.

The effort started in El Paso, Texas, and is expanding to Nogales, Arizona.

A similar but separate mechanism led by the American Civil Liberties Union began in late March and allows 35 families a day into the United States at places along the border. It has no end date.

The twin tracks are described by participating organizations as an imperfect transition from so-called Title 42 authority, named for a section of an obscure 1944 public health law that Trump used in March 2020 to effectively end asylum at the Mexican border. With COVID-19 vaccination rates rising, Biden is finding it increasingly difficult to justify the expulsions on public health grounds and faces demands to end it from the U.N. refugee agency and members of his own party and administration.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Well, I’ll give them this. “Farming out” the asylum system to these NGO experts is better than the Trump approach. The Trump regime “outsourced” the American asylum system to Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

The common denominators among those countries is that the are all notorious for human rights abuses, corrupt government, dysfunctional legal systems, and lack of any semblance of a fair, functioning asylum adjudication system. Additionally, all are major senders of asylum seekers to America.

But, the Biden Administration’s “under the counter” approach is still fundamentally wrong! It’s yet another “haste makes waste gimmick” that lacks transparency, clear standards, accountability, and most of all, operates outside of any legal framework!

That’s a recipe for arbitrariness, abuse, and unfairness. Even if the system were to produce decent results, the lack of transparency robs it of credibility. It’s therefore likely to be attacked by both advocates and restrictionists while being panned in the press — a self-created “worst case” scenario of the type Dem Administrations seem to specialize in when it comes to immigration and human rights!

The solution here is to do what many of us have been recommending since the day the election results became final. That is, bring in outside experts to USCIS to lead and revitalize the Asylum Officer screening program and bring in real judges, largely from the outside, — progressive practical experts in asylum law committed to human rights and due process — to EOIR to establish legitimate precedents and insure fair, humane, and uniform treatment of asylum seekers.

It’s possible, indeed probable, that the U.S. representatives of some of the NGOs involved would be among the best experts to do this — leading human rights authorities like Mark Hatfield at HIAS, Wendy Young at KIND, and Wendy Wylegala, also of KIND are obvious choices.

So, put them and other practical experts like Professor Karen Musalo (Center for Gender & Refugee Studies), Eleanor Acer (Human Rights First), Professor Stephen Legomsky (former USCIS Chief Counsel), Associate Dean Jaya Ramji Nogales (Temple Law), Judge Ilyce Shugall (Round Table), Dean Kevin Johnson (UC Davis), Michelle Mendez (CLINIC), Professor Lenni Benson (Safe Passage Project), Professor Ingrid Eagly (UCLA Law), Laura Lynch (NILC), Professor Stephen Yale Loehr (Cornell Law), Jason Dzubow (The Asylumist), Professor Debi Anker (Harvard Law), Professor Michele Pistone (VIISTA/Villanova Law), and others like them on the payroll at USCIS and EOIR and let them fix the asylum system!

Experts like this could, if properly empowered, in relatively short order, establish a system that is legal, constitutional, fair, generous, humane, practical, efficient, and that complies with all of our international obligations. In other words, a “model system” that would serve the best interests of humanity and our nation!

The current opaque, chaotic, arbitrary mess at our Southern Border (essentially the Biden Administration’s version of “Hunger Games”) serves nobody’s interests excepts cartels and smugglers. It’s also likely to kill record numbers of asylum seekers unless fixed, NOW! https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/summer-migrant-deaths-southern-border/2021/06/03/a03d7bb8-c3a6-11eb-8c34-f8095f2dc445_story.html

Bringing in the experts seems like an outstanding, “no brainer” alternative to the godawful, dysfunctional, disgraceful mess that the Trump kakistocracy left at USCIS and EOIR, much of which continues to ramble on, further off the rails all the time, under Mayorkas and Garland. The Biden Administration can’t, and won’t, get the job done on asylum and racial justice without radical, yet logical and badly needed, personnel and leadership changes at USCIS and EOIR!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-04-21

😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️: 9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-departure-bar-sua-sponte-reopening-balerio-rubalcaba-v-garland#

CA9 on Departure Bar, Sua Sponte Reopening: Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland

“This case presents the question whether the departure bar limits an IJ’s ability to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we conclude that the departure bar does not apply in the context of sua sponte reopening. That is, an IJ’s discretion to reopen a case on his or her own motion is not limited by the fact that a noncitizen has previously been removed or has departed from the United States. Therefore, we grant the petition for review.”

[Hats off to Elsa Martinez!]

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

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201915091.pdf

KELLY SANCHEZ-CASTRO,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________

(June 1, 2021)

Petitioner,

Respondent.

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:

Kelly Sanchez-Castro, a native of El Salvador, petitions for our review after

she unsuccessfully sought relief from removal because a gang targeted her family based on the assumption that her father’s work in the United States made it

USCA11 Case: 19-15091 Date Filed: 06/01/2021 Page: 2 of 15

wealthy. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and substantial evidence supports its decision. Sanchez-Castro is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the gang that targeted her family did so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. And she is ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture because she has not established that any harm she will suffer if returned to her home country will come with at least the acquiescence of a government official. We deny Sanchez-Castro’s petition for review.

. . . .

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

To reach its incorrect and life-threatening endorsement of the BIA’s misconstruction of the nexus requirements (throwing out the normal rules of causation to achieve an anti-asylum-seeker result) the 11th Circuit panel eschewed a much better and more intellectually honest approach by the 4th Circuit in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

Notwithstanding Chief Judge Pryor’s cavalier attitude about sending Ms. Castro-Sanchez back to possible death or dismemberment at the hands of gangs who operate with relative impunity in El Salvador, these are not “academic exercises.” They are serious life or death matters involving bad law produced by a (non) “court” (the BIA) controlled by a law enforcement official (the Attorney General) that is not comprised of judges who are recognized experts in asylum and immigration laws and has over recent history construed the law against immigrants at almost every opportunity!

These two cases show the difference between this panel of the 9th Circuit that takes judicial review and what’s at stake seriously and the “indifferent to humanity” rubber-stamp approach applied by the 11th Circuit panel. We need better judges, progressives with expertise in due process, human rights, immigration, and racial justice at every level of our Federal Judiciary — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes! Circuits like the 5th and the 11th with long and disgraceful records of relative indifference to the rights and lives of migrants, mostly those of color, are long, long overdue for infusion of better qualified progressive “practical scholars” and advocates.

That makes the progressive outrage over Garland’s totally inappropriate “giveaway” of Immigration Judge positions he controls to Barr-selected, non progressive, candidates who applied under a flawed recruitment process designed to discourage diversity and exclude the best qualified expert candidates from the private sector, along with his failure to address skewed anti-asylum-seeker precedents like L-E-A- and A-B– all the more understandable! It also makes changes that will put more expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges who have experience representing individuals in court all the more urgent!

Cases like this wouldn’t get into the “Article III Life or Death Lottery” if Garland had dealt promptly and properly with L-E-A-, A-B-, and other Trump-era, anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process, misogynist precedents!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

PWS

06-04-21

WASTEFUL, DANGEROUS ICE DETENTION (THE “NEW AMERICAN GULAG”) CONTINUES TO UNDERMINE HUMANITY & OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS — Cornell Students From the NDPA Intervene To Save A Cuban Doctor From Mindless and Life-Threatening Detention, But Her Problems Linger Under Garland’s Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” (That Aren’t “Courts” At All, By Any Sane Definition)!

Trial by Ordeal — Is this really the ‘preferred method’ for handling an asylum claim by a female Cuban refugee doctor? Judge Garland seems to think so!” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/06/asylum-clinic-wins-release-cuban-doctor-detained-ice

Asylum clinic wins release for Cuban doctor detained by ICE

By Owen Lubozynski | June 1, 2021

In April 2020, COVID-19 reached the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Dr. Merlys Rodriguez Hernandez, who had been detained there for six months, said she knew it would spread quickly.

Rodriguez Hernandez is originally from Cuba, where she and her husband, Lazaro, practiced medicine before they were forced to flee government persecution, she said. When they reached the U.S. border, they applied for asylum. Both were detained, in separate facilities, Merlys said. After eight months, Lazaro was granted protection from having to return to Cuba. Merlys’ petition, based on identical circumstances, was tried in a different immigration court – and denied, she said.

Cornell Law School’s Asylum Clinic took her case, under the direction of Stephen Yale-Loehr, professor of immigration law practice, and Ian M. Kysel, visiting assistant clinical professor of law. Law students Conor Bednarski, J.D. ’21, and Michelle Zhu, J.D. ’21, litigated an appeal to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals.

Conor Bednarski

Michelle Zhu

Meanwhile, Rodriguez Hernandez was trapped in a detention system raging with COVID-19, she said. She fell ill with the virus in May 2020 and spent 40 days in isolation, suffering from joint pain, body aches and severe diarrhea and confined to a cell she was expected to sanitize herself, she said. Tara Pilato, co-executive director emerita of the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights at Weill Cornell Medicine, who consulted on the case, observed that “the conditions Merlys reported were not only inhumane, but against all best practices for caring for patients with COVID-19.”

Kayleigh Yerdon

“Watching this preventable tragedy unfold week after week, as we were told to shelter in place, was the hardest part of working on this case,” Bednarski said.

As the pandemic spread, Bednarski and Zhu tried to secure Rodriguez Hernandez’s release, and then supported a collaboration with pro bono counsel who filed a habeas corpus writ in federal court.

Kayleigh Yerdon, J.D. ’21, took the lead on the case during the fall 2020 term. With Spanish interpretation assistance from Cornell doctor of juridical science student Ana Ruival, LLM ’19, Yerdon won her client’s release on bond. Rodriguez Hernandez was released in October 2020, after 13 months in detention, Yerdon said.

“As a law student, being able to step into court for the first time via teleconference and win, knowing my client would walk free as a result, was just an incredible experience,” Yerdon said. She also took on Lazaro’s case, successfully litigating a motion to reopen his case, and eventually securing him asylum, she said. Yerdon was recently honored with the Law School’s Freeman Award for Civil-Human Rights, in part in recognition for her clinical work.

Meryls’ case shows that some of the most harmful flaws in the immigration system can be addressed by applying basic rights principles, Kysel said.

Rodriguez Hernandez and her husband are now living in Kentucky as they work to appeal the denial of her request for asylum. She said she hopes to become an advocate for immigrants who remain detained during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the legal team has continued its efforts to engage in other advocacy and to amplify the impact of their legal work on the doctor’s case, Kysel and Yale-Loehr said.

Recently, Rodriguez Hernandez told her story in a first-person essay in the New England Journal of Medicine, with the support of her Cornell Law clinic team and a team from the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights, led by Pilato and Dr. Gunisha Kaur, assistant professor of anesthesiology.

“As one of our colleagues in the medical field, Merlys’ harrowing experience deserved attention from a medical-legal perspective,” said Pilato and Kaur. “The inhumane conditions in ICE detention centers have triggered some of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the country.”

In the piece, Rodriguez Hernandez wrote, “It is a bitter irony that while the first waves of the pandemic ravaged the U.S., I remained in a detention system when I could have made a difference to patients in a health care system in dire need of providers.”

Owen Lubozynski is a freelance writer for Cornell Law School.

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

Thanks to my good friend and renowned Immigration “Practical Scholar/Expert” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law for alerting me to this item. And, many many congrats to these amazing students and members of the NDPA!😎👍

Note that in the dangerous and defective “court system” being run by Garland, the Respondent continues to struggle with appeals of her asylum denial even though her husband’s identical case was GRANTED! Worse yet, both cases should have been “no brainer” asylum grants that could have been rapidly granted by the Asylum Office without detention or Immigration Court in a properly functioning system with expert judges setting correct asylum precedents at the BIA.

No wonder this system is continuing to deny justice, threaten lives, waste resources, and create backlogs under Garland! As noted in the above posting, even the New England Journal of Medicine is up in arms about this outrageous situation and mockery of our legal process!

But, Garland and his merry band at DOJ and EOIR seem impervious to criticism, rationality, or the rule of law! And to date, they have shown little or no willingness to engage constructively with progressive human rights and Immigration experts. I guess that’s what “Miller Lite Justice” is all about!

There is simply no excuse for Garland’s continued mishandling of EOIR and asylum law generally! And, bureaucratic “Dedicated Dockets” run from the Falls Church Tower won’t solve the problem. Not by a long shot!

Progressive advocates and members of the NDPA need to stay energized, stay angry, and keep letting the Biden Administration feel the outrage at Garland’s inexcusable continued mishandling of EOIR! These problems will NEVER be solved with the group currently calling the shots at EOIR!

So, the question remains, with all this expertise available and some obvious solutions to some really dumb and life-threatening procedures and policies, why are Garland and Mayorkas “groping in the dark” rather than bringing in and empowering the progressive experts who will solve these problems?

Due Process Forever! Let your continuing outrage at EOIR’s failure to deliver due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency and humanity be heard and felt by the Biden Administration! Don’t take “Good Enough for Government Work” as Equal Justice in America from Democrats or Republicans! “Just say no” to more “Miller Lite Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants! Wonder why our nation is struggling with racial justice? Look no further than Garland’s mishandling of EOIR!

President Biden has put Vice President Harris in charge of border issues and racial justice reforms. Progressive advocates should let her know directly that Garland is NOT getting the job done at Justice, and that they are sick and tired of not being consulted and having their expert candidates for EOIR snubbed in favor of Trump holdovers and non-progressives! If her “legacy” includes EOIR’s racially and gender insensitive, due-process denying, intentionally non-diverse “Kangaroo Courts” carrying out the Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist nativist agenda, it won’t be a “good look” for her or her future! And, it most certainly will be bad, perhaps fatal, for our nation’s future as a liberal democracy!

Kangaroos — “Diversity @ EOIR” “What’s wrong with this picture? Let Vice President Harris know that you want a new, diverse, progressive, expert, humanitarian, due-process-oriented judiciary in our now broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

PWS

06-02-21

👎🏽“ADR” IN ACTION: EOIR ISSUES “DEDICATED DOCKET” GUIDANCE FROM THE TOWER! — Experts & Those Affected Continue To Be Snubbed, Left Out Of Process!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — a DOJ/EOIR specialty now being used by Garland’s DOJ

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1399361/download

To: All of EOIR

From: JeanC.King,ActingDirector Date: May 27, 2021

DEDICATED DOCKET

Effective:

OOD PM 21-23

May 28, 2021

PURPOSE:

OWNER: AUTHORITY:

CANCELLATION:

Establishes a dedicated docket for certain individuals in removal proceedings.

Office of the Director

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Memorandum, Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures (Jan. 2018); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)

Policy Memorandum 19-04

EOIR is initiating a Dedicated Docket to focus on the adjudication of family cases as designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This docket will run alongside typical court operations in immigration courts in ten cities: Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. DHS has indicated that it will be placing on the Dedicated Docket families who crossed the Southern border and whom DHS has placed on alternatives to detention. Cases will be identified for this docket as of the effective date of this memorandum.

EOIR’s immigration judges will endeavor to issue a decision in each case on the Dedicated Docket within 300 days after the initial master calendar hearing. To facilitate such timeliness while providing due process, EOIR will only schedule these cases before immigration judges who generally have docket time available to manage a case on that timeline, but EOIR recognizes that unique circumstances of each case may impact the ability to issue a decision within that period. As needed, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge will provide additional case management guidance to assist immigration judges in meeting this goal.

EOIR remains committed to the timely resolution of immigration court cases in a fair and impartial manner. Importantly, the adjudication timeframe established by this policy memorandum (PM) and any subsequent case management guidance is an internal goal. Respondents whose cases are on these dockets have the opportunity to request continuances, as do all respondents in removal proceedings, and immigration judges retain discretion to determine whether a continuance should be granted for good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. EOIR expects

1

that its immigration judges will make these determinations with full consideration for a respondent’s statutory right to counsel and consistent with due process and fundamental fairness.

Respondents whose cases are placed on these dockets will be provided with a number of services, including access to information services and possible referral services to facilitate legal representation. Each city in which EOIR has established the Dedicated Docket has an established pro bono network.

EOIR previously tracked certain cases designated by DHS in select immigration court locations. See PM 19-04, Tracking and Expedition of “Family Unit” Cases (Nov. 16, 2018). This effort was discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been resumed. Thus, PM 19-04 is rescinded.

EOIR is managing the hearings with full consideration for the safety of its employees and all parties who appear in court. EOIR will continue to implement practices and procedures consistent with information from public health officials and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the DOJ Justice Management Division. See PM 20-13, EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak (June 11, 2020).

This PM is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or equities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Please contact your supervisor if you have any questions regarding this PM.

2

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

In theory, prioritizing timely adjudication of recently arrived asylum seekers in Immigration Court could be a good idea – along the lines that a number of us recommended to the Biden Transition Team. But, not this way!

This “tone-deaf missive from on high,” as usual, is “designed to fail” rather than “dressed for success:”

It relies heavily on the ready availability of pro bono legal services in certain locations, yet, incredibly, there was NO ADVANCE CONSULTATION & COORDINATION with those key groups;
It is not accompanied by grants or other support to legal assistance groups to help them provide universal representation to asylum seekers;
There is no reason to believe that Immigration Judges in these locations are well-qualified to decide asylum cases merely because they have “docket space available;” indeed there are gross disparities in asylum grant rates among the selected courts;
Anti-asylum precedents issued by the Trump Administration remain in effect which undoubtedly will lead to unfair denials of asylum;
Among these anti-asylum precedents are some incorrectly limiting and discouraging continuances and administrative closing — making the promise of flexibility and fairness totally disingenuous;
Before instituting new programs in consultation with the private bar, the DHS, and the NAIJ (representing the IJs who will actually have to control these dockets), EOIR must slash the backlog by removing from the docket the vast majority of “non-priority” cases forming the astounding, largely self created 1.3 million case backlog;
With better precedents by a new BIA with progressive asylum experts as judges, and some procedural changes, many more asylum cases could be granted “in the first instance” by the Asylum Office, thereby reducing the pressure on the Immigration Courts while reducing the incentives for frivolous opposition to asylum cases by ICE, a big “time waster” in Immigration Court; but no such “progressive thinking or practical problem solving” is reflected in this directive.

Half-baked bureaucratic directives like this won’t solve the problem! It’s just more proof of how completely unqualified Garland’s DOJ and EOIR leadership are to administer a “real court system.” Where are the Article I advocates in Congress? Removing the Immigration Courts from DOJ needs to be one of our highest National priorities.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! DOJ/EOIR incompetence, never!

PWS

06-02-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️SHE TRIED TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM, BUT WE WOULDN’T LISTEN — NOW SHE’S DEAD!⚰️

Wendy Fry
Watchdog & Accountability Team
San Diego Union-Tribune

David Hernandez
Reporter
San Diego Union-Tribune
PHOTO: San Diego Union Tribune website

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/story/2021-05-30/migrant-drowning-funeral?utm_id=30223&sfmc_id=1814752

By WENDY FRY, DAVID HERNANDEZPhotography by ALEJANDRO TAMAYO

MAY 30, 2021 5 AM PT

. . . .

In the months before her death, Chavez Segovia had tried to cross the border at least two other times by land and had been expelled under Title 42, a Trump-era policy that allows the government to deny non-citizens entry into the country in response to the threat of COVID-19.

Migrant advocates have warned the strict border policy is pushing desperate people to take larger risks to try to cross the border into the United States, increasing the chances they become injured or killed.

“There are more people choosing to cross through dangerous routes, including the maritime crossing, because they don’t have the ability to present themselves at the ports because the ports are closed as a result of the Title 42 orders,” explained Pedro Rios, the director of the American Friends Service Committee’s U.S.-Mexico Border Program.

Chavez Segovia was trying to cross not just for work, but also because she was afraid, and was trying to claim asylum, said her sister, Gabriela, who is undocumented and living in northern California. She said Chavez Segovia tried to claim asylum on both previous crossing attempts.

Gabriela said she too was fearful of sharing details of her sister’s situation, especially because her sons remain in Mexico. But Gabriela said she wishes Chavez Segovia had gotten a chance to plead her case, and that U.S. border authorities had listened.

“Ella les dijo que viene de peligro; que corría peligro y ellos no le hicieron caso,” said Gabriela. “She told them she was coming from danger, that she was running from danger and they didn’t listen to her.

“What are you going to do? Wait until someone sits down and writes you a letter that says ‘I am threatening you.’ No, of course not, you’re going to go at the first opportunity,” said Gabriela, frustrated at the high bar of legal proof needed for one to make an asylum claim.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Failure to listen, failure to treat humans fairly and humanely. Hmmm . . . . seem to have heard that recently:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/25/garland-mayorkas-dont-get-it-who-makes-asylum-determinations-their-training-their-group-culture-are-determinative-in-life-or-death/

The damage done by our current scofflaw immigration policies at the border is, in many cases such as this, irreparable!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-02-21

👎🏽🤮”MR. CLEAN” MIA @ DOJ: Garland’s Tone Deaf Defense Of Sleazy “Billy the Bigot” 🦨 Draws Fire From Watchdog, As He Fails To Deliver For Progressives @ Dysfunctional, Ethics-Challenged DOJ!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watchdog-doj-trump-obstruction-justice-memo-secret_n_60b472d4e4b02a79db8f892c

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

A watchdog group has filed a brief opposing the Justice Department’s push to keep secret former Attorney General William Barr’s memo concerning ex-President Donald Trump’s possible obstruction of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

“The DOJ must produce the document, clean up the department, and show that it will not be used for the personal protection of any president,” the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in a statement Friday after it filed the brief. CREW initially sought release of the memo through the Freedom of Information Act.

At issue is Barr’s decision to ignore any obstruction of justice issues concerning Trump despite strong evidence against him revealed by then-special counsel Robert Mueller. Critics said Barr misled the public by cherry-picking quotes from Mueller’s report to protect Trump. They accused him of making a political decision rather than a legal one.

Barr claimed that justification for the lack of any action against Trump was carefully considered and spelled out in the memo, which had previously only been made public in a highly redacted form.

But according to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who ordered the release of the nine-page memo earlier this month, Barr’s decision was a foregone conclusion. Barr had already made up his mind not to prosecute Trump before considering any of the advice or analysis that he claimed informed his decision, she said in her order.

Jackson added that the memo contained “strategic, as opposed to legal, advice” and that both the writers and the recipients already had a mutual understanding about what the prosecutorial decision would be.

A “review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” the judge wrote in the order.

. . . .

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

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

If Team Garland has a plan to “clean up the Department,” as advocated by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in their brief, they are certainly keeping THAT a secret.

Nowhere has Garland’s failure to be the long awaited “Mr.Clean” been more notable and harmful to good governance than at EOIR. There, he has inexplicably continued to unconstitutionally promote a charade of a “court” system that lacks fair and impartial judges. Rather than bringing in the necessary expert progressive reformers from the NDPA to clean up the mess, restore due process, create quasi-judicial independence, and institute best practices, the dysfunction continues to get worse, progressive advocacy groups (who helped put Biden/Harris in office) are totally outraged and frustrated, the “same old, same old” deficient recruitment and hiring practices remain in effect, and the totally dysfunctional bureaucratic structure, comprised largely of Trump holdovers and bureaucrats, maintains its “death spiral.”⚰️

Go figure!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-31-21

🇺🇸HISTORY: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY COURTSIDE — “America’s Long Struggle Against Slavery” — Lecturer: Professor Richard Bell, U of MD, College Park — What Most Of Us Never Learned In High School!

Tulsa Race Riot — Result of Tulsa Race Atrocity, June 1, 1921
“All that was left of his home after the Tulsa race riot”
Unknown photographer
Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Here’s the “trailer:”

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/americas-long-struggle-against-slavery

As we recognize the 100th anniversary of the “Tulsa Atrocity” and our failure to properly acknowledge it, teach it, condemn the failures of our legal system, and/or hold the perpetrators accountable, this is a course that every American should view!

Dehumanization of “the other,” grotesque minimization and distortion of their achievements and key contributions to our nation’s prosperity and survival, and legal systems that knowingly and intentionally denied legal, constitutional, and human rights to our fellow Americans are a long and dishonorable part of our history, often denied or intentionally whitewashed by those who fear truth. The long struggle against “America’s original sin” involved fierce resistance by African American slaves as well as concerted cooperative efforts between free African Americans and White opponents of slavery. But, there were also tensions, squabbles, false starts, petty “turf wars,” and fundamental disagreements among slavery’s opponents. Shockingly, but not surprisingly, many slaves found that suicide was their only effective form of protest against, and escape from, this vilest of all American institutions.

The struggle against slavery’s toxic legacy and its existence in various forms in modern America continues. And, there is a direct connection with America’s continuing mistreatment of immigrants, particularly people of color and asylum seekers, and the failure of our legal system, even today, to protect them rather than abuse and dehumanize them.

The ongoing struggle is reflected in the Biden Administration’s apparent naive belief that they can effectively address racial injustice in America while continuing to treat asylum seeking migrants, many women, children, and people of color, as “non-persons” or “less than human” under our Constitution and laws. Ending “Dred Scottification of the other” — in all its forms — is key to America’s getting beyond the mistakes, tragedies, and injustices of our past and creating a better future for all persons in America!

FULL DISCLOSURE: Our son William P. Schmidt works for The Great Courses.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-31-21

🤯NEEDED LIKE A HOLE IN THE HEAD: Garland Seeks Insider For Bloated, Bogus “Office of Policy” @ EOIR — Tell Him, The White House, & Congress We Need Better, Diverse, Progressive Judges From “Outside,” NOT More Insider Bureaucrats For Unwieldy & Unnecessary Trump-Era Bureaucracy!🤮

Star Chamber Justice — “Here at the EOIR Office of Policy, we’re always thinking of innovative methods to help our partners at DHS Enforcement!”
”Justice” Star Chamber
Style

The latest from Garland’s failed EOIR:

Attorney Advisor

05/26/2021 09:40 AM EDT

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Office of Policy, Immigration Law Division
Falls Church, Virginia
Announcement #: EOIR-21-0039
Application Deadline: June 8, 2021

The Attorney Advisor provides technical legal advice on the development and implementation of agency-wide policies for all agency functions.

Area of Consideration:

This position is open to Federal Employees.

Duties include but are not limited to the following:

Drafts and conducts legal reviews of draft regulations, policy directives, and a variety of non-adjudicatory operations.

Performs comprehensive research regarding newly enacted statutes, proposed Federal legislation and regulations, DOJ regulations, and policy statements; prepares legal memoranda necessary as related to such research.

Provides sound recommendations in response to a wide range of questions of immigration law and policy involved in the operations of the Agency and the effect of such operations on other activities, Government agencies, industry, and the general public.

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

This exchange of comments received at “Courtside” says it all:

Q: Why would this be limited to Federal Employees?

A: No idea. But it doesn’t seem as if they are planning to dismantle McHenry’s Office of Policy. Courts don’t have Offices of Policy to my knowledge.

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

No, real “courts” don’t have this bureaucratic nonsense created specifically to suppress judicial independence and to create political influence on what is supposed to be independent, expert judging. It also fed the nonsensical Barr attempt to pass off Immigration Judges (basically reduced to the status of “deportation clerks on an assembly line” under Trump) as “policy officials” to “bust” their union (NAIJ) and keep it from exposing abuses and fighting for judicial independence from political meddling.

I’ve written elsewhere about Garland’s unwillingness to hold Barr and Sessions accountable for their misdeeds. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/29/dean-erwin-chemerinsky-garlands-failures-justice-go-beyond-immigration-attempting-to-cover-up-your-predecessors-dishonesty-ethical-lapses-possible-criminal-miscondu/

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

“Real courts” might have “Chief Judges,” basically “first among equals” who handle administrative tasks on behalf of their colleagues in addition to performing daily judicial duties. They DON”T have a plethora of “Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs, Chiefs of Staff, Directors, Deputy Directors, Associate Directors, Assistant Chiefs, Unit Chiefs, Executive Assistants, Office Heads, and “Counsel to” many of the foregoing.

As many of us pointed out to the Biden Transition Team, Garland should have “lost” the “bureaucratic, Vatican-style, hierarchical, wasteful, ineffective, bloated bureaucracy” @ EOIR and replaced it with “leaner, progressive, expert judicial leadership” who would:

See that qualified progressive expert judges were appointed on a merit basis;
Replace the BIA with qualified, progressive, “practical scholar” judges to provide uniform legal guidance and enforce due process;
Change the hiring criteria and recruiting practices to encourage diversity and more applicants from the private sector;
Get a functioning e-filing system and other basic professional support for judges and the public in place;
Fend off attempts by politicos at the DOJ, DHS, and White House to interfere with judicial independence once qualified progressive judges are in place at EOIR.

If there is any “legal policy” to be made, that’s the job of the BIA, once comprised of practical experts in due process, immigration, and human rights.

If there are “administrative policies” that need to be instituted to improve due process and efficiency, those should be developed by an “Immigration Judicial Conference” composed of sitting judges, BIA Judges, and perhaps Circuit Court Judges, with meaningful dialogue and input from the private sector and the DHS.

Support functions should be coordinated by a lean, professional “Administrative Office” patterned on the “Administrative Office for U.S. Courts” that serves the Article III Judiciary.

There should also be a transparent system, with public members and judges, to handle ethics and conduct complaints about judges.

Additionally, a training function with some model judicial training should be part of the structure.

There is absolutely no need for all the current ridiculous “quotas, ratings, supervision, policy memos, performance work plans, adjudication centers, and other bureaucratic nonsense” that eat up resources without furthering the mission of guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.

Bureaucrats are incapable of phasing out bureaucracy and replacing it with something better. That’s why every day that Garland dawdles in getting in the progressive talent from outside Government necessary to reform EOIR, ditch the bureaucracy, and turn it into a functioning, progressive, model court system is a “killer” — both figuratively and literally!

If there is a single “ask” I would have of Judge Garland, it’s for him to stop thinking like the DOJ bureaucrat he once was and start acting like an independent Federal Judge (which he also once was) constructing a completely new progressive court system designed to be the “world’s best!”

That’s NOT going to happen by mindlessly and wastefully hiring more “insider Attorney Advisors” for a bogus and unnecessary “Office of Policy!”

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-30-21

GARLAND/MAYORKAS UNILATERAL “IN YOUR FACE” 🤮 ASYLUM POLICIES CONTINUE TO INFLAME, OUTRAGE, PROGRESSIVE OPPOSITION! — More Haste Makes Waste “Special Asylum Dockets,” Continuation Of “Miller Lite” Racist/Misogynist Anti-Asylum Policies, Unqualified Judges, Likely To Deny Due Process, Create Aimless Docket Reshuffling, Increase Backlogs — Congress Needs To Remove Immigration Courts From Garland’s Dysfunctional DOJ — Now!

Here’s yet another “big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Public Affairs

DHS and DOJ Announce Dedicated Docket Process for More Efficient Immigration Hearings

WASHINGTON – Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced a new Dedicated Docket process to more expeditiously and fairly make decisions in immigration cases of families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. This new process should significantly decrease the amount of time it takes for migrants to have their cases adjudicated while still providing fair hearings for families seeking asylum at the border.

“Families arriving at the border who are placed in immigration proceedings should have their cases decided in an orderly, efficient, and fair manner,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Families who have recently arrived should not languish in a multi-year backlog; today’s announcement is an important step for both justice and border security.”

“The mission of the Department of Justice’s immigration courts is to decide the cases that come before them promptly and fairly,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This new program for certain newly arriving families will help achieve that critically important goal.”

Under this new process, certain recently arrived families may be placed on the Dedicated Docket. Families may qualify if they are apprehended between ports of entry on or after Friday, May 28, 2021, placed in removal proceedings, and enrolled in Alternatives to Detention (ATD). DHS, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will make available information services to help families understand the immigration system and refer families to pro bono legal service providers for possible representation.

EOIR has identified immigration courts in 10 cities with established communities of legal services providers and available judges to handle the cases. The designated cities are Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Under the Dedicated Docket, EOIR’s immigration judges will work generally to issue a decision within 300 days of the initial master calendar hearing, subject to the unique circumstances of each case including allowing time for families to seek representation where needed. While the goal of this process is to decide cases expeditiously, fairness will not be compromised.

# # #

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
www.dhs.gov

Here are “statements in opposition” from the National Immigrant Justice Center and Human Rights First:

https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/bidens-return-failed-immigration-court-rocket-docket-will-deprive-asylum-seekers

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/human-rights-first-concerned-biden-plan-risks-new-rocket-dockets-when-it-should-end#.YLEQ7NuEm7k.twitter

Here’s the “statement of outrage and solidarity in opposition from the experts at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Brianna Krong, (415) 581-8835, krongbrianna@uchastings.edu

CGRS Concerned Biden Policies Will Undermine Fairness, Endanger Refugee Families

San Francisco, CA (May 28, 2021) – The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) is deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the Biden administration will begin fast-tracking asylum cases for certain families seeking refuge. By establishing a “dedicated docket” for asylum-seeking families, the administration will sacrifice fairness in the name of speed, adopting a misguided approach that under both the Obama and Trumpadministrations contributed to record backlogs in the immigration system, eroded due process, and endangered lives. Instead of reviving the failed policies of past administrations, the Biden administration should swiftly end cruel and illegal Trump-era policies and fully restore safe asylum processing at the southern border.

Today’s announcement arrives at a time when families seeking asylum face enormous roadblocks to safety and justice. Over four months into its first term, the Biden administration has failed to end myriad Trump-era policies that continue to place refugees at risk of grave violence, and even death. It is shameful that the administration is prioritizing fast-tracked adjudications while continuing to illegally expel asylum seekers to danger under the widelydebunked pretext of the pandemic. So long as the Title 42 policy remains in place, there can be no safe or fair process for asylum seekers.

The Biden administration also has yet to address Trump policies that have gutted protections for people escaping domestic violence and gang brutality, including many of the families impacted by this new policy. Until Attorney General Garlandtakes action to reverse these policies, the asylum system will remain rigged against families fleeing violence in their homes and communities, who will be wrongly denied protection and ordered deported to the very dangers they’ve fled. Rushing adjudications will make it even more difficult for these families to find safety, further undermining any semblance of fairness in the asylum process.

“CGRS and our partners have set forth a clear roadmap for the Biden administration to adjudicate asylum cases in a timely manner and mitigate backlogs, all while improving fairness and protecting due process,” CGRS Legal Director Blaine Bookey said today. “As advocates, we’ve been down this road before. We know policies that rush asylum adjudications fail to keep families and children safe. We implore the administration not to make the mistake of putting speed above justice.”’

Advocates, asylum seekers, and communities are coming together to demand an asylum system that provides every person a safe and fair opportunity to seek protection, with full access to legal representation and community-based support. The Biden administration should put humanity first, reject the cruel policies of the past, and welcome people seeking asylum with dignity.

Brianna Krong | Communications and Advocacy Coordinator

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 581-8835 (Phone) | (415) 581-8824 (Fax)

krongbrianna@uchastings.edu
Pronouns: she/her/hers

Twitter| Facebook | Donate

Request Assistance or Report an Outcome in Your Asylum Case

Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:

I don’t think there was any consultation w/ private bar. NGOs are very upset. Biden administration just held a q and a about two hours ago to answer NGO questions but there’s a lot of unknowns remaining.

Lots of NGOs are off today because of the long weekend but many are working to respond to this and the President’s budget.

See NGO press release in response to President’s budget:

For Immediate Release: May 28, 2021

Contact: press@wearehome.us

We Are Home Campaign Deeply Disappointed by Biden’s DHS Budget Request

Calls on Congress to Do Better

Washington, DC —President Biden’s FY 2022 budget, released today, requests $2.7 billion from Congress for ICE detention – almost the same amount enacted by Congress last year under the Trump Administration. It includes funds for 2,500 family detention beds. Alongside recent increases in the number of people jailed by ICE, this budget request is an alarming signal that DHS and the President are not heeding the call of the immigrant justice movement to reduce and ultimately end the federal government’s harmful and unnecessary reliance on incarceration for immigration processing.

In response to the news, Bridgette Gomez, Director of the We Are Home campaign, said:

“We are deeply disappointed to see that DHS plans to continue Trump-era levels of ICE detention. Candidate Biden promised an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation. As president, Biden has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to racial equity. Any plan that doesn’t dramatically shrink ICE’s incarceration system – which mostly jails Black and Brown people – betrays those commitments. We’ll be looking to Congress to do better and cut ICE’s budget significantly.”

In March, We Are Home joined the Defund Hate coalition in calling on Congress to cut funding for ICE and CBP by at least 50 percent.

In February, the campaign sent comprehensive recommendations to DHS to overhaul enforcement and begin to dismantle the detention and deportation machinery that has devastated millions of families, mostly Black and Brown, and squandered billions of taxpayer dollars. These recommendations included policies to cut detention, including 1) a comprehensive file review of all people in ICE custody, with a presumption of release, and 2) an end to the use of private prisons and state and local jails for ICE detention. The urgency to reduce the detained population is even greater during the pandemic, since people in jails and prisons face particular risk of contracting COVID. ICE has no centralized plan to provide vaccines for people in its custody.”

We Are Home is a nationwide campaign to fight for immigrant communities on three fronts: prioritizing and demanding a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; a moratorium and overhaul of interior enforcement; and broad affirmative relief from deportation. We Are Home is co-chaired by Community Change/Community Change Action; National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA)/Care in Action; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); United Farm Workers/UFW Foundation; and United We Dream.

###

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

The NGOs are quite upset.Note that this comes days after the Fourth Circuit enforced an IJ’s duty to fully develop the record even in represented cases.And yet here is the administration speeding up the assembly line.

In my view, this will lead to more pro se I-589s being filed.And as Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-, there is now no safeguard in either case law or regs preventing IJs from summarily denying those I-589s for e.g. failing to correctly delineate a PSG.

I can’t for the life of me understand this administration’s determination topreserveTrump’s policies.

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

Quick takes:

Because the system would depend almost entirely on NGOs and pro bono groups to provide counsel, developing policies without consulting those groups or providing grants to increase representation is totally inappropriate, not to mention stupid and insulting;
Special expedited asylum dockets have failed in the last two Administrations, so why try a “proven failure” once again?
Assigning certain Immigration Judges to these “priority dockets” – without first removing non-priority cases from the docket, will result in more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and increased backlogs;
As a recent article by respected experts Professor Karen Musalo and Professor Stephen Legomsky shows, the current system has been “gamed against asylum seekers” by both EOIR and DHS; https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/; without radical progressive changes, the new policy will just produce more unfairness;

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Stephen Legomsky — Professor Stephen H. Legomsky
Emeritus Professor of Law. & Former USG Senior Executive
Washington U. Law
PHOTO: Washington U. Law website

The 10 Immigration Courts selected for this project have widely varying asylum denial rates. For example, for the period 2015-20, according to TRAC, El Paso (an “Asylum Free Zone”) had a denial rate of 90% and New York a denial rate of 32%. How can a system including such extremes be “fair?”
As recent litigation has pointed out, Garland’s Immigration Judges are making basic mistakes and failing to develop records in their rush to screw asylum seekers. Without bringing in expert judges and emphasizing fairness, scholarship, record development, and quality above bureaucratic, enforcement related goals, this proposal is going to increase the due process disaster in Garland’s broken “courts;” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/26/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd4th-circuit-blasts-garland-eoirs-indolent-haste-make-waste-denial-centric-asylum-adjudication-in-another-victory-for-round-table-due-proces/
In just a short time, Garland’s outrageous mishandling of the Immigration Courts, and his disdain for expert progressive advice and appointments, shows exactly why Congress must remove these “courts” from the incompetent and biased administration of the DOJ and create an independent U.S. Immigration Court;
Until that happens, progressives and advocates will have to deal with Garland’s “in your face arrogance and ignorance” the same way they dealt with Sessions and Barr — with massive resistance and unending litigation until Garland’s corrupt, incompetent, biased system grinds to a halt.

Turning potential powerful and helpful friends into motivated and committed enemies! Seems pretty stupid to me.

Stephen Miller rightfully made lots of enemies with his racist, neo-Nazi shenanigans. But, he did please and energize his nativist, White Nationalist supporters!

By contrast, Garland has rapidly turned progressive supporters into enemies. But, he won’t get one iota of appreciation or support from Miller and his White Nationalist nativist supporters in the GOP.

Creating policies that are universally opposed or panned. That takes some impressive negative leadership and political idiocy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-29-21

🏴‍☠️🤮👎🏻⚰️☠️BIDEN, HARRIS, GARLAND, MAYORKAS CONTINUE THE ILLEGAL, RACIST TRUMP/MILLER ANTI-ASLUM POLICIES @ THE BORDER — It Must Stop, Say Advocates! — “The policy has disproportionately affected Black migrants, who are often Haitian.”

Stephen Miller Cartoon — Stephen Miller & Count Olaf
Evil Twins, Notorious Child Abusers: Their policies are still being carried out by Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=d2efc621-ea7e-489e-b34c-ef6e7e509750&v=sdk

Quit using a pandemic policy to expel migrants

By Psyche Calderon, Hannah Janeway and Ronica Mukerjee

In a steadily growing encampment mere yards south of the U.S.-Mexico border, we are led to a little girl with a fever. She lies dehydrated and wrapped in her parents’ possessions inside a waterlogged tent. Recently deported from the United States under a Trump-era pandemic policy, the family is camped next to the border wall with thousands of others who have nowhere to go.

In recent months, much attention and political outrage have focused on unaccompanied children crossing into the U.S. and being detained in government custody. But less scrutiny has been given to the mass deportations of migrant families and vulnerable adults expelled with no due process during the pandemic under a U.S. health law called Title 42, which allows the government to bar people from countries where communicable disease exists.

For more than a year — and in the name of public health — the government has been summarily expelling migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, ignoring epidemiologists and health experts, violating the migrants’ human rights and creating a critical situation in Tijuana and other border towns.

As medical professionals who provide care in encampments and shelters in Tijuana, we’ve seen how this expulsion policy has caused a humanitarian emergency in northern Mexico. Even as these encampments become increasingly overcrowded and unsafe, many migrants and their families are still being denied entry or quickly expelled by the U.S. government. The Biden administration has carried out roughly 350,000 expulsions, including nearly 50,000 families.

The administration, as part of a legal settlement, recently agreed to process up to 250 asylum seekers a day deemed vulnerable by advocacy groups so they may continue to pursue their asylum cases in the United States.

However, this is nowhere near sufficient to address the widespread human rights violations and humanitarian crisis we see every day in Tijuana. There are still many thousands of asylum seekers along the border who were previously subjected to inhumane detention and expulsions — and who are now grappling with the subsequent fallout and trauma.

Migrants in Tijuana are subjected to targeted violence by cartels, squalid conditions in encampments and shelters, and despair after the U.S. lied to many of them about their expulsions. Some asylum seekers have said Border Patrol agents told them they were being transferred to a shelter in another U.S. city when, in fact, they were sent to Mexico.

As co-founders of an organization providing healthcare to migrants stranded in Tijuana, we have been working around the clock to provide medical care.

We have seen increasing dehydration, malnutrition and infectious diseases associated with overcrowding. At an encampment in Tijuana that shelters about 2,000 asylum seekers, there are no formal sanitation facilities; gastrointestinal illnesses are causing severe illness in newborns and young children. Chronic diseases and mental health disorders, left untreated, could become death sentences. The migrants have been forced to camp amid very cold temperatures at night during winter months.

Disease is not the only threat. Families fear cartel activity and kidnappings since vulnerable migrants are often targeted for violence. More than 80% of LGBTQ refugees in Baja California reported surviving an assault in Mexico from mid-February to March. Last month, we received a late-night phone call from a lawyer asking for our help. The client — a transgender woman — had been stabbed, forced into hiding and was afraid to go to the local hospital in Tijuana because they are often unsafe places for sexual minorities. We were able to provide her basic medical care, but many others are not as lucky.

The Title 42 expulsion order has been used by the U.S. to essentially eliminate asylum at the border and put thousands of people in immediate danger by either returning them to their countries of origin or to Mexican border cities, even if the asylum seekers are not Mexican or do not speak Spanish. While the administration recently ceased cross-border expulsion flights — a reckless approach during the pandemic used to transfer and expel migrants to Mexico — officials have reserved the right to reinstate them as needed.

The policy has disproportionately affected Black migrants, who are often Haitian. They are expelled without due process back to persecution in Haiti or to pervasive anti-Black violence in northern Mexico — leaving them without access to healthcare, psychological support, safety or asylum.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

I’ve said it many times: The Biden Administration’s efforts to achieve racial justice in America will fail as long as they carry out scofflaw racist immigration policies at the border and Garland runs White Nationalist star chambers @ EOIR under the guise of “courts.” Rhetoric is meaningless without action to back it up! And the fight for racial justice in America begins at the border and in our dysfunctional, lawless Immigration “Courts!”

Related posts:

Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6th Cir., 06-11-21, published

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Opinion by James Fredrick in WashPost

🇺🇸🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Natalie Gonnella-Platts and Jenny Villatoro In the Dallas Morning News:

Related posts:

Lindsay and Sarah write in USA Today:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! The Garland/Mayorkas “Miller Lite Nonsense” at the border, never!

Related posts:

Elliot Spagot and Julie Watson report for AP:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! Tell the Biden Administration that we need progressives, not more “regressives,” on the Federal Bench, starting with the Immigration Courts! End abusive judging by a non-diverse Federal Judiciary!

Related posts:

Related posts:

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — a DOJ/EOIR specialty now being used by Garland’s DOJ

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! DOJ/EOIR incompetence, never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the “trailer:”

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s yet another “big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:

Here are “statements in opposition” from the National Immigrant Justice Center and Human Rights First:

Here’s the “statement of outrage and solidarity in opposition from the experts at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law:

Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:

Quick takes:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Quit using a pandemic policy to expel migrants

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: