Dan Kowalski – Page 11 – immigrationcourtside.com

🏴‍☠️☠️BILLY THE BIGOT BARR’S BIASED BIA’S EFFORT TO SEND LGBTQ INDIVIDUAL TO BE TORTURED IN MEXICO THWARTED BY 9TH CIR. – Unconstitutional “Star Chamber” Ignored Binding Circuit Precedent in Deadly Attempt to Carry Out White Nationalist Regime’s Assault on Legal & Human Rights of Migrants — Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

26 Jun 2020

torture

cat

Mexico

zetas

LGBT

More

CA9 on CAT, Mexico, Zetas, LGBTQ: Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr

Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr

“Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof under CAT that she would more likely than not be tortured, with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, if returned to Mexico. The BIA reached its determination by misapplying our precedents regarding acquiescence of a public official and regarding the possibility of safe relocation, as well as by making or affirming factual findings that are directly contradicted by the record. Contrary to the BIA’s determination, we hold that the existing record compels the conclusion that Petitioner has met her burden under CAT. … the record also includes extensive evidence that LGBTQ individuals are subject to a heightened risk of torture throughout Mexico. Considering all relevant evidence, we conclude that the record compels the conclusion that petitioner has met her burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that she will suffer future torture if removed to her native country. … We grant the petition and remand for the agency to grant deferral of removal pursuant to CAT because the record compels the conclusion that Petitioner will more likely than not be tortured if she is removed to Mexico.”

[Hats way off to appointed pro bono counsel Max Carter-Oberstone (argued) and Brian Goldman!]

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

One of the best things about this case is that obviously frustrated by the BIA’s “malicious incompetence” and basically contemptuous treatment of binding Circuit precedent, the Court took the unusual step of granting the CAT application outright. Often, cases are remanded to the BIA for useless “redos.” Not only can they get lost on EOIR’s totally out of control docket of 1.4 million+ cases, but that gives the BIA another undeserved chance to concoct some bogus rationale to screw the respondent.

It’s past time for more courts to treat EOIR as the hostile “justice free zone” it has become under Sessions and now Barr. The absolute disaster at the DOJ under Barr was on full, ugly display before the House this week. Courts must treat the DOJ as the unethical, biased, renegade organization that it really is rather than pretending that it still performs any legitimate functions under our
Constitution.

The Supremes might feign ignorance of the Trump regime’s institutionalized racist assault on migrants, particularly those seeking protection. But, some of the lower Federal Courts finally are catching on to what’s happening here. How is this type of systemic, illegal, incompetent, and unethical performance by Billy Barr’s wholly-owned “courts” that are not “courts” at all deemed acceptable? People’s lives are at risk!

Better Executive + Better Legislature + Better Judges = Equal Justice for All!

PWS

06-27-20

JEFF “GONZO APOCALYPTO” SESSIONS ILLEGALLY STRIPPED IMMIGRATION JUDGES OF AUTHORITY TO CLOSE CASES – 7th Cir. Shreds White Nationalist Former AG’s Bogus “Precedent” in Matter of Castro-Tum — Meza Morales v. Barr

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

26 Jun 2020

castro-tum

CA7 Rejects Castro-Tum!

Meza Morales v. Barr

“We … reject CastroTum and hold that immigration judges are not precluded from administratively closing cases when appropriate.”

[Hats off to Chuck Roth!]

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

The Fourth Circuit also has stomped Gonzo’s illegal and unethical interference with Immigration Judges’ authority to manage their dockets isn a previous very forceful rejection Castro-Tum:

“GONZO APOCALYPTO” SLAMMED: UNANIMOUS PANEL OF 4TH CIR. REJECTS MATTER OF CASTO-TUM — Exposes Irrationality Of Biased, Unqualified Restrictionist Former AG — “ADR” Outed — “Although one of its purported concerns is efficient and timely administration of immigration proceedings, it would in fact serve to lengthen and delay many of these proceedings by: (1) depriving IJs and the BIA of flexible docketing measures sometimes required for adjudication of an immigration proceeding, as illustrated by Avetisyan, and (2) leading to the reopening of over 330,000 cases upon the motion of either party, straining the burden on immigration courts that Castro-Tum purports to alleviate.”

“GONZO APOCALYPTO” SLAMMED: UNANIMOUS PANEL OF 4TH CIR. REJECTS MATTER OF CASTO-TUM — Exposes Irrationality Of Biased, Unqualified Restrictionist Former AG — “ADR” Outed — “Although one of its purported concerns is efficient and timely administration of immigration proceedings, it would in fact serve to lengthen and delay many of these proceedings by: (1) depriving IJs and the BIA of flexible docketing measures sometimes required for adjudication of an immigration proceeding, as illustrated by Avetisyan, and (2) leading to the reopening of over 330,000 cases upon the motion of either party, straining the burden on immigration courts that Castro-Tum purports to alleviate.”

Zuniga Romero – CA4 Decision (8-29-2019)

ZUNIGA ROMERO V. BARR, NO. 18-1850, 4th Cir., 08-29-19, published

PANEL: AGEE, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Agee

KEY QUOTE:

In the absence of Auer deference, the weight given to a BIA decision “hinges on the thoroughness evident in [the BIA’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade”—that is, whether the interpretation should be afforded Skidmore deference. Zavaleta–Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 246 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). And here, a court reviewing Castro-Tum for Skidmore deference would not be persuaded to adopt the agency’s own interpretation of its regulation for substantially the same reasons it is not entitled to Auer deference: because it represents a stark departure, without notice, from long-used practice and thereby cannot be deemed consistent with earlier and later pronouncements. As a result, it lacks the “power to persuade.” Id.; see also Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2427 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (contending that an agency interpretation of a regulation should as an initial matter be “entitled only to a weight proportional to ‘the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade’” (quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140)). Put another way, even under the view set forth by Justice Gorsuch in Kisor, the Attorney General’s interpretation would amount to a failure of proof because the evidence—that is, Castro- Tum—comes too late in the game.

*** *

In sum, the result is that 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously confer upon IJs and the BIA the general authority to administratively close cases such that the BIA’s decision should be vacated and remanded.

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

A huge victory for the “New Due Process Army.” The “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” actually filed an amicus brief before Sessions in Castro-Tum raising many of the points found determinative by the Fourth Circuit. Our brief was, of course, ignored by “Gonzo,” who undoubtedly had already drafted his decision along the lines dictated to him by some restrictionist interest group.

Finally, an Article III Court “gets” how the DOJ under the Trump Administration is promoting “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) in an attempt to build the backlog, destroy the system, blame the victims (respondents and their, largely pro bono, attorneys), and dishonestly call upon GOP Legislators to mount a pernicious attack on constitutional Due Process by statute!

The idea that adding 330,000 cases to the already backlogged Immigration Courts was legally required or a good policy idea clearly is a piece of White Nationalist restrictionist propaganda promoted by corrupt public officials like Miller, Sessions, and Barr.

With the Democrats in control of the House, there is no way that Congress will eliminate “Administrative Closing” by statute. And, while the DOJ under the sycophantic Barr might try to change the regulation, this decision makes it very clear that there is no rational basis for doing so. Therefore, any future regulation change is likely to be tied up in litigation in the Article III Courts for years, adding to the confusion and ADR, as well as threatening to immobilize the Article III Courts.

Unless the Article III Courts want their dockets to be totally swamped with immigration appeals, the answer is to end this unconstitutional system administered by an Attorney General clearly unfit to act in a quasi-judicial capacity and place the Immigration Courts under a court-appointed independent “Special Master” to insure fairness, impartiality, and other aspects of Due Process until Congress fixes the glaring Constitutional defect by creating an independent U.S. Immigration Court outside of the DOJ.

PWS

08-29-19

When, oh when, will the Circuit Courts finally put an end to this clearly unconstitutional nonsense and never-ending exhibition of malicious incompetence called EOIR. Taking it apart piece by rotten piece is both wasteful of judicial resources and highly unfair to the many individuals prevented by EOIR’s systematic misconduct and a biased system from even reaching the Courts of Appeals.

PWS

06-27-20

BILLY THE BIGOT’S STAR CHAMBERS CONTINUE TO SHOW CONSTITUTIONAL ABROGATION, UNEQUAL JUSTICE ALIVE & WELL IN AMERICA — 2d Cir. Remand Latest To Highlight How Billy’s BIA Lacks Professional Competence, Institutionalizes Anti-Asylum Bias — Tanusantoso v. Barr

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-changed-country-conditions-tanusantoso-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

24 Jun 2020

motion to reopen

changed country conditions

Indonesia

Evidence

asylum

CA2 on Changed Country Conditions: Tanusantoso v. Barr

Tanusantoso v. Barr

“Harmanto Tanusantoso and Wiwik Widayati (collectively, Petitioners) petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied their third motion to reopen, in which they alleged a change of country conditions for Christians in Indonesia. Petitioners argue that the BIA abused its discretion in denying their motion to reopen because it (1) failed to address their primary evidence of changed country conditions and (2) incorrectly concluded that their failure to submit a new asylum application with their motion made the motion procedurally deficient under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). We agree with Petitioners. We find that the BIA’s one-and-a-half-page order failed to account for relevant evidence of changed country conditions and hold that § 1003.2(c)(1) does not require the submission of a new asylum application for motions such as this one. We therefore GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for explicit consideration of Petitioners’ changed country conditions evidence.”

[Hats off to WILLIAM W. CASTILLO GUARDADO and Dan R. Smulian, on the brief, Catholic Charities Community Services, New York, NY!]

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

DISCONNECT: Remanding a case for a fair determination by an unconstitutional “court” system designed by Billy the Bigot to reject valid asylum claims.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN: “Remand” the case to a U.S. Magistrate Judge or a court-appointed Special Master with asylum expertise to give the respondent a fair determination on the motion to reopen, and if the case is reopened, to hear the case on the merits. Any appeals should go directly to the Court of Appeals, bypassing the unconstitutional and unqualified BIA.

To keep sending botched cases back to an unconstitutional and unqualified “court” system that is not a “court” at all is a complete waste of time and an abuse of taxpayer resources. It’s also grossly unfair to individuals who have to keep subjecting themselves to the abuses of “Billy the Bigot” and his illegal “designed to deny” Star Chambers! Additionally, it’s ethically questionable, given the overwhelming evidence of unfairness and dysfunction now in the public record.

Have the Judges of the Second Circuit taken the few minutes necessary to view “The Immigration Courts: Nothing Like You Have Imagined?” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/24/channeling-john-lennon-conservative-judiciary-revolts-hand-selected-over-two-decades-by-americas-chief-prosecutors-to-quash-dissent-promote-compliance-with-dojs-poli/

If not, why not? If so, what’s the excuse for futile and inappropriate remands to this unconstitutional and dysfunctional “non-system?” We need Federal Judges at all levels who “get off the treadmill” and start enforcing the Constitutional requirements of due process, fundamental fairness, impartial decision-makers, and equal justice for all.

Yes, America is suffering from near-total institutional breakdown and failure under the Trump’s kakistocracy and the institutional weaknesses he has exposed and exploited. But, that doesn’t excuse the failure of those who have the power to fix the system pretending like this is “normal.” It isn’t!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-25-20

SPECTACLE @ JUSTICE: POPE BILLY CONVENES ☠️“CADAVER SYNOD”☠️— Looks to “Exhume” Decade-Old “Dead” Case for Punishment in EOIR Star Chamber!

Cadaver Trial — Jean-Paul Laurens
Pope Formosus & Stephen VI
1870

Pope Formosus died on April 4, 896. But, if he thought his worldly sins had passed on with him, he had not counted on the tenacity of his successor Pope Stephen VI. In 897, “PS-6” had his predecessor’s body dug up and the corpse brought before the Papal Court to answer charges of perjury, violating canon law, and illegally serving as a bishop.

The corpse was dressed and propped up on a throne. Apparently recognizing Formosus’s financial distress and limited mental capacity, PS-6 appointed a church deacon to be the dead Pope’s “mouthpiece.” There are no records, however, of the deacon’s actually consulting with his “client” on a defense strategy. PS-6 vigorously prosecuted the case.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the corpse was found guilty after trial. Formosus was stripped of his vestments, had three fingers cut off his right hand, and was unceremoniously thrown into the Tiber River weighted down with the 9th Century equivalent of “concrete overshoes.”

In a rather ironic twist of fate, the corpse eventually resurfaced and washed ashore. Finally finding the love and devotion that had eluded him in life, as a washed up corpse, Formosus started to perform miracles and became an object of veneration by the people. They turned on PS-6, who was eventually imprisoned and strangled. Perhaps the moral here is “don’t mess with the dead.”

Now, the direct successor to PS-6, Pope Billy the Bigot Barr, has reached back into the reign of King George II of Bush to exhume the corpus of A-M-R-C-, finally laid to rest in the Year of Our Lord 2006, the sixth year of the reign of Bush II. He intends to seek “justice” before the Star Chamber of the EOIR, his private judge, jury, and executioner.

But, watch out Billy, as PS-6 found, even beating up on dead corpses and other vulnerables can be dangerous! Cowardly arrogance and gross abuses of justice, divine or human, can come back to bite even the high and mighty.

The potential for post-mortem perjury prosecutions should be of grave concern to Trump, Billy, Gonzo, “Big Mac” With Lies, Nielsen, Kelly, and a host of other Trump officials. The possibility of post-mortem disbarment for outgoing Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco and his band of truth and decency challenged DOJ lawyers should also haunt their futures, along with the ghosts of the broken bodies, cries of abused children, and souls of those only “crime” was to seek justice in America that they have unjustly maligned, prosecuted, and persecuted in the name of Trump’s White Nationalism.

Meanwhile, the Jesters of the Papal Court 🤡🤹‍♂️, also known as Article III Judges, continue to watch the spectacle of American justice dying before their eyes while they daily fail to take the strong, courageous, action to end Billy’s Star Chambers!

An outstanding lecture on “The Cadaver Trial” (and other Great Trials of World History) by Professor Douglas O. Linder of the U. Of Missouri-KC School Law is available on The Great Courses. You can watch the trailer and sign up for a free trial subscription (if not already a member) here. https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/the-great-trials-of-world-history-and-the-lessons-they-teach-us “The Cadaver Trial” is among the three Medieval Trails covered in “Lecture #3” and inspired this piece.

The latest on the Strange Saga of A-M-R-C- and the adventures of Pope Billy the Bigot can be found at LexisNexis Immigration Community courtesy of Papal Historian Dan Kowalski. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/eoir-posts-case-underlying-matter-of-a-m-r-c-

PWS

06-21-20

1ST CIR. — EOIR’S SCOFFLAW “HASTE MAKES WASTE” DENIALS OF COUNSEL UNDER BARR WILL BUILD BACKLOG — Hernandez-Lara v. Barr

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Right to Counsel: Hernandez Lara v. Barr

Hernandez Lara v. Barr

“Hernandez petitions for review on multiple grounds, but we need decide only one. Concluding that the IJ denied Hernandez her statutory right to be represented by the counsel of her choice, we grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats way off to Sang Yeob Kim and Eloa J. Celedon, with whom Harvey Kaplan, Gilles Bissonnette, Henry Klementowicz, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, and Celedon Law were on brief, for petitioner; Deirdre M. Giblin, Iris Gomez, and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute on brief for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, American Immigration Lawyers Association New England Chapter, Boston College Law School Immigration Clinic, Boston University Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston, Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Central West Justice Center, DeNovo Center for Justice and Healing, Greater Boston Legal Services, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts, MetroWest Legal Services, The Northeast Justice Center, Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, and University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Immigration Law Clinic, amici curiae!]

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

Read the full decision and you will see how under Barr’s White Nationalist “leadership,” the EOIR ignores not only constitutionally required due process, the statutory right to counsel, but also prior BIA precedent to screw (largely Latino) asylum seekers. The First Circuit recognizes the correct standards. But, I’ll wager they aren’t being applied in most of the unrepresented cases now being railroaded through the Immigration Courts. Nobody in charge is doing anything to stop the systemic, invidiously racially motivated unfairness.

We’re still a long way from enforcing the Constitution and eliminating unconstitutional racism, including specifically the Government’s vile attacks on Latino and other asylum applicants.

While thankfully Chief Justice Roberts saved lives and futures today, he and seven of his colleagues also ignored the facts to endorse the Trump regime’s institutional racism targeting Latinos with various assaults on immigration laws, due process, and human decency. His protestations to the contrary as he and his colleagues brushed off the obvious Equal Protection violations that would have been proved fail the “straight face test.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/john-roberts-daca-racist-policies-equal-protection.html.

Indeed, that Roberts found that the Administration acted without rational explanations as required by the APA in and of itself basically shows that there were “other motivations” for the actions. I’m not sure the “prime movers” behind the “Screw Dreamers” policy even know what the APA is. Sessions’s “legal analysis” that was nothing of the sort — as observed by some lower courts — could have been written by a sixth grader.

Sadly, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the intellectual honesty and courage to speak truth on the continuing racism of Trump and the GOP and how it is being enabled by her colleagues on the Supremes.

Whatever progress members of the the public might think they are making on achieving racial justice isn’t reflected in the continuing insultingly intellectually dishonest actions of many of those who lead and control our Government. They obviously believe that with a few cosmetic (at best) changes this moment will pass, as have other efforts to make the Constitution a reality for all in America.

Then they can resume the same abuses and disingenuous claims that institutional racism no longer exists in a system where it is deeply and intentionally ingrained. But, the folks who are victimized by it might continue to differ with this bogus view. Since, as we have recently learned, they are often the ones who have and continue to prop up our society, that’s going to be a long-term problem for future generations.

We’ll never get to equality without regime change. Nor will be get to a better Federal Judiciary who will make the Constitutional guarantee of elimination of racial injustice a priority and a reality without an Executive, a Senate, and more judges who really believe in it. Until then, those who believe in racial justice will have to continue the battle in the trenches. Denial of the reality of racism in America won’t change it, no matter what the majority of the Supremes might claim to think.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-18-20

🏴‍☠️BIA DENIES DUE PROCESS AGAIN! — 9th Cir. Exposes Gross Abuses by EOIR in Effort to Deprive Armenian Refugees of Legal Asylum Status! — Grigoryan v. Barr

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-grigoryan-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 on Due Process: Grigoryan v. Barr

Grigoryan v. Barr

“Our government granted asylum to Karen Grigoryan (“Petitioner”), his wife, and two of their children (collectively, the “Grigoryans”) in 2001. Beginning in 2005, the Grigoryans were subjected to a protracted immigration ordeal triggered by the government’s allegations of fraud in Petitioner’s asylum application. The Grigoryans’ bureaucratic nightmare culminated when, after they had resided in the United States for nearly fourteen years, an immigration judge (“IJ”) terminated their asylum status, denied their renewed requests for deportation relief, and ordered them removed to Armenia. The IJ terminated the Grigoryans’ asylum status by relying almost exclusively on a single-page “report” introduced by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) that purportedly revealed that Petitioner’s original asylum application contained fraudulent documents. Although the Grigoryans were not allowed to examine any of the documents or the individuals referred to in the report, they ultimately proved that half of the fraud allegations in the report were unfounded. The IJ also relied on adverse credibility findings entered against Petitioner at an earlier hearing that never should have taken place. The question before us is whether, in light of this series of missteps, the agency erred in terminating the Grigoryans’ asylum status. We have jurisdiction over the Grigoryans’ petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We hold that the government violated the Grigoryans’ due process rights by failing to provide them a full and fair opportunity to rebut the government’s fraud allegations at the termination hearing. We therefore grant the petition, vacate the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and the IJ’s order of deportation, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Catalina Gracia and Areg Kazaryan!]

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

Circuit Courts continue to “out” constant failures of elementary due process by a BIA that has abandoned that concept to serve as an “rubber stamp” for their “partners” at DHS Enforcement. Wrongfully sending asylum seekers back to persecution based on bogus grounds and defective procedures can be a death sentence.

But, these systemic violations of due process and the essential “fraud” being perpetrated on the Article III Courts by imposters posing as “subject matter experts” and an enforcement body masquerading as a “court” remains unaddressed. It’s no secret that the corrupt Billy Barr is unqualified to serve as the chief legal official of the U.S. Nor is it “rocket science” to recognize that allowing him to run a “court system” violates Constitutional due process. So, what’s the justification for life-tenured Article III judges who fail to halt these grotesque, life-threatening abuses and require the long, long overdue constitutionally-required reforms to create an independent judiciary insulated from political control?

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

06-08-20

NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED: Barr Awards 2 of 4 New Supervisory Judge Positions @ EOIR to Immigration Neophytes — Just Keep The Deportation RR Running Full-Speed Ahead Into The Abyss!

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/barr-appoints-four-new-acijs-two-have-no-experience

Barr Appoints Four New ACIJs; Two Have No Experience

[NOTE: Two of the four new ACIJs have no immigration law experience, yet they will hear cases.]

EOIR, May 22, 2020

“The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced four new assistant chief immigration judges (ACIJs). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of the immigration courts to which they are assigned. In addition to their management responsibilities, these Attorney General appointees will hear cases. Biographical information follows…”

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

Get the full EOIR announcement at the link

The deadly ☠️ judicial farce at EOIR continues, unabated, as lives and the law are treated as meaningless in a “court” system run by enforcement politicos.

Apparently, at today’s EOIR all you need to hear cases is the willingness to check “deny” and “remove” on the form orders and to exhort others to “go along to get along!”

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never!

PWS

05-26-20

EOIR WRONG AGAIN: Split 6th Cir. Says BIA Screwed Up Corroboration, Nexus Requirements In Mexican PSG Withholding Case — GUZMAN-VAZQUEZ v. BARR!

Dan Kowalski report from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-corroboration-social-group-guzman-vazquez-v-barr

CA6 on Corroboration, Social Group: Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr

Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr

“Manuel Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal. Because the IJ and BIA erred in failing to give Guzman an opportunity to explain why he could not reasonably obtain certain corroborative evidence, because substantial evidence does not support the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and BIA’s determinations regarding the unavailability of evidence to corroborate Guzman’s claim about abuse by his stepfather, and because the BIA incorrectly required Guzman to demonstrate that his membership in a particular social group was “at least one central reason” for his persecution, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s order, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to R. Andrew Free!]

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

PANEL: MERRITT, MOORE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Judge Moore

DISSENT: Judge Murphy

In looking for ways to deny protection, the BIA continues to “blow the basics.” That’s going to continue to happen as long as EOIR is allowed to operate as a branch of DHS Enforcement rather than a fair-minded, impartial court system with true expertise and which grants needed protection in meritorious cases, rather than searching for specious “reasons to deny.”

No wonder the EOIR backlog is mushrooming out of control when those responsible for doing justice waste countless time and resources “manufacturing denials,” rather than just promptly granting relief in many meritorious cases.

PWS

05-18-20

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ON GULAG: “Under the circumstances, Galan-Reyes’ detention at Pulaski – where he shares dormitory-style living quarters with up to 50 other detainees – which obviously places him at risk for contracting this serious and potentially deadly illness, is tantamount to punishment.” — Galen-Reyes v. Acoff, S.D. IL

Honl. Staci M. Yandle — Honorable Staci M. Yandle
U.S. District Judge
S.D. IL

Galen-Reyes v. Acoff, 05-14-20, S.D. IL, U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle

Galan-Reyes v. Acoff

KEY QUOTE:

For the foregoing reasons, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that his release would endanger the public or that he is a flight risk, coupled with the known risks associated with the presence of COVID-19 at Pulaski, this Court concludes that Galan-Reyes’ continued indefinite detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The government’s interests in continuing his detention must therefore yield to his liberty and safety interests.6

Disposition

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.

Respondents are ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Omar Galan-Reyes, pursuant to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner will reside at a certain residence, will provide his address and telephone contact information to Respondents, and will quarantine there for at least the first 14 days of his release;

2. If Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that Petitioner is an appropriate candidate for Alternatives to Detention (ATD), then Petitioner will comply with DHS instructions as to any ATD conditions;

3. Petitioner will comply with national, state, and local guidance regarding staying at home, sheltering in place, and social distancing and shall be placed on home detention;

4. The Court’s order for release from detention shall be revoked should Petitioner fail to comply with this order of release;

5. This Order does not prevent Respondents from taking Petitioner back into custody should Petitioner commit any crimes that render him a threat to public safety or otherwise violate the terms of release;
6. Petitioner will be transported from Pulaski County Detention Center to his home by identified third persons;
7. Petitioner will not violate any federal, state, or local laws; and
8. At the discretion of DHS and/or ICE, to enforce the above restrictions, Petitioner’s whereabouts will be monitored by telephonic and/or electronic and/or GPS monitoring and/or location verification system and/or an automated identification system.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.

6 In light of the Court’s conclusion on Petitioner’s due process claim, it is not necessary to address his Administrative Procedures Act claim.

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

Many thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along. And congrats to NDPA members A. Ross Cunningham, Esquire, and Jake Briskman, Esquire, for their representation of the prisoner rotting in the New American Gulag (“NAG”) in this case!

This decision reads like an indictment of the entire badly failed and fundamentally unfair DHS Enforcement and Immigration Court systems as mismanaged, weaponized, and politicized by the Trump regime Politicos and their toadies:

Abuse of detention system by detaining non-dangerous individuals who are not flight risks;
Uselessness of bond determinations by Immigration Judges who are functioning like enforcement officers, not independent judicial decision-makers;
Extraordinarily poor judgment by DHS Detention officials;
Delays caused by backlogged dockets driven by failure of DHS Enforcement to exercise prioritization and reasonable prosecutorial discretion compounded by the Immigration Judges who lack the authority, and in some cases the will, to control their dockets — dockets structured by politicos for political, rather than practical or legal, reasons (see, e.g., “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR”);
A dangerously useless BIA that fails to set reasonable national bond criteria and fails to properly and competently consider Due Process interests in bond cases;
The importance of placing the burden of proof in bond cases where it constitutionally belongs: on DHS, rather than on the individual as is done in Immigration Court;
In this case, the US District Judge had to do the careful analytical work of individual decision making that should have been done by the Immigration Court, and which the Immigration Court should have, but has failed to, require DHS to adopt;
Leaving the big question: Why have Immigration Courts at all if the meaningful work has to be done by the U.S. Courts and U.S. Magistrates?
- Why not “cut out the useless middleman” and just have U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of U.S. District Judges conduct all removal and bond proceedings in accordance with the law, Due Process, and the Eighth Amendment until Congress replaces the current constitutionally flawed Immigration Courts with an independent immigration judiciary that can do the job and that functions as a “real court” rather than an arm of DHS Enforcement thinly disguised as a “court?”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-15-20

REGIME SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: 7th Cir. Blasts Barr’s Bogus Battle Bashing Local Law Enforcement In Chicago, Other Cities — Unconstitutional! — Nationwide Injunction Affirmed — “But states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants.“

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca7-on-byrne-jag-grant-conditions-chicago-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA7 on Byrne JAG Grant Conditions: Chicago v. Barr

Chicago v. Barr

“We conclude again today, as we did when presented with the preliminary injunction, that the Attorney General cannot pursue the policy objectives of the executive branch through the power of the purse or the arm of local law enforcement; that is not within its delegation. It is the prerogative of the legislative branch and the local governments, and the Attorney General’s assertion that Congress itself provided that authority in the language of the statutes cannot withstand scrutiny. … Accordingly, we affirm the grants of declaratory relief as to the declarations that the Attorney General exceeded the authority delegated by Congress in the Byrne JAG statute, 34 U.S.C. § 10151 et seq., and in 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a), in attaching the challenged conditions to the FY 2017 and FY 2018 grants, and that the Attorney General’s decision to attach the conditions to the FY 2017 and FY 2018 Byrne JAG grants violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. In light of our determination as to the language in § 10153, it is unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of § 1373 under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. We affirm the district court’s grant of injunctive relief as to the application of the challenged conditions to the Byrne JAG grant program-wide now and in the future, which included enjoining the Attorney General from denying or delaying issuance of the Byrne JAG award to grants in FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019 and any other future program year insofar as that denial or delay is based on the challenged conditions or materially identical conditions. We remand for the district court to determine if any other injunctive relief is appropriate in light of our determination that § 10153 cannot be used to incorporate laws unrelated to the grants or grantees. Finally, because the injunctive relief is necessary to provide complete relief to Chicago itself, the concern with improperly extending relief beyond the particular plaintiff does not apply, and therefore there is no reason to stay the application of the injunctive relief.”

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

The complete 111-page decision is available at the above link.

The 7th Circuit Panel was BAUER, MANION, AND ROVNER, Circuit Judges. The opinion is by Judge Rovner. Judge Manion filed a separate opinion concurring in the legal analysis, but dissenting from the nationwide scope of the injunction.

The 7th Circuit strongly upholds the Constitutional separation of powers and local jurisdictions’ rights to police in a manner that protects their local communities. Compare this with the obsequious kowtowing to Executive abuses by the Second Circuit in State of New York v. Barr, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/27/2d-cir-to-ny-six-other-so-called-sanctuary-states-tough-noogies-trump-rules/

Some Federal Courts stand up for our rights in the face of Trump’s tyranny; others “roll over.” History will be their judge!

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the “JR Five” on the Supremes — who seldom see a White Nationalist abuse of authority picking on immigrants that they aren’t willing to validate — will “torque the law and the facts as necessary” to further the regime’s scofflaw, xenophobic agenda.

History eventually will catch up with them too. History recognizes neither life tenure nor “absolute immunity.”

Due Process Forever!

Continue reading REGIME SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: 7th Cir. Blasts Barr’s Bogus Battle Bashing Local Law Enforcement In Chicago, Other Cities — Unconstitutional! — Nationwide Injunction Affirmed — “But states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants.“

GULAG WATCH ☠️: Another USDC Orders DHS To Release Detainee At Risk For COVID-19 — Pimentel-Estrada v. Barr, WD WA

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/court-orders-release-of-ice-prisoner-pimentel-estrada-v-barr

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

29 Apr 2020

COVID-19

ICE

More

Court Orders Release of ICE Prisoner: Pimentel-Estrada v. Barr

NWIRP, Apr. 28, 2020

“Today U.S. District Court Judge Richard Martinez ordered the federal government to release an immigrant detained at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC), AKA Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC), who is at high risk of serious illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. The Court ordered the release of Mr. Pimentel, a 65-year old man who has been a lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1996, but was placed in removal proceedings after pleading guilty to a drug offense. After completing his sentence, Mr. Pimentel returned to live with his family in Salt Lake City, Utah, but was subsequently arrested by ICE in May of 2019 after he appeared for an appointment. ICE ultimately transferred Mr. Pimentel to the detention center in Tacoma, Washington.

Judge Martinez found that federal immigration authorities “detain Petitioner at the NWIPC in conditions that create a substantial risk he will be exposed to the coronavirus and contract COVID-19.”

Judge Martinez relied on declarations from public health experts stating that once COVID-19 reaches the detention center it will spread like “wildfire.” The Court noted that experts have attributed a mortality rate as high as 15% for high risk individuals who contract COVID-19. Judge Martinez ultimately concluded that “Petitioner has made a clear showing that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm due to the conditions of his present confinement and the fact that he is at higher risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19.”

Judge Martinez ordered that Mr. Pimentel be immediately released. He will now be permitted to return to live with his son and daughter-in-law in Salt Lake City while he waits for his immigration case to be completed.

The order can be viewed here.

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

Wonder how many more “Mr. Pimentels” are out there in the Gulag but in the wrong jurisdiction or without the good fortune to get the legal representation necessary to secure release?

What if we had a functional, impartial, expert U.S. Immigration Court that could order release of folks like this without protracted litigation in the U.S. District Courts? Indeed, what’s the purpose of a so-called “court system” that’s incapable of doing much of anything except “rubber stamping” the unconstitutional actions and extraordinarily poor judgments of DHS officials and their contractors?

PWS

04-30-20

GULAG WATCH: Here’s Some Better News From The USDC in DC! 👍🏼 — O.M.G. et al. v. Wolf et al.

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1267946/flores-ruling-extends-to-adults-in-covid-19-detention-fight

Flores Ruling Extends To Adults In COVID-19 Detention Fight

By Khorri Atkinson

Law360, Washington (April 27, 2020, 8:50 PM EDT) — A D.C. federal judge ordered the government Monday to apply certain standards laid out in a landmark consent decree that established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody to adults held in three residential detention centers in Pennsylvania and Texas amid the coronavirus outbreak.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled during a teleconference hearing that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must deliver by May 15 an account of what’s being done to expedite the release of adult detainees as well as efforts to ensure those detained at facilities with confirmed COVID-19 cases are being protected.

The decision came amid allegations by immigration advocacy groups that ICE has exhibited indifference to families at high risk of contracting the disease and that no appropriate steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. The Rapid Defense Network, ALDEA — the People’s Justice Center, and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services last month sued federal immigration authorities, demanding the immediate release of dozens of migrant families at detention centers in Berks County, Pennsylvania, and Dilley and Karnes City, Texas.

In his ruling Monday, Judge Boasberg once again declined to grant immediate release of the asylum-seekers. But the judge applied some conditions in the landmark 1997 federal consent decree known as the Flores settlement agreement, which established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody. The decree prohibits the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from detaining migrant children beyond the 20-day limit.

Judge Boasberg expanded that holding to cover their parents, but stopped short of mandating the government to explain why an adult has been in detention for more than 20 days.

The judge noted that while adults are not protected under Flores, the government has been providing some information on adults in detention to U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of California, who has been overseeing the consent decree as part of a long-running class action.

“I think this is sufficient at this point to ensure the constitutional treatment of” detainees, the judge said of his order during the teleconference session.

Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg indicated that ICE has been making substantial efforts to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus at the facilities, pointing out that the three centers are at least 16% under capacity. So far, none of the centers have recorded cases of COVID-19, the government told the court.

“Conditions are definitely improving,” the judge said. “That’s highly significant to me.”

Monday’s order builds upon previous decisions by the judge, who instructed ICE to provide the court with statistics on the number of detained migrants seeking asylum; testing and treatment plans; and compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for congregate settings such as detention centers.

Vanessa Molina, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing ICE, argued against applying Flores in this case. She maintained that it would be improper to demand that the agency explain why adults are in detention for more than 20 days because the consent decree was never meant to include parents or adults.

Detention is a part of the removal process pending a deportation proceeding, Molina continued, and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their burden of showing why they should be released. And there’s no finding in this case that ICE had been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of asylum-seekers with COVID-19 risk factors, she said.

“ICE is authorized to detain the adults pending deportation proceedings,” the government attorney doubled down

Judge Boasberg responded that the government has been producing detention information on minors to the California federal judge and asked, “Why would there be any objections … [to provide similar data to the D.C. district court] for the adults?”

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP partner Susan Baker Manning, an attorney for the migrant families, conceded to the government’s argument that detention is authorized as part of the deportation process. But the lawyer contended that her clients are being held in unsanitary conditions, that they are not subject to mandatory detention, and that they are not a danger to the community because they have no criminal histories.

Manning had urged Judge Boasberg to include the 20-day condition because it “is a perfect and reasonable benchmark to understand why migrants are being held in facilities where they are at risk of contracting COVID-19.” But the judge declined to do so.

The judge has set a May 20 teleconference hearing for the parties to discuss the latest developments in the litigation.

The migrants are represented by Susan Baker Manning of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, ManojGovindaiah and Curtis F.J. Doebbler of the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Amy Maldonado of The Law Office of Amy Maldonado, and Sarah T. Gillman and Gregory P. Copeland of Rapid Defense Network.

The government is represented by Vanessa Molina of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation and Daniel Franklin Van Horn of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

The case is O.M.G. et al. v. Wolf et al., case number 1:20-cv-00786, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community for sending this!

Sadly, the lack of leadership among all three branches of our Government means that what should be uniform policies applicable throughout the country are instead litigated piecemeal, with differing results. Not surprisingly, as the regime touts draconian immigration “bans and bars” approaches to the coronavirus crisis, it continues to fail on the everyday “Xs and Os” of competent government, requiring constant prodding from lawyers, judges, and journalists to get the basics right.

Still, a “W” is a “W” for the “good guys!”

PWS

04-28-20

ANOTHER BIG DUE PROCESS VICTORY: 3rd. Cir. Reaffirms That Due Process Applies Equally To Discretionary Relief, Finds BIA Screwed Up “Ineffective Assistance Claim,” Rejects OIL’s Attack On Due Process — Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-ineffective-assistance-calderon-rosas-v-atty-gen

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

27 Apr 2020

ineffective assistance

CA3 on Ineffective Assistance: Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

“Immigration law is a field in which fair, accurate factfinding is of critical importance. The need in immigration proceedings for effective attorneys who can competently marshal the evidence on each side is therefore of commensurate importance. Yet aliens—often poor, often non-English speaking—are disproportionately saddled with low-quality counsel, and the consequences can be drastic. This is a case in point. Petitioner Sergio Calderon-Rosas paid a now-disbarred attorney to represent him in removal proceedings, and Calderon-Rosas was ordered deported after that attorney failed to present key evidence supporting his application for cancellation of removal. Calderon-Rosas sought a new hearing, arguing that he was deprived of due process by, among other things, his attorney’s ineffective assistance, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his claims. We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to review due process claims where a petitioner, like Calderon-Rosas, seeks only discretionary relief—and if so, whether Calderon-Rosas’s claims have merit. Because we conclude that we have jurisdiction and Calderon-Rosas plainly presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.”

[Hats off to Petra D. Fist!]

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

Get the full decision at the link.

Panel: GREENAWAY, JR., KRAUSE, and RESTREPO,

Circuit Judges

Opinion by: Judge Krause

Here’s my favorite quote from court’s unanimous opinion written by Circuit Judge Krause:

The government’s argument, however, is one we have squarely rejected. We long ago recognized that due process claims can be asserted by petitioners seeking discretionary relief because “Congress instructed the Attorney General to establish an asylum procedure,” and “[w]hen Congress directs an agency to establish a procedure . . . it can be assumed that Congress intends that procedure to be a fair one.” Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996) (addressing asylum claim). “[F]airness,” we explained, “mandate[s] that the asylum procedure promulgated by the Attorney General provide the most basic of due process.” Id.; see also Cham v. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 683, 691 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[A]lthough Cham has no constitutional right to asylum, he was entitled, as a matter of due process, to a full and fair hearing on his application.”); Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 373–74

8

(3d Cir. 2003) (“Ponce–Leiva’s brief . . . suggests that counsel’s ineffectiveness was a denial of due process. Accordingly, we may analyze the claim, at least within the parameters of due process.”).

More recently, in Serrano-Alberto v. Attorney General, 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017), in exercising jurisdiction over claims for discretionary relief, we reiterated that “petitioners must receive a full and fair hearing that allows them a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on their behalf, and a decision on the merits of their claim by a neutral and impartial arbiter.” Id. at 213 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That procedural due process right, we explained, is comprised of “three key protections” in immigration proceedings: “(1) ‘factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her’; (2) the opportunity to ‘make arguments on his or her own behalf’; and (3) ‘an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.’” Id. (quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc)). In short, “[t]hroughout all phases of deportation proceedings, petitioners must be afforded due process of law.” Id.

So true. Yet, so often ignored in practice by the Supremes and Circuit Courts.

The current Immigration “Court” system is run by a politically biased enforcement official, Billy Barr, who solely controls judicial appointments, job retention, sets so-called “performance standards” intentionally weighted toward DHS Enforcement’s needs, establishes binding “precedents,” and changes results favorable to asylum seekers and other respondents when they don’t suit his nativist agenda. In this system, no respondent is receiving a “fundamentally fair hearing” before a “fair and impartial decision maker.”

Even if an Immigration Judge tries to act fairly in an individual case, as many do, they are still bound by the Attorney General’s pro-enforcement policies, and the specter of arbitrary reversal of results favorable to the respondent by so-called “certification” by the AG hangs over and materially compromises the entire system and every proceeding.

Indeed, by concentrating only on the small, and somewhat random, sampling of “petitions for review” that actually cross their desks, the Courts of Appeals and the Supremes are ignoring the systemic lack of fundamental due process that infects this entire dysfunctional and unfair system. Time to wake up and do the right thing!

Nice words are one thing. Actions an entirely different matter!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-20

SUPREME WIN FOR THE REGIME: “J.R. Five” Interprets Statute Broadly To Narrow Eligibility For Deportation Waiver — Justice Sotomayor + 3 Dissent — Barton v. Barr (5-4)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/supreme-court-on-cancellation-barton-v-barr-5-4

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Supreme Court on Cancellation: Barton v. Barr (5-4)

Barton v. BarrMr.

[Maj. Op.] “Barton argues that the BIA and the Eleventh Circuit misinterpreted the statute. He contends that the §1182(a)(2) offense that precludes cancellation of removal must be one of the offenses of removal. We disagree with Barton, and we affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.”

[Dissent] “At bottom, the Court’s interpretation is at odds with the express words of the statute, with the statute’s overall structure, and with pertinent canons of statutory construction. It is also at odds with common sense. With virtually every other provision of the INA, Congress granted preferential treatment to lawfully admitted noncitizens—and most of all to LPRs like Barton. But because of the Court’s opinion today, noncitizens who were already admitted to the country are treated, for the purposes of the stop-time rule, identically to those who were not—despite Congress’ express references to inadmissibility and deportability. The result is that, under the Court’s interpretation, an immigration judge may not even consider whether Barton is entitled to cancellation of removal—because of an offense that Congress deemed too trivial to allow for Barton’s removal in the first instance. Because the Court’s opinion does no justice to the INA, let alone to longtime LPRs like Barton, I respectfully dissent.”

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

Thanks Dan.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion.

As a frequent critic of the “J.R. Five” and their general predisposition to stretch to reward the regime over individuals seeking Due Process and fundamental fairness, I wasn’t surprised by this result.

As compared with trashing the legal rights of asylum seekers and those seeking legal status as “The Five” have done in other cases, this decision on waivers has a much more limited impact. Nevertheless, it does unnecessarily “screw” long-time members of our society with potential equities to offset their misconduct.

The vote should have been 9-0 in favor of Mr. Barton. The “GOP majority,” supposedly made up of “strict constructionists,” “torqued” the actual language of the statute to reach their preferred result — “stiffing” Mr. Barton who has resided in the U.S. since age 10.

By contrast, reading the statutory language at its face value, Justice Sotomayor and her dissenting colleagues also reached a practical, common sense result that would have allowed Immigration Judges to “weigh the equities” in deciding whether to grant the waiver to long-time green card holders. It by no means guarantees them a “win.” It just allows them and their families to to “make their case” on the merits.

Perhaps, effectively denying individuals a meaningful “day in court” on relief from deportation speeds up the “deportation railroad” a bit. But, at what cost?

Read the full decision at the above link.

PWS

04-23-20

☠️☠️👎🏻👎🏻BAD FAITH REGIME: Federal Judge Slams DHS Detention Response To COVID-19, Orders Custody Reviews: “Defendants have likely exhibited callous indifference to the safety and wellbeing of the Subclass members [detained immigrants at risk]. The evidence suggests systemwide inaction that goes beyond a mere ‘difference of medical opinion or negligence.’”

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/court-orders-custody-review-of-ice-prisoners-at-risk-for-c19

Court Orders Custody Review of ICE Prisoners at Risk for C19

SPLC, Apr. 20, 2020

“A federal judge today ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to promptly revisit custody determinations, including consideration of release for all persons in ICE detention whose age or health conditions place them at increased risk due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The order comes weeks after the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Orrick LLP and Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP filed for an emergency preliminary injunction on March 25.

In his blistering rebuke of the government’s response to Covid-19 in detention centers, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal wrote, “As a result of these deficiencies, many of which persist more than a month into the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court concludes Defendants have likely exhibited callous indifference to the safety and wellbeing of the Subclass members [detained immigrants at risk]. The evidence suggests systemwide inaction that goes beyond a mere ‘difference of medical opinion or negligence.’” “

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

Go on over to LexisNexis above for a link to the SPLC report and copy of Judge Bernal’s order.

Thanks and congrats to SPLC and all the pro bono all-stars involved for taking this on. Will there eventually be accountability and liability for what appears to be intentional, life threatening misconduct, or at best criminal negligence, among officials of the Trump regime?

PWS

04-21-20

Immigration Law

Better Executive + Better Legislature + Better Judges = Equal Justice for All!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: