Lexis Nexis – Page 15 – immigrationcourtside.com

NICOLE NAREA @ VOX NEWS: Trump Brings Ignominious End To Six Decades Of U.S. Global Leadership On Refugees – Functionally Ends One Of America’s Most Successful, Beneficial, & Enriching Programs!

https://apple.news/AIdY3RXXGRp2vAq_TNEIM1w

Trump’s cuts to the refugee program signal the end of an era.

By Nicole Narea | October 1, 2019 7:30 am

The United States’ refugee program once served as a global model of how a powerful country should support the world’s most vulnerable people. But under President Donald Trump, America is now accepting fewer refugees than ever, signaling that not even they are immune to the president’s restrictionist immigration policies.

On Thursday, the administration announced that the US will accept 18,000 refugees at most over the next year, the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years ago. A new executive order from Trump will allow state and local authorities to block refugees from settling in their areas.

The Trump administration claims that lowering refugee admissions would allow the US to take in more asylum seekers: people fleeing violence and persecution who apply for protection when they are already in the US, unlike refugees, who are processed by international organizations.

But the administration is also doing everything it can to keep asylum seekers out of the US. Migrants can be returned to Mexico to await decisions on their asylum applications, barred from obtaining asylum if they passed through another country before arriving in the US, or sent back to the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to seek protections there.

During his campaign, Trump painted refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war as national security threats. In office, his administration hasn’t distinguished among asylum-seekers, refugees, and other migrants. It’s painted them all as a threat to or drain on American society and has crafted policies that try to keep as many people out of the US as possible.

The Trump administration is setting up the admission of refugees and asylum seekers as a “zero-sum game.” But in reality, it’s just trying to block immigration across the board, said Elizabeth Foydel, deputy police director at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

The US has the capacity to take in both more refugees and more asylum seekers. But the Trump administration is sending a message: The US is no longer the same safe haven it once was. The policies are in line with acting US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli’s amendment to Emma Lazarus’s famous poem on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet.”

During the campaign, Trump helped stoke anti-refugee sentiment

The refugee program has historically flourished under Republican presidents. Even in previous Republican administrations seeking to curtail immigration, no one has ever set the cap on refugee admissions as low as Trump has. Former President George W. Bush briefly cut the number of refugees admitted after the 9/11 attacks, but even then the limit was set at 70,000.

But the bipartisan consensus on maintaining a robust refugee resettlement program began to unravel after the Paris terror attacks in late 2015, said Yael Schacher, senior US advocate for Refugees International, when suicide bombers — reportedly sanctioned by the Islamic State — killed 130 civilians in explosions and mass shootings throughout the city.

There was speculation that one of the attackers was a refugee, one of 5.6 million Syrians who have been displaced since 2011 by the still-ongoing civil war. It was later confirmed that all of the perpetrators were citizens of the European Union. But the rumors were enough to spark a panic about Syrian refugees and start a movement among governors, mostly Republicans, to cut back US admissions of Syrian refugees and resettlement efforts more broadly.

Governors from 31 states, all Republican but for New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan, said they no longer wanted their state to take in Syrian refugees. In 2016, Mike Pence, then governor of Indiana, also tried to prevent refugee resettlement agencies in his state from getting reimbursed for the cost of providing social services to Syrian refugees.

But states didn’t have the legal authority to simply refuse refugees; that’s the prerogative of the federal government. Pence ultimately had to back down after a federal court ruled against his decision to withhold the reimbursements.

Trump, then campaigning for president, stirred up more fear, suggesting that Syrian refugees were raising an army to launch an attack on the US and promising that all of them would be “going back” if he won the election. He said that he would tell Syrian children to their faces that they could not come to the US, speculating that they could be a “Trojan horse.”

“Military tactics are very interesting,” Trump said. “This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe. Or if they sent 50,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 … That could be possible. I don’t know that it is, but it could be possible.”

When Trump eventually took office, he delivered on his promise to slash refugee admissions from Syria, suspending refugee admissions altogether from January to October 2017. From October 2017 to October 2018, the US admitted only 62.

State leaders lined up behind him: The Tennessee legislature, for instance, filed a lawsuit in March 2017 claiming that the federal government was infringing on states’ rights by forcing them to take in refugees (a court challenge that also failed).

Trump’s executive order Thursday may vindicate the states that wanted to turn refugees away. (The International Refugee Assistance Project said it is contemplating challenging the order in court.) Under the executive order, local governments that do not have the resources to support refugees in becoming “self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance” will be able to turn them away.

It’s not clear how it will play out in practice. States won’t just be able to refuse refugees from certain nations, such as Syria, Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law, said. Immigration law provides that state and local governments must provide aid “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion.”

But it could prove complicated when states and municipalities disagree over whether to accept refugees. It’s possible that states will be able to override local governments. Take, for example, cities like Dallas, which has historically taken in many refugees but is located in Texas, which has previously sought to prohibit them.

The executive order would also create inconsistent refugee policies across the country, making it next to impossible for the federal government to properly plan for refugee settlement, Schacher said.

“We are one nation,” she said. “The idea that governors can direct where refugees can first resettle not only undermines federalism but divides us on a policy which is fundamentally a national one.”

Trump’s refugee policy reflects his broader attitude toward immigrants

The Center of Immigration Studies (CIS), which advocates for lowering immigration levels overall, has influenced many of the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies. The refugee cap is no exception.

The organization has gained influence in the Trump era, with some of its former researchers assuming senior positions in the administration. CIS threw support behind the movement to block Syrian refugees in 2016, casting doubt on whether the United Nations’ refugee office could actually vet them for security threats before they arrive in the US.

The organization has also claimed that the current system allows the federal government to impose too much financial burden on states to carry out refugee resettlement. And it has called into question why the US should dedicate resources to resettling refugees rather than focusing on the southern border.

Trump’s most recent refugee policy moves are “long overdue,” in particular his executive order allowing states the opportunity to refuse refugees, CIS senior researcher Nayla Rush writes.

“Refugees are not just parachuted into a void,” she said. “Positive reception and orientation are, therefore, necessary for a successful integration.”

It all fits in with one of the broader ideas guiding Trump’s immigration policy: that immigrants “exploit public assistance” without offering the US anything in return, Foydel said.

In the same vein, the Trump administration has published a rule, set to go into effect October 15, that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to weigh certain immigrants’ use of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Section 8 housing assistance, and federally subsidized housing against them in their applications for green cards or visas. The rule will primarily affect a small proportion of family-based green card applicants, but immigrants are already disenrolling from public benefits out of fear that they will be penalized.

Trump has justified it as a means of ensuring that immigrants are “financially self-sufficient” and to “protect benefits for American citizens.”

“I am tired of seeing our taxpayer paying for people to come into the country and immediately go onto welfare and various other things,” Trump said when announcing the rule. “So I think we’re doing it right.”

Foydel said that Trump is trying to abdicate federal responsibility for the most vulnerable immigrants, forcing states that already serve as immigrant “sanctuaries” to step up. He threatened to release detained immigrants into sanctuary cities in April, and Thursday’s executive order also requires states that agree to receive refugees to publish their “consent letters” publicly, which some have questioned as a means of politically targeting immigrant-friendly areas.

“The positions of different states might be politicized and used to foment anti-refugee sentiment,” Schacher said.

It’s a mischaracterization to say that immigrants take advantage of welfare programs, Foydel said.

In her experience, refugees have no desire to be on public assistance for any longer than necessary and start working as soon as they can. She also pointed to research that refugees end up contributing more in taxes than what it costs to resettle them: on average, $21,000 among refugees who entered the US as adults between 2010 and 2014, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“I think that there are a number of policies we’ve seen that have this language of economic self-sufficiency,” Foydel said. “It’s part of a false narrative about refugees and also immigrants more broadly exploiting public assistance when the data says it’s not true.”

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

Trump‘s cowardly attacks upon the world’s most vulnerable, aided and abetted by morally corrupt GOP policitos, and “masterminded” by neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Miller (taxpayers are actually supporting this evil clown — talk about abuse of public assistance!), ends what had been one of our most important and long-lasting bipartisan policy successes.

And, since much of the expertise and hard work that made the program so successful were contributed by NGOs and (real, not Trumpian) religious organizations, those programs are now being dismantled and the expertise and resources directed elsewhere. Literally decades of irreplaceable knowledge, expertise, and organizational talent has been lost almost overnight.

Even when a wiser, more humane, decent Administration finally wants to “restart” these critically important programs, it will be no easy task. It basically took nearly half a century to build up the current expertise. Once dissipated, it won’t be easily re-created – certainly not overnight. Obviously, there are serious, long-term consequences to allowing a kakistocracy to take over the government of our nation.

PWS

10-08-19

NICOLE NAREA @ VOX.COM: Here Are The Immigration Questions The Candidates Should Answer During Tonight’s Democratic Debate!

https://www.vox.com/2020-presidential-election/2019/9/12/20858374/immigration-questions-democratic-presidential-debate?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Democratic presidential candidates have mostly been able to avoid a substantive discussion of what immigration policy should look like. Expressing outrage over President Donald Trump’s policies has sufficed for debate soundbites.

That might be politically expedient; immigration is one of the top issues on voters’ minds, but also one of the most divisive. Being vague is a way to put off alienating various wings of the party until the primaries are over.

The candidates have tended to speak in platitudes, like when Amy Klobuchar said in the first debate, “Immigrants do not diminish America. They are America.” Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker got mixed reviews for answering questions about immigration in Spanish in an attempt to show solidarity with Latino voters.

There was one moment that spurred numerous immigration think pieces. During the first debate in June, Julián Castro asked fellow candidates onstage to commit to repealing Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision in federal law that makes crossing the border without authorization a crime. But that moment stood out because it was unusually specific.

If a Democratic president makes “comprehensive immigration reform” a priority, as virtually all of the candidates have vowed, voters do not have much information about what that means. With a (mercifully) smaller pool of 10 candidates taking the stage for Thursday night’s upcoming debate, there might finally be more room to elaborate.

Here are five questions that moderators should ask to get a more expansive view of the candidates’ positions:

1. What immigration-related executive actions could we expect from your administration in your first 100 days?

The US Supreme Court has historically recognized the president’s broad powers over immigration, but Democrats have accused Trump of overstepping his executive authority with his unilateral, sweeping changes to immigration policy.

In the wake of Trump’s travel ban, when the president issued an executive order banning individuals from seven countries, Democrats in the House and Senate proposed a bill that would rein in the executive authority of all future presidents such that they could not issue any similar ban. House Democrats also filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border, claiming that he could not invoke his emergency powers simply to circumvent Congress’ refusal to fully fund his border wall in its 2019 budget deal.

But limiting executive authority over immigration is a double-edged sword for Democrats. If Republicans retain control of the Senate as expected in 2020 and gridlock in Congress continues, a Democratic president’s only means of reversing the Trump administration’s immigration policies would be by executive fiat.

For that reason, candidates including Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker rely heavily on executive actions in their immigration plans. For example, Booker would order the Department of Homeland Security on day one in office to bring detention centers into compliance with federal detention standards, and Sanders has said that his first executive action would be closing privately operated immigration detention centers.

Others have suggested executive actions they will pursue, but haven’t nailed down a timeline: Elizabeth Warren says she will first “work with Congress to pass broad-reaching reform” but is “prepared to move forward with executive action if Congress refuses to act.”

Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, have not made formal commitments to use executive authority to reverse Trump’s immigration policies.

While all of the candidates have promised wide-reaching, progressive change in immigration and across other issues, presidents only have so much time and political capital. After pushing through sweeping health care reforms with the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama failed to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package in 2013.

So, asking the Democratic candidates to elaborate on their immigration priorities for their first 100 days will help determine whether the issue is actually a top priority for them.

2. What would your overall approach be to immigration enforcement on the US-Mexico border?

Republicans have accused Democrats of pushing for open borders. In reality, few go that far; some just think that crossing the border without authorization should not be a crime, as it is currently under Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Historically, most immigrants who cross the border illegally have never been prosecuted, but the Trump administration has begun doing so under its “zero tolerance” policy and cited those prosecutions as the basis of family separations.

Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Trump’s border wall, but not all forms of border security: About three-quarters of the public support hiring “significantly more” border patrol agents and a third say that immigration levels should be decreased overall.

If voters’ attitudes toward border security are nuanced, Democrats’ border security plans should reflect that. To start, they will have to answer questions about how they will detain immigrants (if at all), what kinds of unauthorized immigrants might be targeted with limited enforcement resources, how much funding immigration enforcement agencies will get, and how they will reduce the backlog of cases in immigration court.

Democrats can agree that Trump’s method, which includes separating families in immigration detention and sending Central American migrants back to Mexico, is abhorrent. But how they would go about securing the border is a tricky question, and previous Democratic administrations have not exactly provided a good model.

Obama struggled to balance humanitarian concerns with border enforcement. As Trump has repeatedly noted, it is true that Obama did separate families in immigration detention, albeit on a much smaller scale than the current administration. Immigrant rights groups labeled him as the “deporter in chief” because he deported more immigrants than any other president — over 385,000 in fiscal years 2009 to 2011 and peaking at 409,849 in fiscal 2012 (though former Obama officials have defended that the administration only targeted recent arrivals and violent criminals).

Five years later, Democrats are still wrestling with how they will approach immigration enforcement, tackling it piecemeal for now.

The idea of abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has gained the most attention in advocacy circles. Elizabeth Warren has endorsed the “Abolish ICE” movement, and Kamala Harris has also pushed for major changes to the agency, suggesting that the federal government should “probably think about starting from scratch.” Castro has backed the decriminalization of unauthorized border crossings, challenging his opponents to do the same during a Democratic debate in June.

3. How many refugees should the US aim to resettle?

This is a simple, numerically based question that can help voters gauge the candidates’ commitment to reestablishing the US’s reputation as a world leader in protecting the most vulnerable immigrant populations. So much of the conversation around refugees and asylees in the debates so far has been dominated by denouncing Trump’s policies, so it would be useful to force the candidates to commit to hard numbers of how many they would admit.

Historically, the US has taken in more refugees, about 3 million since 1980, than any other nation. But the US has scaled back its refugee program under Trump, lowering the cap on refugees admitted to the US from 110,000 in fiscal year 2017 to 30,000 in fiscal year 2019 — the lowest number since the Refugee Act was signed into law in 1980. And the Trump administration is expected to cut refugee admissions even further.

Some Democratic presidential candidates have proposed elevating the refugee cap as part of their immigration plans. Booker and Castro have proposed reverting to the pre-Trump refugee cap of 110,000, but Elizabeth Warren would go even further, setting the cap at 125,000 initially and increasing it to 175,000 by the end of her first term.

4. How would you work with governments in Central America to reduce factors driving migrants away from their home countries?

In light of declining migrant arrests, Trump may claim that he is delivering on his promise to secure the southern border, but it’s not so clear that his policies have done anything to address the underlying problem: unprecedented numbers of migrants fleeing Central America. This question would illuminate how Democrats would reduce push factors and think not just about a border crisis but a regional crisis.

Previously, migrants arrested at the southern border were primarily single adult males from Mexico. But since the summer of 2018, there has been a fundamental change in migration patterns: Now, it is primarily Central American children and families.

Castro and Booker have proposed significant aid packages, but Democrats would also likely need to smooth over political tensions with Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in Trump’s wake.

In June, Trump had threatened to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods if it did not step up its immigration enforcement efforts.

And acting US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan told reporters Monday that Trump is pressuring Northern Triangle countries to adopt agreements that would effectively cut off migrants before they reach the US. The so-called Safe Third Country agreements would make any migrant who passes through those countries ineligible to apply for asylum in the US.

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

Nice, very timely, analysis, Nicole!

Also, many, many congrats on your new home over at the vox.com Immigration Desk!

PWS

09-12-19

ROUNDTABLE NEWS: Judge Jeff Chase & I Quoted By Nicole Narea In Law360 On How Trump’s Latest Assault On Immigrants’ Rights Could Go Belly Up Even With Some Statutory Support!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1182014/deportation-rule-may-violate-due-process-procedural-law

Deportation Rule May Violate Due Process, Procedural Law

By Nicole Narea

Law360 (July 25, 2019, 8:31 PM EDT) — The Trump administration’s recent expansion of its power to fast-track deportations is likely to invite legal challenges if the new process is seen as a violation of administrative law and the Constitution’s due process guarantees.

Under a rule published Monday, unauthorized noncitizens across the entire U.S. — not just those apprehended within 100 air miles of a land border — who arrived in the last two years via a land border could be subject to expedited removal proceedings and deported without an immigration court hearing. The American Civil Liberties Union has vowed to challenge the rule, which went into effect Tuesday and, by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s estimates, will affect more than 20,000 immigrants a year.

Contrary to the Trump administration’s claims, however, the rule may not qualify for an exception to the Administrative Procedure Act’s public notice requirements that allows the DHS secretary to unilaterally change the scope of the agency’s expedited removal authority. It also raises due process concerns for individuals who may not be able to prove their period of residency in the U.S. and for asylum-seekers who might be erroneously subject to expedited deportation.

“Unleashed expedited removal undermines our immigration system and the rule of law,” said Shoba Wadhia, a professor at Penn State Law in University Park.

Administrative Procedure Act

To justify the rule, acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan invoked his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to have “sole and unreviewable discretion” to alter the scope of expedited removal proceedings. The rule is therefore exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement to give the public an opportunity to comment on it before it goes into effect, DHS said in its announcement.

But Paul Schmidt, former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals during the Clinton administration, said there “does not appear to be any legitimate reason” for noncompliance with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, especially given that the rule had such a long gestation period. Trump has been considering such a rule since the first days of his administration.

Wadhia said opponents of the rule could argue that the government failed to show “good cause” that invoking notice and comment is in fact “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” as the APA requires.

“The government’s position that there is a ‘good cause’ lacks integrity,” she said.

Most lawsuits that have succeeded in challenging Trump immigration policies have brought claims under the APA, including the recent challenge to a question about citizenship status on the 2020 census. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately found that the decision to include the question on the census did not abide by the APA’s requirement that agencies provide a reasoned explanation for their actions.

Due Process Issues

Ken Johnson, dean of University of California, Davis School of Law, said the new rule could also be subject to due process challenges in light of the Supreme Court’s 1982 case Landon v. Plasencia, in which the justices applied a balancing test of interests in deciding the constitutionality of immigration admission procedures. That decision established that the interests of a noncitizen who has lived in the country for two years are much weightier than the interest at stake for a noncitizen who has been in the country for only two weeks because they have stronger ties to their community, he said.

Since the new rule expands expedited removal to apply to individuals who have lived in the U.S. for up to two years, they may be entitled to a higher standard of due process. Trump’s expansion of expedited removal also appears to exceed the limits provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act, resulting in further due process concerns.

Jeff Chase, a former legal adviser to the BIA and immigration judge, said the original intent of expedited removal was to stem an increase of inadmissible noncitizens arriving at airports in the 1990s who were paroled into the U.S. after announcing they were seeking asylum. The new rule, however, far surpasses that purpose.

“The present rule extends the application well beyond the purpose of controlling entry to the country, and now threatens to deprive those already here of their rights to apply for relief,” he said.

He said he also anticipates that expedited removal will be mistakenly applied to those beyond the scope of the rule, impacting those with a period of residence longer than two years, whose “attempts to stay under the government’s radar will create difficulty meeting their burden of establishing their period of residence in the U.S.”

Wadhia said that genuine refugees may also be erroneously denied due process, turned away as opposed to referred to an asylum officer to determine whether they have fear of persecution in their home countries, as required by law. Even if they have a credible fear interview, they are unlikely to pass in light of reports that asylum officers have been pressured to significantly lower their credible fear approval rates, Chase said.

Even U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, unaccompanied children and others who are exempt from expedited removal by statute could be unfairly and unlawfully targeted by the DHS, Wadhia said.

“The opportunity for profiling and violations of due process by DHS is rampant,” she said.

–Editing by Breda Lund and Kelly Duncan.

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

The Government’s case for an “emergency” exemption to the APA is laughable. This bogus “immigration emergency” is actually a human rights tragedy that has been unfolding in “super slow motion” before us since before last Thanksgiving. Virtually every part of it is a predictable result of Trump’s “maliciously incompetent” racist-driven approach to migration situations. To say that it now requires an “emergency” exemption, when Trump announced the proposed policy change in an Executive Order over two years ago, and his incompetent agencies have been fiddling around with it ever since, is simply absurd.

The Constitutional problem raised by Dean Johnson and others is very real.

And, there is no question that Trump’s DHS will misuse this authority to detain and deport lawful permanent residents and even U.S. citizens. Indeed, it’s already happening even without the regulatory change. See, e.g., “Texas-Born Student Held In Immigration Custody For Weeks Released,” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-student-immigration-custody-detention_n_5d36f637e4b020cd99498588.

Yes, some Federal Judges can be tone deaf to the plight of ordinary individuals, particularly when they wrongly think that they are “above the fray.”

Perhaps we need to hope that the DHS wrongfully detains a Federal Judge, a Federal Judge’s spouse, or the child of a Federal Judge so that the message about how Trump’s misguided policies affect ALL of us gets through to the “Judicial Ivory Tower” sooner, rather than later.

PWS

07-26-19

“ABSURD, FARCE” — Chase, Musalo, Other Asylum Experts Lambaste Trump’s Scheme To Designate One Of World’s Most Dangerous Counties, Without A Functioning Asylum System, As “Safe” For Asylum Seekers!

https://www.law360.com/articles/1170313/guatemala-is-not-as-safe-for-asylum-seekers-as-trump-says

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

Nicole Narea reports for Law360:

. . . .

Trump tweeted Monday night that Guatemala is “getting ready to sign” a socalled safe third country agreement with the U.S., and he lauded Mexico for “using their strong immigration laws” to stop migrants well before they reach the southern U.S. border. Mexico said Friday it would also weigh a safe third country agreement with the U.S. if its efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement as part of a trade deal do not succeed within 45 days.

The announcements came as the Trump administration moved to reduce its obligations to asylum seekers by expanding its “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, by which migrants are sent back to Mexico while they await hearings in U.S. immigration court.

As for Guatemala, experts have protested that Mexico’s southern neighbor cannot offer asylum seekers the kind of security intended by a safe third country agreement.

But the Trump administration is not proposing such an agreement with Guatemala because it believes the country to be safe, said Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and ex senior legal adviser to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Rather, the White House believes the accord will stop asylum seekers from countries farther south from entering the U.S., Chase said.

Migrants from El Salvador and Honduras have to travel through Guatemala en route to the U.S., and if Guatemala were subject to such an agreement, the Trump administration would have an “excuse to turn away those fleeing violence in those countries,” he said.

Karen Musalo, the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at University of California, Hastings College of the Law, said that to call Guatemala safe is absurd.

“I don’t think that anyone familiar with the human rights situation in Guatemala — with its extremely high levels of homicides, femicides, gender violence, gang and organized crime violence, corruptions, etc. — could say with a straight face that asylum seekers would be safe there,” she said.

. . . .

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

Those with access to Law360 can read Nicole’s complete article at the above link.

It isn’t just that Trump (supported by some equally dishonest and nasty GOP legislators and flunkies like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Ken “Cooch Cooch” Cuccinelli, and Kevin McAleenan) is blatantly lying about asylum seekers and Guatemala being “safe.” What he essentially proposes is the U.S.-sanctioned murder of innocent asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle.

Why is this outrage against the law and humanity “below the radar screen?” Seems like it’s actually the most clear “impeachable offense” that Trump has committed to date. And, it’s right out in plain view for all to see, with irrefutable proof that Guatemala is NOT a safe country for anyone, let alone asylum seekers. That’s exactly why folks are fleeing Guatemala for their lives every day.

PWS

06-21-19

EOIR SHAKEUP: Chief Immigration Judge, Deputy Director, General Counsel Ousted!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt for Immigrationcourtside.com

Alexandria, VA, June 8, 2019. The nation’s totally dysfunctional and highly politicized Immigration Court System, known as the Executive Office For Immigraton Review (“EOIR”), has ousted three of its top career senior executives, according to a report filed yesterday by Nicole Narea of Law360. Here’s a link to Narea’s story for those with Law360 access. https://www.law360.com/articles/1166974/three-senior-eoir-officials-to-step-down.

Evidently, Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth T. Keller, General Counsel Jean King, and Deputy Director Katherine H. Reilly all “got the boot” late this week. They are career civil servants. Keller and King were “holdovers” from the prior Administration, while Reilly was appointed to her recent position by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Piecing together bits from anonymous sources, it’s likely that the three clashed with EOIR Director James McHenry and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) politicos over some of the more extreme aspects of the Administration’s “master plan” to demean and degrade Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigraton Judges at the Board of Immigration Appeals, strip them of the last vestiges of judicial independence and docket control, and return the Immigration Courts to their pre-EOIR status as perceived appendages of DHS (then INS) enforcement.

Keller supposedly “retired,” an unusual move given her age group and that senior executives are the civil service equivalent of brigadier generals. King was transferred to the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO”), long known as the “Siberia of EOIR” and a repository for prior senior executives who had fallen out of favor with “EOIR Management” and their DOJ “handlers.” Reilly reportedly transferred to a senior executive position with the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”), another surprising move for a top senior executive attorney at the DOJ.

Predictably, there has been no official announcement from EOIR or the DOJ, nor have any replacements been named. Meanwhile, the backlog mushrooms, morale sinks further, conditions continue to deteriorate, and due process and fundamental fairness are mocked every day in the EOIR “courts” and also by life-tenured Article III Judges who are willing to “rubber stamp” the results of this patently illegal and unjust system.

Keller, King, and Reilly have “escaped from the circus.” But, hopefully there someday will be accountability for those throughout government and the Article III Courts who continue to participate in, enable, and further this ongoing farce and the resulting gross perversion of American law and human values.

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: Trump Administration’s Cowardly, Malicious, & Lawless Attack On SIJS Kids Green Cards Earns Yet Another Powerful Rebuke From Federal Judge!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/3/19/court-rebukes-youth-policy-shift

Mar 19 — Court Rebukes Youth Policy Shift

This past Friday, the Department of Homeland Security’s random policy change deeming youths between the ages of 18 and 20 years old ineligible for special immigration protection ran into a brick wall in the form of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In his decision in R.F.M. v. Nielsen, Judge John G. Koeltl held that DHS’s sudden policy shift denying Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (or SIJS, for short) to qualified youths over the age of 18, a group that it had previously approved under the same statute for nearly three decades, (1) was contrary to the plain language of the statute it claimed to interpret; (2) lacked a reasonable explanation, (3) was premised on an erroneous interpretation of state law, and (4) was not enacted with adequate notice, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. For these reasons and more, Judge Koeltl concluded that the policy shift was arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, and without observance of the procedure required by law. The judge further granted the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for summary judgment.

What exactly did DHS do to invoke such a strong judicial rebuke? SIJS was created by Congress in 1990 to provide a path to legal residence for immigrant youths who have suffered abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The statute defines juveniles eligible for such benefit as those under the age of 21, and applicants under that cut-off age were generally afforded such status. However, in early 2018, the present administration suddenly and without warning began denying applications involving applicants over the age of 18. Sounding very much like Herr Zeller in The Sound of Music claiming that “nothing in Austria has changed,” government counsel attempted to argue that there had been no change in policy, a claim that Judge Koeltl outright rejected in light of clear evidence to the contrary. As the L.A. TImes reported in January, the impact of the policy shift was magnified by another DHS policy directive to commence deportation proceedings against those whose applications for benefits are denied, an action that had previously rarely been taken against juvenile applicants.

What immediately struck me about the new DHS policy at the time of the shift was its position that the New York Family Court lacked jurisdiction over youths who had reached the age of 18 as a basis for denying the petitions. How could a federal agency feel it had the right to rule on a state court’s jurisdiction over a matter of state law? Of course, Judge Koeltl noted in his decision that in spite of a USCIS Policy Manual requiring the agency to rely on the state court’s expertise on such matters, and prohibiting the agency from reweighing the evidence itself or substituting its own interpretation of state law for that of the state court, DHS nevertheless did exactly that, substituting its own interpretation of New York law for that of the New York Family Court in arguing for that court’s lack of jurisdiction. Of course, DHS’s improper interpretation wasn’t even a correct one; with the judge finding that DHS’s conclusion “is based on a misunderstanding of New York State law.”

Just in case there was any doubt as to its bad faith, the Government even opposed the motion that the young Plaintiffs be allowed to proceed anonymously in the action, identified only by their initials. What possible reason other than harassment could DHS have in opposing such motion made by young plaintiffs who had suffered abuse or abandonment?

Not coincidentally, there has been a surge in SIJS-eligible youth arriving at the border in recent years, with most coming from the besieged Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Youths in those countries run a shockingly high risk of being targeted for domestic violence, forced gang recruitment, and other physical and psychological harm. These are children that we are talking about. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration has consistently targeted citizens of these countries, inaccurately labeling them as criminals and deriding the legitimacy of their motives for seeking refuge in this country. And, like pieces in a puzzle, the shift in SIJS policy is just one more way that the Trump Administration has created obstacles for a group it should be seeking to protect.

Hats off to the Legal Aid Society and the law firm of Latham and Watkins for their outstanding representation of the plaintiffs.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Here’s a link to the “full text” of the case Jeffrey discusses, courtesy of our good friend Dan Kowalski over at ltl G. Koeltl

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tItg1FYOtkm_eqI_oDeWuuofA6p-ZObl/view?usp=sharing

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

What about the DOJ attorneys who are defending these patently illegal actions in court, often without providing any rationale that would pass the “straight face test?” Why is it OK to present “pretextual” reasons for policies that publicly available information shows are actually based on bias, undue outside influence, ignoring facts, and sometime outright racism, and xenophobia? Why are DOJ attorneys and their supervisors, who are also members of the bar, allowed to operate in an “ethics free zone?”

Don’t expect any help from newly minted Trump sycophant AG Bill Barr. Despite his “Big Law Corporate Patina” and his bogus claim that he seeks to “restore confidence” in the DOJ, his first project is reputed to be a scurrilous Trump-type attack on Federal Judges issuing nationwide injunctions who are among those (the private, often pro bono, bar and NGOs being others) having the courage to stand up for the rule of law and our Constitution against the outrageous onslaughts of Trump, his cronies, and his team of disingenuous lawyers who seem to believe that they have been immunized from the normal rules of ethical and professional conduct.

No, Barr isn’t just a “conservative lawyer.” I actually worked for a number of very “conservative” lawyers both in and out of Government. While I didn’t always agree with their policies and their legal arguments (that wasn’t a job requirement), I did find them willing to listen and consider “other views” and occasionally be persuaded. Moreover, they all had a respect for both our legal system and the Constitution, as well as Federal Judges and those on “the other side” of issues that I find completely, and disturbingly lacking in the Trump Administration and its “ethnics free” legal team.

Not only are the efforts of the Trump Administration to “undo” provisions of our law that “work,” promote justice, and save lives illegal and immoral, they also are tying up rousources with frivolous and unnecessary litigation. What if all of that time and effort were put into solving problems and making our country better, rather than destroying it?

PWS

03-20-19

“CBS HOUR” IS A BIG HIT AT FBA/NY LAW SCHOOL ASYLUM CONFERENCE — Chase, Bookey, Schmidt Entertain, Educate Sell-Out Crowd!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase

Blaine Bookey, Co-Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

“Eric the Cameraman”

NEW YORK, NY, Friday, March 8, 2019. The “CBS Team,”* Jeffrey S. Chase, Blaine Bookey, and Paul Wickham Schmidt wowed the sellout crowd at the FBA Asylum Conference at NY Law School Friday. Speaking in the coveted “final slot” of the afternoon, the “CBS Gang” gave an enthusiastic audience lots of reasons and ways to go out and oppose former Attorney General Sessions’s perversion of American asylum law in Matter of A-B-.

In that case, Sessions reversed nearly two decades of progress and consensus in asylum law to “stick it” to Ms. A-B-, a survivor of extreme domestic violence persecution in El Salvador who fled to the U.S., escaping torture and death threats.

Schmidt, a former Immigration Judge in Arlington, Virginia and past Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, led off with a rousing speech blasting Sessions for bias, intellectual dishonesty, and bad lawyering. He agreed with U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the recent case Grace v. Whitaker that much of what Sessions said was non-binding dicta.

Schmidt also formulated seven ways for advocates to challenge the decision. He brought the crowd to its feet with his closing exhortation to what he called the New Due Process Army: “Due Process forever, xenophobia never!”

Bookey, Co-Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law and a long time refugee advocate, appeared “larger than life” from California through the “miracle of televideo.” She showed a moving video of Ms. A-B- relating the horrible rape, beatings, death threats and abandonment by her government that forced her to leave El Salvador and her fear that she would be killed upon return.

Bookey also pointed out that this isn’t a mere “difference of opinion” among lawyers. Rather, Matter of A-B- is a concerted and evil attempt to undo an existing national and international legal consensus that women facing domestic violence can and must be protected under refugee law. The reversion sought by Sessions and his restrictionist supporters would basically return women to the “dark ages” and result in torture, death, maiming and rape of countless females by persecutors throughout the world. Bookey also offered the Center for Refugee and Gender Studies at Hastings as a “clearinghouse” for litigation and litigation strategies attacking A-B-.

Batting “clean up,” retired Immigration Judge and noted asylum historian Chase led the audience in a tribute for Bookey’s “in the trenches” heroism in staunchly defending the rights of refugee women throughout our nation and the world. He then proceeded to eviscerate Sessions’s decision by going through Ms. A-B-‘s actual evidence in detail.

He pointed out how Sessions ignored facts of record supporting a grant of asylum to Ms. A-B- on the merits regardless of the favorable BIA precedent that Sessions went to great lengths to overrule. He also mentioned the ongoing efforts of “Our Gang” of retired U.S. Immigration Judges, assisted pro bono by some of America’s best lawyers, to educate the Article III Courts as to the realities of asylum adjudication and the systemic destruction wrought by Sessions’s unprovoked attack on women’s asylum rights.

The Conference concluded with a request by FBA immigration Section Chair Elizabeth “Betty” Stevens for everyone to contract their Senators and Representatives about the need for an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court as proposed by the FBA, ABA, National Association of Immigration Judges, AILA, and others.

Netflix filmed the proceedings for a future documentary about American immigration. Additionally, star immigration reporter Nicole Neara of Law 360 was in the audience. Immediately following the closing, Conference organizer and NY Law School Professor Claire “Human Dynamo” Thomas left for the Southern Border with a group of students committed to putting into effect what they had learned about strategies for ensuring due process and re-establishing justice in the U.S. asylum system.

*The “CBS Hour,” “CBS Team,” and “CBS Gang” have no relationship to the CBS Network, CBS Broadcasting, CBS Sports, CBS News, or any other legitimate organization.

Here’s the video featuring Ms. A-B-:

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

And, here’s the text of my speech:

FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION ASYLUM CONFERENCE

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL

March 8, 2019

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

“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence; therefore they are entitled to enter the United States. Well, that’s obviously false but some judges have gone along with that.”

“Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day—like water seeping through an earthen dam—to get around the plain words of the INA to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the act. That is our most serious duty.”

“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation. Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,”

Those, my friends, are obviously not my words. Whose words are they? They are the words of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions who ran the U.S. Immigration Courts for nearly two years.

Incredibly, this totally biased, xenophobic, misinformed, and glaringly unqualified individual, who had actually been rejected for a Federal Judgeship by his own party because of alleged racial bias, was in charge of our U.S. Immigration Court system. That helps explains why it is such a total disgraceful mess today from both a Due Process and administrative standpoint.

The Immigration Courts have a “known backlog” of over 1.1 million cases, with tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of additional cases likely squirreled away and still unaccounted for following the unnecessary “shutdown,” no signs of abating, and absolutely no, I repeat no, credible planfor reducing or controlling the backlog consistent with Due Process and our asylum laws. The DOJ’s process for increasing the backlog, known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” – and their outrageous attempts to “shift the blame” to respondents and their attorneys – are, as my esteemed former colleague retired Judge M. Christopher Grant used to say, “on steroids.” And, as my friend and fellow panelist, Judge Jeffrey Chase pointed out this week to BuzzFeed News, the current “strategy shift” to slowing down judicial and court staff hiring and abandoning once again the “e-filing program” that EOIR has failed to roll out after two decades of failed efforts is a guarantee that: “More people will wait longer!”

Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s questionable certification of two important cases during his brief tenure promises a continuation of political interference with the Immigration Courts in derogation of Due Process.

Don’t expect any improvement under current Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s known as an “enforcement solves all problems” immigration hard liner who co-authored an article praising Sessions for his attacks on Civil Rights, immigrants, and other vulnerable communities.

One of Sessions’s most cowardly and reprehensible actions was his atrocious distortion of asylum law, the reality of life in the Northern Triangle, and Due Process for migrants in Matter of A-B-. There, he overruled the BIA’s important precedent in Matter of A-R-C-G-, a decision actually endorsed by the DHSat the time, and which gave much need protection to women fleeing persecution in the form of domestic violence.

Take it from me, Matter of A-R-C-G-was one of the few parts of our dysfunctional Immigration Court system that actually workedand provided a way of moving cases efficiently through the court system in accordance with Due Process while consistently granting much needed protection to some of the most vulnerable and most deserving refugees in the world!

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

The only real,Article IIIFederal Judge who has ruled on Matter of A-B-to date largely supports my criticisms of Sessions’s effort to distort asylum law against refugee women. It’s a decision written by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington, D.C. called Grace v. Whitaker. You will want to read that decision. There is also an outstanding analysis by my fellow panelist Judge Jeffrey S. Chase on his blog.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, EOIR has purported to limit Grace’s rejection of Matter of A-B-to so called “Credible Fear Reviews.” In other words, they have improperly, and perhaps unethically, instructed Immigration Judges and the BIA not to apply Gracein individual asylum hearings.

But, that shouldn’t stop you from shoving Grace back down their throats! There is an outstandingonline practice advisory on how to argue Gracein Immigration Court by my fellow panelist Blaine’s amazing colleague, my good friend Professor Karen Musalo. I also reposted it in my blog, immigratoncourtside.com.

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

First, recognize that Matter of A-B- really doesn’t change the fundamental meaning of asylum.It just rejected the way in which the BIA reached its precedent in A-R-C-G-— by stipulation without specific fact-findings based on the administrative record. Most of it is mere dicta.

On a case by case basis, domestic violence can still be a proper basis for granting asylum in many cases. Indeed, such cases still are being granted by those Immigration Judges committed to following the rule of law and upholding their oaths of office, rather than accepting Sessions’s invitation to “take a dive.”

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

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

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

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

As Judge Chase and I recently reported on our respective blogs, a number of these “women as a PSG” cases have succeeded in the “Post-A-B-Era.” The detailed unpublished analyses by Immigration Judges are available online and, although of course not precedents, should give you helpful ideas on how to construct arguments and rebut ICE attempts to invoke A-B- to bar meritorious asylum claims by abused women.

Fourth, think political. There is plenty of recent information available on the internet showing the close relationship between gangs and the governments of the Northern Triangle. In some cases, gangs are the “de facto government” in significant areas of the country. In others, gangs and local authorities cooperate in extorting money and inflicting torture and other serious harm on honest individuals who resist them and threaten to expose their activities. Indeed, a very recent front-page article in the Washington Postpointed out that gangs are so completely in charge in El Salvador that U.S-trained policemen are forced to flee and seek asylum in the United States. Additionally, gangs are the largest employer in El Salvador.

In many cases, claiming political or religious persecution should be a stronger alternative ground than PSG. As one of my friends recently pointed out, because of the incorrect precedents by the BIA, Immigration Judges almost always reject gang cases as actual or imputed political opinion. That’s plain wrong.

We need to start making the record and fighting back, using the large amount of available evidence and expert testimony on how gangs have infiltrated and influence every aspect of life in the Northern Triangle including, of course, politics and government. It’s time for the “EOIR charade” of “let’s not grant gang-based asylum cases” to end, once and for all.

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

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

Seventh, and finally, appeal to the “real” Article III Courts.I can’t over-emphasize this point. What’s happening in Immigration Court today is a parody of justice and a mockery of legitimate court proceedings. It’s important to “open the eyes” of the Article III Judges to this travesty which is threatening the lives of legitimate refugees and other migrants.

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

Now is the time to take a stand for fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, and simple human decency! Join the New Due Process Army and fight to vindicate the rights of asylum seekers under our laws against the forces of darkness and xenophobic bias! Due process forever! Xenophobia never!

(03-11-19)

PWS

03-12-19

SOPHIA GENOVESE: Advocates Must Keep Pushing Back Against DOJ’s Bias & Unduly Restrictive Interpretations Of Asylum Law!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/acting-ag-whitaker-takes-aim-at-asylum-seekers-fleeing-family-based-persecution—sophia-genovese

Sophia writes in an article that was published at LexisNexis:

Acting AG Whitaker Takes Aim at Asylum Seekers Fleeing Family-Based Persecution – Sophia Genovese

Sophia Genovese, Dec. 10, 2018 – “Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has followed in his predecessor’s footsteps by referring yet another immigration case to himself, Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018). The Acting AG asks parties to brief “whether, and under what circumstances, an alien may establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) based on the alien’s membership in a family unit.”

As background, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) recognized that membership in a family unit constitutes a particular social group. However, it held that to establish eligibility for asylum on such a basis, “an applicant must not only demonstrate that he or she is a member of the family but also that the family relationship is at least one central reason for the claimed harm.” The BIA denied asylum to the respondent, L-E-A-, for failing to meet this nexus requirement. The respondent was a native and citizen of Mexico whose father owned a general store in Mexico City. Members of a drug cartel approached the respondent’s father to ask if they could sell drugs in the store as they viewed it as a favorable distribution location. The respondent’s father refused. The members of the drug cartel approached respondent to see whether he would sell drugs for them at his father’s store. Upon respondent also refusing, the members of the cartel tried to abduct him, but he was able to get away. The respondent fled to the United States and sought asylum. The IJ and BIA reasoned that the respondent was not entitled to relief because even if the persecutor had harmed the respondent, it was done so as a means to an end, i.e. to sell drugs. In other words, they argued, the persecution was not due to the respondent’s membership in a particular social group and animus towards the family, but rather because he was interfering in their drug trade.

The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- recognized the long history of family units constituting particular social groups. See, e.g., Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011); Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009); Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2008). The BIA has previously “explained that ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ refers to ‘persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic…such as…kinship ties.” Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951, 955 (BIA 2006) (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985)). “It has been said that a group of family members constitutes the ‘prototypical example’ of a particular social group.” INS, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course: Eligibility Part III: Nexus 21 (Nov. 30, 2001) (quoting Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1986)). “There can, in fact, be no plainer example of a social group based on common, identifiable and immutable characteristics than that of the nuclear family.” Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993). Indeed, the BIA found that L-E-A-’s membership in his family constituted a particular social group. Instead, the key issue was whether the harm he experienced or feared was on account of his membership in that particular social group. The BIA in L-E-A- upheld the IJ’s decision below, opining that “any motive to harm the respondent because he was a member of his family was, at most, incidental…[Rather,] the cartel’s motive to increase its profits by selling contraband in the store was one central reason for its actions against the respondent and his family.” 27 I&N Dec. at 46.

As we and others have previously discussed, the BIA missed the mark in L-E-A-. The BIA in L-E-A- critically notes that “[i]f the persecutor would have treated the applicant the same if the protected characteristic of the family did not exist, then the applicant has not established a claim on this ground.” 27 I&N Dec. at 44. Under this reasoning, L-E-A- should have been granted asylum. But for L-E-A-’s familial relationship with his father, he would not have been targeted by the cartel. In other words, despite their motivation of wanting to sell drugs at his father’s store, the cartel’s motivation in targeting L-E-A- was to get to his father, thus satisfying the nexus criteria. There is a reason why the cartel did not target the father’s neighbor – because the neighbor does not have a close, i.e. family, relationship to him. That the cartel ultimately had monetary motivations is irrelevant in the analysis of why they persecuted L-E-A-.

It is unclear how the Acting AG, or the incoming AG (anticipated to be William Barr), will rule in a case that has already made the obstacles more onerous for asylum-seekers. Given the administration’s animus towards asylum-seekers, it is unlikely that they seek to redress the problems with the BIA’s holding. Rather, it is likely that the Acting AG seeks to build upon the BIA’s flawed reasoning and make it even more difficult for those to flee persecution and obtain asylum. The BIA in Matter of L-E-A- affirmed, without question, that kinship ties are inherently a particular social group. Given the wording of the Acting AG’s question Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018), he will likely attack the case on this front.

As outlined by the BIA in Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), and reiterated above, there is no clearer definition of particular social group than kinship ties. To be granted asylum based on one’s membership in a particular social group, the applicant must show that the group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. at 392. As set forth in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985), a “common immutable characteristic” is defined as “a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed.” Under Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and clarified in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), the social group must be defined with “particularity,” or be defined by boundaries of who is actually a member of the group. Finally, as explained in Matter of W-G-R-, “social distinction” is defined as the ‘recognition’ or ‘perception’ of the particular social group in society. 26 I&N Dec. at 216. Family units very clearly satisfy each of these requirements, where you cannot change who your family is, where who members of your family are can be defined with particularity, and where others in society can recognize you as a member of your family. A challenge to the family unit particular social group would undermine the construction of nearly all particular social groups thereafter.

Once formulating one’s social group, the applicant must also show that their persecution was on account of their membership in the social group (the “nexus requirement”), and that the government in the country of origin is unable or unwilling to afford them protection from such persecution. As we’ve previously argued, the Courts need to clarify the nexus requirement. In Matter of L-E-A-, for example, the nexus analysis needed to have focused specifically on why L-E-A- was targeted and persecuted – not what the cartel’s ultimate aim was after targeting him. Clarification on this issue is imperative for uniform adjudication of particular social group asylum cases. Additionally, given AG Sessions’ holding in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), future courts and advocates will need to clarify the state protection analysis, especially when the persecution is carried out by private actors. In particular, advocates will need to demonstrate through country conditions reports and expert testimony that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to provide protection from these private actors. In Matter of L-E-A- in particular, one can demonstrate that the cartel acts as a quasi-government in the respondent’s town, and that the police do not have control (or choose not to have control) over them.

Although the legitimacy of Acting AG Whitaker’s appointment, and thus his self-referral of cases, has been called into question, advocates must instead focus their efforts on litigating the asylum requirements. The constant self-referral of cases and unilateral, sweeping changes to the law have been tiresome for immigration advocates; however, we should use these opportunities to litigate existing, flawed case law to create a more robust asylum framework so that we can actually protect those fleeing violent persecution.”

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

Sophia is absolutely correct!

Like Sessions, Whitaker combines a White Nationalist agenda with some poor intellectual and lawyering skills. Not surprising, because lawyers advancing a racially biased restrictionist agenda are obviously driven by something outside, and usually not even very closely related to, the law and conventional human values.

Their arrogant and outrageous disregard of the law and facts provides a good opportunity for asking Article III Courts and Congress to finally adopt and enforce a legally appropriate, generous, humanitarian approach to asylum law as was directed by the Supremes back in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. Notwithstanding some meaningful advances over the three decades since that decision, the “promise of Cardoza” for U.S. asylum law has never been fully recognized.

And this Administration is hell-bent on rolling back even the modest advances that had been painstakingly made. Now is the time to make asylum law work as it was supposed to! Human lives and our integrity as a nation of laws and values depend upon it!

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to hold the “Department of Injustice” and its biased and deviant officials accountable to the law and to history for their naked racism, extreme intellectual dishonesty, failure to uphold the rule of law, and cowardly contempt for human life! Yes, it’s annoying. Yes, it’s hard work! But, in the end it will be worth it to know that you did something worthwhile in your life. And there are few things more worthwhile than protecting the rights and saving the lives of the most helpless, exploited, and vulnerable among us.

For those of you new to “Courtside,” both Judge Jeffrey Chase and I have previously written about how the BIA stood the law of causation on its head to deny a very grantable asylum claim in Matter of L-E-A-. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-UI

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-UI;

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit later absolutely trashed the BIA’s L-E-A- rationale on nexus in Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, without mentioning L-E-A- by name. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2aS.

The Fourth and other Circuits have also been very strong in recognizing “family” as a PSG. Indeed, one of the seminal “family-based” cases was Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). That was a case where the Fourth Circuit reversed and slammed the BIA while affirming my finding as an Immigration Judge that a family-based PSG was cognizable. In other words, I was right and the BIA was wrong. But, hey, who’s keeping track?

Now, Whitaker seeks to make things even worse. We should all be totally outraged that the Immigration Courts are under the control of the DOJ and political officials who are completely unqualified to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity. It’s “Clown Court;” but, in this case, the “clowns” are threatening innocent people’s lives!🤡

PWS

12-13-18

JULIA PRESTON @ THE MARSHALL PROJECT: Unfinished Business – Sessions Leaves Behind An Unprecedented Man-Made Human Rights Disaster & A Demoralized, Rapidly Failing U.S. Immigration Court — “I’ve never seen an attorney general who was so active in the immigration sphere and in a negative direction,” said Daniel Kowalski!”

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/07/the-immigration-crisis-jeff-sessions-leaves-behind

Julia writes:

ANALYSIS

The Immigration Crisis Jeff Sessions Leaves Behind

Assessing the ousted attorney general’s legacy on President Trump’s favorite issue.

By JULIA PRESTON

Graphic by YOLANDA MARTINEZ

“I don’t have an attorney general,” President Donald Trump said in an interview recently, venting his frustration with Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

But anyone who was following Sessions’ actions on immigration had no doubt that he was working hard. Before he was forced to resign on Wednesday, Sessions was exceptionally aggressive as attorney general, using his authority to steer the immigration courts, restrict access for migrants to the asylum system and deploy the federal courts for immigration enforcement purposes.

Under American law, the attorney general has broad powers over the immigration courts, which reside in the Justice Department not in the independent federal judiciary. Sessions, who made immigration a signature issue during his two decades as a Republican senator from Alabama, exercised those powers to rule from on high over the immigration system.

While Trump complained about Sessions, on immigration he was an unerringly loyal soldier, vigorously executing the president’s restrictionist policies.

Sessions made it his mission to reverse what he regarded as a failure to enforce order in the system by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, despite plunging numbers of illegal border crossings and record deportations under the previous administration.

“No great and prosperous nation can have both a generous welfare system and open borders,” Sessions told a gathering of newly-appointed immigration judges in September. “Such a policy is both radical and dangerous. It must be rejected out of hand.”

BECOME A MEMBER

Join the community that keeps criminal justice on the front page.

A primary goal he declared was to speed the work of the immigration courts in order to reduce huge case backlogs. But according to a report this week by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, the backlogs increased during his tenure by 49 percent, reaching an all-time record of more than 768,000 cases. That tally doesn’t include more than 330,000 suspended cases, which justice officials restored to the active caseload.

“I’ve never seen an attorney general who was so active in the immigration sphere and in a negative direction,” said Daniel Kowalski, the editor of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, a widely-used reference for lawyers. Kowalski said he’s been practicing immigration law for 33 years.

Here are some of Sessions’ measures that shaped the crisis the next attorney general will inherit:

He imposed case quotas on immigration judges, which went into effect Oct. 1, demanding they complete at least 700 cases a year. With compliance becoming part of a judge’s performance evaluation, the immigration judges’ association has said the quotas impinge on due process.

He made frequent use of the attorney general’s authority to decide cases if he doesn’t like opinions coming from the immigration courts. Sessions used that authority to constrain judges’ decision-making. He made it more difficult for them to grant continuances to give lawyers time to prepare, and he limited judges’ options to close cases where they concluded deportation was not warranted, as a way to lighten overloaded court dockets.

Sessions discouraged immigration judges from allowing prosecutors to exercise their discretion to set aside deportations for immigrants with families or other positive reasons to remain in the United States.

He issued decisions that made it far more difficult for migrants, like those coming in recent years from Central America, to win asylum cases based on fears of criminal gang violence, sexual abuse or other persecution by “private actors,” rather than governments.

In a policy known as zero tolerance, in April Sessions ordered federal prosecutors along the southwest border to bring charges in federal court against migrants caught crossing the border, for the crime of illegal entry. The policy resulted in parents being separated from their children, in episodes last summer that drew outrage until Trump ordered the separations to stop. But the prosecutions continue for illegal crossers who aren’t parents with children, swelling federal dockets and making it harder for prosecutors to pursue other border crimes, like narcotics and human trafficking, weapons offenses and money-laundering. In September, according to TRAC, 88 percent of the prosecutions in the Southern District of Texas were for an illegal entry misdemeanor; 65 percent of the cases in the Southern District of California were for the same minor crime.

Zero tolerance at the border

Under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, federal prosecutors in five border districts significantly ramped up the number of misdemeanor cases they filed against migrants crossing illegally this year, particularly in south Texas.

Sessions took the position that a program initiated by Obama, which gave protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who came here as children, was an overreach of executive authority. He declined to defend the program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and praised Trump’s decision last year to cancel it. After federal courts allowed the program to continue, the Justice Department fought to bypass the appeals courts and get a hearing before the Supreme Court for its efforts to terminate the program.

Even though his relations with Trump soured early in his tenure, Sessions maintained a line of communication to the White House through Stephen Miller, a senior adviser. Miller was a senior staff member for Sessions in the Senate, and the two share similar views and goals for clamping down on immigration.

Lawyers and advocates say Sessions’ actions have politicized immigration court proceedings. “He stripped the judges of the authority to ensure due process and demonstrated how susceptible the courts are to the whim of politics,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, based in Chicago.

Advocates for immigration reform said a new attorney general should restore the flexibility of immigration judges to manage their own dockets to find efficient ways to reduce their caseloads. But they said Sessions’ tenure provided new arguments for Congress to move the immigration courts out of the Justice Department to the federal judiciary.

Gregory Chen, director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said, “The aggressive nature of his actions infringing on the independence of the courts has made the need for a new court system even more urgent.”

ORIGINALLY FILED Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 9:35 p.m. ET

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

Go to Julia’s article at the above link to get the accompanying graphics and pictures.

The Immigration Court backlog reported by TRAC now is over 1.1 MILLION cases, with no end in sight. More disturbingly, there is no coherent plan for addressing these cases in anything approaching a rational manner, nor is there a plan for restoring some semblance of due process and functionality to the Immigration Courts. Like most Trump/Sessions initiatives, it’s “we’ll create the problem, make it much worse, then hinder the efforts of others to fix it.”

Three “no-brainers ” that Sessions wouldn’t do:

Working with the private bar, NGOs, states, and localities to make legal representation available to everyone in Immigration Court who wants it;
Letting U.S. Immigration Judges control their own dockets and make independent decisions, free from political interference; and
Removing hundreds of thousands of older cases of individuals eligible to apply for “Cancellation of Removal For Non-Lawful Permanent Residents” from the Immigration Courts’ active dockets and having them adjudicated by USCIS in the first instance.

Of course an independent Article I Immigration Court is an absolute necessity. But, that will take legislation. In the meantime, the foregoing three administrative steps would pave the way for an orderly transition to Article I status while promoting Due Process, fairness, and efficiency in the system.

But, I wouldn’t count on anyone in the “Current Kakistocracy” doing the right thing or actually implementing “good government.” If the Article IIIs don’t put an end to this travesty, it will continue to get worse and pull them down into the muck until we get “regime change.”

Ironically, Trump isn’t the only one who “hasn’t had an Attorney General over the past two years.” The majority of Americans haven’t had one either; while he might be on the verge of getting “his” Attorney General, the rest of us can only look forward to more pain and misery!

PWS

11-12-18

LEXISNEXIS: SCOFFLAW NATION: New Amnesty International Reports Document Trump Administration’s Intentional Abuses Of International Refugee Protection Standards, Call For Congressional Action!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/amnesty-international-report-illegal-pushbacks-arbitrary-detention-ill-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-in-the-united-states

Posted by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Amnesty International Report: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention & Ill-Treatment of Asylum-Seekers in the United States

Amnesty International, Oct. 11, 2018 – “The US government has deliberately adopted immigration policies and practices that caused catastrophic harm to thousands of people seeking safety in the United States, including the separation of over 6,000 family units in a four-month period more than previously disclosed by authorities, Amnesty International said in a new report released today.

USA: ‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here’: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention and Ill-treatment of Asylum-seekers in the United States reveals the brutal toll of the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine and dismantle the US asylum system in gross violation of US and international law. The cruel policies and practices documented include: mass illegal pushbacks of asylum-seekers at the US–Mexico border; thousands of illegal family separations; and increasingly arbitrary and indefinite detentions of asylum-seekers, frequently without parole.

“The Trump administration is waging a deliberate campaign of widespread human rights violations in order to punish and deter people seeking safety at the US–Mexico border,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.”

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

No, desperate families seeking refuge at our Southern Border don’t pose any real threat to the U.S., regardless of what Trump might say and whether they ultimately are found qualified or unqualified to enter. What does pose a real threat to our nation and to the legal rights and future of every American is “waging a deliberate campaign of widespread human rights violations in order to punish and deter people seeking safety at the US–Mexico border.”

PWS

10-18-18

TAL @ SFCHRONICLE: FRAUD WASTE & ABUSE: DHS “Subpoenas” Dan Kowalski – Can ICE Get Any More Zany?

ICE subpoenas immigration lawyer in leak hunt

By Tal Kopan

The Trump administration has subpoenaed an immigration attorney in an attempt to determine who leaked an internal memo that laid out how Immigration and Customs Enforcement should implement Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to restrict political asylum for victims of domestic violence and gang crimes.

The attorney said he doesn’t intend to reveal his sources or any other information about how he obtained the memo.

The subpoena was sent to Colorado-based immigration attorney Daniel Kowalski, who is also the editor of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, an immigration law journal published by LexisNexis. It demands that Kowalski hand over “all information” related to the memo he posted in July, including when, how and where he got it. The summons asks for “contact information for the source of the document.”

The subpoena was sent by Special Agent Daniel Del Castillo, an officer in ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility. ICE did not immediately comment on the subpoena.

At issue is a July 11 memo written by ICE principal legal adviser Tracy Short about Sessions’ decision in June to reinterpret asylum law in such a way that most victims of domestic and gang violence wouldn’t qualify. The change could affect tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the U.S.

Immigration courts have ruled that some victims of domestic and gang violence in certain countries could establish that they were part of social groups that their governments could or would not protect, thus qualifying them for asylum. Sessions used his unique authority as attorney general to overrule those rulings and reverse the interpretation of the law.

ICE provides the attorneys who function as prosecutors in the immigration court system, and the memo lays out how those attorneys should litigate asylum cases in light of Sessions’ decision. Kowalski’s link to the memo is no longer available on LexisNexis, but the American Immigration Lawyers Association is still hosting a copy online.

Kowalski told the Chronicle he intends to ignore the demand.

Read more: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ICE-subpoenas-immigration-lawyer-in-leak-hunt-13314928.php

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

Good luck in getting any “real” judge to enforce this so-called “subpoena!”

With real national security issues facing the country, like Russian interference in our elections, and deficits out of control under Trump, DHS continues to squander our taxpayer funds on frivolous abuses of the process like this! Little wonder that the Trump Administration’s “Gonzo” immigration enforcement program has been a total failure, and that ICE has been hemorrhaging public confidence and losing political support. Yes, it has created cruelty, terrorized American communities, and energized a racist “base;” but, from a legitimate law enforcement and responsible Government perspective, it has been a bad joke!

This is kakistocracy in action!

Also, congrats to Tal on her new position at the SF Chronicle! Don’t understand how CNN could have let one of the “up and coming superstars of American journalism” get away!

PWS

10-16-18

JUSTICE GORSUCH EXPRESSES SOME SKEPTICISM ABOUT GOV’S UNLIMITED POWER IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION CASE!

6https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-dhs-immigrant-detention

Chris Geidner reports for BuzzFeed News:

In a case that the ACLU says could affect thousands of immigrants, the Supreme Court on Wednesday considered when the government has the right to detain a class of immigrants without a bail hearing.

Under a 1996 law, the federal government is allowed to detain immigrants whose criminal conviction or involvement in terrorism-related activities would make them inadmissible or deportable. The law says the government “shall” take any of those immigrants into custody “when the alien is released” from criminal custody. The question before the justices is: What happens if the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t do so immediately?

The arguments on Wednesday focused on the technicalities of the 1996 law, rules of grammar, and timelines — not the sort of fiery rhetoric usually favored by President Donald Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions when talking about immigrants.

And while the case was granted to resolve the question of whether the statute still applied if DHS does not act immediately — whether there is any time restriction — the arguments shifted to a question of what limitation would be reasonable.

After a back-and-forth with Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a question from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke up early in the Wednesday arguments, asking, “[D]oes the government have any view about if ever the obligation [to take an immigrant into custody] lapses? Could it be 30 years? … Thirty years, and the government was aware of him the entire time and chose not to act. … Is there any limit on the government’s power?”

The government lawyer, Zachary Tripp from the Solicitor General’s Office, said the law created “a continuing obligation” that “does not lapse.”

Later, when Justice Stephen Breyer raised a similar question and Tripp began answering about when certain underlying crimes would be covered under the detention provision, Gorsuch interjected, said that back-and-forth was “quibbling,” and redirected Tripp to the larger question: “Justice Breyer’s question is my question, and I really wish you’d answer it.”

Breyer then stated his question more directly: “Is the government’s position that this paragraph, which says shall be arrested upon release, applies to a person who has been released 50 years before?”

Tripp, not giving in at all, said the government’s position is “absolutely that this applies regardless of the time” that’s passed.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

I had predicted the possibility that Justice Gorsuch’s past jurisprudence questioning the extent of and deference to Executive Power could make him an “honest broker” in some immigration cases.

I’d like to believe Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony that he will approach cases in a fair and impartial manner. But, neither his partisan outburst during his conformation nor his fawning performance during the unnecessary “formal swearing in” that became a Trump campaign rally were very encouraging from a fairness and impartiality standpoint.

Both his reputation and the country would be better served if he filled the “open minded conservative” role played by his predecessor and mentor Justice Kennedy rather than the “bought and paid for partisan vote” that all the Senators and Trump expect him to be.

Indeed, the one unifying theme of the Senate confirmation process was that all believed that he would perform as a totally predictable right-wing partisan vote. If he doesn’t live up to this expectation, the Dems will be (pleasantly) shocked and the GOP outraged at his “betrayal.” That’s why he would do well to at least occasionally listen carefully to the analysis of some of his more “liberal leaning” colleagues.

Here’s the full transcript of the oral argument courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/16-1363_h315.pdf

PWS

10-11-18

“OUR GANG” OF RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES CONDEMNS SESSIONS’S DESTRUCTION OF DUE PROCESS IN US IMMIGRATION COURTS – Calls On US Chief Immigration Judge Marybeth Keller & Her Colleagues To Stand Up To Sessions & Enforce Due Process Over Mindless “Haste Makes Waste” Quotas!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/statement-of-former-immigration-judges-and-bia-members-opposing-ij-quotas-oct-1-2018

Oct 1 Statement of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members Opposing IJ Quotas

As former Immigration Judges and BIA Members, we join our former colleagues in the NAIJ in decrying the imposition of much-criticized performance quotas on sitting Immigration Judges. Experience has demonstrated that it is futile to protest to the present Attorney General and his appointed EOIR Director, who have repeatedly demonstrated a callous disregard for due process, fundamental fairness, or judicial independence in the immigration courts. Jeff Sessions has repeatedly demonstrated his personal bias against both immigrants and judges. With the help of his EOIR Director, James McHenry, Sessions has taken a series of steps designed to strip the judges that he controls of all of the independence and powers that distinguish them as judges, and thus turn them into assembly-line workers. And because of Sessions’s disdain for immigrants, in his mind, those assembly lines should be issuing deportation orders, at faster speeds and in larger numbers. Never before, in our experience, has EOIR so directly and strongly undermined the decisional independence of Immigration Judges.

We therefore appeal at present to the leadership of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Holding the title of “judges” themselves, the Chief, Deputy Chief, and Assistant Chief Immigration Judges are entrusted to protect the integrity of the Immigration Courts and the rights and independence of the Immigration Judges they oversee. At present, the OCIJ leadership has completely abandoned these responsibilities, and have instead become complicit with those seeking to undermine the system they are charged to protect. Now more than ever, our country needs leadership within EOIR with the courage and integrity to stand up for what is right. Courage, integrity, and impartiality from political considerations are hallmarks of good judges. It is time for EOIR’s leadership to live up to the trust placed in them and begin to display such characteristics.

Likewise, individual judges must continue to be guided by the need to do what is just and right, and not what is expedient. We have faith that if forced to choose between meeting randomly imposed quotas and doing justice, those on the bench will choose the latter.

We further call for Congress to take the long overdue but critically needed action of making immigration judges part of an independent, Article I court that is outside of the Executive Branch and free from abuse or pressure by politically-appointed officials.

Lastly, we call on the public to observe and insist on accountability for those who abuse the public trust placed in them to dispense justice to those most vulnerable members of our society.

Hon. Steven Abrams

Hon. Sarah M. Burr

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase

Hon. George T. Chew

Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn

Hon. Cecelia Espenoza

Hon. Noel Ferris

Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr.

Hon. Rebecca Jamil

Hon. William P. Joyce

Hon. Edward Kandler

Hon. Carol A. King

Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb

Hon. Margaret McManus

Hon. Charles Pazar

Hon. George Proctor

Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg

Hon. Susan Roy

Hon. Paul W. Schmidt

Hon. Polly A. Webber

How do you uphold your oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” when the chief “enemy of the Constitution” is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, your so-called “boss?”

PWS

10-01-18

DOJ RELEASES BIOS OF LARGEST CLASS OF US IMMIGRATION JUDGE APPOINTMENTS

Here’s the link, courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/eoir-announces-largest-ever-immigration-judge-investiture

PWS

09-30-18

SURPRISE: NIELSEN SIGNED OFF ON FAMILY SEPARATION POLICY THAT SHE DENIED WAS DHS POLICY! — What Else Is She Hiding?

uhhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.openthegovernment.org_node_5713&d=DwMGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=5P7-gWBTtD9g2EDR8U0pyQ5iVCpXWh5b63SXxj7pZPM&m=unT_1oNELS6RLAvG9nD3R77o2os6sYCenMRq-R_-2rM&s=JD8fUd4fq0fv1ffIr52beFm1wXvxZTyYd5Z8tkgmYR0&e=

Newly released memo reveals secretary of homeland security signed off on family separation policy

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen previously denied existence of policy

Open the Government and the Project On Government Oversight have obtained documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requestthat provides new insights into internal decision-making behind the separation of thousands of parents from their children at the border earlier this year.

The biggest revelation in the documents is a memo dated April 23, in which top Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials urged criminal prosecution of parents crossing the border with children—the policy that led to the crisis that continues today. The memo, first reported on by the Washington Post on April 26, but never previously published, provides evidence that Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen signed off on a policy of family separation despite her repeated claims denying that there was such a policy. The Post appears to have obtained a copy of the memo prior to its signature.

The memo states that DHS could “permissibly direct the separation of parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be prosecuted.” It outlines three options for implementing “zero tolerance,” the policy of increased prosecution of immigration violations. Of these, it recommends “Option 3,” referring for prosecution all adults crossing the border without authorization, “including those presenting with a family unit,” as the “most effective.”

The last page of the memo contains a signature approving Option 3, but the signature—almost certainly Nielsen’s, given that the memo is addressed to her—was blacked out by FOIA officers on privacy grounds. FOIA officials also appear to have redacted the date of the signature indicating approval.

Open the Government and the Project On Government Oversight intend to appeal the redaction of the memo. The Secretary of Homeland Security is a high-level public official; using privacy exemptions to hide her role in major policy decisions is unacceptable.

Open the Government and the Project On Government Oversight did obtain an unsigned, unredacted copy of the same memo, but are unable to post the full document for reasons of source protection. The full memo recommends prosecuting and separating parents because:

…it is very difficult to complete immigration proceedings and remove adults who are present as part of FMUAs [family units] at the border. In fact, only 10 percent of non-Mexican FMUA apprehended during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 surge have been repatriated in the nearly four years since their illegal crossing. Of these options, prosecuting all amenable adults will increase the consequences for illegally entering the United States by enforcing existing law, protect children being smuggled by adults through transnational criminal organizations, and have the greatest impact on current flows.

The memo references a pilot of the zero tolerance/family separation policies in the Border Patrol’s El Paso Sector, which the Project On Government Oversight has previously investigated. The memo does not discuss any plan for reuniting separated families, or the harmful effects of separation on children, nor does it reflect any input from the government agencies who would be responsible for caring for the separated children.

The records released in response to the FOIA also include internal DHS directives sent in June and July following court orders to stop separating families, and internal emails discussing failed efforts to bring families back together. One troubling email explains that in July, DHS leadership instructed employees to deport families as quickly as possible, as a way of clearing out space for new families. The email raises questions on whether those deportations violated due-process protections.

At least 182 children remain separated from their parents months after a court-imposed deadline requiring the administration to reunite all of the separated families, according to a court filing dated September 20. The government has not taken all necessary measures to reunify families, according to immigration rights lawyers and non-profit groups.

Katherine Hawkins, an investigator at POGO, said of the DHS documents, “This is a small part of what must be an extensive paper trail on family separation, which needs to be made public so that the officials responsible can be held to account.”

“The newly disclosed documents provide a window into the internal policymaking behind the crisis that continues to haunt thousands of children,” said Lisa Rosenberg, Executive Director of Open the Government. “The administration needs to make available records that are still secret in order to fully understand why decisions were made to separate children from their families, and who made them.”

Read the newly released documents:

Part 1; Part 2; Part 3
CBP response letter

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

I’ve raised this point several times before. There is obviously a “paper trail” here, and some agency lawyers knew the truth about the policy that Nielsen was denying publicly and in court.

So, where is the “due diligence” from the DOJ lawyers representing Nielsen, Sessions, the DHS, and DOJ in court? Did the DHS attorneys who knew what the true policy was call the DOJ attorneys and tell them to retract their court denials? Did the DOJ lawyers check with their DHS/ICE colleagues before telling a court that a policy they conceded was unconstitutional wasn’t in effect?

Who is lying here and what has happened to the code of ethics (formerly?) applicable to Government lawyers? And why aren’t more Federal Judges “pushing back” on DOJ attorneys for their sometimes obviously untrue and other times thinly reasoned and meagerly supported positions in court?

While Trump is the undisputed “King of Liars,” Sessions and Nielsen also have well-established reputations for intentional lack of candor and twisting and misrepresenting facts, particularly on immigration policies. So why isn’t there some higher duty on Government lawyers to do “due diligence” when dealing with these known liars?

Thanks to the fabulous Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this item along.

PWS

09-26-18

Continue reading SURPRISE: NIELSEN SIGNED OFF ON FAMILY SEPARATION POLICY THAT SHE DENIED WAS DHS POLICY! — What Else Is She Hiding?

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

EOIR SHAKEUP: Chief Immigration Judge, Deputy Director, General Counsel Ousted!

Related posts:

Mar 19 — Court Rebukes Youth Policy Shift

Related posts:

Related posts:

Acting AG Whitaker Takes Aim at Asylum Seekers Fleeing Family-Based Persecution – Sophia Genovese

Related posts:

The Immigration Crisis Jeff Sessions Leaves Behind

Assessing the ousted attorney general’s legacy on President Trump’s favorite issue.

Related posts:

Amnesty International Report: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention & Ill-Treatment of Asylum-Seekers in the United States

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Oct 1 Statement of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members Opposing IJ Quotas

Related posts:

Related posts:

Newly released memo reveals secretary of homeland security signed off on family separation policy

Related posts: