"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Alex Nowrasteh Vice President for Economic & Social Policy Studies Cato Institute
Tea writes:
Editor’s Note – August 2023
Dear Reader,
America is built on the drive and determination of immigrants. Even though immigration is one of America’s founding principles, it remains one of the most hotly contested social and political issues of modern times. This ongoing debate is fueled by a number of negative myths about immigrants that have taken root in society.
This month, we are committed to busting the common political, economic, and demographic myths about immigration. We examine how these myths have taken root in our society, how they spread, and what can be done to change the narrative on immigration.
For this month’s issue, we spoke with Alex Nowrasteh, the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Alex is one of the leading voices when it comes to immigration policy.
Hope you gain new insights,
Téa
Watch “Tea’s Coffee” where she interviews Alex Nowratseh here:
Alex says there are three things we can do to combat the myths and lies being spread by the nativist/restrictionists:
Recognize the humanity of immigrants and their legal rights under our laws;
Emphasize that immigrants compliment, rather than compete with, us;
Point out that the “border chaos” is largely the result of bad laws and failed deterrence policies rather than the fault of immigrants.
By contrast, you can spot the bogus restrictionist/nativist myths a mile way because they:
Dehumanize immigrants by falsely reducing them to “statistics, numbers, apprehensions, beds, costs, graphs, and charts;”
Make the bogus claim that our economy is a “zero sum game” where every additional immigrant means “less of the pie” for you or me — a claim which is demonstrably false because people and immigration are what have allowed us historically to expand our economy so there potentially will be more for everyone (provided that those at the top don’t grab a disproportionate share for themselves);
Promote the myth of “just get in line” when there in reality is no line for most to get in because of the unduly restrictive nature of our laws and their poor administration by successive Administrations. They ignore the reality that robust migration is here to stay. The real choice is whether or not we want realistic laws and policies that recognize and harness that reality or instead continue to reward smugglers, enrich jailers, and force millions of migrants into the “extralegal” underground economy where they can not contribute fully economically or politically.
Haley Sweatband Edwards Nation Editor Time Magazine PHOTO: Pulitzer
As another “myth debunker,” Time’s Haley Sweetland Edwards, said:
These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
“And the winner was . . . .” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
“Governments must act rationally!” Certainly, neither Trump nor any of the GOP clowns 🤡 seeking to be him are “rational actors” on immigration, the economy, infrastructure, education, individual rights, or anything else of importance to our nation. Indeed, the ignorance, indecency, irrationality, and bias exhibited during the so-called “GOP debate” was beyond appalling, despite the media’s pathetic attempts to “normalize” idiocy. Six folks afraid to say “hypothetically” that they would vote for someone OTHER than a convicted felon who made totally baseless claims that he won the 2020 election! Gimmie a break! (I’m certainly not the only one impressed by the disturbingly low quality of the GOP “field.” See, e.g.,https://www.huffpost.com/entry/larry-hogan-gop-candidates-trump-conviction-question_n_64e82302e4b0a2a9abc4bdc0).
Tea Ivanovic — an amazing immigrant entrepreneur and inspirational leader who is on Forbes’s list of “30 under 30” — is a stellar example of how immigrants of all types — from those at the border to those in boardrooms — make America better! See, e.g.,
Opinion | Asylum seekers are not ‘gaming the system’
August 20, 2023 at 5:16 p.m. ET
To say that people seeking asylum in the United States are “gaming the system,” as Fareed Zakaria did in his Aug. 14 op-ed, “Immigration can be fixed. Why aren’t we fixing it?,” not only was dehumanizing but also dismissed the very real and traumatic conditions that force people and their families to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their homes and embark on a journey in search of protection and safety.
Calling on people to claim asylum in their home countries revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the asylum ban and asylum itself. Access to asylum in the United States remains critical because many of the countries that individuals are fleeing from and through cannot or will not protect them from violence.
The U.S. government’s asylum ban is exacerbating dangerous circumstances for all asylum seekers. Women, girls and other survivors of gender-based violence seeking asylum are being denied refuge and forced to remain in conditions along our border that increase their susceptibility to the same kinds of violence and threats to their lives that forced them to flee in the first place.
Asylum is a legal and human right for all people, born of our own recognition that every human being has the right to seek a life of safety and dignity. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. The United States has an obligation to uphold its own laws and live up to its promise as a welcoming nation.
Casey Carter Swegman, Falls Church
The writer is director of public policy at the Tahirih Justice Center.
********************
The legal right to seek asylum in the U.S. or at our border is clear! Getting the USG to respect it and the media to accurately report on abusive, illegal attempts to limit it, not so much! Thanks, Casey, for speaking truth and “taking it to” purveyors of White Nationalist myths like Zakaria!
Rather than urging fixing the legal asylum system to work in a fair, generous, timely, and humane manner — something that should be well within the Government’s capabilities and clearly in the national interest — folks like Zakaria, who should know better, have taken to victim shaming and blaming. The current law gives the Government plenty of tools to deal with frivolous claims to asylum.
That our Government lacks the will and expertise to implement and staff the current system in a manner that would fairly and reasonably “separate the wheat from the chaff” is NOT the fault of those seeking asylum and their dedicated, hard-working, long-suffering advocates. Indeed, asylum and human rights advocates appear to be the only folks interested in insuring Constitutional due process and upholding the rule of law!
I don’t dispute that our immigration system needs a legislative overhaul. But, that must NOT come at the expense of asylum seekers, refugees, and others who need and are deserving of our protection!
AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?” IMAGE: tvtropesJennifer Scarborough, Esquire Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: FirmHamed Aleaziz Staff Writer LA Times
Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.
Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.
The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.
Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.
Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.
“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.
Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.
“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.
But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.
In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.
“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”
The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.
Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.
More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.
By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.
One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.
The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.
“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”
“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the complete report at the link.
Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).
As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!
That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!
Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!
When I first came across Cochrane International, the company that built the floating barrier deployed in Eagle Pass, Texas, I watched a demonstration the company gave with detached bemusement. I was at a gun range just outside San Antonio. It was 2017, three months after Donald Trump had been sworn in and the last day of that year’s Border Security Expo, the annual gathering of Department of Homeland Security’s top brass and hundreds of companies from the border industry. Among industry insiders, the optimism was high. With Trump’s wall rhetoric at a fever pitch, the money was in the bank.
All around me, all morning, Border Patrol agents were blasting away body-shaped cutouts in a gun competition. My ears were ringing, thanks in part to the concussion grenade I had launched—under the direction of an agent, but with great ineptitude—into an empty field as part of another hands-on demonstration. The first two days of the expo had been in the much-posher San Antonio convention center, where companies displayed their sophisticated camera systems, biometrics, and drones in a large exhibition hall. But here on the gun range we seemed to be on its raw edge.
So when a red truck with a camo-painted trailer showed up and announced its demonstration, it wasn’t too much of a surprise. The blasting bullets still echoed all around as if they would never cease. Two men jumped out of the truck wearing red shirts and khaki pants. They frantically ran around the camo trailer, like mice scurrying around a piece of cheese trying to figure out the proper angle of attack. Then the demo began. One of the men got back in the truck, and as it lurched forward, coiling razor wire began to spill out of its rear end as if it were having a bowel movement. As the truck moved forward, more and more of Cochrane’s Rapid Deployment Barrier spilled out until it extended the length of a football field or more. It was like a microwavable insta-wall, fast-food border enforcement.
Little did I know that six years later, this same company, Cochrane, would give us the floating barrier, with its wrecking ball–sized buoys connected side by side with circular saws. The floating barrier, as the Texas Standard put it, is the “centerpiece of Operation Lone Star,” Texas governor Greg Abbott’s $4.5 billion border enforcement plan. For this barrier, which has now been linked to the deaths of at least two people, the Texas Department of Public Safety awarded Cochrane an $850,000 contract.
. . . . .
When I first saw Cochrane back in 2017 among the ear-ringing gunfire on the last day of the Border Security Expo, I had a feeling I might see them again. No matter how ludicrous the rapid barrier deployment camo truck seemed to me then, there was, indeed, plenty of money to be made.
********************
Money and profit over humanity, common sense, and the rule of law. Read the full article at the link.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.
The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.
The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3
ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.
As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.
The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.
4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND
The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.
COUNSEL
David A. Schlesinger
(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina
Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.
Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
OPINION
KOH, Circuit Judge:
********************************
Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!
I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.
There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?
This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”
Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!
U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.
The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.
When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.
This approach would have been a great step forward if it wasn’t paired with a counter measure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure an appointment at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.
. . . .
If proponents of a secure border are serious about lowering border crossing numbers and decreasing unauthorized migration, they should support Mr. Biden’s attempts to create new legal pathways. Instead, a coalition of Republican attorneys general is challenging the president’s parole program. In Congress, Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the same parole authority that allowed Afghans to temporarily resettle in the United States. There have been no challenges to the use of the parole authority to bring Ukrainians to the United States.
These actions reveal that our current fight over the border is not about the number of people trying to come here — it is about which should be allowed to come. American voters may not have strong opinions about the future of the asylum system or the legal pathways being created, but voters of both parties dislike the chaos and human suffering that have subsumed this issue for the past 10 years. Over a million American citizens have signed up to sponsor migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
At a moment of record global displacement, we can’t keep waiting for Congress to modernize our immigration laws. Safe legal pathways are good for the people who use our immigration system. Mr. Biden has taken some critical steps to give migrants better options, but with no hope of congressional action in the near future, more is needed.
Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.
****************************
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
Much of what Andrea says echoes what I have said over and over on Courtside and has been repeatedly recommended by experts, who are then largely ignored by the Biden Administration.
As I have argued before, the “low hanging fruit” here would be EOIR reform: A new BIA of “practical scholars;” better IJs with proven asylum and human rights experience; ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling On Steroids” (which drives many poor policy and legal decisions); and getting some dynamic, fearless, expert leadership on human rights and immigration at the DOJ — which is either the driver or the facilitator of many of the problems at the border, depending on how you look at it.
We can also see how Garland’s lackluster performance on immigration affects other areas of justice such as civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights, to name a few of the most obvious ones. Nobody at today’s DOJ appears to possess the “big picture” knowledge and experience to “connect the dots” on these critical issues.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera
Professor Alberto Benítez reports:
This past Wednesday, August 2, Immigration Judge (IJ) Dinesh Verma of the Hyattsville Immigration Court granted asylum to Immigration Clinic clients R-R- and her 17-year-old son, D-R-. R-R- and D-R- have been Clinic clients since 2019 and their asylum applications were filed that year with the assistance of the Clinic. Their merits hearing was originally scheduled for 2020, but was postponed until this past Wednesday due to the pandemic. They were represented at their hearing by Immigration Clinic summer intern Brennan Eppinger, a rising 2L.
R-R- and D-R- fled Honduras after R-R- stood up to a gang member who was trying to recruit her son, D-R-, to transport drugs. D-R- was 11 years old at the time. The gang member later broke into their home, put a gun to R-R- ‘s head, asked R-R- if she had ever played Russian roulette, and the quote in the subject line is what happened next. R-R- and D-R- sought safety in the United States shortly after.
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Navil Infante, Alex North, Rachel Kidd and Jasmine Elsmasry, who all worked on the case. IJ Verma is a GW Law alum and was a student in my Immigration Law I class in 1997. Brennan noted this fact on the record but the IJ (who did remember me) and the ICE trial attorney waived any conflict issue.
Interestingly, I used the “Russian Roulette analogy” yesterday in referring to AG Merrick Garland’s dismissive attitude toward the outrageous inconsistencies and abuses in his EOIR asylum adjudications.
This is a wonderful, inspiring result, produced by great student lawyering, a thoughtful IJ, and an ICE ACC with a sense of justice and practicality. It should be the rule, not the exception, in EOIR asylum adjudication! But, sadly, it isn’t!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
I virtually guarantee that if this case had been adjudicated at the border, in detention, and/or on one of Garland’s “expedited/dedicated” dockets, the result would have been unfavorable. And, depending on the circumstances, it’s not even clear that an applicant with this type of very grantable claim would have access to the asylum adjudication system under Biden’s “enjoined but stayed transit rules!” See, e.g.,https://twitter.com/Haleaziz (A “temporary win” for the Biden Administration, engineered by two 9th Cir. Dem judicial appointees, is a big loss for humanity and the rule of law, defended only by dissenting Trump appointee, Judge VanDyke, a result that should leave advocates scratching their heads about their place in today’s mushy Dem Party.)
Cases like this illustrate how the EOIR system could be run in a fair, efficient, professional, and properly humane manner! But, they don’t answer the question of why isn’t set up to run that way in every case under Garland!
Also, and quite perversely, the failure of the Biden system to produce fair and equitable results at the border puts a premium on individuals who can avoid border processing and get to the interior (the exact opposite of the result Biden claims to be trying to achieve)!
This is a totally screwed up system being “administered” by a Dem Administration that sorely lacks both courage and a clear vision of how to insure that asylum seekers and other immigrants, particularly those of color, receive due process and justice in America!
Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
Hi all: As you know, our group filed an amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary v. Garland, challenging the new rules at the border that would make most of those unable to get an online appointment through an app ineligible to apply for asylum.
District Court Judge Jon Tigar just issued the attached order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
From Judge Tigar’s order:
“Congress granted the agencies authority to impose additional conditions on asylum eligibility, but only those consistent with section 1158…Two of the conditions imposed by the Rule have been previously found to be inconsistent with Section 1158…
The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum. The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress’s clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.”
The order is stayed for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.
Our group has once again helped make a difference in providing fairness and due process. Congrats to all.
**********************
Congrats to the plaintiffs and to my Round Table colleagues!
This was basically a blowout for the plaintiffs on all issues! The USG argument essentially was that complying with the law would be too difficult and/or politically unpopular. Therefore, they have chosen to violate the law and to use rather transparent pretexts (actually misrepresentations about the bogus “presumption”) to evade it.
Really, folks, how do we have a Dem AG who 1) approves such complete legal nonsense; 2) advances essentially frivolous and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to defend the indefensible; and 3) can’t make the legal system for asylum work in a fair and legal manner at EOIR or DHS?
How immoral and intellectually dishonest are Garland’s arguments. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Judge Tigar’s opinion:
While they wait for an adjudication, applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and non-state actors.
See, e.g., PC 32446–68 (2022 State Department report noting credible reports of gender-based violence against migrants; reports of migrants being tortured by migration authorities; “numerous instances” of armed groups targeting migrants for kidnapping, extortion, and homicide; and that asylum seekers and migrants were vulnerable to forced labor); PC 22839–42 (NGO report documenting violent crimes against 13,480 migrants in Mexico, by both state and non-state actors, between January 2021 and December 2022); PC 76248–87 (table of crimes summarized in preceding report); PC 21752–58 (2022 NGO report discussing gender-based violence in northern Mexico border cities, including against LGBTQI+ and Black migrants); PC 21610–11 (2022 NGO report concerning gender-based violence against Venezuelan women and LGBTIQ+ migrants in southern Mexico).16
16 In addition to these examples, the record is replete with additional documentation of the extraordinary risk of violence many migrants face in Mexico. See, e.g., PC 22129–30 (2023 news report documenting instances of kidnapping of asylum seekers in northern Mexico); PC 23247–50 (2022 news report quoting Chihuahua state police chief stating that “organized criminal gangs are financing their operations through migrant trafficking”); PC 23082 (2023 NGO report discussing treatment of migrants and asylum seekers); PC 20937–43 (2021 NGO report documenting kidnapping and extortion of Venezuelan migrants in Mexico); PC 29740–29744 (2021 NGO report documenting instances of rape, kidnapping, and other violence experienced by migrant women in Mexico); PC 75946–48 (2022 NGO report documenting violence against migrants in Mexico); AR 4881 (2022 NGO report noting that asylum seekers from Central America have been pursued across the border and found in southern Mexico by their persecutors).
Only somebody who avoids the border, has never represented asylum seekers there, and is impervious to facts and reality could make such outlandish arguments in favor of an outrageously deficient and illegal “policy.” Sounds like something out of the “Stephen Miller Playbook!”Why is it coming from a Dem AG?
Viridiana Chabolla ’13, who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico at 2 years old, on the day she became a U.S. citizen in 2021. PHOTO: Pamona College Magazine
Carla Maria Guerrero writes in Pomona College Magazine:
There are not a lot of big wins for Viridiana Chabolla ’13 in her line of work. It’s not for a lack of trying, or a lack of sweat and tears. Her commitment has been tested over the years but she remains determined. Chabolla is an attorney working in immigration law. The landscape is grim, she says. It can be heartbreaking. Demoralizing. She’s not just an attorney. She is an immigrant, too, and for most of her life she was undocumented.
In February, the Los Angeles Times wrote a story about one of her recent clients. Leonel Contreras, a U.S. Army veteran, was a legal permanent resident before being deported to Mexico after serving time for a nonviolent crime. Contreras had grown up in the U.S., but after his deportation he worked and lived in Tijuana for at least a decade before the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles took his case and Chabolla helped him return to his family members in California. He became a U.S. citizen earlier this year.
“It’s really nice to wave an American flag at a naturalization ceremony,” says Chabolla, who began working at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) in October 2021. “Immigration law is so harsh and when it’s not harsh, it’s just not helpful. It’s hard to have a win. When you have those moments, you have to grab on and make them last.”
Chabolla was born in Guanajuato, Mexico. Her mother came to the U.S. to escape a bad relationship and start a new life. A 2-year-old Chabolla and the rest of her mother’s family joined her soon after. Chabolla grew up with her grandparents, aunts and cousins all living close to each other in East Los Angeles. “I’d remember seeing my mom and aunts getting ready for work at ridiculous hours of the day,” she says of the early-morning hubbub. “I remember always being surrounded by people and conversations. There were a lot of disagreements but a lot of love.”
When she was 11, Chabolla met a group of lawyers who worked in East L.A. Although she didn’t know what exactly they did, she recalls thinking that they seemed to hold a lot of power. They seemed to have some kind of authority to help her and others like her—people who were not born in the U.S.
It was during Chabolla’s junior year at Pomona that the Obama administration established an immigration policy that changed her life. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allowed certain immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and also become eligible for a work permit.
For the first time, Chabolla was able to have a job on campus. She saved her first pay stub. It wasn’t much in terms of money, but it was significant for Chabolla.
With DACA, Chabolla’s future seemed a bit brighter. She could now apply for jobs after graduation. Her first work after Pomona was as an organizer with the pro bono legal services nonprofit Public Counsel, a choice that set her on a course for a win of historic proportions.
For four years, Chabolla took down the stories of plaintiffs for cases being handled by Public Counsel. As time passed, she began to feel more empowered to share her immigration status with her director, Mark Rosenbaum, even as the national political landscape was transitioning from an Obama presidency to a Trump one.
“When Trump was elected, I broke down,” she says. She remembers Rosenbaum calling her to tell her she didn’t have to go to work the next day: “Go be with your family, go through your emotions,” he told her.
“We didn’t know what Trump would do first. We just hit the ground running,” says Chabolla, who worked on the defense case for Daniel Ramirez Medina, the first person to have his DACA permit taken away. “With everything going on, we focused on putting out fires. Trump wasn’t taking out DACA in one go just yet. He was creating all of this panic everywhere first.”
Her time at Public Counsel rekindled Chabolla’s original interest in law.
“I kept thinking of the best way I could help others. I loved the idea of gaining new knowledge, and a degree in law would allow me to have a sense of power,” she says. The attorneys at Public Counsel, like her boss Rosenbaum, not only practiced law and led big cases but they also wrote articles and taught university-level courses.
In September of 2017, the Trump administration announced it was officially rescinding DACA. Chabolla had just started at the UC Irvine School of Law. Her initial response was to focus on school and wait.
Then Chabolla got a call from Rosenbaum. “He called me to be a plaintiff in a case against the United States. I felt terrified.”
Chabolla phoned her mother and her family. “If I shared my story, I would have to share their story,” she says. She also was married by then and discussed the possible ramifications with her husband.
Her family was supportive. Chabolla felt compelled to help.
The Public Counsel lawsuit led by Rosenbaum was filed as Garcia v. United States. As it made its way through the higher courts, it was merged with four other cases and ultimately became known as Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California by the time it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a plaintiff in the case, Chabolla shared her story with a lawyer for a written declaration. While she never testified before any judges, she did have to share her immigration story multiple times as the case garnered national media attention.
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its 5-4 decision blocking the Trump administration’s elimination of DACA. Chabolla was in Washington for the hearing. “A few of us got to go inside,” she recalls. “Some DACA students were there, too. And it was really powerful. These justices were hearing arguments on this huge case…but I know maybe for them all cases they hear are huge. But we occupied half the room and that was really powerful and really unusual.”
Chabolla took notes during the hearing. “I remember writing down something that Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor said: ‘This is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.’
“So much of what Trump did was done without following administrative law,” explains Chabolla about how they “won” this case. “Trump didn’t follow procedure,” she says. “If they had taken their time and done it right, it would have passed. But I remember taking the win.”
Chabolla, who had just recently become a U.S. resident through marriage, remembers feeling relief for the DACA community.
“The DACA victory in the Supreme Court is a testament to the vision, commitment and tireless efforts of many, and Viri’s name would surely be at the top of that list,” says Rosenbaum. “I had the privilege of working with Viri at Public Counsel, first as an organizer…and then to come forward as a plaintiff in Garcia to inspire others to do the same and make the case that our nation needs DACA recipients to build a kinder and more inclusive community for all of us.”
Upon returning home, Chabolla once again focused on school—it was her second-to-last semester at UC Irvine. She spent a year as a graduate legal assistant with the Office of the Attorney General for the California Department of Justice. It was a tough gig for a newly graduated lawyer. After one year, she left for her current job as a staff attorney at ImmDef, a legal services nonprofit with a post-conviction unit that drew her interest. “They take on clients who have criminal convictions like possession of marijuana from 40 years ago with deportation orders—deportation is not a fair punishment for everyone.
“Many of our clients have been living here as legal permanent residents for more than 20 years. Most find out they’re getting deported just when they’re going to be released,” she says. “The statistics show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the general population and our clients have already served their time—in jail, or prison, they’ve paid their dues and they’ve even paid their fines. Adding deportation is a way of saying ‘I don’t like that you’re an immigrant.’ It’s extra punishment.”
The work is tough. “My supervisor has shared that sometimes we have to redefine what a win is,” says Chabolla. “It makes up partially for the times when we have a clinic and all these people show up thinking they can apply for residency when they actually can’t.”
She says that the immigrants she talks to are so full of hope. They believe that an attorney—like herself—can do it all. “Every situation is different. No lawyer has a miracle cure.
“It’s heartbreaking to know how many people are becoming elders who don’t have a nest egg, who paid taxes into the system but they can’t access Social Security, can’t access Medicare,” Chabolla adds. “It’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about in the past two years: How can I help aside from placing my hopes in a Congress that is more concerned about building borders than dealing with these issues?”
In 2021, Chabolla became a U.S. citizen. The day was bittersweet and laden with guilt. “It was one of those moments where I felt I was further abandoning my undocumented community, but I know that’s not true,” she says. Although her mother recently became a U.S. resident, some of her family remains undocumented.
Chabolla says she’s been able to find some balance as an ally who was once directly impacted by immigration policies. “I’m trying to find a place where I can remain hopeful in my job and be a zealous lawyer and advocate.”
********************************
Congrats and way to go Viri! You have already established yourself as a “New Generation Leader” of the NDPA! Awesome!
For years, the GOP has been mindlessly blocking various versions of DACA, at a great human cost as well as a huge cost to our nation. Dreamers who are able to achieve citizenship, without special help from Congress, and other “New Generation” members of the NDPA must follow the lead of Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) by getting into the “power structure” and forcing long overdue progressive changes.
Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, the Supremes got this one right, barely 5-4. One vote has made a huge difference in literally hundreds of thousands of lives, and helped to shape American’s future for the better. By contrast, the Trump Administration’s failed attempts to undo this important program was a disgraceful abuse of Government resources! The inability of GOP-controlled states to let this issue go — essentially too keep bullying and threatening some of the most productive and deserving members of our society — is beyond disgusting.
Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.
. . . .
One border, two realities
The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.
Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.
The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.
In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.
On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.
“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”
Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.
But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.
In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.
. . . .
**************************
Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.
A few thoughts:
Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because ofthe unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them!THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice.
One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way.See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims.
Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted.So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!
Injustice Public Realm Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:
Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported
Omaha is now the toughest court in the country for asylum seekers, MPI hosts discussion on immigration courts in crisis, interview with an immigration judge, and more.
Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported austinkocher.substack.com • 1 min read
New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case + Online Event
Even the best attorneys require 50-75 hours over several months to complete an asylum case. The Biden admin’s attempts to speed up asylum cases may be ignoring this reality.
…see more
New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case
J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center
3d •
Through my internship at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, I observed master calendar hearings in the detained docket in the Florence Immigration Court. I was back in Florence, Arizona, because the court itself is located within the barbed wire of the detention center. Observing the Florence Immigration Court emphasized how dehumanizing removal proceedings can be for detained immigrants. Master calendar hearings are often immigrants’ first interaction with the Court. To start, a guard brought a group of men in jumpsuits to the courtroom and lined them up. The judge read them their rights and then called them individually to discuss their case. Twice I witnessed the wrong person being brought into court where they sat through proceedings until the guards realized and switched them out for the correct person.
The vast majority of Respondents in removal proceedings are unrepresented. There is a blatant information imbalance in immigration court when the immigrant is unrepresented. Oftentimes, pro se detained immigrants do not have access to the resources represented or released Respondents have during their proceedings. Respondents may not know their legal options unless organizations like the Florence Project can speak to them before their hearing and provide them with pro se information packets or represent them. During the hearing, the men did not even have a pen and paper to take notes. Meanwhile, the immigration judge and government attorney have access to technology and a wealth of experience to pull from to make legal arguments.
This is just one example of many – my colleagues and I also observed translation issues and pushback against some men who wished to continue fighting their case. Above all, I’ll leave with this very simple observation: the judge and guards called each man up by his court docket number before his name. If we are to support and uphold the dignity of all people, we must do so especially in systems that look to strip it from them. Providing immigrants with access to a lawyer, if they’d like one, can ensure that people have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their case. The Florence Project is one of the organizations working tirelessly to expand access to representation throughout Arizona, and I hope to continue this work after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center next year. #EJAFellowUpdate | Equal Justice America
********************
Congrats to Lauren Iosue, and thanks for becoming a member of the NDPA! 😎 The scary thing: As an L-3, Lauren appears to have more “hands on” Immigration Court experience and a far deeper appreciation of the material, sometimes fatal, flaws in the EOIR system, than Garland and his other “top brass” in the DOJ responsible for operating and overseeing this tragic mess!
Why isn’t “real life” immigration/human rights experience representing individuals in Immigration Court were an absolute requirement for appointment to AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, Solicitor General, and Assistant AG for Civil (in charge of OIL) in any Dem Administration, at least until such time as the Immigration Courts become an Article I Court removed from the DOJ?
30-years ago, when I was at Jones Day, we were budgeting a minimum of 100 hours of professional time for a pro bono asylum case! That was before the “21st century BIA” added more unnecessary, artificial technicalities to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win. It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀
Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE Chief Pro Bono Counsel Arnold & Porter Washington, D.C. PHOTO: A&P
All Garland would have to do is reach back into his “big law” days at Arnold & Porter (“A&P”). He should pick up his cell phone and call Lucy McMillan, the award-winning Chief Pro Bono Counsel @ A&P.Ask Lucy what needs to change to get EOIR functioning as a due-process-focused model court system! Better yet, reassign upper “management” at EOIR, and hire Lucy to clean house and restore competence, efficiency, and excellence to his currently disgracefully-dysfunctional “courts!”
As Austin’s posts and the reports he references show, Garland’s indolent, tone-deaf, mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace that undermines democracy and betrays core values of the Democratic Party! How does he get away with it? Thanks to Austin, AILA, Lauren, and others exposing the ongoing “EOIR charade” in a Dem Administration!
As shown by recent “Courtside” postings about the “Tsunami” 🌊 of Article III “rejections” of lousy BIA decisions, throughout America, many, many more asylum cases could be timely granted with a properly well-qualified, expert BIA setting precedents and forcing judges like those in Omaha to properly and generously apply asylum law or find other jobs!Maximum protection, NOT “maximum rejection,” is the proper and achievable (yet unrealized) objective of asylum laws!
Asylum law, according to the Supremes and even the BIA is supposed to be generously and practically applied — so much so that asylum can and ordinarily should be granted even where the chances are “significantly less” than probable. SeeMatter of Mogharrabi, 19 I & N Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 1987).
The problem is that the BIA and EOIR have never effectively implemented and followed the Mogharrabi standard. In recent years, particularly during the Trump debacle, they have moved further than ever away from this proper legal standard while still giving it lip service! Clearly, the IJs in Omaha and other “Asylum Free Zones” are operating outside the realm of asylum law with deadly and destructive consequences. Yet, Garland, a former Federal Judge himself, permits it! Why?
The assumption that most asylum seekers who pass credible fear should ultimately lose on the merits is false and based on intentionally overly restrictive mis-interpretations and mis-applications of asylum law! It’s a particular problem with respect to asylum seekers of color from Latin America and Haiti — a definite racial dimension that DOJ and DHS constantly “sweep under the carpet.” Because of the extraordinarily poor leadership from EOIR, DOJ, and DHS, this “fundamental falsehood of inevitable denial” infects the entire asylum debate and materially influences policies.
A dedicated long-time “hands-on” asylum expert, someone who actually met some of the “Abbott/DeSantis busses,” said that over 70% of those arriving from the border had potentially grantable asylum claims. That’s a far cry from the “nobody from the Southern border will qualify” myth that drives asylum policy by both parties and has even been, rather uncritically, “normalized” by the media.
Fixing EOIR is a prerequisite to an informed discussion of immigration and development of humane, rational, realistic immigration policies. That would be laws and policies based on reality, not myths, distortions, and sometimes downright fabrications.
Competent representation is also an essential part of fixing EOIR. There are ways to achieve it that Garland is ignoring and/or inhibiting. See, e.g., VIISTA Villanova. No excuses!
Maine Voices: No walls are high enough to keep out people desperate for a safe place
Instead of wasting precious time trying to shut today’s refugees out, we can prepare for them in a way that could benefit all of us.
BY DAN KOLBERTSPECIAL TO THE PRESS HERALD
A young girl jumps rope inside the Portland Expo, home to several hundred asylum seekers. Much of the world’s population will be on the move, trying to survive, as sea levels and temperatures rise. Brianna Soukup/Staff Photographer
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dan Kolbert has lived in Portland’s West End since 1988. He is a building contractor and an author.
In Central America, where corn was first cultivated over millennia and is still the home of many important seed bases, a drought is entering its second decade. It is possible that agriculture will soon be impossible there, along with many parts of Africa and Asia. Rising sea levels will mean many low-lying islands will disappear, and coastal cities will be forced to retreat or be swamped.
All of this means that much of the world’s population will be on the move, searching for a way to survive. Estimates top 1 billion people by mid-century. Here in Portland, we are already seeing previously unimaginable levels of immigration, with hundreds of recent arrivals sleeping in a sports arena, and housing shortages and rising rents forcing many new and established Mainers into the many homeless encampments dotting the city. And we are just getting started.
There are no walls high enough to keep out people desperate for a safe place for them and their families. So we can either spend the precious time that remains on a futile, and cruel, effort to keep people out, or we can prepare for them in a humane way that could have enormous benefits for all of us, new and old Mainers alike.
The first step is housing, and plenty of it. Multi-family housing in Maine has undergone a sea change in recent years. We can build healthy, functional housing with very low heating and cooling loads for much less than all the mediocre, drafty single-family houses we currently build. Greater Portland is home to much of the most expensive real estate in the state, but imagine if we could have planned development surrounding some other cities, like Bangor or Lewiston. Or even smaller population centers like Skowhegan, Farmington or Rumford. We are a sparsely populated state with an aging population – immigrant families could revitalize many parts of the state. In addition to the workforce we desperately need, they would bring children to boost shrinking school enrollments, new cultures and foods, and new outlooks. And of course it would be a big boost to the economies of parts of the state that haven’t always shared in the boom.
Next is finding work for people. We have already seen many immigrants going into health care, and our aging U.S.-born population will only need more services. Some Africans have taken up farming, helping revitalize that economy. In southern Maine, Central Americans are increasingly showing up in construction, where a 20-year-long labor shortage has created enormous demand. And many people show up with important professional skills, needing only some help with language and certifications to resume careers as doctors, engineers, teachers, administrators, etc. Of course we need to reform the work rules, to allow people to find employment much sooner.
It was disappointing to read of the events in Unity. Imagine using this existing, underutilized infrastructure for temporary housing! How many of these new arrivals might see central Maine as a safe, friendly place to establish their new lives?
I am a new Mainer myself, having only lived here for 35 of my 59 years, but my kids can trace their lineage in Maine and Quebec for over 300 years on their mother’s side. As the son of a refugee from the Nazis, I am perhaps more sympathetic to the plight of today’s refugees than others are, but I hope that we can see this as an opportunity to invest in our state, and to demonstrate basic humanity toward people who just want to live.
***************
You can listen to the audio version at the link!
Dan definitely has the right idea! Seems like what’s needed is 1) leadership, 2) organization to match people and skills to local needs, and 3) some “seed money” to get an affordable housing program going.
Haley Sweatband Edwards Nation Editor Time Magazine PHOTO: Pulitzer
The U.S., though founded by Europeans fleeing persecution, now largely reflects the will of its Chief Executive: subverting decades of asylum law and imposing a policy that separated migrant toddlers from their parents and placed children behind cyclone fencing. Trump floated the possibility of revoking birthright citizenship, characterized migrants as “stone cold criminals” and ordered 5,800 active-duty U.S. troops to reinforce the southern border. Italy refused to allow ships carrying rescued migrants to dock at its ports. Hungary passed laws to criminalize the act of helping undocumented people. Anti-immigrant leaders saw their political power grow in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Italy and Hungary, and migration continued to be a factor in the Brexit debate in the U.K.
These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
The unmitigated human rights and racial justice disasters of the Trump years and the troubling difficulty the Biden Administration has had getting beyond that debacle reinforce the accuracy and inevitability of what Haley and Dan are saying.
The future will belong to those nations that learn how to welcome migrants, treat them humanely, screen and accept many of them in a timely, orderly, minimally bureaucratic manner, and utilize their energy, determination, ingenuity, and life skills to build a better future for all.
The open question is whether the U.S. will be among those successful future powers. Or, will the cruel, unrealistic, racially-driven, restrictionist nativism of the GOP right drive us to continue to waste inordinate resources fruitlessly trying to deny, deter, and prevent the inevitable, thus ultimately forcing us down to second or even third tier status. TBD.
In the meantime, here’s another great article from the PPH about how Mainers have led the fight to protect individual rights and freedoms while advancing American progressive values in contravention of the authoritarian neo-fascism sweeping over some so-called “red” states.
Maine has tacked left as nation lurches right in culture wars
Embracing the state motto – ‘I lead’ – Maine lawmakers led in a different direction, safeguarding and expanding access to abortion and gender-affirming care.
Good ideas require dynamic, timely implementation. So far, that hasn’t been a strong point for the Biden Administration on immigration and human rights. Public Realm
From Asylum Access & Reuters:
#US is looking to open a resettlement pathway to #refugees in #Mexico who arrived before June 6, 2023.
“The plan under discussion would allow qualifying migrants approved for refugee status to enter via the U.S. refugee resettlement program, which is only available to applicants abroad (…) refugees receive immediate work authorization and government benefits such as housing and employment assistance”
This is a fine idea, albeit one that many experts recommended that the Biden Administration implement in a robust way upon taking office in January 2021.
If properly and generously carried out, it could 1) stop the “endless wait” for refugees stuck in Mexico; 2) relieve border pressure; 3) avoid the backlogs at EOIR and the Asylum Office; 4) admit individuals as refugees with immediate work authorization and a clear part to green cards and citizenship; 5) pave the way for more robust refugee processing elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere; 6) avoid the political stunts of GOP nativist governors; and 7) be much harder for restrictionists to challenge in court.
Past programs similar to this in the Western Hemisphere (with the exceptions of Cubans in the 1960s) have largely failed because they have been too 1) limited, 2) slow, and 3) bureaucratized.
From the Reuters article, it appears to me that the Administration is ready to repeat all three of the foregoing mistakes, assuming the program even gets off the ground at all.
It’s definitely a good idea with promise. But realizing that promise depends on the details of implementation. In this case, they don’t sound promising. Stay tuned!
The U.S. labor market is on a gravity-defying streak. The June jobs report was a tad softer than expected, but the overall trend is so strong that recession fears are fading. Hiring remains solid across many industries, including construction, and companies are largely holding on to their workers.
There’s growing optimism that the country can avoid a downturn. One key reason this is possible is the surge of new workers. Nearly 4 million more people are employed now than just before the pandemic hit. That’s more families with steady incomes to spend, which helps explain the vigorous sales of everything from cars to gardening supplies. There has also been a big upshift in the labor force since the pandemic: Low-paying hospitality employment still hasn’t recovered, as workers have traded up to higher-paying business, health-care and warehouse work. This has brought another boost to incomes and an important mental shift as more workers who used to hop from job to job now see themselves on a steady career path.
. . . .
In contrast, over 2 million more Hispanics are employed now, over 800,000 more Asian Americans and over 750,000 more African Americans. This same trend played out just before the pandemic. Companies were also complaining then that they could not find workers, and experts were saying the nation was at “full employment.” Yet month after month, Black and Hispanic people (largely women) kept entering the labor force and getting jobs. It’s also notable that over 2 million more foreign-born people are employed now than before the pandemic. This means that more than half of the new workers have been immigrants.
If the U.S. economy ends up having a soft landing, it will largely be because immigrants and people of color have kept entering the labor force — helping to keep production going, consumption solid and wage growth (and inflation) cooling to a more sustainable level.
What’s going on is partly a result of low unemployment, what economists often dub a “tight” labor market. Black and Hispanic people often do not get hired until late in a recovery. In the past year, there has also been a strong uptick in jobs in government and health care, sectors in which women of color have historically found employment opportunities. Employers have also expanded their hiring searches, improved pay and benefits, and removed requirements for college degrees for many positions. All of this has helped expand opportunities. This past spring, for the first time, Black Americans were as likely to be employed as White Americans.
“There is sufficient demand that employers aren’t discriminating. They need workers,” economist William Spriggs told me in a conversation shortly before his death last month.
Spriggs spent years pointing out that too many experts were overlooking how many more people of color were ready to work if only employers would give them a chance and the jobs weren’t dead-end ones. As other economists were stunned by the labor market in recent months, especially the gains for Black people, Spriggs had a different take. “It’s not that the labor market is ‘overheated,’” he said. “It’s that the labor market is getting closer to how it’s supposed to work in a textbook.”
Yet, these groups receive little credit, to a large extent because of racist myths perpetrated and spread by GOP nativists like DeSantis, Trump, Abbott, Miller, Bannon, and many others. Too often these myths and intentionally misleading statements are accepted at “face value” by the media.
With a tight labor market, one might well ask why the U.S. is spending billions trying to detain and discourage refugees from applying for asylum at the border? Why are we dumping on individuals who, despite the mischaracterizations by both parties, are “trying to do things the right way” by applying through the legal asylum system?
Seems like the resources would better be devoted to figuring our how to fairly and generously process refugees, asylees (an important source of legal immigration), and other immigrants in a fair, robust, and timely manner, both at the border and abroad! Get these folks into legal, work authorized status faster so that they can contribute and help our economy grow!
I’m sure many of you remember a childhood game called “Mother, May I?” An authority figure would say, “Jeff, take two giant steps forward!” But before doing so, the player would have to ask “Mother, may I?” Those two giant steps could only be taken if the response was “Yes, you may.” Otherwise, if the player took the steps, they were out.
If we were to take this game, direct the request and reply through an app called CBPOne, and make the stakes life or death, the result would be something very similar to the Biden Administration’s latest regulations governing asylum at the southern border.
The new rules are at odds with U.S. law. Congress has already authorized asylum seekers to take the necessary steps up to the border. The very first sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (the U.S. asylum statute) says that any noncitizen “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and irrespective of their immigration status may apply for asylum.
And yet, not Congress but two Executive Branch agencies have now added a “Mother, May I?” type obstacle for those seeking to do what the law has long permitted. Under the new rules, the asylum seeker must first ask through a glitchy government phone app for specific permission (in the form of an appointment) before striding up to the border. Otherwise, the asylum seeker is simply not eligible for asylum, no matter how serious the danger they face if removed to their country.
How can Executive Branch agencies issue regulations that so directly contradict the statute those agencies are charged with enforcing? That question is the basis of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies in U.S. District Court.1
Our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners’ arguments. We are in good company, as the USCIS asylum officers’ union filed a persuasive amicus brief as well.2 This means that groups representing the views of the only government officials authorized to decide asylum claims in this country (i.e. immigration judges and asylum officers) are united in opposing the new rule.
In our Round Table brief, we specifically take issue with the government’s false labeling of the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption” of asylum ineligibility.
Real rebuttable presumptions have long existed in our asylum regulations. For example, there is a rebuttable presumption that someone who has been persecuted in the past for reasons that give rise to an asylum claim may be persecuted again, unless major changes have since taken place in their country. There is also a presumption that one whose persecutor is the government of their country can’t find safety by simply relocating within that same country.
As you’ve probably noticed, there is a logic that flows in each of those examples from the known facts to the presumption. It is logical to assume that someone who was harmed before might be harmed again if conditions remain the same. The government may rebut the presumption by showing a fundamental change of the type that would put those fears to rest. There is a similar logic in concluding that a government’s reach extends throughout the country it governs. Again, the government may rebut that presumption through evidence establishing an exception to this general rule. In both of these examples, the fact established increases the likelihood of the fact presumed.
Now let’s return to the new rule. Say that a person faces brutal persecution on account of their political opinion if returned to their country. How does the fact that they couldn’t or didn’t get an appointment through a phone app in any way create a presumption that they are not in need of humanitarian protection? There can’t be a presumption if the fact established (i.e. that the person didn’t obtain an appointment through the app) is completely unrelated to the fact presumed (i.e. the person is not in need of asylum).
I believe it matters greatly whether the rule is considered a bar or a presumption. It is Congress that decides who may apply for asylum in this country. Thus, a regulation that admittedly creates a new bar to asylum (particularly where that bar is in direct contradiction to Congressional intent) is likely to be rejected as ultra vires by the courts. And in fact, a very similar bar to this one published by the Trump Administration was enjoined for just that reason.3 Agencies cannot usurp Congress’s role by legislating in the guise of rulemaking.
By attempting to disguise the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption,” the agencies seek to increase the odds of the ban passing muster this time. That is exactly the Department of Justice’s argument in its response brief: that its new rule is completely different from the prior administration’s “bar,” because according to DOJ, the new rule “does not treat manner of entry as dispositive, but instead creates a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome…”4
So the “Mother, may I?” regs clearly overstep the agencies’ legal authority. But do they create an equal barrier for all asylum seekers? The answer is no. As stated, the rules require one intending to apply for asylum to first obtain an appointment. Of course, there are more asylum seekers than there are available appointments. As mentioned, the government app through which one tries to secure an appointment, CBPOne, is full of glitches. As Prof. Austin Kocher recently noted, those glitches have impacted who gets those appointments:
the initial release of CBP One was accompanied by a variety of tech failures that did not necessarily undermine CBP’s ability to fill up its appointments calendar for asylum seekers but did create barriers to entry for migrants who were less tech savvy, could not access high-speed Internet, were part of larger families, or, either directly or indirectly, migrants who were darker-skinned or Black.5
That last point refers to the app’s problems with facial recognition that have caused it to reject applicants who are not white.6 As a result of these and other reported scheduling inequities, Sen. Edward Markey wrote to DHS back in February urging the agency to cease use of the app, due to its inaccessibility to many intending applicants, adding that “we cannot allow it to create a tiered system that treats asylum seekers differently based on their economic status — including the ability to pay for travel — language, nationality, or race.”.7
Instead of “ditching the app” as the Senator requested, the agencies instead added an exception to the bar if the noncitizen “demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not possible to access or use the DHS scheduling system due to language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle.”8
However, there is a big catch. Pursuant to the rule, this exception is only available to those without an appointment who make their claim at an actual port of entry. But observers at points of entry along the southern border report that “practices by U.S. and Mexican authorities restricted asylum seekers without CBP One appointments from physically reaching U.S. ports of entry to make protection requests.”9 So the exception written into the regs is not available in reality, as one seeking to claim it is restricted from reaching the port of entry where it must be claimed, and is barred from claiming the exception if they cross the border elsewhere.
If you’re wondering how the new system is working out, according to one report, it has resulted in asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the Laredo port of entry being robbed, kidnapped, and held for ransom.10 Another article described how some of those “lucky” enough to have obtained CBPOne appointments at Laredo claimed “that Mexican officials in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas, had threatened to hold them and make them miss their scheduled asylum appointments unless they paid them.”11 As a result, CBPOne appointments were temporarily suspended for the Laredo port of entry.
One excluded from asylum under these rules may still seek two types of lesser protections called withholding of removal.12 Oddly, under U.S. law, these alternative protections are much more difficult than asylum to qualify for, yet provide far fewer benefits. Asylum is an actual legal status which extends to the spouse and minor children of the asylee, allows for travel abroad, and puts recipients on a path to permanent residence and then citizenship in this country. By contrast, withholding of removal arises when an individual is ordered deported, and only blocks their deportation to a country in which persecution or torture is likely to occur, but otherwise leaves the recipient in limbo. The protection provides no path to family reunification or permanent status, and no right to travel abroad to visit the family members from whom the recipient is left indefinitely separated.
Nevertheless, withholding of removal does save lives. But not satisfied with simply barring asylum, the new regulations also make these lesser forms of protection far more difficult to access. This is because one must first pass something called a “credible fear interview” in order to even have the right to apply for withholding of removal in this country. As those interviews are conducted within days of the asylum-seeker’s arrival, in custody, often before the applicant has had the opportunity to obtain legal counsel or evidence, and possibly while suffering from the effects of persecution, the credible fear standard was intentionally designed to be a low one. The idea is to allow people who might genuinely be at risk the opportunity to fully develop their cases in a full removal proceeding, while only quickly removing those lacking legitimate claims.
But the new regulations raise the burden of proof by requiring the applicant at this very early stage to demonstrate a “reasonable fear” of persecution, which USCIS describes as the exact same standard required for a grant of asylum – i.e. “well-founded fear.13 Again, the lower credible fear standard being replaced was created solely because it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to prove more under the conditions faced by such recent arrivals. This intended safeguard has thus been completely undermined, as one who might only be a day or two in the country must now present a full-blown asylum claim just to earn the chance to have a hearing.
The new process requires non-lawyers to satisfy a complex legal standard they won’t understand, often without the time to seek legal advice or compile the evidence necessary to meet the heightened burden. I have no doubt that the process will result in genuine refugees being denied protection. And once again, the entire reason for placing applicants at such heightened risk is their not having obtained an appointment on a problematic phone app.
Why does the Biden Administration believe all this is necessary? In a recent column, Jamelle Bouie addressed the vows of some Republican presidential candidates to eliminate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship through executive order.14 In addition to presenting a compelling argument as to why this cannot legally be done, Bouie included in his column a wonderful quote from Frederick Douglass: “The outspread wings of the American Eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.”
In case the Biden Administration is wondering if it can champion that same sentiment today, in lieu of its convoluted attempt to ban protection to those deserving of it under our laws, the answer is: “Yes, you may.”
(Much thanks to attorneys Ashley Vinson Crawford and Steven Schulman of the law firm of Akin Gump for representing the group of former Immigration Judges and BIA Members on our amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary.)
Copyright 2023, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, No. 18-cv-06810-JST, N.D. Cal. (Filed May 11, 2023).
See Britain Eakin, “Asylum Officers, Ex-Judges Back Suit on Biden Asylum Rule,” Law360, June 8, 2023.
East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that the Trump Administration’s asylum bar was inconsistent with our asylum laws).
Defendants’ Reply Brief, East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden, (June 30, 2023) at 8.
Austin Kocher, “Glitches in the Digitization of Asylum: How CBP One Turns Migrants’ Smartphones into Mobile Borders,” mdpi.com, June 20, 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/6/149, section 4.
Melissa del Bosque, “Facial Recognition Bias Frustrates Black Asylum Applicants to US,” The Guardian, Feb. 8, 2023,
One form of withholding covers persecution for specified reasons; the other applies to torture.
See Asylum Officer Basic Training Course Lesson Plan, “Reasonable Fear and Torture Determinations,” (USCIS, RAIO, 2017) at 11 (“The ‘reasonable possibility’ standard is the same standard required to establish eligibility for asylum (the ‘well- founded fear’ standard).”)
Jamelle Bouie, “Opinion: What Frederick Douglass Knew That Trump and DeSantis Don’t,” NYT, June 30, 2023.
JULY 5, 2023
***********************
It’s an existential problem for our nation when a Dem Administration claims as “success:” failure to recognize the rights of asylum seekers, intentionally evading asylum law, and endangering the lives of asylum seekers!
Lest anyone think the confusion, unfairness, and disorder caused by the Biden/Harris failure to implement competent, professional, expert leadership on human rights is “overhyped,” here’s an “in person” report from Professor Lenni Benson of NY Law School, founder of Safe Passage Project, and a widely reknowned “practical expert” on asylum and human rights.
Professor Lenni B.Benson Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School Founder, Safe Passage Project PHOTO: NYLS website
Sharing an excellent Blog post by retired IJ Jeff Chase on why the CBP One app may be endangering asylum applicants. See below.
Related to the CBP One app was a hearing I observed last Friday, June 30, 2023 in NY City.
A self-represented individual was asked by the IJ “were you admitted or inspected” by the government, the Respondent through a Mandarin interpreter said “Yes, through the CBP app.” The IJ paused. The OPLA attorney was visible on Webex. She was silent.
The IJ said “I will note your statement for the record, I find you removable as charged for not having been inspected or admitted.” [The Respondent had declined an opportunity to find an attorney.]
I am sure CBP will argue that entry under the app is not an inspection or admission and I haven’t looked carefully at the regulations but the issue is there to perhaps be litigated.
The other interesting twist in this particular case was that the government then told the Judge that she could see the Respondent had already completed biometrics and submitted an asylum application, but no application was in either her file nor the Court’s.
The IJ asked, do you have a copy?
The respondent: “On my phone.”
The IJ set a call-up date hearing to have the respondent print out the application and file it with the court in person.
I didn’t get a chance to speak to the Respondent, but I wondered if he had perhaps thought his interview with CBP was his asylum application or if he had filed affirmatively with USCIS.
Just sharing with this community.
Confusion abounds.
“Confusion abounds!” 🤯Why, rather than clarifying and applying the law, would the Administration intentionally create confusion and a host of unnecessary “litigatable issues?”
Why would they create delay by supposedly having applications for asylum “filed” but unavailable electronically to either ICE or EOIR?
Why didn’t the Administration recruit and hire real “practical experts” like Lenni Benson and her colleagues to straighten out the asylum system at the border, restore the rule of law, and reform and repopulate the critically important, currently dysfunctional, Immigration Courts and the BIA with well-qualified progressive judges, merit-selected experts in human rights and practical problem solving?
Pleased to join my friend “Sir Jeffrey” in giving a big “shout out” to our Round Table colleagues and superstar NDPA attorneys Steve Schulman, Ashley Vinson Crawford, and their pro bono team at Akin Gump for representing us on the amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary!
*********************
Anybody naive enough to believe the “party line” from Administration wonks about “success at the border” should heed this “hot off the presses” report from Mica Rosenberg @ Reuters. It confirms the legal and humanitarian disaster at the border resulting from two plus years of mismanagement of asylum by Mayorkas, Garland, and the rest of the Biden immigration politicos who havefailed to undo the humanitarian and legal mess left behind by White Nationalist Stephen Miller and the rest of the Trumpist scofflaws!
Mica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, Reuters
Mica writes:
We examined the impact of the Biden administration’s new asylum regulation at the U.S.-Mexico border after it replaced the COVID-era Title 42 expulsion policy on May 11.
U.S. officials have said the regulation and other Biden immigration policies, that have opened new legal pathways to the US, have dramatically reduced the number of illegal border crossings.
But in the first month of the new policy, Reuters interviews with more than 50 migrants, U.S. and Mexican officials, a review of court records and previously unreported data found:
More than 100,000 migrants waiting in northern Mexico, many trying to snag an appointment on an oversubscribed government run smartphone app; a sharp drop in people passing their initial asylum screenings; more people in detention and tens of thousands of deportations.
My colleagues visited the mile-long migrant camp in Matamoros, across the river from Brownsville, Texas, where conditions are deteriorating, including cases of sexual assault in the camp, and we also spoke to a father who crossed the border but was speedily deported while his family was allowed into the US.
The report at the above link has many photos illustrating both the cruel stupidity of the Biden program and the amazing resilience of those still hoping, against the odds, to have their legal rights respected and protected by the USG.
Thanks, Mica, for “telling it like it is” and penetrating the “bureaucratic smokescreen” thrown up by the Administration to cover its misdeeds and human rights abuses!🤮
Heather Long @ WashPost writes:
