"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.
WASHINGTON — What if you attempted a coup but people were unwilling to wrap their heads around what you had done?
A year after Jan. 6, 2021, that is the peculiar situation in which Donald Trump finds himself. Instead of being carted off in handcuffs for inciting an insurrection against the United States, or even just being banished from federal office for life by the Senate, the former president instead remains the leader of one of the two major political parties and is openly considering another run for the White House in 2024.
The government is finally taking the threat of far-right militia groups seriously. But the larger threat are the Republican legislators who continue to recklessly undermine democracy
One year ago, he was frantically barricading the doors to the House gallery to keep out the violent mob. Today, he calls the insurrection a “bold-faced lie” and likens the event to “a normal tourist visit”. The story of Andrew Clyde, who represents part of my – heavily gerrymandered – liberal college town in the House of Representatives, is the story of the Republican party in 2021. It shows a party that had the opportunity to break with the anti-democratic course under Donald Trump, but was too weak in ideology and leadership to do so, thereby presenting a fundamental threat to US democracy in 2022 and beyond.
The risk of a coup in the next US election is greater now than it ever was under Trump | Laurence H Tribe
Clyde is illustrative of another ongoing development, the slow but steady takeover of the Republican party by new, and often relatively young, Trump supporters. In 2015, when his massive gun store on the outskirts of town was still flying the old flag of Georgia, which includes the Confederate flag, he was a lone, open supporter of then-presidential candidate Trump, with several large pro-Trump and anti-“fake news” signs adorning his gun store. Five years later, Clyde was elected to the House of Representatives as part of a wave of Trump-supporting novices, mostly replacing Republicans who had supported President Trump more strategically than ideologically.
With his 180-degree turn about the 6 January insurrection, Clyde is back in line with the majority of the Republican base, as a recent UMass poll shows. After initial shock, and broad condemnation, Republicans have embraced the people who stormed the Capitol last year, primarily referring to the event as a “protest” (80%) and to the insurrectionists as “protesters” (62%), while blaming the Democratic party (30%), the Capitol police (23%), and the inevitable antifa (20%) for what happened. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Republicans (75%) believe the country should “move on” from 6 January, rather than learn from it. And although most don’t care either way, one-third of Republicans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who refuses to denounce the insurrection.
Advertisement
Upgrade to Premium and enjoy the app ad-free.
Upgrade to Premium
The increased anti-democratic threat of the Republican party can also be seen in the tidal wave of voting restrictions proposed and passed in 2021. The Brennan Center for Justice counted a stunning 440 bills “with provisions that restrict voting access” introduced across all but one of the 50 US states, the highest number since the Center started tracking them 10 years ago. A total of 34 such laws were passed in 19 different states last year, and 88 bills in nine states are being carried over to the 2022 legislative term. Worryingly, Trump-backed Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen are running for secretary of state in various places where Trump unsuccessfully challenged the results.
. . . .
At the same time, the Republican party has become increasingly united and naked in its extremism, which denies both the anti-democratic character of the 6 January attack and the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency, and is passing an unprecedented number of voter restriction bills in preparation for the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential elections. As long as the White House mainly focuses on fighting “domestic violent extremism”, and largely ignores or minimizes the much more lethal threat to US democracy posed by non-violent extremists, the US will continue to move closer and closer to an authoritarian future.
***************************
You can read both articles in full at the above links.
If you are counting on AG Merrick Garland to “lead the charge” on establishing accountability, your optimism might be tempered by his own failure to “clean house” at DOJ and in particular by his failure to reform his wholly-owned Immigration Court system that was front and center in assisting and carrying out the Trump/Miller White Nationalist assault on the rule of law, primarily targeting individuals of color and the “world’s most vulnerable” seeking justice in our system.
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. This class action presents a due process challenge to the bond procedures used to detain noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the discretionary immigration detention provision. In light of our recent decision in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), we affirm the district court’s declaration that noncitizens “detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are entitled to receive a bond hearing at which the Government must prove the alien is either dangerous by clear and convincing evidence or a risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence.” Brito v. Barr, 415 F. Supp. 3d 258, 271 (D. Mass. 2019). We conclude, however, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief in favor of the class, and we otherwise vacate the district court’s declaration as advisory. Our reasoning follows.
And, he didn’t disappoint, at least on that score!
No sooner was the ink dry on my last post, than Ol’ Merrick gave me a classic example of why come “panic time” next Fall, when the Dem bigwigs come knocking on the door asking their “old reliable” progressive base to open their pocketbooks and get out the vote, they might find that the windows are dark and nobody’s home! If you don’t exist for the first 19 months of a Dem Administration, it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t be “on vacation” for the next three!
If Dems want to continue as a viable force in American politics, at some point they will need leaders who recognize the difference between “political strategies” and “values.” Standing up for the human and due process rights immigrants and all other “persons” in the U.S. is the latter, not the former!
To reiterate Garland’s position in this and related cases:
No due process for immigrants;
Keep the “New American Gulag” full of non-dangerous individuals;
Promote wasteful litigation, inconsistency, and chaos in my wholly-owed Immigration Courts that continue to operate as if “Gauleiter Stephen” were still calling the shots, and clutter the Article IIIs with my poor work product.
Nice touch! (Although, to be fair, it’s the same regressive, anti-due process, racially tinged position taken by both the Obama Administration and the Trump regime.)
Seems like an Administration that claims to be litigating, to date not very successfully (surprised?), to vindicate the voting rights and civil rights of African-Americans, Latinos, and other minorities might want to rethink arguing for the “Dred Scottification” of migrants, primarily persons of color. Maybe, some right-wing Federal Judge will start citing Garland back to Garland to say that “all persons aren’t really persons.” Sounds like something Rudy would say on a Sunday talk show (except that nobody invites him any more).
“Let’s see, if ‘humans’ are ‘persons,’ and ‘all persons’ have Constitutional rights to due process, then immigrants must not be ‘humans!’ Or, maybe we should argue that they are only 3/5 of a ‘person’ with half the rights! Chief Justice Taney would be. proud of me!” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
And, if you are wondering what the 34 pages of opaque legal gobbledygook and all out assault on logic and the English language in the majority opinion means, I’ll simplify it.
“We think it’s reasonable and appropriate that you plaintiffs who admittedly have had your Constitutional rights systematically violated by your litigation opponent should be required to seek redress on a case-by-case basis before a dysfunctional ‘court’ wholly-owned, staffed, and operated by your opponent located within a Government bureaucracy that has been litigating against your Constitutional rights over three Administrations!”
There, you have it! 34 pages of intentionally impenetrable “judgespeak,” legalese, and doublespeak condensed to one sentence of fewer than 65 words!
Anybody (besides me) think that maybe, just maybe, there could be a Constitutional problem with “courts” owned and operated by a litigating party? Certainly seems above Garland’s pay grade to trifle with such trivialities, even when human lives and freedom are on the line.
Nope, better to just regurgitate the “Miller Lite” positions from the “restrictionists’ playbook” left behind by your Trumpy predecessors. And, for a good measure, why not even use some of their lawyers to argue them? But, strangely, those folks don’t seem to be very convincing when, on rare occasions, they are sent out to argue for more humane and reasonable treatment of immigrants! Perhaps their hearts, and heads, just aren’t in it.
My congrats to Circuit Judge Lipez (concurring and dissenting), the only one to actually get this one right and be able to explain it in understandable terms. When you have the right answer, you don’t have to obfuscate as much to cover up your fuzzy thinking (or lack thereof).
Gotta love it! Garland runs an unconstitutional bond system that infringes on individuals’ right to freedom, while improperly shoving those not accused of crimes into his “New American Gulag.” Yet, the panel manages to talk itself out of granting effective relief! Truly remarkable!
If the judges in the majority had actually practiced before the Immigration Courts they might know:
1) Bond cases are hard to appeal because the IJ isn’t required to provide a final rationale for his or her decision until after an appeal has been taken;
2) By regulation, bond hearings aren’t even required to be “on the record” (although many of us chose to nevertheless put them on the record for the convenience and protection all concerned);
3) The BIA has a “general practice” of not adjudicating bond appeals by respondents until after the detained merits hearing has taken place, whereupon the BIA finds the bond appeal to be “moot;”
4) OIL often encourages DHS to release individuals who sue in District Court to moot the case.
I’m sure that Garland’s BIA which has, on occasion, blown off the Supremes and declined to follow Circuit Court orders on remand, will promptly fashion a very well-reasoned progressive precedent vindicating respondents’ rights.
Then again, maybe they will just take whatever position that their “boss” Garland wants to litigate in behalf of his “partners” at DHS Enforcement.
What do you think Garland’s personally owned and operated courts will do?
Better Judges for a Better America —starting with the BIA! And, while you’re at it, how about throwing in an Attorney General committed to vindicating the legal and human rights of all persons!
So, NDPA, take up, the cudgel of justice and flood Garland’s courts and the Article IIIs with as many individual “exhaustion of remedies” cases as it takes to obtain justice or grind Garland’s corrupt system to a halt!
Garland would “rather fight than get it right.” So, take advantage of his limited litigation skills, tunnel vision, and the mediocre talent he employs to do his bidding. Take the fight to him, as he wishes!
Continually pummeling him in court is apparently the only way to get Garland to pay attention to progressives!
Additionally, you should, of course, keep applying for Immigration Judgeships, BIA Judgeships, Asylum Officer positions, and other key jobs where you can make a difference and save some lives.
Garland’s tone-deaf system must be attacked from all angles until it collapses under its own weight. An Attorney General who obviously would like to put migrants, their humanity, their rights, and YOU, their advocates, “out of sight, out of mind” so he can think great thoughts about the “really important things in life,” is eventually going to find that those he ignores and condemns without fair trial will be the ONLY thing on his plate and occupying his time!
When leadership lacks the vision, courage, and skills necessary to promote change, it falls to those at all levels of society and our justice system to assert the pressure and impetus for that essential change to take place! Keep pushing and pressing until “the powers that be” can’t ignore and marginalize you any more!
Vanita Gupta, Lucas Guttentag, and Kristin Clarke, what on earth do you do with yourselves all day long, now that you have removed yourselves from the battle for civil rights, equal justice,and racial justice in America? I guess there are lots of papers to push and meaningless meetings to attend in Garland’s broken DOJ bureaucracy.
I’d say things haven’t changed much. But, I actually think they have gotten measurably worse since “my days” at the DOJ. And, that’s saying a lot!
The “Gauleiter”s” policies of “transportation” of legal asylum seekers to danger zones or death has, to a totally unacceptable extent, been adopted by the Biden Administration. America’s cowardly, immoral, illegal, and unethical treatment of these vulnerable individuals will haunt our nation for generations to come! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.
According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.
However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.
The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021
Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.
Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.
Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.
Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.
. . . .
Outcome on Asylum Cases
Number
Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ
249,413
26%
Other Relief, etc.
236,889
24%
Removal Order
403,252
42%
Voluntary Departure Order
77,998
8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions
967,552
100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ
599,772
46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ
236,889
18%
Removal Order by IJ
403,252
31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ
77,998
6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions
1,317,911
100%
. . . .
****************
Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.
Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!
And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”
Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.
The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.
There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!
Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.
Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”
Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?
Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:
Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)
On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!
Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.
In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.
Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!
🎅🏻🎁🧸🎄😇“Happy Holidays from the U.S. Government! Don’t these folks know they could avoid this fate if they only would take our advice and ‘due in place’ — out of sight, out of mind.” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
Arelis R. Hernandez Southern Border Reporter Washington Post
EL PASO — Chaos, confusion and disillusionment marked the experience of many of the first asylum seekers to be enrolled in the Biden administration’s revised “Remain in Mexico” program, saying they understood little about what was happening or why they were selected.
The Trump-era program — formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) — returns border-crossers to Mexico to await the outcomes of their asylum claims and resumed earlier this month under court order. Although the Biden administration said it has made changes to the program that make it more humane, several of the first enrollees interviewed by The Washington Post said they did not understand documents they were asked to sign, did not have access to lawyers and were puzzled about why they were not released along with some of their compatriots.
Three men — two from Nicaragua and one from Venezuela — who were among the more than 160 migrants enrolled so far, said they had been robbed or extorted before crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The men, who were fleeing political persecution, said they hoped for relief in the United States, but instead felt as if they had won a raffle they never entered.
“I told the asylum officer I’d rather be in a U.S. detention center than be sent back to Mexico,” said Pedro, a 27-year-old asylum seeker from Nicaragua. “It’s dangerous for us.”
(The Washington Post is identifying the men only by their first names because they fear they might jeopardize their cases by speaking publicly.)
Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is still trying to terminate MPP, even though it was ordered to reimplement it by a federal judge. The administration lost an appeal of the ruling this week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Louisiana upheld the lower court decision. The circuit court order said the Biden administration erred when it issued a memo earlier this year terminating the program, “affecting billions of dollars and countless people.” The program, which is in effect in one border community and accepting only men, will soon expand to six more communities and could soon include families.
[‘Remain in Mexico’ program begins in El Paso amid skepticism from advocates]
Advocates say that MPP subjects migrants to a policy as hazardous to their lives as the reasons that prompted them to flee to the United States for protection. They say the revised version of the program is as flawed as it was under the Trump administration, when the New York-based nonprofit Human Rights First tracked more than 1,500 “violent attacks” against migrants.
“The Biden administration’s revamped ‘Remain in Mexico’ is already presenting security and due process concerns we saw under the Trump administration,” said Julia Neusner, who interviewed 16 MPP enrollees for Human Rights First. “I anticipate this process will deny people their due process rights and accessing counsel. This policy is inherently dangerous and I expect it to cause tremendous suffering as the rollout expands.”
. . . .
*******************
Read the full article at the link.
”Let ‘Em Die In Mexico!” What a thoughtful way for the world’s richest and most powerful nation to recognize and honor the birth of Christ. Doubt that Jesus would approve, though! He’d more likely be found among the “floaters” than with the arrogant, privileged, inhumane politicos and judges who came up with this idea and then enabled it!
Completely unnecessary! The incoming Biden Administration had the blueprints to reestablish due process and the rule of law at the border and to start robust, realistic, expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries. The practical human rights/immigration experts who could have pulled it off were out there.
The Administration could have “hit the ground running” with bold innovative actions, practical expert leadership, and a show of competence and humanity. But, they didn’t!
Instead, Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland dissed the progressive experts, ignored their recommendations, and froze them out of key judicial and leadership positions, preferring instead to use modified versions of “proven to fail deterrence-only programs” administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers. (There is an important legal doctrine of “mixed motive” that politicos, bureaucrats, and bad judges often choose to ignore when it suits them.)
Not surprisingly, this ridiculous, muddled “Miller Lite” approach has been spectacularly unsuccessful! Predictably, flows of desperate refugees, generated largely by circumstances outside our immediate control (contrary to restrictionist myths reinforced by some enforcement aficionados and mindlessly repeated by some mainstream media) have continued. Humans have continued to needlessly suffer and die. Backlogs have grown without credible plans to address them. The rule of law and the U.S. justice system (led by failed Immigration Courts, but also including poorly functioning and too often “brain dead” jurists at all levels of the Federal Judiciary) has continued to flounder and lose credibly. The “die in place and never darken our doors” message delivered by Gauleiter Miller and his acolytes, cluelessly repeated by VP Harris, hasn’t convinced anyone. Would YOU basically accept an invitation to “commit slow suicide by persecution rather than taking a chance on survival.”
And, also predictably, nobody is pleased or supportive of the Biden Administration’s inept and disingenuous approach. From hard core racist nativists to liberal asylum advocates, nobody, but nobody, outside the Administration’s party line flackies, supports this approach! Indeed, nobody in the Administration can even explain what they are doing on any particular day in a coherent manner.
Humanity, moral courage, common sense, and the rule of law might be taking a holiday. But death and despair don’t.
“Make the record” to fight the ignorant nonsense and grotesque misconstruction of the asylum law and country conditions by the Third Circuit & far, far too many Federal Judges & Bureaucrats with this authoritative report authored by Natalie Gonnella-Platts, Jenny Villatoro, and Laura Collins of the George W. Bush Institute:
No Justice: Gender-based Violence and Migration in Central America
Gender-based violence affects one in three women worldwide, making it an urgent and important policy challenge. Violence against women and girls is often excluded from conversations on the nexus of Central American migration, regional development, and domestic immigration reform.
Key Excerpts:
. . . .
Though there has been increasing focus from US and international influencers on the levels of violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (known as the Northern Triangle) and its impact on migration, an adequate response to the gendered differences in the ways violence is perpetrated remains limited and at times nonexistent.
This needs to change, especially since gender-based violence within the Northern Triangle constitutes a daily threat to women and girls—one that has been significantly worsened by corruption, weak institutions, and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators. At individual and community levels, gender-based violence drives women and girls to be displaced internally, migrate to the United States, or a somber third path—death either by femicide or suicide. At national levels, it seriously inhibits security, opportunity, and development.
As circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, gender-based violence has a direct influence on migration flows across the region and is deeply tangled with cyclical challenges of inequity and poverty. For those who choose to seek assistance or flee their communities, high rates of revictimization and bias further obstruct access to justice and safety.
Until policies and programs respond to the serious violations of agency and human rights perpetuated against women and girls (and within systems and society at large), instability in and migration from the Northern Triangle only stand to grow.
As the United States and the international community consider a comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform, proposed strategies must anchor the status and safety of women and girls at the center of solutions.
. . . .
In Guatemala, teenage girls face a substantial risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.7
. . . .
Guatemala: In Guatemala, about 8 of every 1,000 women and girls were the victim of violence in 2020. Thirty women were murdered on average each month last year, or almost one per day, the lowest rate in the last 10 years. Reported rape cases averaged 14 per day.17 One of the most extreme and recognizable forms of gender-based violence is sex slavery. According to a report by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and UNICEF: “A combination of gangs, crime families, and drug trafficking organizations run sex trafficking rings in Guatemala that may involve some 48,500 victims.”18
Women in Indigenous and rural communities may have it even worse. For example, Indigenous women in Guatemala face multiple layers of discrimination, including a history of repression and genocide.
During the genocidal Guatemalan civil war that lasted from 1960 to 1996, state sanctioned mass rape during massacres was used to repress the Indigenous populations—with offenses committed publicly and bodies often left on display with the intent to instill terror in the Mayan communities.19 Truth commissions state that more than 100,000 Indigenous women were raped and forced into sex slavery.20
State-sanctioned and state-accepted gendered violence may have contributed to a culture that tolerates violence against women. Guatemalans were the most accepting of gender-based violence in a 2014 survey of Latin American countries by Vanderbilt University, while El Salvador came in second.21
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the risk of violence to women and girls in the Northern Triangle, as it has in every region
of the world. Exploited by gangs and others, lock-downs have forced those most at risk for violence to shelter in proximity to their abusers. All three countries within the region have reported sizable increases in intrafamily violence since the start of the pandemic. El Salvador has also seen a notable increase in intrafamily femicide.
. . . .
Coupled with the trauma already experienced by survivors, each of these factors contributes to a lack of trust in institutions, high levels of impunity for perpetrators, and a vicious cycle of repeat violence against women and girls.
Faced with this dire reality, women and girls often have three choices: (1) report and face disbelief, (2) stay and risk additional violence, or (3) flee.
. . . .
Women and girls undertake this risky journey with no guarantee of legal protection in the United States. But they come because the horrors they face at home are so much worse.
It’s important to remember that seeking asylum
is often the only legal means that migrants who qualify have of entering the United States. Although requesting asylum is legal, the path to asylum is not
safe. An understanding of legal rights and access to services—including health, trauma, and legal support—also remain out of reach for many female migrants, furthering cycles of exploitation.
Current US refugee and asylum law does not recognize gender-based violence as its own category warranting protection. According to the American Bar Association, US protections for victims of gender-based violence are built upon 20 years of advocacy and sometimes favorable legal opinions.54 These protections are tenuous, with any presidential administration able to roll back the decisions made under its predecessor. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently reinstated prior precedent for gen- der-based violence asylum requests and announced that the Department of Justice would pursue a formal rule.55 But even this could be reversed in the future.
Until legislation enshrines gender-based violence as a condition warranting humanitarian protection, the United States will continue to turn away women and girls who merit refuge.
. . . .
The Northern Triangle, Mexico, and the United States are at a crossroads. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras can either take advantage of a young population of prime working age by promoting pol- icies that create a safe, stable environment where women and girls can fully participate, or they can continue on a path that is leading to substantial lev- els of gender-based violence, instability, migration, and economic stagnation.
As research continuously demonstrates, when empowered, active, and engaged, women and girls are a critical catalyst for security and prosperity. Countries with higher levels of gender equity are more peaceful and stable overall.66 Gender equality can provide better outcomes for children, increased labor productivity, lower poverty rates, and reduced levels of violence.67
In seeking to secure a brighter future across the Western Hemisphere, immigration and develop- ment policies must include solutions to address gender inequity and gender-based violence. As current circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, stability and prosperity are not possible without them.
*****************
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Many thanks to my good friend and “founding mother of the NDPA,” Deb Sanders for bringing this to my attention.
The Bush Institute has done some great “practical scholarship” on gender-based asylum, exposing many of the lies and misinformation upon which Government policies have been based, particularly GOP nativist policies and the overtly misogynistic attack on migrant women of color by the Trump regime.
And let’s not forget that Ms. Chavez-Chilil is actually one of the lucky ones! She got a chance to make her claim and was awarded life-saving protection by an Immigration Judge under the CAT, albeit protection that leaves her unnecessarily and perpetually “in limbo” — ineligible to fully join our society and maximize her own human potential for everyone’s benefit.
By contrast, thousands of women and girls (also men and boys) are insanely, illegally, and immorally “orbited” back to danger zones without any opportunity to even make a claim and without any legitimate process whatsoever, let alone due process!
Why this is important:
Compelling documentation and cogent arguments will win individual cases and save lives;
We can build case law precedent for gender-based asylum grants;
We must make a clear historical record of which jurists and bureaucrats stood up for the rule of law and the humanity of refugee women and which of them purposely have aligned themselves with the “dark side of history.” See, e.g., Chief Justice Roger Taney.
Why is the Biden Administration mindlessly and immorally attempting to “deter” legal asylum seekers from seeking to save their own lives? What’s the excuse for treating a moral and legal requirement under domestic and international law as a “bogus political strategy option” rather than the legal obligation it is? Why was the DOJ “pushing” a legally wrong, corrupt, factually wrong position before the Third Circuit? Where’s the expertise? The backbone? The moral courage? The accountability?
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Even death won’t deter desperate humans from seeking refuge. But, it’s certainly diminishing us as a nation! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
At Mexico’s insistence, the Biden administration has agreed to measures designed to help and protect migrants seeking asylum north of the border, but forced by a recent court edict to wait south of the border as their claims are processed.
Once, it may have been difficult to imagine that Mexico had coaxed Washington to adopt humanitarian and other improvements to benefit asylum seekers. For decades, the United States was a beacon of hope for migrants seeking such protections, including those fleeing abuse and violence in Mexico and points farther south.
The Trump administration turned that equation on its head, devising a policy in 2019 known colloquially as “Remain in Mexico” and formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols. It forced asylum seekers awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims into squalid tent camps south of the border. Fewer than 2 percent of those claims were successful — and President Donald Trump seized on the pandemic to shut down the asylum process altogether, using an obscure public health rule called Title 42.
The painful irony of the Migrant Protection Protocols is that they protected no one. Thousands of migrants forced into tent camps south of the border became targets of rapists, violent gangs and kidnappers demanding ransom.
Mr. Biden ended the MPP upon entering office, though he also retained Title 42 to expel many migrants, especially men traveling alone, without an asylum hearing. But a federal judge ordered the program reinstated, and the Supreme Court let the judge’s order stand for now. Even as the administration presses ahead with a legal fight to terminate the policy, officials were compelled to negotiate its renewal with Mexico.
It’s nice to think that the agreed-upon humanitarian, medical and legal protections will make a real difference to migrants who are returned to Mexico under MPP, which started this month. Some steps may help. They will be offered covid-19 vaccines, and the administration has committed to a six-month limit on adjudicating their asylum claims, which under the previous administration often languished for years.
Migrants who would be particularly vulnerable if returned to Mexico, including minors and those at risk of persecution, will be exempted from the program. And asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico will be moved away from two spots across the border from the Texas cities of Laredo and Brownsville, which have been especially dangerous for migrants in the past.
Still, it seems like wishful thinking to believe that a written agreement will erase the squalor and peril that previously awaited asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico. Legal counsel, previously in egregiously short supply, may be even scarcer now; some legal assistance organizations say they won’t cooperate with MPP. And many, if not most, migrants — especially single men apprehended on their own — will continue to be shunted across the border, with no hope of asylum whatsoever under Title 42, just as they have been for the past 20 months.
MPP was a disgrace to the United States; now it is being resurrected. The disgrace will be compounded if the current administration, in coordination with Mexico, fails to ensure muscular protections that ensure that asylum seekers are safe, treated with dignity and receive fair hearings.
********************************
Be assured that innocent folks are dying and will continue to die in Mexico as a result of poorly-qualified right-wing U.S. Judges, feckless politicians, and an Administration that can’t get its act together and “find its spine” on human rights, immigration, and racial justice issues!Failure to recognize the reality of forced migration, create a safe orderly asylum and refugee processing system (as required by law), and rationally expand the categories for legal immigration, will continue to kill, maim, and harm. See,e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/tractor-trailer-full-migrants-crashes-southern-mexico-killing-least-49/
Also, if we want other countries to help in a constructive way, and to regain our position as a leader among democracies, “leading by example” would be most helpful!
December 6 , 2021
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system.
There has been no greater affront to due process, fairness, and transparency than the MPP, or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Instituted under the Trump Administration, it appears to have been motivated by nothing other than cruelty.
Tragically, to comply with a most misguided court order, the Biden Administration, which promised us better, is today not only resuming the program with most of its cruelty intact, but expanding its scope to now apply to nationals of all Western Hemisphere countries.
In 1997, the BIA issued a precedent decision, Matter of S-M-J-, that remains binding on Immigration Judges and ICE prosecutors. In that decision, the BIA recognized our government’s “obligation to uphold international refugee law, including the United States’ obligation to extend refuge where such refuge is warranted. That is, immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done.”1
One of the cases cited by the BIA was Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC,2 a decision which concluded: “We find it astonishing that an attorney for a federal administrative agency could so unblushingly deny that a government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission.”
The MPP policy constitutes the pounding into submission of those who, if found to qualify for asylum, we are obliged by international law to admit, protect, and afford numerous fundamental rights. The “pounding” in this instance is literal, with reports of those lawfully pursuing their right to seek asylum in the U.S. being subject to kidnappings, extortion, sexual abuse, and other
1 Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 728 (BIA 1997). 2 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
threats and physical attacks.3 This is the antithesis of fairness, in which the parties are not afforded equal access to justice.
Concerning due process, a statement issued by the union representing USCIS Asylum Officers, whose members interview asylum applicants subjected to the program, noted that MPP denies those impacted of meaningful access to counsel, and further impedes their ability to gather evidence and access necessary resources to prepare their cases.4 As former judges who regularly decided asylum claims, we can vouch for the importance of representation and access to evidence, including the opinions of country condition experts, in successfully obtaining asylum. Yet according to a report issued during the Trump Administration, only four percent of those forced to remain in Mexico under MPP were able to obtain representation.5 As of course, DHS attorneys are not similarly impeded, the policy thus fails to afford the parties a level playing field.
As to transparency, one former Immigration Judge from our group who attempted to observe MPP hearings under the prior administration was prevented from doing so despite having the consent of the asylum seeker to be present. A letter from our group to the EOIR Director and the Chief Immigration Judge expressing our concern went unanswered.
Like many others who understand the importance that a fair and independent court system plays in a free and democratic society, we had hoped to have seen the last of this cruel policy. And like so many others, we are beyond disappointed to learn that we were wrong. On this day in which MPP is being restarted, we join so many others both within and outside of government in demanding better.
We urge the Biden Administration to end its unwarranted expansion of MPP; to instead do everything in its power to permanently end the program; and to insure that in the interim, any court-ordered restart of MPP first accord with our international treaty obligations towards refugees, and with the requirements of due process and fairness on which our legal system is premised.
Contact Jeffrey S. Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com
3 See the compilation of of publicly reported cases of violent attacks on those returned to Mexico under MPP by Human Rights First, available at https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/ PubliclyReportedMPPAttacks2.19.2021.pdf.
4 American Federation of Government Employees, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119, “Union Representing USCIS Asylum Officers Condemns Re-Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols” (Dec. 2, 2021).
5 Syracuse University, TRAC Immigration, “Contrasting Experiences: MPP vs. Non-MPP Immigration Court Cases,” available at https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/587/.
***********************
Thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for leading this effort. It’s an honor and a privilege to serve with you and our other colleagues on the Round Table!
On page 17, the White House report acknowledges that existing legal instruments for addressing displacement caused by climate change are limited. Encouragingly, the report advises that “the United States should endeavor to maximize their application, as appropriate” to such displaced individuals.
The report next cites both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol and their application to climate-induced displacement, referencing recent UNHCR guidance on the topic. The report then offers three examples in which climate change issues might arise in the asylum context.
First, the report recognizes that where “a government withholds or denies relief from the impacts of climate change to specific individuals who share a protected characteristic in a manner and to a degree amounting to persecution, such individuals may be eligible for refugee status.”
Secondly, the report acknowledges that “adverse impacts of climate change may affect whether an individual has a viable relocation alternative within their country or territory.” This language relates to the regulatory requirement that in order to have a well-founded fear of persecution, an asylum applicant could not avoid persecution by relocating within their country of nationality “if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.”1
The applicable regulations instruct that:
adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. Those factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.2
While the regulatory language is broad and non-exhaustive, the specific mention of climate change factors in the White House report is most welcome, as such circumstances might not otherwise jump out at immigration judges and asylum officers as being relevant to the relocation inquiry.
Thirdly, the White House report states that “[c]limate activists, or environmental defenders, persecuted for speaking out against government inaction on climate change may also have a plausible claim to refugee status.”
Although not specifically cited in the White House report, UNHCR issued guidance on the topic in October 2020.3 Practitioners should file both the White House report and the UNHCR guidance with EOIR and DHS in appropriate cases, as the latter clearly served as an influence for the former, and provides greater detail in its guidance.4 For instance, in discussing how climate change factors can influence internal relocation options, the UNHCR document at paragraph 12 makes clear that the “slow-onset effects of climate change, for example environmental degradation, desertification or sea level rise, initially affecting only parts of a country, may progressively affect other parts, making relocation neither relevant nor reasonable.” This detail not included in the White House report is important; it clarifies that the test for whether relocation is reasonable requires a long view, as opposed to limiting the inquiry to existing conditions, and specifically flags forms of climate change that might otherwise escape an adjudicator’s notice.
Also, in paragraph 10, the UNHCR document’s take on the White House report’s third example is somewhat broader, stating that “[a] well-founded fear of being persecuted may also arise for environmental defenders, activists or journalists, who are targeted for defending, conserving and reporting on ecosystems and resources.”5 UNHCR’s inclusion of journalists as potential targets, and its listing of “defending, conserving, and reporting” as activities which a state might lump into the category of “speaking out” and use as a basis for persecution, should be brought to the attention of adjudicators.
Given how early we are in the process of considering climate change issues in the asylum context, the above-cited language in the White House report is important, as it provides legitimacy to theories still unfamiliar to the ears of those adjudicating, reviewing, and litigating asylum claims. It is hoped that EOIR and DHS will immediately familiarize its employees who are involved in asylum adjudication with the report. And as EOIR and DHS consider next steps in developing guidance and training, it is hoped that they will consider a collaborative approach, including in the discussion those outside of government who have already given the topic a great deal of thought.6
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
8 CFR 208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Id.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Legal considerations regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters, 1 October 2020, https://www.refworld.org/docid/5f75f2734.html, at para. 12.
Although UNHCR’s views on interpreting the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol are not binding on the U.S. Immigration Courts, they have been found by the BIA to be “useful tools in construing our obligations under the Protocol.” Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985). See also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 438-39 (1987).
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
The climate crisis could cause mass displacement as land is left uninhabitable – nations have to work together to plan for this
Thu 11 Nov 2021 03.00 EST
Last modified on Thu 11 Nov 2021 03.02 EST
As scientists wrestle to predict the true impact and legacy of Cop26, one speech, given at a rally organised by Global Justice Now, insisted upon a perspective not data-driven but moral. Lumumba Di-Aping, a South Sudanese diplomat and former chief negotiator for the G77, said: “The first resolution that should be agreed in Glasgow is for annex I polluters to grant the citizens of small island developing states the right to immigration.”
It was a tactful way of putting it: annex I nations are those with special financial responsibilities in tackling the climate crisis. They have these special responsibilities because their early industrialisation created so much of the carbon burden. A more pugilistic diplomat might have said “the people who created this disaster have to offer sanctuary to those displaced by it”, but then, he wouldn’t be a diplomat.
Di-Aping went on to note article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” “Small island states,” he concluded, “should not be drowned alive like Zealandia.”
. . . .
As old debates around the climate crisis and whether or not it is anthropogenic give way to consensus, new ambiguities and uncertainties are constructed around refugees: can they really be called the victims of environmental degradation? We will grapple with any other explanation – they’re actually economic migrants, or they’re the victims of civil strife, or they fell foul of a dictatorship, the one-bad-man theory of geopolitics – rather than trace these proximal causes back to their roots. Most political efforts, currently, are geared towards building a positive picture of a sustainable future; the alternative is despair or denial, neither of which are generative forces for change. A coherent, practical plan detailing the probable scale of displacement and figuring out a just distribution of the climate diaspora will look radical and unsettling.
One group is extremely comfortable on that territory, however: the far right. Steve Bannon sent a chill down the spine in 2015 when he talked about a “Camp of the Saints-type invasion into … Europe”. He made the reference again and again, until finally onlookers were forced to read the source: Jean Raspail’s racist novel of 1973, which one contemporary reviewer called “a major event … in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event”. The title comes from a passage in the Book of Revelation about the coming apocalypse – civilisation collapses when the hordes arrive from the four corners of the Earth to “surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city” – and Raspail took up the idea; it was inevitable, he said, that “numberless disinherited people of the south would set sail one day for this opulent shore”.
Through Bannon and others, this idea has replicated, mutated and engulfed others, to become the “great replacement theory” of white supremacists, which Paul Mason describes in his recent book How to Stop Fascism as the toxic political view that “immigration constitutes a ‘genocide’ of the white race”. Feminists help it along by depressing the birth-rate, and cultural Marxists bring the mood music, by supporting both migrants and feminists.
Other far-right movements are sucked into the vortex of this wild but coherent theory, and yet more are spawned or shaped by it: the cosmic right (embodied in Jake Angeli, the QAnon figure in the animal-skin cap who stormed the Capitol in January, then went on hunger strike in prison because the food wasn’t organic), or the eco-minded white supremacists who make this explicit – you can be a humanitarian or an environmentalist. Choose one.
As fanciful and irrational as many far-right arguments are, they have a rat-like cunning. They find these spaces that are untenanted by mainstream debate – there will be climate refugees and they must be accommodated – and they run riot in them. Nations who ignore Lumumba Di-Aping aren’t doing anything to avert the consequences he describes: their silence merely creates an open goal for the professed enemies of a peaceful and prosperous future.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
*********
Read Zoe’s complete article at the link.
Usually White House Reports and other quasi-academic “White Papers” produced at public expense are accompanied by major press releases and momentary hoopla. Then, they are rapidly consigned to the “Dustbin of History.”
They are widely ignored by politicos and bureaucrats who all too often are pursuing policies with little or no empirical basis, but designed to appease or “fire up” some voting block or to further the institutional self-preservation upon which bureaucracies thrive, expand, and prosper, even at the expense of the well-being of the governed!
This report, however, is one that deserves to be the basis for policy action! Too bad it isn’t!
Obviously, an Administration that failed to restore existing refugee and asylum systems, continues to subject migrants to due process denying “star chambers,” thinks “die in place” is an acceptable and effective refugee policy, and wrongly views asylum as a “policy option” rather than a well-established legal and human right, is playing right into the hands of Bannon, Miller, and their 21st Century nihilist movement! It’s also an Administration that didn’t learn much from World War II and the Cold War.
And, on future inevitable and predictable forced migrations, the world isn’t going to get much leadership from a rich nation that can’t even deal fairly, generously, and efficiently with today’s largely predictable, potentially very manageable, refugee situations. Many are situations that our nation either created or played a significant role in creating. See, e.g., environmental migration.
There is actually “room at the inn” for everyone and creative ways for nations to work together to resettle refugees of all types while prospering and working together for the benefit of humanity. Sure, they contradict the nationalist myths upon which many past and current refugee and migration restrictions are based.
Clearly, the realistic, constructive, humane solutions necessary for survival aren’t going come from the racist far right! And, currently the Biden Administration’s failure to stand up for the legal, moral, and human rights of asylum seekers and other referees isn’t doing the job either! Constructive, democratic, moral leadership and courage, oh where, oh where, have you gone?
We can’t deport, imprison, prosecute, wall, threaten, mythologize, abuse, and hate our way out of forced migration situations. It’s going to take dynamic, courageous folks who can get beyond past failures and lead the way to a better future for humanity!
When Trump won the 2016 election—while losing the popular vote—the New York Times seemed obsessed with running features about what Trump voters were feeling and thinking. These pieces treated them as both an exotic species and people it was our job to understand, understand being that word that means both to comprehend and to grant some sort of indulgence to. Now that Trump has lost the 2020 election, the Los Angeles Times has given their editorial page over to letters from Trump voters, who had exactly the sort of predictable things to say we have been hearing for far more than four years, thanks to the New York Times and what came to seem like about 11,000 other news outlets hanging on the every word of every white supremacist they could convince to go on the record.
The letters editor headed this section with, “In my decade editing this page, there has never been a period when quarreling readers have seemed so implacably at odds with each other, as if they get their facts and values from different universes. As one small attempt to bridge the divide, we are providing today a page full of letters from Trump supporters.” The implication is the usual one: we—urban multiethnic liberal-to-radical only-partly-Christian America—need to spend more time understanding MAGA America. The demands do not go the other way. Fox and Ted Cruz and the Federalist have not chastised their audiences, I feel pretty confident, with urgings to enter into discourse with, say, Black Lives Matter activists, rabbis, imams, abortion providers, undocumented valedictorians, or tenured lesbians. When only half the divide is being tasked with making the peace, there is no peace to be made, but there is a unilateral surrender on offer. We are told to consider this bipartisanship, but the very word means both sides abandon their partisanship, and Mitch McConnell and company have absolutely no interest in doing that.
Paul Waldman wrote a valuable column in the Washington Post a few years ago, in which he pointed out that this discord is valuable fuel to right-wing operatives: “The assumption is that if Democrats simply choose to deploy this powerful tool of respect, then minds will be changed and votes will follow. This belief, widespread though it may be, is stunningly naive.” He notes that the sense of being disrespected “doesn’t come from the policies advocated by the Democratic Party, and it doesn’t come from the things Democratic politicians say. Where does it come from? An entire industry that’s devoted to convincing white people that liberal elitists look down on them. The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.”
There’s also often a devil’s bargain buried in all this, that you flatter and, yeah, respect these white people who think this country is theirs by throwing other people under the bus—by disrespecting immigrants and queer people and feminists and their rights and views. And you reinforce that constituency’s sense that they matter more than other people when you pander like this, and pretty much all the problems we’ve faced over the past four years, to say nothing of the last five hundred, come from this sense of white people being more important than nonwhites, Christians than non-Christians, native-born than immigrant, male than female, straight than queer, cis-gender than trans.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just complained that “you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Now it’s considered bigotry.” This is a standard complaint of the right: the real victim is the racist who has been called a racist, not the victim of his racism, the real oppression is to be impeded in your freedom to oppress. And of course Alito is disingenuous; you can say that stuff against marriage equality (and he did). Then other people can call you a bigot, because they get to have opinions too, but in his scheme such dissent is intolerable, which is fun coming from a member of the party whose devotees wore “fuck your feelings” shirts at its rallies and popularized the term “snowflake.”
Nevertheless, we get this hopelessly naïve version of centrism, of the idea that if we’re nicer to the other side there will be no other side, just one big happy family. This inanity is also applied to the questions of belief and fact and principle, with some muddled cocktail of moral relativism and therapists’ “everyone’s feelings are valid” applied to everything. But the truth is not some compromise halfway between the truth and the lie, the fact and the delusion, the scientists and the propagandists. And the ethical is not halfway between white supremacists and human rights activists, rapists and feminists, synagogue massacrists and Jews, xenophobes and immigrants, delusional transphobes and trans people. Who the hell wants unity with Nazis until and unless they stop being Nazis?
I’ve spent much of my adult life watching politicians like Bill Clinton and, at times, Barack Obama sell out their own side to placate the other, with dismal results.
I think our side, if you’ll forgive my ongoing shorthand and binary logic, has something to offer everyone and we can and must win in the long run by offering it, and offering it via better stories and better means to make those stories reach everyone. We actually want to see everyone have a living wage, access to healthcare, and lives unburdened by medical, student, and housing debt. We want this to be a thriving planet when the babies born this year turn 80 in 2100. But the recommended compromise means abandoning and diluting our stories, not fortifying and improving them (and finding ways for them to actually reach the rest of America, rather than having them warped or shut out altogether). I’ve spent much of my adult life watching politicians like Bill Clinton and, at times, Barack Obama sell out their own side to placate the other, with dismal results, and I pray that times have changed enough that Joe Biden will not do it all over again.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
As Rebecca points out, “understanding,” “compromising,” and “engaging in productive dialogue” with the disingenuously disgruntled and “uber angry” far right turns out to be a “one way street” (surprised?). A “fools errand” if you will.
I dealt with transgender youth on a number of occasions during my career on the bench of the Arlington Immigration Court. All of they had suffered severe mental trauma and/or physical mistreatment from peers and adults who should have known better. Most had attempted suicide one or more times.
How is it acceptable for them and their fundamental identities to be “abused” and “dehumanized” by out of control, irresponsible “adults” and “parents” at school board meetings and other events? The GOP should be ashamed for giving in and seeking “political capital” from these reprehensible and cowardly attacks on students, teachers, and public officials trying to do the right thing on accommodating the needs of LBGTQ+ students and African American and other minority students and immigrants whose histories, humanity, and contributions for many generations continuing into the present have not been dealt with honestly, fairly, and humanely by our society. How will appeasing or meeting halfway those peddling lies and hate make things better for future generations?
Just how much “understanding,” “compassion,” “courtesy,” or “compromise” did George Floyd’s family, vulnerable transgender youth, or black students suffering from generations of systemic societal racism and anti gay laws, policies, and social institutions (and “false denial”) get from these folks on the right?
Stunning examples of Dems failures to stand up for their principles, and the disastrous consequences for humanity, are the continuation of Stephen Miller’s grotesque misuse of Title 42 at the border and AG Garland’s failure to clean house and institute common sense reforms at his dysfunctional, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-due process, intentionally dehumanizing Immigration Courts known as EOIR! His “tolerance” for gross abuses by so-called “courts” that he controls and for the dehumanization and mistreatment of asylum seekers and other migrants on a daily basis is not “compromise” or “understanding!” It’s an ongoing national disgrace!
Did Stephen Miller really win the last election? Garland & Mayorkas are acting like he did!
The BIA’s blunders in trying to help out their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement can sometimes seem almost comical. But, they are no laughing matter to those facing persecution or torture as a result! Why is Garland indifferent to life-threatening injustice in his courts? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Given the strength and rigor of the IJ’s underlying opinion, along with the BIA having exceeded its proper scope of review, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s opinion.
******************
There is the good, the bad, the ugly, and the absurdly horrible. This latest BIA travesty falls in the latter category.
Not surprisingly, the Circuit opinion quotes liberally from the BIA’s insipid, mealy-mouthed “bureaucratic double-speak” language! To paraphrase my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred Vacca, thank goodness the 3rd Circuit finally put an end to this “pathetic attempt at appellate adjudication.”
Interesting that rather than remanding to give the BIA a chance to deny again on some newly invented specious basis, the court just reinstated the IJ opinion. There should be a message here! But, Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “getting it!”
This case illustrates deep systemic and personnel problems that Garland has failed to address. Instead of summarily dismissing the DHS’s frivolous appeal with a strong warning condemning it, these types of bad BIA decisions contribute to the unnecessary backlog and both encourage and reward frivolous actions by the DHS.
Additionally, reversing, for specious reasons, a well-done and clearly correct IJ decision granting relief, just to carry out the wishes of DHS Enforcement and political bosses, is intended to discourage respondents and their attorneys while unethically steering Immigration Judges toward a “norm of denial.”
Abused women of color from the Northern Triangle have been particular targets of the EOIR’s seriously skewed anti-immigrant adjudications. This makes the Garland DOJ’s claims to be a “champion of racial justice” ring all the more hollow and disingenuous in every context. There will be no racial justice in America without radical EOIR reform!
What ever happened to our first ever woman of color Veep? Hypothesize that one of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges responsible for this mess had come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Wouldn’t you have had some questions about judicial qualifications? So, why is it OK to continue to employ them in untenured Executive Branch quasi-judicial positions where they exercise life or death power over many of the most vulnerable among us, overwhelmingly persons of color, many women, lots of them unrepresented! Kamala Harris, where are you?
It’s all part of an improper “culture of denial” at EOIR, led and “enforced” by the BIA. Garland has disgracefully failed to come to grips with the “anti-due process” that he fosters every day that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” remains in their appellate positions.
For heavens sake, with unnecessary “TV Adjudication Centers” coming out EOIR’s ears, reassign these purveyors of bad law and appellate injustice to those lower “courts” where they can do less cosmic damage and real, better qualified appellate judges can “keep on eye” on them!
I keep thinking (or perhaps hoping) that eventually Circuits will tire of continually redoing the BIA’s sloppy work product and then having the cases come back again, sometimes years later, denied on yet another bogus ground!
On the flip side, Judge Garland seems to have infinite “patience” with well-documented substandard performance and painfully obvious anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias on the part of his BIA.
Wrongful denial of CAT costs lives and can improperly condemn individuals to gruesome and painful death! This is no way to run a court system! I guess it’s easier to “tolerate” lousy judicial performance when you aren’t the one being unfairly and illegally condemned to torture!
They raped women, burned homes and killed dozens of people, including children, chopping up their bodies with machetes and throwing their remains to pigs.The gruesome massacre three years ago, considered the worst in Haiti in decades, was more than the work of rival gangs fighting over territory. It was organized by senior Haitian officials, who provided weapons and vehicles to gang members to punish people in a poor area protesting government corruption, the U.S. Treasury Department announced last year.
Since then, Haiti’s gang members have grown so strong that they rule swaths of the country. The most notorious of them, a former police officer named Jimmy Cherizier, known as Barbecue, fashions himself as a political leader, holding news conferences, leading marches and, this week, even parading around as a replacement for the prime minister in the violent capital.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of this gruesome, yet telling, report at the link.
Over 21 years on the Immigration Bench as both a trial and appellate judge, I adjudicated thousands of asylum claims. The circumstances described on this article undoubtedly would give rise to many potentially valid asylum and withholding claims, based on actual or implied political opinion and/or family or gender-based “particular social groups” and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) grants based on torture with government acquiescence or actual connivance!
So, how do Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland, who to my knowledge have never represented an asylum applicant or adjudicated an individual asylum case among them, “get away” with simply suspending the rule of law, under false pretenses, for those entitled to seek asylum?
Stephen Miller must be on “Cloud Nine” as Biden & Co. carry out his White Nationalist plans to eradicate asylum, particularly when it protects women and people of color! This is even as Miller and his neo-Nazi cohorts (a/k/a “America First Legal”) are gearing up to sue the Biden Administration to block every measure that might aid immigrants, particularly those of color.
He’s delighted with Biden’s abuse of asylum seekers of color! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
NGOs don’t share the Biden Administration’s vision of what a “safe” Haiti looks like. Neither do kidnapped American missionaries! PHOTO: Marcelo Casal, Jr., Creative Commons License
Angering and alienating your potential allies and supporters to aid the far-right program of your enemies who are determined to do whatever it takes to undermine, discredit, and destroy your Presidency! Obviously, I’m no political expert. But, sure sounds like an incredibly stupid, “designed to fail” strategy to me!
The treatment of Haitian refugees at the U.S. border last month — some chased by horseback agents, others huddled by the thousands under a bridge — is tragic. For reasons that are less obvious, it is also ironic. Although Americans’ centuries-long debt to the Haitian people is untaught in our schools and unacknowledged in our public discourse, the indomitable spirit of the Haitian people created the United States we know today.
Even the capsule version of Haiti’s successful fight to end slavery and for independence at the turn of the 19th century is riveting. C.L.R. James, the late Trinidadian political leader and historian of the Caribbean, wrote six decades ago:
“In August 1791, after two years of the French Revolution and its repercussions in [Hispaniola], the slaves revolted. The struggle lasted for 12 years. The slaves defeated in turn the local whites and the soldiers of the French monarchy, a Spanish invasion, a British expedition of some 60,000 men, and a French expedition of similar size under Bonaparte’s brother-in-law. The defeat of Bonaparte’s expedition in 1803 resulted in the establishment of the Negro state of Haiti which has lasted to this day.”
It’s one of the most remarkable stories of liberation that we have as a species: the largest revolt of enslaved people in human history, and the only one known to have produced a free state. But even this sweeping account understated the extraordinary role that Haiti’s rebellious enslaved played in world history.
Their success in freeing themselves in the face of the stoutest European hostility imaginable ironically made Haiti the first nation to fulfill the most fundamental values of the Enlightenment: freedom from bondage and racial equality for all. These principles were enshrined in Haiti’s first constitution, in 1804, decades before they were embraced by the United States.
And that was just the beginning.
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
How have we repaid the debt? By illegally deporting Haitian asylum seekers to the “kidnapping center of the world” and then disingenuously claiming that it is a “safe” country for returns!
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Four days after the August earthquake that devastated the south of Haiti, Walkens Alexandre, a physician, was traveling to treat victims at a hospital when a motorcycle blocked his white Ford Ranger. Two men hopped off, pulled guns, commandeered his truck and hauled him to the outskirts of the capital.
He was held for three days while the kidnappers negotiated by phone with his family. He’d be set free for 30 times his monthly salary. Loved ones pleaded with relatives and friends to contribute to the ransom.
“Now I’m traumatized, fearful of people, and reminded of this every time someone slams a door, or I hear a motorcycle,” said Alexandre, 43. “We don’t feel safe in Haiti. There is always panic, always fear.”
The most troubled nation in the hemisphere is now being held hostage by a surge in kidnappings.
With victims spanning all social classes and ransoms ranging from as little as $100 to six figures, Haiti now holds the tragic title of highest per capita kidnapping rate on Earth. Recorded kidnappings so far this year have spiked sixfold over the same period last year, as criminals nab doctors on their way to work, preachers delivering sermons, entire busloads of people in transit — even police on patrol. So great is the surge that this year, Port-au-Prince is posting more kidnappings in absolute terms than vastly larger Bogotá, Mexico City and São Paulo combined, according to the consulting firm Control Risks.
[Haitian migrants thought Biden would welcome them. Now deported to Haiti, they have one mission: Leave again.]
Locals and foreigners alike are living in fear. The heads of several foreign companies told The Washington Post that the kidnapping wave led them to reassign staffers to remote work in other Caribbean countries, Europe or the United States. Other firms are leaving Haiti altogether.
“Every time you leave your door in Port-au-Prince, it’s like a game of Russian roulette,” said one European executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security. “You don’t know if you’ll be kidnapped that day.”
Maarten Boute, chairman of cellular phone provider Digicel Haiti, said his firm has resorted to moving staff only in armored cars with drivers trained for kidnapping scenarios. Because of the escalating risk, he said, he abandoned his Port-au-Prince home this year to move into a fortified hotel compound.
“Most people who can afford it and have visas have sent their family away, or moved outside the country,” he said. “We are using armed security, armored cars and have patrols that [scout] roads. But we still avoid certain areas, or moving around, as much as we can.”
Saddled with endemic poverty and violence, Haiti is no stranger to kidnapping waves. The country suffered a brutal surge from 2005 until the 2010 earthquake, which killed more than 220,000 people but had the effect of moderating kidnappings. Numbers have climbed steadily in recent years as violent gangs, unchecked by the government, have seized control over key portions of the country.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of the report at the link!
This is a “safe country” for removal? “Rounding them up and moving them out” without meaningful inquiry into individual circumstances is “American justice?” Come on, man!
Mayorkas and Garland have obviously spent far too much time at the “Miller Lite Happy Hour” 🤮☠️ and far too little time restoring the rule of law for vulnerable asylum seekers who deserve our protection!👎🏽
“Miller Lite” on Tap @ DOJ & DHS! Maybe Mayorkas & Garland have had “one too many!”
Maine Voices: Afghan refugees should get the same welcome America gave me
The only thing that can save people escaping the cruelty of war is the kindness of strangers.
BY REZA JALALI SPECIAL TO THE PRESS HERALD
To be honest, no one chooses to be a refugee.
Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to leave everything familiar behind, including their loved ones, to live in limbo for years, without valid papers, hoping a country would offer to resettle them. I did not.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Reza Jalali is the executive director of the Greater Portland Immigrant Welcome Center. His latest book, “Dear Maine: The Trials and Triumphs of Maine’s 21st Century Immigrants,” co-written with Morgan Rielly, will be out soon.
Fresh out of college, I was planning to return to Iran, where I was born, to reunite with my family when the 1979 Islamic Revolution, followed by the war with neighboring Iraq, caused turmoil there. These events made me a stateless person, with no country to which I could return.
Years earlier, I had gone to India, to study engineering; I was innocent of the world’s cruelty and life was mostly peaceful and good. Once the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in India, provided me with the refugee status, I applied for admission to the United States, as a refugee. Without a sponsor or a relative in America, I was sent to Portland for resettlement.
When I got to Portland, my new “home,” it felt like a sweet dream. To my tired eyes, the electric light seemed brighter and the sky looked bluer. Kind strangers offered housing, rides, and assistance to find a job. With hope, and faith in America, tucked away in my heart, where no personal doubt, or hostile looks could reach and touch, I started to build a new life. Like many others, I believed then, and still do, that America’s strength has been its willingness to add more chairs to the proverbial table.
My story, far from being unique, represents a reality in a world that is broken and re-broken now and again. The world is a dangerous place for the innocent civilians, including women and children. Today, there are some 80 million refugees, displaced internally or pushed out of their countries of birth. According to UNHCR “every minute 20 people leave everything behind to escape war, persecution or terror.”
Calamities, such as the one unfolding in Afghanistan now, after its sudden fall to the Taliban, show how chaotic our world is. Refugees are the byproduct of wars. It’d help if those against helping refugees were to oppose invasions and our government’s support for ruthless dictators, for the sake of access to cheap energy and national security.
Refugees, by their mere presence, in our communities, even when invisible to some, tell the stories of courage and human resilience. They also remind us of the cruelty of human beings at times of conflict and yet the kindness and compassion of strangers in receiving and helping them to feel safe and a chance to start new lives.
Across cities in the U.S. and in Maine, refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and immigrants are building, repairing, healing, teaching, growing food, creating art and so on. They are adding to the richness of the symphony we call America. And that is the central plot of the American story, for unless you come from a Native American tribe, you are either an immigrant, or were stolen in Africa and brought to America, as a slave.
In the weeks to come, as a former refugee, I will be unfurling the welcome mat and keeping open the same door, that let me and others before me in, for the expected Afghan refugees, many of whom had risked their lives helping Americans fighting in Afghanistan. Here at the Greater Portland Immigrant Welcome Center, in partnership with other nonprofits and others, we will offer a helping hand by teaching the Afghan refugees English remotely and supporting them to enter the workforce, when they are ready. As proper hosts, that’s the least we could do: small acts of love done for the sake of repairing our broken world.
***************
As CMS studies have proved over and over, refugees of all types are a huge benefit to our nation! But, that’s really “icing on the cake.” Even if refugees weren’t such a great economic benefit, that wouldn’t lessen our obligations to save them and give them shelter.
In the Afghan situation, our obligations ar increased by our involvement in their country.
What follows is an excerpt from my book which will be published on Oct. 12. (I also published an excerpt this week in the Times magazine.) The book is a meditation on the 1965 Immigration Act, which I argue is the starting point of the multiethnic society we live in today.
***
On Oct. 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson stood in front of the Statue of Liberty and said something that would be proved wrong: “This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives.” He was referring to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, a landmark piece of legislation that lifted restrictive quotas on immigration from Asia, Africa and southern and Eastern Europe.
Its opponents at the time it was finally passed described apocalyptic scenarios in which the United States and its white population would be overrun by a horde of foreigners. Johnson, for his part, assured the public that the easing of restrictions would have only a mild effect on the demographics of the country. Most people, he believed, would stay in their home countries.
Over the next five decades, the Hart-Celler Act would bring tens of millions of immigrants from Asia, southern and Eastern Europe, and Africa. No single piece of legislation has shaped the demographic and economic history of this country in quite the same way.
AIC: On September 30, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued the long-awaited new set of enforcement priorities, entitled “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Laws”. The guidelines, which will go into effect on November 29, 2021, will replace the February 18 interim enforcement priorities memo issued to U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as Initial interim guidelines issued on January 20, 2021. See also IDP Statement: DHS’s Deportation Memo Reinforces Flawed Policies of the Past.
Politico: A federal court has moved to preserve the Biden administration’s ability to use a Trump-era public health order to expel migrant families arriving at the southern border.
Reuters: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said on Wednesday it intends to issue a new memo in the coming weeks ending the “remain in Mexico” immigration program.
Intercept: [T]he arrival of Haitians was anticipated, and much of the chaos that ensued seemed preventable with basic planning and logistics. But in the scramble to contain the media crisis, the U.S. employed tactics that set off a cascade of repression and violence on both sides of the border. By allowing the situation to reach critical levels, federal officials created conditions that made a militarized crackdown seem inevitable, making criminals out of people asserting their right to seek asylum. See also Most of the migrants in Del Rio, Tex., camp have been sent to Haiti or turned back to Mexico, DHS figures show.
Texas Tribune: Defense attorneys have started asking courts to set migrants free because local justice systems, overwhelmed by arrests under Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security push, are routinely violating state law and constitutional due process rights.
NJ Monitor: Now the coalition of faith leaders, advocates, formerly incarcerated people, and their family members have formed the Interfaith Campaign for Just Closures. The group aims to push New Jersey’s congressional delegation to support HR 536, which would revamp the immigration detention system.
NYT: The settlement will provide restitution to passengers who were detained, arrested or deported after immigration agents conducted warrantless searches on buses, Washington State’s attorney general said.
BuzzFeed: The new initiative will provide government-funded legal representation to certain children in Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the nation’s immigration courts, is also updating training for attorneys who want to handle immigration cases.
AILA: The BIA dismissed the respondent’s appeal after finding that a Notice to Appear that lacks the time and place of an initial removal hearing constitutes a “charging document.” Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021)
AILA: Where the Yemeni petitioner had been kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime, the court concluded that the BIA erred in determining that he was ineligible for asylum. (Ghanem v. Att’y Gen., 9/22/21)
Law360: The Third Circuit refused to undo deportation orders against a Peruvian national who had a simple assault conviction, ruling that the offense amounted to a removable crime of violence.
AILA: The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address the Libyan petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, where the petitioner had raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. (Abushagif v. Garland, 9/24/21)
AILA: The court upheld BIA’s denial of asylum, finding petitioner’s proposed particular social group of “family unaffiliated with any gangs who refuse to provide any support to transnational criminal gangs in Guatemala” lacked particularity and social distinction. (Osorio Tino v. Garland, 9/20/21)
AILA: The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s 2016 motion to reopen was untimely, nor did it commit legal error in declining to sua sponte reopen her case. (Cui v. Garland, 9/23/21)
AILA: Where the petitioner claimed she was persecuted because of her membership in a house church that was not registered with the Chinese government, the court held that the BIA appropriately relied on two inconsistencies in making its adverse credibility determination. (Li v. Garland, 9/21/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review, the court held that the petitioner’s convictions in Washington for robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree did not qualify as aggravated felony theft offenses under INA §101(a)(43)(G), (U). (Alfred v. Garland, 9/22/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court found that the BIA at least partly relied on a legally erroneous—and thus invalid—rationale for declining to exercise its sua sponte reopening authority. (Berdiev v. Garland, 9/21/21)
Law360: The D.C. Circuit on Thursday granted the Biden administration’s bid to stay a district court order that blocked the administration from expelling migrant families, providing it time to pursue an appeal of the ruling, which was slated to go into effect on Friday at midnight.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge banned U.S. Marshals in the nation’s capital from detaining criminal defendants based on suspicion related to their immigration status Thursday, ending a class action over the agency’s practice of holding individuals despite release orders.
AILA: Where USCIS had refused to adjudicate the adjustment of status application of the plaintiff, a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient with advance parole, the court held that the plaintiff was an “arriving alien” who had executed his deportation order. (C-E-M- v. Wolf, et al., 9/29/21)
AILA: A federal district court in Mississippi held that plaintiffs had established unreasonable delay by USCIS in the adjudication of their adjustment of status applications, and ordered USCIS to adjudicate their applications before the end of FY2021. (Parcharne, et al. v. DHS, et al., 9/30/21)
AILA: The federal district court in D.C. ordered DOS to reserve 6,914 diversity visas (DVs) for adjudication pending final judgment for Goodluck-related plaintiffs, and to reserve 481 DVs for Goh plaintiffs to be issued by the end of FY2022. (Goh, et al. v. DOS, et al., 9/30/21)
Law260: A border-focused law enforcement initiative launched by Texas earlier this year suffered setbacks in a state court on Tuesday, with prosecutors agreeing to release dozens of immigrants being held in state custody and to completely drop charges against two of them.
Law360: The Biden administration agreed to pay $1.15 million to attorneys who successfully advocated for the safe custody of migrant children held in border detention facilities, while the attorneys continued to push for additional fees for an appeal the administration abandoned.
AILA: EOIR announced its “Access EOIR” initiative, which attempts to raise representation for individuals appearing before immigration courts. New trainings under the Model Hearing Program are available, and recent EOIR efforts include the development of the Counsel for Children Initiative.
AILA: DHS issued updated guidance on the enforcement of civil immigration law. Guidance is effective on 11/29/21 and will rescind prior civil immigration guidance.
AILA: DHS issued a statement announcing that it “intends to issue in the coming weeks a new memorandum terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).” However, DHS is moving forward with plans to restart the program pursuant to a district court order.
AILA: SAVE announced that DHS will admit Afghans as special immigrant (SI) conditional permanent resident status and CBP will admit Afghans as non-SI parolees. The memo describes both categories, the qualifications for either, the ways their status will be documented, and more.
AILA: DHS automatically extended the validity of certain EADs with a category code of A12 or C19 issued under TPS for Syria through 3/28/22. For Form I-9, TPS Syria beneficiaries may present qualifying EADs along with an individual notice issued by USCIS that indicates extension of EAD.
I’d go even further than the article in The Intercept. The Biden Administration was told by experts during the early Transition Period to make restoring order and the rule of law to the asylum system at our borders one of their highest priorities. That included reviving and expanding the USCIS Asylum Office, reopening legal ports of entry, replacing the BIA with qualified progressive expert Appellate Judges who understood asylum law and would establish practical humane precedents, bringing in progressive, dynamic progressive asylum leadership at both the DHS and DOJ, reopening legal border ports of entry, and instituting a robust refugee programs for the Northern Triangle and the rest of the Americas.
With a 10 week “head start,” these were neither rocket science nor unachievable. Instead the Administration dawdled and fumbled, treating asylum reform as an issue that would “just go away.” Once in office, Mayorkas, Garland, and Harris aggravated the problem by not making the obvious progressive personnel and structural changes necessary to restore the asylum and refugee systems.
Now, we have the worst of all worlds! Disorder at the border, cruelty and abuse of migrants, and folks like Harold Koh, who have the expertise, backbone, and creative solutions that Mayorkas and Garland so stunningly lack fleeing the Administration and speaking out against its inane and inhumane policies.
All so stupid! All so unnecessary! All so damaging to America and humanity!
