Category: WBUR

https://apple.news/AzNJ2zr0UT9Ov_uPY-QTVcw

Shannon Dooling reports for WBUR (NPR) Boston:

A Federal Judge Orders Sweeping Changes To Bond Hearings In Boston Immigration Court
A federal judge in Boston ruled Wednesday that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to place the burden of proof on undocumented immigrants in bond hearings. The decision from U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris will usher in sweeping changes to the way bond hearings are administered in Boston immigration court.
Saris ruled that asking an undocumented immigrant who is eligible for bond to prove why they are neither a flight risk nor a threat to the community violates the individual’s due process.
Moving forward, the burden of proof will be placed instead on federal immigration officials, similar to how bond hearings are decided in criminal court proceedings. The ruling also mandated that immigration judges in Boston consider the individual’s ability to pay when setting a bond amount above $1,500. Saris additionally ordered immigration judges to consider alternative conditions to detention, like GPS monitoring and orders of supervision that require regular check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The ACLU of Massachusetts filed the class action suit in June arguing the government is constitutionally required to prove why an individual should be deprived of liberty.
With her ruling Wednesday, Judge Saris agreed with that argument. The ACLU estimated hundreds of immigrants detained in New England could be affected by the ruling, and, for some, the decision would result in new bond hearings.
In her ruling, Saris ordered the Boston immigration court to notify non-criminal immigrants currently in detention of her decision — both those individuals who have already received a bond hearing and those awaiting a bond hearing.
Additionally, Saris mandated the federal government identify and locate all eligible immigrants who already have received a bond hearing under the previous process and remain detained as a result.
Saris also agreed with an additional argument made by the ACLU in the case.
She ruled the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the top court in the immigration system, also violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) with its 1999 decision, which switched the burden of proof in bond hearings to the detainee.
The APA provides guidelines for federal agencies when developing and issuing regulations, like allowing the public to comment on proposed changes and overall transparency in the rule-making process. It’s important to note that Saris’ consideration of the APA’s guidelines for the Board of Immigration Appeals could set a powerful precedent for others seeking to challenge similarly broad decisions.

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

You can read Chief Judge Saris’s opinion in Brito v. Barr at the first link in the text of Shannon’s original article (go to link above). Her Due Process analysis is clear, logical, succinct, and straightforward. None of the legal gobbledygook and turgid prose too often used by the Supremes and Federal Appellate Judges struggling for ways to uphold Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal immigration agenda.

Indeed, it’s the type of clear Due Process analysis that could and should have been applied long ago to hold the entire Immigration Court system unconstitutional because it is run by a biased prosecutor who controls the judges and can change results. This is clear violation of the Due Process requirement for a fundamentally fair process for determining deportability that must provide a fair and impartial decision maker. End of decision.

Interestingly, the 1999 BIA precedent rejected by Chief Judge Saris, Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1122 (BIA 1999) was decided while I was BIA Chair. I actually dissented. However, my dissent did not challenge the burden or standard of proof – just its misapplication by my colleagues in the particular case then before us.

Unfortunately, this great decision only applies within the jurisdiction of the Boston Immigration Court right now. But, it’s certainly something that the New Due Process Army can build upon in the future!

PWS

11-27-19