AMERICA’S REAL IMMIGRATION CRISIS: THE ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURTS – Page 147

SOPHIA GENOVESE: “INJUSTICE AT JUSTICE” – The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws.”

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/05/assembly-line-injustice-how-the-implementation-of-immigration-case-completion-quotas-will-eviscerate-due-process.html

Assembly Line Injustice: How the Implementation of Immigration Case Completion Quotas will Eviscerate Due Process

May 7, 2018/0 Comments/in Blog /by Sophia Genovese

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, under the direction of the Department of Justice, announced last year that it had reopened the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) to include case completion quotas in the performance evaluations of Immigration Judges. On March 30, 2018, James McHenry, the Director of the EOIR, formally announced these metrics, which require IJs to complete at least 700 cases per year, have a remand rate of less than fifteen percent, and meet half of the additional benchmarks listed in the evaluation plan, which can be found here. As pointed out by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “this quota translates into each judge hearing testimony and rendering decisions almost three cases per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year.” According to several retired IJs and Former Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members, such quotas raise serious due process concerns and will result in a system that is less focused on justice and appearing “more like an assembly line.”

There are a number of issues with the EOIR case completion quotas. First, these quotas may force IJs to breach their ethical obligations. Specifically, the new completion quotas are tied to the financial incentives of IJs, where the performance evaluations affect IJs’ job security and eligibility for raises. IJs are not given life appointments and can be easily removed from the bench by the Attorney General if he finds them to not be meeting these performance thresholds. Thus, IJs may be encouraged to render hasty decisions in order to satisfy these case completion quotas and receive a good review (and thus a raise) instead of making decisions based on what is proper for the cases in front of them. Having such a financial incentive in the completion of a case arguably forces an IJ to violate 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401 to 2635.403,[i] which prohibits IJs from participating in proceedings where he or she has a financial interest. Additionally, IJs must be impartial in their decision-making under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8). It is hard for an IJ to remain impartial when pressured with impossible case completion standards especially when a case is meritorious but an IJ may not grant a continuance for legitimate reasons.

The case completion quotas also violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), which provides: “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgement and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.” For example, an attorney may have been only recently retained by an asylum-seeker, and may request a continuance in order to gather and assemble evidence that is vital for the asylum-seeker’s claim. Under ordinary circumstances, an IJ would likely grant such a continuance as it would be considered proper under INA § 240(b)(4)(B) which affords a “reasonable opportunity…to present evidence” on one’s behalf. However, under the quota system, an IJ may feel pressure to deny the motion for continuance and may ultimately deny the asylum claim because the asylum-seeker was not afforded sufficient time to present their case. Such an outcome clearly violates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B) where the IJ is stripped of their independent decision-making authority where they feel pressured to quickly close out a case despite compelling reasons to grant a continuance, and where the asylum-seeker is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Another example is an individual placed in removal proceedings who is the intending beneficiary of a pending I-130 with USCIS. Typically, USCIS takes several months to adjudicate an I-130, and thus, attorneys for respondents file motions for continuance with the IJ until the USCIS has rendered a decision which will determine the respondent’s eligibility for relief from removal. Under the new case quota system, IJs will be less inclined to grant such continuances. This hypothetical similarly implicates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B), as described above. Moreover, the IJ’s denial of the continuance here would violate Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 793-94 (BIA 2009) where the Board held that compliance with a IJ’s case completion goals “is not a proper factor in deciding a continuance request” where there is an meritorious pending I-130. We’ve previously blogged about AG Sessions’ stripping of judicial independence through his self-referral of Matter of L-A-B-R- et al, 27 I&N Dec. 245 (AG 2018), which can be found here.

The case completion quotas will also lead to an unprecedented number of BIA and federal court appeals. This would needlessly increase the BIA’s backlog and indeed affect the dockets of the federal court systems, resulting in the tremendous waste of taxpayer’s dollars where a proper decision could have been rendered at the IJ level. In addition, the number of remanded cases may exceed fifteen percent, and thus, the IJ would again fail to meet the performance metrics in their performance evaluation.

There is no denying that the Immigration Courts face tremendous pressure to address the ballooning backlog of cases. As of this writing, there are 692,298 pending cases in Immigration Courts across the country, with only approximately 330 judges to hear them. Advocates during the Obama-era consistently advocated for the appointment of more IJs to address the backlog. However, in the Trump-era, advocate are now skeptical of such a move where it is clear that this Administration seeks to deport as many people as possible. Indeed, the Department of Justice, headed by Jeff Sessions, has celebrated deportations under the Trump Administration. Such an emphasis on deportation, as opposed to fair adjudication of claims, undermines the independence and impartiality of IJs. The implementation of the DOJ/EOIR case completion quotas will undoubtedly lead to a rise in unfair hearings and erroneous deportations, which is exactly what this Administration wants. The appointment of Trump-supporting IJs will only exacerbate the problem.

For many years, the NAIJ has advocated for the creation of an Article I Immigration Court that is independent of the political whims of the Department of Justice. Under the current Administration, and in light of the newly imposed DOJ/EOIR performance quota metrics, these calls have never been more relevant. The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws. The case completion quotas will undoubtedly undermine the integrity of our immigration system and should be vigorously challenged by IJs and practitioners.

[i] The author acknowledges that 5 CFR § 2635.402 directly implicates 18 U.S.C. 208(a), a criminal statute. This author suggests that the EOIR case completion quotas may jeopardize an IJ’s ethical obligations where their financial interests are directly and predictably impacted by blind adherence to such arbitrary quotas. Criminal liability for these actions, however, goes beyond the scope of this article.

Tags: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.402, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), Case completion quotas, Immigration court backlog, INA § 240(b)(4)(B), James McHenry, Matter of Hashmi, Motion for continuance

HON. BRUCE J. EINHORN IN THE HILL: SCOFFLAW AG JEFF SESSIONS PERVERTS RULE OF LAW, “PERSECUTES THE PERSECUTED,” AND UNDERMINES THE FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION PURPOSES OF THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/386956-persecuting-the-persecuted-in-asylum-cases-is-not-the-answer

Judge Einhorn writes:

As a young Justice Department lawyer, I was present at the creation of the Refugee Act of 1980, which together with its amendments and implementing regulations constitute the regime of asylum and refugee protection in the United States. During the Carter administration, I had a hand in the final drafting of the 1980 asylum law. As a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles from 1990 through 2007, I heard and decided thousands of cases in which citizens and stateless persons from foreign countries sought asylum in our nation. As a law professor both in California and in England, I have lectured on asylum and refugee law.

The asylum law was intended as a humanitarian measure to defend the defenseless by offering them the possibility of a new and secure life in the United States. But that will no longer be the case if Attorney General Jeff Sessions has his way. The Refugee Act of 1980 grants asylum status in the United States for any foreign-born individual who demonstrates past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution for reasons of “race, religion, nationality” as well as “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion.”

Additionally, under precedent set over the course of decades by federal courts across the country, the persecution that triggers asylum protection must be committed or attempted by a foreign government, or by forces that the government is unable or unwilling to control. That the persecution may be official or private recognizes the fact that in many countries, civil society and the rule of law are nowhere to be found. In their place, governments often unofficially depend on ad hoc private parties and organizations to aid in the torture, persecution and murder of those deemed “enemies of the state.” The use of nongovernmental persecutors provides plausible deniability to regimes that deny complicity in the mistreatment of those they seek to eliminate.

Now the attorney general is attempting to undermine if not eliminate the “unable or unwilling” standard applied in asylum cases for decades. In 2016, in a case entitled “Matter of A-B-,” the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative court that reviews decisions of immigration judges, ruled that based on prevailing precedent, an asylum applicant seeking refugee status based on her membership in a particular social group” that led to her gross domestic abuse, had demonstrated that the government of her native El Salvador was unwilling or unable to protect her from her abusive ex-husband. The board remanded the case to the trial judge so that he might apply the correct “unwilling or unable” standard.

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

Go on over to The Hill to read Judge Einhorn’s complete article!

Judge Bruce J. Einhorn has spent his career advancing the true rule of law and seeking to rectify the wrongs of the past: first as a prosecutor in the Office of Special Investigations at the U.S. DOJ bringing Nazi war criminals to justice (where I first came in contact with him); then as a U.S. Immigration Judge; and finally as a law professor. (Yes, folks, there was a time long ago when the USDOJ actually was on the side of seeking and guaranteeing justice for the persecuted, rather than engaging in child abuse, spreading false scenarios about immigrants and crime, promoting xenophobic myths about refugees, building the “New American Gulag,” and mis-using the US Immigration Court system as a tool of DHS enforcement to discourage refugees from seeking protection under our laws and international treaties to which we are party.)

By contrast, Jeff Sessions has spent his entire legal & “public service” career on the wrong side of history: trying to “turn back the clock” to the era of Jim Crow; promoting intolerance, unequal treatment, and hate directed at African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community; perverting the rule of law and the Constitutional guarantee of individual rights and fairness for everyone in America; and denying the massive contributions to the success of the United States made by non-White, non-Christian, and non-U.S. citizen individuals.

Jeff Sessions is a much bigger threat to the security, welfare, and future of the United States than are desperate women and children from the Northern Triangle seeking to save their lives by exercising their lawful rights under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum.

PWS

05-10-18

EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO MOUNT OF SESSIONS’S ILLEGAL HIRING PRACTICES AT EOIR AS MORE DEMS JOIN IN REQUEST FOR IG INVESTIGATION!

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2018/05/democrats-demand-ig-investigation-justice-hiring-practices/148055/

Eric Wagner reports for Government Executive:

A group of congressional Democrats on Tuesday asked a Justice Department watchdog to investigate allegations that the department improperly considered job candidates’ political views during the hiring process.

In a letter to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, eight Democratic lawmakers highlighted whistleblower accounts that prospective agency employees had job offers delayed or rescinded with “explanations that suggest a pretext for improper political motives.” The move follows a similar letter sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month, which lawmakers said went unanswered.

“Over the past several weeks, more whistleblowers have come forward with information that corroborates the allegations detailed in that letter [to Sessions],” the lawmakers wrote. “[Based] on these whistleblower accounts, the department may be improperly withholding or rescinding offers for these positions based on the perception that candidates hold political or ideological views that do not align with those of the Trump administration.”

» Get the best federal news and ideas delivered right to your inbox. Sign up here.

The Democrats specifically noted complaints regarding hiring at the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency that oversees immigration judges, and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and suggested that testimony last month from EOIR Director James McHenry denying knowledge of the consideration of ideology in the hiring process was erroneous.

“The information provided by the whistleblowers indicates that this testimony may be inaccurate: in at least some cases, inferences about an applicant’s ideological or political affiliation could be gleaned from application materials, even if such information was not required,” Democrats wrote. “The department also may be attempting to improperly screen for political or ideological preferences by changing the qualification criteria for immigration judge positions.”

The letter was signed by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, D-Md.; House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.; Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, and Don Beyer, D-Va.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the letter.

The Justice Department, both by law and agency policy, is barred from considering a job candidate’s political views during the hiring process. But at times, the department has struggled with these rules, particularly in the Civil Rights Division and EOIR.

In 2008, a Justice Department Inspector General investigationfound that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez’s aides “considered political or ideological affiliations” during immigration judge hiring. And in 2009, the OIG concluded that former acting Civil Rights Division head Bradley Schlozman similarly incorporated ideology into his hiring decisions. Last year, more than 20 progressive and public interest advocacy groups wrote to Sessions urging him not to allow candidates’ politics to influence hiring decisions in the Civil Rights Division.

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

Given Sessions’s constant stream of untruths, fabrications, distorted statistics, prejudiced construction of the laws, and racist anti-immigrant alarmist fantasies, it would be little short of incredible if he were not engaging in unlawful hiring practices for U.S. Immigration Judge positions.

It’s outrageous that these important positions should be under the complete control of a political official who is leading the charge for maximum immigration enforcement. What kind of “court system” allows the chief prosecutor to 1) choose the judges, and 2) change the law and overrule judicial results he doesn’t like. It’s something truly worthy of a Kafka novel.

Jeff Sessions has no concept of “fairness,” impartiality, and true due process in the immigration context. Nor is he in any way, shape, or form qualified to be in charge of any judicial system, let alone one relating to immigration — a subject on which his overt bias, improper meddling in the supposedly impartial hearing process, and intention to misuse it as part of the Administrations’s enforcement program is crystal clear.

PWS

05-10-18

NO, IT’S NOT “NORMAL DEVIATION:” U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE V. STUART COUCH’S RECORD ON CENTRAL AMERICAN WOMEN CLAIMING ASYLUM BASED ON A-R-C-G- SHOWS DEVIANT JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR, BIAS, & INSUFFICIENT CONTROL BY THE BIA – These Are The Glaring Problems Demeaning Due Process In Today’s U.S. Immigration Courts!– Yet, Jeff Sessions Appears Determined To Reinforce Bias and Denial Of Due Process Rather Than Solving The REAL Problems!

FOIA results: evidence of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch’s shocking prejudgment of all domestic violence asylum claims

by Bryan Johnson on April 20, 2018

At the bottom, readers will find the all of the decisions of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch that resulted in BIA remands for the Fiscal Year of 2017.

Time and time again, IJ Couch’s decisions denying victims of domestic violence asylum contain carbon copy language.

Thus, it is clear that IJ Couch’s has been prejudging all claims that have a history of domestic violence, and quite literally copying and pasting language he used to deny other domestic violence victims asylum. The following is one of his favorite passages to copy and paste.

The respondent’s evidence reflects that [the] physical and verbal abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature…The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.

Immediately below, I have excerpted key parts of the BIA & IJ Couch decisions. A clear pattern has emerged: IJ Couch does not grant asylum to women who are victims of domestic violence, despite clear instructions to the contrary from the BIA.

Pages 31-48:

Immigration Judge’s decision:

“As noted in the particularity analysis supra, Guatemala has significant and troubling

issues related to domestic violence and crimes against women. However, unlike the married

alien in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent lacks an identifiable trait like marriage or

inability to seek assistance from authority that distinguishes her from other women in

Guatemalan society. Similar to the particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

Guatemala, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison.”

BIA’s holding:

The respondent’s testimony reflects that people in the community knew them as a couple and

made comments reflecting their notions that the respondent could not escape the relationship (Tr. 232 at 66).

The respondent also testified that her parents did not help her leave the

relationship because of ingrained views that women are the property of men (Tr. at 33-35).

Under these circumstances, we conclude under the same reasoning as Matter of A-R-C-G-,

supra, that the proffered social group here is “immutable,” “particular” and “socially distinct.”

To the extent that the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent is not a member of this

particular social group, that determination is clearly erroneous. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra,

at 3 91 (the question whether a person is a member of a particular social group is a finding of fact

that we review for clear error).”

Pages 65-80:

Immigration Judge’s decision:

“As noted in the particularity analysis supra, El Salvador has significant and troubling

issues related to domestic violence and crimes against women. However, unlike the married

alien in Matter of A-R-C-G-, the respondent lacks an identifiable trait like marriage or

inability to seek assistance from authority that distinguishes her from other women in

Salvadoran society. Similar to the particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

El Salvador, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison.”

BIA decision:

Finally, the record does not support the Immigration Judge’s determination that the past harm

the respondent suffered is “consistent with acts of general violence” which undermines her claim

for asylum (l.J. at 10). Further, even assuming her former partner’s “criminal tendencies and

substance abuse” played a role in his conduct (/d.), the appropriate inquiry is whether the

asserted protected ground was or would be “at least one central reason” for the claimed or feared

harm. See section 208(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Act; Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341, 349 (BIA

2010)

Pages 81-96:

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent testified that when was drunk, he would physically and

verbally abuse her. She further testified “he was fine” when he was not under the influence

of alcohol. Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his own criminal tendencies and

substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the respondent on account of

her proposed particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of

general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a

statutorily protected ground.

BIA decision:

Upon review of the record, we conclude that a remand is necessary for the Immigration

Judge to further assess whether the respondent established that she is a member of a cognizable

particular social group. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s case is factually

distinguishable from Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), because she was not in

a marital relationship with her former partner and did not seek assistance from authorities

(I.J. at 7-9). While relevant, the distinguishing factors identified do not preclude the respondent

from establishing that her proposed particular social group is cognizable under the Act, and we

find that further fact-finding regarding the respondent’s experiences in El Salvador is necessary

to determine whether she satisfied the elements required to establish a valid particular social

group. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (stating that “adjudicators must consider a

respondent’s own experiences, as well as more objective evidence, such as background country

information”).

Pages 102-120:

BIA decision:

We find clear error in the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent was not

abused by her former partner on account of her particular social group. See l.J. at 12; 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.l (d)(3)(i); Matter of N-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011) (a persecutor’s actual

motive is a matter of fact to be determined by the Immigration Judge and reviewed by this Board

for clear error). The respondent testified that her former partner told her that a woman is not

more intelligent than he is and that the respondent has no value, comments which indicate that he

harmed her because of her perceived lesser status in the relationship (Tr. at 46).

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that [the] physical and verbal abuse of her

was related to his violent and jealous nature, sometimes accompanied by his use of alcohol.

Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his own criminal tendencies or substance abuse,

rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the respondent on account of her proposed

particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general

violence and therefore does not co nstitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily

protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 9 at l 000; Ruiz v. US. Att’y Gen., 440

F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pages 137-155

BIA decision:

We disagree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent’s proposed social group, consisting of Honduran women

who are viewed as property and whose domestic partners refuse to allow them to leave their

relationship lacks the requisite immutability, particularity, and social distinction (l.J. at 7-10).

See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 l&N Dec. 227, 236-43 (BIA 2014) (outlining factors to be

considered when discerning whether a social group is cognizable under the Act); Matter of

W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208, 213-18 (BIA 2014) (same).

Immigration Judge Decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that ‘s physical and verbal abuse of her

was related to his violent and jealous nature, heavy use of drugs and alcohol, and association

with drug traffickers. Exhibit 3, tab C at 17-19. Thus, ‘s abuse appears related to his

own criminal tendencies or substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted the

respondent on account of her proposed particular social group. The evidence in this case is

more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at

1000; Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds

that the respondent has not established targeted her due to her particular social group,

which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief. INA§ 208(b)(l)(B)(i).

Pages 157-173

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘ physical, verbal, and sexual abuse

of her was related to his violent and jealous nature. The respondent testified Mr. ‘

motivation to harm her was anger when she would ask him for money so she could buy food

for her family. She recalled the final argument that led to their separation occurred when the

respondent confronted Mr. regarding his affair with her sister-in-law. Thus, Mr. ‘

abuse of the respondent appears related to his own violent and criminal tendencies, rather than

conclusive evidence he targeted her on account of her membership in a particular social group.

The evidence in this case is more consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does

not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground.

Consistent with its immutability and particularity analysis supra, the Court finds the

respondent is an unfortunate victim of violence against women like far too many women in

Guatemala, and thereby renders her past harm indistinct by comparison. For these reasons, the

Court finds the respondent has not met her burden to show the requisite social distinction

necessary for membership in a particular social group.

BIA decision:

The Immigration Judge further concluded that the respondent did not meet the immutability,

particularity and social distinction requirements for a cognizable particular social group (I.J. at 9-

12). We have held that depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, victims of

domestic violence can establish membership in a cognizable particular social group that forms the

basis of a claim for asylum or withholding of removal. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N

Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).

Pages 228-243

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘s physical, verbal, and sexual

abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature. The respondent testified Mr.

‘s motivation to harm her was anger after she reported his abuse to government

authorities. Thus, Mr. ‘s abuse of the respondent appears related to his own

violent and criminal tendencies, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted her on account of

her membership in a particular social group. The evidence in this case is more consistent with

acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a

statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at 1000; Quinteros-Mendoza

v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds that the respondent has not

established Mr. targeted her due to her membership in a particular social group,

which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief. INA§ 208(b)(l)(B)(i).

BIA decision:

There appears to be no dispute that the verbal, physical and sexual abuse suffered by the

respondent at the hands of her stepfather, which occurred several times per week over a period of

years, rises to the level of past persecution. See, e.g., Barahon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228, 232,

(4th Cir. 2009) (observing that “[a] key difference between persecution and less-severe

mistreatment is that the former is ‘systematic’ while the latter consists of isolated incidents”).

However, the Immigration Judge rejected as invalid the respondent’s proposed particular social

group of”Mexican children who are perceived as property and lack effective familial protection,”

finding that it lacked the requisite immutability, particularity, and social distinction (I.J. at 7-9).

The question whether a group is a “particular social group” within the meaning of the Act is a

question of law that we review de novo. Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 390. On review, we find

that the particular social group posited by the respondent, under the circumstances of this case, is

valid under the reasoning of our recent decisions clarifying the approach to particular social

groups. See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N

Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

Pages 264-283

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that her former spouse’s physical, sexual, verbal,

and psychological abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, and frequent

intoxication from alcohol. The respondent testified that is an alcoholic whose

motivation to harm her stemmed from his anger, dislike for her, jealous nature, and infidelity

with other women. Exhibit 2, tab C at 12-13. Based upon the respondent’s testimony, it

appears the threats, assault and rape she suffered at the hands of was intended to

intimidate and threaten her to comply his own selfish and criminal demands for sex.

Thus, the abuse suffered by the respondent appears related to the violent and criminal

tendencies of her abusive former spouse, rather than conclusive evidence she was targeted on

account of her membership in a particular social group. The evidence in this case is more

consistent with acts of general violence and therefore does not constitute evidence of

persecution based on a statutorily protected ground. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at

1000; Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164-65 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court fmds

that the respondent has not established her former spouse targeted her due to her membership

in a particular social group, which is required to prove the requisite nexus for asylum relief.

INA§ 208(b)( l)(B)(i).

BIA decision:

We additionally conclude that the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent was able

to leave her ex-husband is clearly erroneous (l.J. at 10-11).

However, the record reflects that the respondent’s ex-husband continued to threaten and physically abuse the respondent after -their separation,

despite her move to a town over 2 hours away from him, and that he raped her in…2014, after their divorce.

Pages 315-334

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that Mr. ‘ physical, verbal, and sexual abuse

of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, often fueled by his use of alcohol and

drugs. Exhibit 2, tab H at 1-2. Mr. ‘ motivation to harm her appears to be based upon his

own criminal tendencies and substance abuse, rather than conclusive evidence he targeted

her on account of her membership in a particular social group.

BIA decision:

We also note that even if the evidence and testimony support a finding that the

respondent’s husband has a “violent and jealous nature” (I.J. at 12), this is not clearly separate

from a motive to persecute his wife based on feelings of domination and control, the hallmarks

of domestic violence.

Pages 373-393

Immigration Judge decision:

The respondent’s evidence reflects that her husband’s physical, verbal, and

psychological abuse of her was related to his violent and jealous nature, at times affected by his

use of alcohol. The respondent testimony suggests her husband’s motivation to harm her was

his dislike for her and suspicion she was being unfaithful to him. His motivation also appears

related to the respondent’s desire to leave him because of his infidelity, and his demands for

custody of their son. Based upon the respondent’s testimony, it appears the threats, assaults

and psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband was intended to intimidate

her to obtain some unclear result.

BIA decision:

We conclude, based on the particular facts presented on this record that the respondent

established that she was a member of the particular social group she articulated. We further

conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in concluding that this case is distinguishable from

Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, based principally on the fact that the respondent was able to separate

and live apart from her husband after he moved out of their home in 2013 (l.J. at I 0-l l ).

The respondent’s ability to live apart from her husband in Honduras is not a distinguishing factor

from the social group rationale articulated in Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, where the respondent

credibly testified that her husband refused to consent to a divorce and showed up unannounced

and uninvited at her home on several occasions, once touching her in a sexual manner and telling

her that he has a “right” to her as his wife. Additionally, the respondent testified that she was

unable to leave the relationship in Honduras for numerous cultural reasons, including her fear that

would take their son away from her and her belief that she was unable to obtain a divorce

because of ‘s ties to local government officials (l.J. at 3-4; Tr. at 51, 56, 64-73, 99, 105).

See Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (recognizing that “a married woman’s inability to leave the

relationship may be informed by societal expectations about gender and subordination, as well as

legal constraints regarding divorce and separation.”). Further, that domestic violence is prevalent

in Honduras does not mean that the respondent’s proposed particular social group lacks discrete

boundaries, as the Immigration Judge determined (l.J. at 11).

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

EOIR has been known to pass off this type of judicial misconduct as “normal deviations” in judging. But, there is a difference between honest variances in judicial philosophies and approach, which are present to some extent in all diverse judicial systems and might produce differing results, and clearly biased and unfair judging. Judge Couch’s performance clearly fits within the latter.

To state the obvious:

All of these incidents were “specifically targeted.” Therefore, Judge Couch’s determination that they were part of “generalized violence” is clearly fiction.
Asylum applicants are not required to demonstrate “conclusive evidence” of anything. “Conclusive evidence” is not a legal standard in any part of asylum adjudication.

What should have happened:

Judge Couch should have been removed from each of these cases for bias;
Like U.S. Courts of Appeals, the BIA should have “outed” Judge Couch, by name, in published opinions to give both applicants and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals notice of his problematic adjudication of asylum cases.
If Judge Couch continued his biased and unfair judging he should have been 1) ordered by the BIA not to hear any asylum cases involving women from the Northern Triangle, and 2) told that if his performance in asylum cases did not improve, he would be referred to the EOIR disciplinary system for Immigration Judges based on actual bias against asylum applicants.

There is simply no room in a true Due Process system, particularly one where many respondents are unrepresented, for a biased, anti-asylum judge like Judge Couch. Is this “being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all?” No Way! Jeff Sessions, who often enunciates biased, anti-asylum positions, is part of the problem, not the solution! Due Process can’t be restored to the U.S. Immigration court system until Jeff Sessions and the USDOJ are removed from the process.

We need an independent judiciary capable of telling judges who perform like Judge Couch to correct their behavior immediately — in other words, “shape up or ship out.”

PWS

05-09-18

GONZO’S WORLD: SESSIONS GREETS MELANIA’S “BE NICE TO KIDS” INITIATIVE WITH ATTACK ON MIGRANT CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES – Also Plans “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” Initiative To Fill U.S. District Courts With Minor, Non–Violent Misdemeanants Diverting Resources From More Serious Criminals

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-dhs-doj-immigration-families_us_5af0bd5ee4b0ab5c3d68ae96

Roque Planas & Elise Foley report for HuffPost:

In a sweeping enforcement change, Donald Trump’s administration will increasingly prosecute members of immigrant families who cross the border illegally, even if that means splitting children from their parents and regardless of whether they’re seeking safety in the U.S., Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday.

It’s already happening. On April 27, Border Patrol officers picked up a 30-year-old Salvadoran woman, Morena Mendoza Romaldo, with one of her children after she crossed into the U.S. near San Diego. She fled El Salvador because of sexual violence, according to court filings. She clearly told Border Patrol that she was afraid to return there; an arrest narrative filed in court has “credible fear claim” written on it.

Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. But previously the Justice Department rarely targeted family units — as the Border Patrol describes parents who cross with their children — for prosecution. Instead, authorities typically routed migrant families to immigration courts, and they were often released from detention after three weeks because of a court order limiting how long undocumented children may remain locked up. People with credible fear of being returned to their native countries were likewise often sent to immigration court instead of being criminally prosecuted.

But now, with the Trump administration looking for ways to crack down on policies its officials deride as “catch and release,” the response has gotten harsher.

Mendoza’s case was one of 11 immigration prosecutions filed against alleged members of a caravan of asylum-seeking Central Americans. At least two others were also separated from their children after facing prosecution for illegal entry.

Sessions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s acting Director Thomas Homan said during a press conference in San Diego that the Department of Homeland Security would refer for prosecution all cases of people crossing illegally, as part of a zero-tolerance policy — regardless of whether they’re fleeing persecution or traveling with children.

“People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border,” Sessions insisted. He later said, “We don’t want to separate families, but we don’t want families to come to the border illegally.”

It will be up to individual U.S. attorneys to decide how many of the migrants will face criminal charges. In the past, limits on the number of government attorneys or courtroom capacity led authorities to instead route most people caught at the border through the traditional deportation process without convicting them of a crime first. Last week Sessions announced that the Justice Department hired 35 more assistant U.S. attorneys to help prosecute immigration crimes in the five federal districts that touch the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration prosecutions have taken up roughly half the federal criminal docket since 2008, after policy changes pioneered by George W. Bush, institutionalized under Barack Obama and now enthusiastically embraced by Trump.

The zero-tolerance policy won’t apply to those who seek asylum at ports of entry, which is not illegal, although the Trump administration has publicly urged migrants to stay in Mexico instead. At least two of the 11 alleged caravan members facing prosecution for illegal entry — Olga Esmeralda George and Marbel Yaneth Ramirez-Raudales — said they tried to initiate asylum claims at a nearby port of entry but were turned away, according to court filings.

Sessions’ plans are already facing opposition from the San Diego Federal Public Defenders’ Office. Illegal entry prosecutions are often open and shut cases. But attorney Eric Fish has asked the court to dismiss three of the 11 alleged caravan members’ cases, arguing that his clients, including Mendoza, were targeted for political reasons that amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

If other countries treated people seeking refugee protection in this way, the United States would be appalled.Eleanor Acer, refugee protection program director, Human Rights First

In court filings littered with Trump’s tweets excoriating the caravan, Fish contended that Border Patrol agents arrested the three defendants at the same time as a group of Indian nationals. But the Indians were never prosecuted.

Subscribe to the Politics email.

How will Trump’s administration impact you?

“The government cannot choose its defendants based on their alleged country of citizenship, but that’s exactly what it did here,” he wrote in a court filing. “The Court should not stand for such invidious discrimination, and should dismiss the complaint.”

Fish is also disputing the $10,000 bonds set by the court, arguing that his clients present no flight risk and could be instead monitored by GPS and released on their own recognizance.

The cases highlight how much energy Sessions is devoting to some of the pettiest crimes possible. Until he announced his zero-tolerance policy, illegal-entry prosecutions were all but unheard of in San Diego. And in the three contested cases, the government offered to free the defendants on time served if they pleaded guilty.

At least two of the defendants said they intend to seek asylum, which generally exempts people from criminal prosecution for illegally crossing the border. One of them, Yaneth, attempted to turn herself in at a legal port of entry but was turned away, according to court filings. Under U.S. law and international treaty obligations, Customs and Border Protection is required to let in migrants who say they fear persecution in their country of origin. But CBP faces a lawsuit in the Southern District of California alleging that the agency often flouts those rules.

Organizers with the caravan disputed that the migrants facing prosecution were affiliated with their group, though they said it’s possible that some had joined the caravan and later left it. At its peak, the number of migrants traveling with the caravan topped 1,000, but its numbers dwindled to fewer than 300 as some decided to remain in Mexico, were counseled that their asylum claims would be hard to press in U.S. courts or were repelled by the open hostility of top Trump administration officials.

“It’s pretty obvious that they don’t know who is part of the caravan or not,” said Alex Mensing — an organizer with Pueblos Sin Fronteras, which coordinated the caravan — noting that one of the defendants, Eric Alberto López Robles, is a Mexican national and that the caravan did not work with any Mexican adults. “It just doesn’t add up.”

Those crossing with the caravan were instructed to go through a legal port of entry to make their claims and were advised against crossing illegally, according to Nicole Ramos, the director of Al Otro Lado, a nonprofit group that is offering legal services to the caravan’s members. Ramos, who once worked as a federal public defender, said that in legal workshops, she warned about the threat of prosecution.

“After people were given transit visas, perhaps some of them went in other directions, but they were not integrated into the caravan,” she said. “The goal of the caravan was to get to Tijuana and present themselves legally. And as part of the legal orientation we gave, we specifically advised people about criminal prosecutions.”

Prosecuting people who are seeking asylum could violate international law, according to human rights advocates. Border Patrol was warned about this at least once, when the DHS Office of the Inspector General issued a report in 2015 saying the agency risked violating U.S. treaties by referring people for prosecution even though they expressed fear of persecution in their native country.

Immigrant rights advocates have been hearing for months from parents who were separated from their children and in some cases aren’t sure how to get in touch with them. The practice “is simply barbaric,” said Eleanor Acer, who leads the refugee protection program at Human Rights First.

“If other countries treated people seeking refugee protection in this way,” she said, “the United States would be appalled.”

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

Similar “strategies” have been tried and failed in the past under Administrations of both parties. But, doubling down on failed strategies, particularly when they disproportionately harm and punish a group consisting largely of Hispanics, is a Sessions specialty.

I will be interested to see how independent Article III Judges react to having their courtrooms clogged and judicial time focused on minor misdemeanors (rather than serious crimes) as part of the Administration’s enforcement apparatus

PWS

05-08-18.

ABA NEWS: “Panelists debate how to fix a broken immigration court system”

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/05/panelists_debatehow.html

Expert panelists address immigration court reform at a discussion hosted by the ABA Commission on Immigration

America’s immigration justice system is broken. The case backlog is huge – nearly 700,000 immigrants and asylum-seekers are waiting for hearings or decisions – technology is old and there aren’t enough judges.

All five panelists agreed on that much at a May 4 discussion of how to reform immigration courts. They disagreed on who broke the system and how to fix it.

Several panelists accused Congress of underfunding the courts and the Justice Department of politicizing them. The head of the federal office that oversees immigration courts said he is working to cut down the backlog and hire more judges.

James McHenry, director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), said the agency will hire 150 additional judges and the hiring process will be much shorter than it has been. It previously took two years to hire new immigration judges. It now takes less than a year, McHenry said.

The discussion was sponsored by the ABA Commission on Immigration and held at the Washington, D.C., office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Three panelists – a sitting judge, a retired judge and an immigrant advocate – criticized EOIR’s handling of the courts. All three said the courts should be removed from the Justice Department and become independent.

Judge Denise Slavin of Baltimore, representing the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the immigration system today deserves a grade of D or D-minus. “The system is failing, there is no doubt about it,” she said.

The two biggest problems, she said, are the backlogs and public perception that the courts are unfair. The backlog, she said, was caused by “years of fiscal neglect” by both political parties. “Enforcement has been funded at levels that the courts have not,” she said.

She also accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of politicizing the immigration courts. “It does not help matters much when our attorney general states to the press that we are being sent to the border to deport people. Not to hear cases, to deport people,” Slavin said.

She also criticized Sessions’ recent order that all immigration judges must clear at least 700 cases a year to get a “satisfactory” rating on their performance evaluations. No other American courts have such a quota, she said. “The only other court that we found that has that is in the People’s Republic of China,” Slavin said.

Retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt, an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University, accused the Justice Department of “aimless docket reshuffling” and have a “morbid fascination with increased immigration detention as a means of deterrence.” These actions “have turned our immigration court system back into a tool of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) enforcement,” he said.

He said the Trump administration has shown “unprecedented levels of open disdain and disrespect” for pro bono lawyers and immigration judges – “the two groups that are struggling to keep due process afloat in the immigration courts.”

He urged the audience to “join the new due process army and stand up for truth, justice and the American way in our failing, misused and politically abused United States immigration courts.” That earned the only applause of the morning.

Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, also accused the Justice Department of political interference in the immigration courts. “We are faced today with an administration that, at the very highest levels of leadership, is using rhetoric designed to reframe the goals and mission of our immigration court system,” she said. “The politicization of the immigration court system is particularly harmful because the courts are meant to be neutral bodies.”

McHenry said his agency is fixing the court system. Document e-filing will roll out nationally next year, he said. He denied Slavin’s accusation that judicial hiring is politicized. Merit hiring “will be the standard as long as I’m the director,” McHenry said.

In addition to hiring more judges, EOIR will shorten the backlog by using more teleconferencing, bringing back retired judges and re-examining all its policies, McHenry said. He said he sees no conflict between making the system more efficient and providing due process. “We believe judges can do both.”

The panel was moderated by Karen Grisez, special adviser to the ABA Commission on Immigration and public service counsel at Fried Frank.

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

Couldn’t be clearer: Jeff Sessions is a huge part of the problem and is incapable of being part of the solution. Yes, other Administrations have also helped destroy justice in the Immigration Courts. But, Sessions graphically demonstrates why Due Process can never be safe from attack as long as the DOJ is in charge.

PWS

05-07-18

This entry was posted on Mon May 07 12:49:14 CDT 2018 and filed under Top Stories and Commission on Immigration.

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: EVERYONE IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS/WOMEN’S RIGHTS ADVOCACY COMMUNITY NEEDS TO UNITE AND TAKE AGGRESSIVE ACTION AGAINST JEFF SESSIONS’S PLAN TO PASS DEATH SENTENCE ON FEMALE REFUGEES FLEEING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE –Many Will Be Killed, Raped, Maimed, Disfigured, Or Sentenced To A “Life Worse Than Death” If Sessions Has His Way!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/5/6/7r3izq486dxxtzlrsythpmr2kg35j3

May 6 Briefs Filed in Matter of A-B-

Briefs of the parties and amici have now been filed with the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-. Once again, a group of former immigration judges and BIA members, which this time numbered 16 (including myself) filed an amicus brief (which can be viewed here: http://www.aila.org/infonet/amicus-brief-matter-of-a-b- ).* The respondent’s brief was submitted by the outstanding legal team of Ben Winograd of IRAC; Karen Musalo, Blaine Bookey, and Eunice Lee of CGRS, and Charlotte attorney Andres Lopez. DHS’s brief was submitted by Michael P. Davis of ICE, whose reasoned positions are to be commended.

The issue in the case below involved the actions of immigration judge V. Stuart Couch in failing to abide by the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reversed Couch’s denial of asylum in a particularly strong claim involving a victim of severe domestic violence. The BIA reversed the judge’s decision, and remanded with instructions to grant asylum following the required updated security clearance by DHS. However, Couch took some nine months to schedule the case for a hearing. When at that hearing, DHS stated that the clearances had been completed, Judge Couch did not issue a new decision (as he was directed to do by the BIA). Instead, he stated that he was recertifying the case to the BIA, something that he lacked the authority to do without first issuing a new decision.

The case sat for another seven months, during which time it is not clear whether the record actually made its way back to the BIA. But before the Board could rule on the propriety of Judge Couch’s actions, the case was somehow plucked from wherever it had been by AG Jeff Sessions, who on his own transformed the case into a vehicle to answer a question that no one but himself seems to understand, namely, whether being the victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable particular social group for asylum purposes. (There is an interesting question of how Sessions even knew that this case existed.)

In response, the Department of Homeland Security appealed to reason. It requested the AG to hold off until the BIA ruled on the propriety of Couch’s attempted recertification. DHS also requested Sessions to provide further clarification of his question, and noted that “this question has already been answered, at least in part, by the Board and its prior precedent.” Sessions denied both requests, adding that he is not bound by BIA precedent, nor is he required to allow briefing on an issue before him on certification. It seems as if Sessions might be saying that as he’s bestowing the privilege of allowing briefs, he doesn’t further need to let everyone know what it is they are being asked to brief.

Depending on how Sessions is choosing to interpret the question, his decision might impact not only domestic violence claims, but any asylum claim based on a particular social group involving private criminal activity (which could include claims based on sexual orientation or sexual identity; as well as victims of female genital cutting, human trafficking, gang violence, blood feuds and honor killings). Or then again, maybe not. Because if Sessions is asking whether a particular social group delineated as “victims of private criminal activity” is cognizable, his answer wouldn’t impact the outcome of this case, as the respondent never claimed to be a member of such group. Nor would it matter to the outcome if Sessions is asking whether a group which includes the element of victimization by a criminal acting in a private capacity is cognizable, as no element of victimization is included in the respondent’s delineated group of “El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common.” Nowhere in the wording of such group is there a mention of being the victim of private criminal activity, nor is the respondent claiming that she was targeted for abuse because of her being a victim of private criminal activity.

But could Sessions be questioning whether any particular social group merits asylum where its members fear persecutors who are not government officials? If that’s his question, a decision in the negative would run counter to not only more than a half century of BIA precedent, but also to decisions of all eleven Federal circuit courts, and to international law, all of which universally agree that for asylum purposes, persecution may be by private actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control.

Does Sessions himself understand the question he is asking? Let’s just assume that since this case involves a credible victim of severe domestic violence, and that her particular social group was found by the BIA to be substantially similar to the one it recognized as cognizable in its 2014 precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, that Sessions is considering invalidating that decision.

The purpose of courts and tribunals is to resolve disputes between the parties. The issue that Sessions now wishes to address has been settled, and is not being contested by either party. The Department of Homeland Security itself made this point to Sessions. Had this case been allowed to run its course and result in a grant of asylum, it is far from clear that such result would have been contested or appealed by DHS. In its brief to Sessions, DHS states more than once that it “generally supports the legal framework set out by the Board in Matter of A-R-C-G-.” DHS continued that the group in that case of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not defined by the respondent’s being subject to domestic violence. DHS specifically stated that like the BIA, it “understands ‘unable to leave a relationship’ to signify an inability to do so based on a potential range of ‘religious, cultural, or legal constraints…’” DHS continued that neither the PSG in A-R-C-G- nor the group offered by A-B- herself violate the principle that such group “must exist independently of the persecution suffered and/or feared.”

In refusing DHS’s request for clarification, Sessions claimed that “several Federal Article III courts have recently questioned whether victims of private violence may qualify for asylum” based on their membership in a particular social group. However, in responding to such statement in its subsequent brief, DHS noted that “none of the circuit court decision cited by the Immigration Judge questioned the underlying validity of A-R-C-G-.” In response to Sessions’ statement that he is not bound by the BIA’s precedent decisions, DHS recognized this, but “avers that the Attorney General should not directly or indirectly abrogate A-R-C-G-,” but should “rather…emphasize the importance of case and society-specific analysis.”

There is thus agreement between the parties of the validity of the Board’s holding in A-R-C-G-. In revisiting the issue, Sessions is not attempting to resolve a dispute, as no such dispute exists.

To me, the most shocking aspect of Sessions’ action is its timing. Case law concerning human rights (including the law of asylum) and civil rights does not develop in a vacuum. Much as courts have extended civil rights protections based on race, gender, and sexual orientation throughout the history of this country, the idea of what constitutes persecution and which of its victims are deserving of protection evolves along with the views of society. Sessions is choosing, unprompted, to challenge whether victims of domestic violence are deserving of asylum just as our society has undertaken a powerful, long-overdue, and much needed correction in the form of the #metoo movement. Many hundreds of thousands of us (“us” of course referring to people regardless of gender, as women’s rights are human rights) have filled the streets of cities all over America (and the world) the past two Januarys in a powerful, emotional rebuke to sexual assault and all forms of sexism. Powerful men who for years had engaged in all forms of sexual abuse and harassment are for the first time experiencing the consequences of their actions. And it is at this particular time that Sessions seeks to revoke protection to women who are domestic violence victims?

Briefs are good, but more is needed. The wonderful Tahirih Justice Center collected 60,000 signatures on a petition which it delivered to Sessions in March calling on him to uphold asylum protection for survivors of domestic violence: https://www.tahirih.org/news/tahirih-delivers-petition-on-asylum-for-domestic-violence-survivors-to-the-attorney-general/. More organizations need to follow Tahirih’s example. In addition to the briefs submitted, there needs to be a true public outcry addressed to Sessions on this issue. Asylum protection for victims of domestic violence is not just an immigration issue or a women’s issue. It is a human right, on which all of us should make ourselves heard.

*Heartfelt thanks to the law firm of Gibson Dunn (Megan Kiernan, Ronald Kirk, Chelsea Glover, Lalitha Madduri, and Amer Ahmed) for drafting the brief, and to former BIA member Lory D. Rosenberg for organizing and coordinating the effort.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

DAVID G. SAVAGE @ LA TIMES: REFUGEE ROULETTE CONTINUES – But, It’s Not What You Might Think – The “Outliers “ Are All On The Anti-Asylum Side In A System Systematically Biased Against Asylum Seekers From The Northern Triangle!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=73fad225-44bc-4757-97fa-b9369552de1e

By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — Central Americans who travel north to plead for entry at the U.S. border are taking their chances on an immigration system that is deeply divided on whether they can qualify for asylum if they are fleeing domestic violence or street crime, rather than persecution from the government.

The law in this area remains unclear, and the outcome of an asylum claim depends to a remarkable degree on the immigration judge who decides it.

And sitting atop the immigration court system is Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of much stricter limits on immigration who has recently taken an interest in reviewing asylum cases.

Lawyers say they are troubled by a legal system in which decisions turn so much on the views of individual judges.

Among the 34 immigration judges in Los Angeles, two granted fewer than 3% of the hundreds of asylum claims that came before them in the last five years, while another judge granted 71% of them. The disparity is even greater in San Francisco, where the judge’s rate of granting asylum claims ranged from 3% to 91%.

Overall, asylum seekers would do much better in San Francisco, where 32% were denied between 2012 and 2017, compared with a 68% denial rate in Los Angeles during the same period, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

This is not news to immigration lawyers. A decade ago, several law professors published a study called “Refugee Roulette” that revealed how asylum cases depend heavily on the views of individual judges. “The level of variation was shocking. And it hasn’t changed,” said Georgetown University professor Philip Schrag.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor from Los Angeles, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, discounts the statistics. “They’re not reliable,” she said, since judges may have very different caseloads. Some judges hear claims from people who have been detained for crimes, while others hear mostly claims from juveniles, she said.

“We are human. Different people can have different views about the same set of facts,” she said.

Several Los Angeles lawyers who have won or lost asylum cases in recent months said the identity of the judges played an important role. “It’s astounding how much variation there is from judge to judge. The system is in need of repair. It’s an embarrassment,” said Joseph D. Lee, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson.

He represented an El Salvador mother who fled north with her three children after gang members shot and killed her husband’s brother in front of her family and then threatened to do the same to her relatives.

“The Central American cases can be difficult to win. Some judges are pretty hostile to gang-related claims,” he said. His client’s claim was denied, and he plans to appeal. “Your chance of winning an asylum claim shouldn’t turn on the luck of the draw on which judge you get. But that is exactly how it works,” he said.

It may soon become much harder to win such claims. Under an unusual feature of the law, the attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, also oversees the immigration courts. He can overrule their decisions and announce new rules that are binding on them.

In March, Sessions announced he would review the question of whether women fleeing domestic violence or other “private criminal activity” can rely on this to win asylum.

Last fall, Sessions spoke to a meeting of immigration judges and complained America’s “generous asylum” system has become “overloaded with fake claims.… The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”

In the last week, the American Bar Assn., faith-based groups and a coalition of immigration law professors have submitted “friend of the court” briefs to Sessions urging him not to reverse years of precedent involving women fleeing abuse and terror.

But veteran immigration judges are not optimistic. Sessions “just wants more people to be removed,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a retired immigration judge from Virginia and an outspoken critic of the attorney general. “He will make it a lot harder for Central Americans to get asylum.”

The dispute begins with the words of the asylum law. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress adopted the United Nations standard and said people may seek asylum if they are “unable or unwilling to return” to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Under the law, asylum seekers are treated differently than, for example, refugees from a war-torn nation or immigrants seeking work.

Four of those terms in the asylum law are clear enough: race, religion, nationality and political opinion. But lawyers and judges have struggled to decide what counts as “membership in a particular social group.”

Courts have agreed that gays and lesbians can count as a social group, since they have suffered persecution in many societies. Some judges have also said women and girls fleeing sexual abuse and violence can seek asylum because their society views women as the property of men — and with no hope for protection from their government.

But the question becomes harder when considering the gang violence that has spread through some Central American countries. For example, people who testified against violent gangs or resisted them in other ways have sought asylum on the grounds they are members of a particularly endangered social group.

“These cases are challenging,” said Nareeneh Sohbatian, a Los Angeles lawyer at Winston & Strawn who supervises asylum claims. “We talk a lot about this. If they are targeted because of a gang, it can be difficult to show it was caused by their membership in a particular social group.”

Jenna Gilbert, managing attorney for Human Rights First in Los Angeles, said it is clear the asylum law does not protect people fleeing “generalized violence.” A claim “needs to be tied to the one of the protected categories,” she said. “The cases are very fact-dependent.”

But the odds of winning asylum are not good for Central Americans. In the last five years, China had the largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration courts, and only 20% of their claims were denied. Ethiopians did even better, with only 17% denied. By contrast, the highest denial rates arose from claims brought by natives of Jamaica (91%), the Philippines (90%), Mexico (88%), El Salvador (79%), Honduras (78%) and Guatemala (75%).

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who works at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter enforcement, said it is not surprising that Sessions will reconsider rulings on asylum in cases of domestic violence. “Right now, the law is very unclear. The phrase ‘particular social group’ is vague. A lot of these claims are compelling, but that doesn’t mean it is ‘persecution’ under the law. If a gang wants to recruit me, that’s not persecution.”

Last month, Sessions criticized a caravan of Central American asylum seekers approaching the border as a “deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system. There is no right to demand entry without justification. Smugglers and traffickers and those who lie or commit fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

People who present an asylum claim at the border must only show they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were to return home. Most asylum seekers are allowed to stay and make their claim.

Sessions said he would send more prosecutors and judges to the border area to resolve these claims quickly, rather than let them linger for many months or years.

Meanwhile, lawyers are also rushing to represent the asylum seekers. “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has waged a yearlong campaign to undermine asylum seekers and demonize those who only wish to live in safety with the families,” said Gilbert of Human Rights First. “We’re proud to assist these individuals who are fleeing unspeakable horror as they try to rebuild their lives.”

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

It’s really not that complex.

Under the BIA’s seminal precedent decision in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1985) resisting gang recruitment is undoubtedly a characteristic that is “fundamental to identity” therefore making an individual a member of a “particular social group” (“PSG”) for asylum purposes.
- Undoubtedly, this conduct is threatening to a gang’s existence and power and is “at least one central reason” why forced recruitment and other forms of harm are used, among other things, to overcome this fundamental characteristic of the PSG.
- Therefore, the vast majority of those fleeing the Northern Triangle over the years because of various forms of resistance to gangs should have qualified for asylum under the Acosta test.
- However granting most of these cases might have been perceived as “opening the floodgates” and therefore career threatening to the BIA.
Following the “Ashcroft Purge,” which removed almost all of the Appellate Judges on the BIA who consistently stood up for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, the BIA came up with bogus requirements of “particularity” and “social visibility/social distinction” to facilitate the denial of most asylum grants to individuals from the Northern Triangle.
- To do this, the BIA actually had to intentionally and disingenuously misapply criteria developed by the UNHCR to expand the protection available on the basis of a particular social group to instead restrict the group entitled to protection.
  - With the “due process” group of judges removed by Ashcroft, the BIA was able to get away with this with no visible internal resistance.
However even under the BIA’s new “bogus test” almost all experts agree that individuals resisting gang recruitment in countries where “go along to get along (and live)” is the norm would be both a well-defined “particularized” group and highly “socially distinct.”
- Consequently, the BIA and a number of anti-asylum Immigration Judges simply resorted to intentionally misconstruing country conditions and making biased “no nexus” findings or largely bogus “adverse credibility rulings” to keep the Northern Triangle grant rate unrealistically low.
- A great way to maximize denials is to hold individuals in detention or game the system so that they can’t obtain competent representation and/or “fail to appear” in Immigration Court thereby denying them the relief that the likely could win in a truly fair, unbiased system.
- Remarkably, the article quotes a source who espouses one of the many DHS “enforcement myths” — that forced recruitment can’t be a basis for asylum.
  - This is nonsense. Even under BIA’s intentionally restrictive precedents, the factual reasons why the respondent is being recruited (“nexus”) are important.
  - But, as a practical matter, no detained, unrepresented applicant has any realistic chance of understanding the law and developing the factual record necessary to support relief.
Also, in the Northern Triangle gangs have infiltrated the system to the extent that it is almost impossible to separate “political motives” from supposedly “criminal ones/”
- Individuals are forcibly recruited as punishment for a variety of reasons including family membership, having been witnesses against gangs, actual or imputed political opinion, and actual or imputed religious views.
- With competent lawyers, time to prepare, and an attentive Court of Appeals, most credible gang-related cases should qualify for asylum.
  - Without lawyers or the chance to develop and document a case, the chances for success are almost nil.
Even though the system is already heavily rigged against bona fide asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he intends to further misconstrue the law to make it virtually impossible for refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle to qualify for asylum
Given the total corruption of the governments in the Northern Triangle and the serious infiltration by gangs, a fair process should result in a “blanket precedent” that would give almost everyone credibly fleeing gang threats in the Norther Triangle at least “temporary withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
No, the problem is not just that different Immigration Judges have different opinions. It’s that both the composition of the Immigration Court and the administrative case-law have been consciously “rigged” to deny those seeking protection from the Northern Triangle the protection to which they should be entitled under both U.S. and international law.
- Yes, I of all people certainly agree that judges can and should have differing views and philosophies,
- But, at some point, “differences” become “biases.”
- There is no way that those judges whose grant rates are below 10% can actually be applying asylum law in the generous manner set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca or the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi.
- Nor are they properly applying the “benefit of the doubt” as it’s supposed to be given according to the UNHCR in systems based on the 1952 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
- No, I wouldn’t “fire” any current Immigration Judges (although I might over time make everyone re-compete for their jobs in a true merit-based selection system). But we do need:
  - An independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, free from the pernicious political influence that the DOJ has been applying for many years.
  - A real merit selection system for future Immigration Judges that emphasizes expertise in immigration and asylum law and proven ability to deal fairly, effectively, and objectively with the public and which utilizes panels with some members from outside the Federal Government who practice before the Immigration Courts.
  - An Appellate Division that functions like a true independent Appellate Court, with a diverse membership, that will rein in those judges who are biased against asylum seekers and not applying Cardoza-Fonseca.
  - As I’ve pointed out before, things simply can’t happen under the highly biased, xenophobic Jeff Sessions. He is the “perfect storm” of why the Immigration Judiciary must be removed from the DOJ.
- As a historical aside, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come, the BIA actually misapplied their own “immutability/fundamental to identity” test to the facts in Acosta!
  - Of course “taxi drivers in San Salvador” were a PSG! Ask any New Yorker whether being a taxi driver is “fundamental to identity!”
  - Occupational identification, at all levels of society, is one of the most powerful indicators of self-identity and one that we seldom ask individuals to involuntarily change. Think that “truck drivers” aren’t a “PSG?” Just walk into the next Pilot Truck Stop you see on the Interstate in your little black judicial robe and shout that next to the Drivers” Lounge or rest rooms. I think you would find some “strong dissenters.”
  - Or how about going before a group of judges and telling them that being a judge isn’t “fundamental to identity!” I remember when a somewhat “tone-deaf” (but in retrospect, perhaps clairvoyant) invited speaker at one of our past Annual Immigration Judges’ Conferences referred to us as “just highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.” He barely got out alive!
  - The BIA ruling in Acosta was “doubly absurd” in the context of 1985. The U.S. was then actively engaged in supporting the Government of El Salvador against the guerrillas. The BIA suggested that the taxi drivers in San Salvador could merely quit their jobs en masse or participate in the guerrillas taxi strike called by the guerrillas. Both of which would have crippled the country of El Salvador and seriously undermined the government we were supporting!
  - In short, the BIA has a long ugly history of twisting the law and the facts against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly those from Latin America.
    - Jeff Sessions, well-known for his long history of xenophobia, racially charged attitudes and actions, and bias against nearly every non-White-male-straight-right-wing-Christian social group in America is on the cusp of making things even worse for vulnerable refugees entitled to our protection by abusing his power as AG and stripping the hard earned asylum rights from abused women — who had to labor through 15 years of wrong BIA decisions, outrageous political maneuvering at the DOJ, and task avoidance at the BIA to win their hard-earned rights in A-R-C-G- in the first place!
    - Only cowards pick on the vulnerable and the dispossessed!

Eventually, long after I’m gone, I’m sure the “truth will out.” However, that will be little help to those currently being railroaded through the travesty that passes for justice in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts or those who have been denied justice in the past.

PWS

05-06-18

BABY DONNIE THROWS TANTRUM, THREATENS TO DECLARE WAR ON AMERICA IF HE DOESN’T GET HIS WALL!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-close-country-remark/index.html

Elizabeth Landers reports for CNN:

(CNN)President Donald Trump seemed to float a new idea about border control during a tax reform roundtable in Ohio.

The President was in the midst of criticizing Democrats during a riff about border security when he slipped in the idea that people might “have to think about closing up the country.”

“They don’t want the wall, but we’re going to get the wall, even if we have to think about closing up the country for a while,” Trump said. “We’re going to get the wall. We have no choice. We have absolutely no choice. And we’re going to get tremendous security in our country.”

Trump then mentioned the notion a second time, saying, “And we may have to close up our country to get this straight, because we either have a country or we don’t. And you can’t allow people to pour into our country the way they’re doing.”

It was not immediately clear what Trump meant by the remarks. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said Saturday in an interview with CNN’s Ana Cabrera that Trump “is absolutely out of his mind to think that is any kind of a reasonable solution for our economy or compassionate or in line with our values.”

“This President has done everything he can every time he’s in trouble to turn around and try to turn it against immigrants, and it really deeply saddens me,” Jayapal said.

. . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Ironically, building the wall would do nothing to stop individuals from appearing at U.S. ports of entry and applying for asylum as they are completely entitled to do under both U.S. law and international conventions to which we are party. Indeed, that’s what almost all the remaining members of the “intentionally overhyped by Trump Caravan” did. Moreover the wall is unlikely to stop professional smugglers who can easily outsmart any physical barriers. At best, it might further enrich smugglers and kill more migrants by allowing smugglers to charge more money for more dangerous crossings.

On the other hand, a robust system for granting refugee status in the Northern Triangle and a fairer and more efficient asylum system for those who apply at the port of entry would almost certainly reduce the number of unlawful border crossings, while saving lives, and allowing the Border Patrol to allocate resources more toward drug smuggling and others who might actually threaten the security of the U.S. And a larger, more robust, and more realistic legal work visa program would also dramatically decrease unlawful border crossings.

PWS

)5-06-18

BOGUS BORDER CRISIS — How Trump, Sessions, & Nielsen Ignored Reality To Create Yet Another False Narrative To Support White Nationalist, Anti-Immigrant Agenda!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/immigration-border-crossings-stabilize/index.html

Border crossings steady in April after March spike

By: Tal Kopan, CN

Illegal border crossings stabilized in April after jumping substantially in March, a sign that a surge at the southern border may not be imminent, according to newly released statistics from the Trump administration.

In April, there were 38,234 apprehensions at the southern border and 12,690 people deemed “inadmissible,” or who came to a port of entry without papers that authorized them to enter the US, virtually unchanged from the month before. The number of family units and children in both categories also held roughly steady from the previous month.

The news comes as the administration has claimed a “crisis” on the southern border, a narrative largely driven by the jump in March and the comparison to the numbers last spring, when crossings were at abnormally low levels.

Administration officials have also been decrying a so-called caravan of migrants — an annual pilgrimage of mostly women and children who say they are fleeing violence and abuse in their home countries — that has arrived at the border with Mexico. More than half of the roughly 150 migrants in that group have been processed by Customs and Border Protection for their claims of asylum. Those who meet the legal threshold will be allowed to pursue their claims in court cases that could take months or years. Those that don’t will be turned away from the US.

In the midst of the caravan’s trek and the release of the March statistics, President Donald Trump has ordered the National Guard to deploy troops to the border, with roughly 1,000 having been sent so far, and with the Justice Department announcing it will send more immigration judges and prosecutors to border districts, as well.

April’s figures indicate that although there was a sharp spike in March, border crossings remain in line with historic seasonal trends. Numbers are still consistent with Obama administration years — slightly below fiscal years 2013 and 2014 but slightly above 2015 and 2016.

The crossings in April of this year were more than triple April 2017, but that comparison is distorted, as crossings last April were at levels unseen in modern history, before they started to pick up and stabilize more in line with recent years.

Crossings have been trending downward for decades and are at historic lows, prompting Homeland Security to declare last fall that the border is the most secure it has ever been.

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

Lies and false narratives are a key part of the White Nationalist agenda. Kind of like the modern version of the infamous “Reichstag Fire” that Hitler used to rally nationalist sentiment and seize power. Nice folks!

PWS

05-04-18

GONZO’S WORLD: NO PRETENSE OF DUE PROCESS! – US Immigration Judges and “Kangaroo Courts” Now Part Of Law Enforcement Message – No Justice, No Protection, No Rule Of Law – Just Removals & “Messages!”

Sessions sends new attorneys, judges to the border

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday announced further actions to keep the pressure on illegal immigration at the southwestern border, including more resources to prosecute cases.

Sessions said a total of 35 assistant US attorneys would be added in the five districts along the southern border to allow for more cases to be brought against illegal crossings and human smuggling, and 18 immigration judges would be tapped to hear cases in person and through video conferencing at border state immigration courts.

The moves follow a continued pledge by Sessions to take a hard line on illegal immigration and to try to move cases through the immigration courts more quickly, with the lengthy backlog in those courts blamed for allowing a number of undocumented immigrants to live for years in the US as they await final decisions on their fates.

The announcement also came as dozens of migrants looking to call attention to their plight in Central America have reached the US border, where they are slowly being allowed across to be processed for their asylum claims. The so-called caravan, a yearly event, has become a flashpoint in the immigration debate, especially since it caught the attention of President Donald Trump. Supporters say it exposes the need for asylum laws that offer protections to people fleeing dangerous and deadly persecution in their home countries, but the administration has used the situation to call for tougher laws, claiming migrants coming north are exploiting the US system.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/politics/immigration-southern-border-jeff-sessions/index.htm

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

Sessions willfully misrepresents the truth: 1) there, of course, is no “legal line” for these folks to get in; 2) someone fleeing for his or her life can’t get in line anyway; 3) this Administration dismantled the only “in country” refugee processing program in the Northern Triangle.

Hopefully, at some point the Article III Courts will do their job, step in, and put an end to this caricature of justice.

Folks should be given a reasonable chance to get lawyers, an opportunity to prepare, document, and present their cases in a non-coercive setting, access to a truly independent, unbiased judge who is committed to guaranteeing individual rights and the fair application of U.S. protection laws, and a fair decision without being placed under duress by unnecessary detention and separation of families. The Court System should not be run by an individual like Sessions who has already announced his predetermination of the preferred outcomes.

Once fully documented, many of these cases probably could be granted either as asylum cases or as withholding of removal cases under the CAT in short hearings or by stipulation if the law were applied in a fair and unbiased manner. Those who don’t qualify for protection after a fair and impartial adjudication, and a chance to appeal administratively and to the Article III Courts, can be returned under the law.

Given the situation in the Northern Triangle that is driving these individuals to seek refuge, we should 1) reestablish a robust in country refugee processing system for the Northern Triangle; and 2) work with the UNHCR and other stable countries in the Western Hemisphere to equitably distribute those who can’t return to the Northern Triangle.

PWS

05-03-18

HERE’S MY TESTIMONY BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY (MD) COUNCIL ON A SPECIAL APPROPRIATION FOR REPRESENTING COUNTY RESIDENTS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT!

Testimony for Montgomery County Council Hearing

May 1, 2018

Special Appropriation

Judge Paul W. Schmidt

Good evening, Council President, Vice Council President, Council Members,

For 21 years, I served as an Appellate Judge on the Board of Immigration Appeals, and a U.S. Immigration Judge at the Arlington Immigration Court. I was the Chair of the Appeals Board for six years. Though I am since retired, I follow with great interest and concern the immigration court’s troubling trajectory.

There is a real crisis in the immigration system today: the attack on Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts. This crisis has been many administrations in the making. However, the current administration has done more damage to Due Process more quickly than any prior administration. Its most recent insistence on quotas for immigration judges, the attempted dissolution of the Legal Orientation Program, combined with increased immigration enforcement, and inhumane detention policies, has eradicated any semblance of Due Process.

I applaud the Council for recognizing the need to ensure Due Process for its immigrant residents facing removal by funding deportation defense. I further urge you to make that deportation defense universalby providing legal representation to all Montgomery County residents facing removal regardless of any previous interactions with the criminal justice system.

All immigrants facing removal are entitled to Due Process. No person should be denied access to justice. The only way to ensure that an immigrant has Due Process in the current immigration system is by providing competent legal representation. Without an attorney, there is simply no other way an immigrant can navigate the extremely complex legal immigration system.

When an immigrant appears without an attorney, the Immigration Judge must rely on the attorney for the government; the person who is fighting to remove the immigrant from this country, to present the immigrant’s case. Despite a judge’s best efforts, it is simply not possible to ensure that the immigrant has had all of the relevant facts about his or her case presented and that all legal defenses to removal have been explored, explained, and understood. While some judges might like to believe that they are capable of ensuring that those appearing before them without counsel have the same chance of relief as those appearing with counsel, I know from my experience that this is simply not possible. I also know that my courtroom ran more efficiently when all parties were represented; frivolous arguments decreased, continuances decreased, and the number of appeals decreased as well. Simply put, a good judge knows that having competent counsel representing both parties yields a more efficient and just outcome.

Allow me to assure this council that, though representation by an attorney dramatically enhances any immigrant’s chance of success in immigration court, it by no means guarantees success. The immigration laws are sometimes rigid, by design. Relief is only available in those cases where the law explicitly permits it.

Moreover, serious criminal convictions often will exclude, by operation of law, even the most sympathetic petitioner from relief. In some instances, the presence of the conviction precludes relief altogether, in other cases, the judge must balance the equities, and for immigrants who have committed serious crimes, the equities usually weigh in favor of removal.

However, I maintain that all immigrants should have access to counsel, regardless of their history with the criminal justice system, because the only way an immigration judge can make a just, informed decision is if the immigrant facing removal has Due Process. And Due Process, particularly now, can only be guaranteed through the competent representation of an attorney.

I urge this council to leave to the immigration judges, a body expert in the immigration law, the task of determining what consequences a criminal conviction should have upon an immigrant’s ability to remain in the United States. Do not deny Due Process to any member of your community. Do not deny access to justice to immigrants facing removal, simply because of their criminal history. In doing so, you put the deserving and the underserving in the same category and risk denying relief to vulnerable, deserving members of your community.

The erstwhile vision of the Immigration Court, the vision which I helped develop in the late 1990s was for the court to “be the world’s best administrative tribunal[s] guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Instead, the Department of Justice’s ever-changing priorities and morbid fascination with increased detention as a means of deterrence have turned the Immigration Court system into a tool of enforcement.

I urge this council to vote in favor of the special appropriation and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

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

My friend and pro bono superstar Claudia Cubas, Litigation Director of the Capital Area Immigrants Rights (“CAIR”) Coalition was the “lead witness” favoring the proposal. It was “democracy in action” as folks with strong views both ways on the issue appeared to express their views to their elected representatives. As it should be!

PWS

05-02-18

EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST – THE ST. LOUIS DOCKS AGAIN AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER — TRUMP, SESSIONS & CO. WANT THE US TO FAIL THE MORAL TEST AGAIN – But, This Time It’s Anti-Hispanic Racism, Rather Than Anti-Semitism Behind Our Government’s Intentional Immorality — Trump & Sessions “are sincere in their desire to stanch the flow of Latino immigration — not, I strongly suspect, because of drugs or crime, but because they loathe the demographic and cultural change that is taking place.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-immigrant-caravan-is-a-test-trump-wants-us-to-fail/2018/04/30/124b975c-4cb4-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72fbc5bc8d11

The immigrant ‘caravan’ is a test. Trump wants us to fail.

By Eugene Robinson

The “caravan” of asylum-seeking migrants that has finally arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border is a test of American character and purpose — a test President Trump wants us to fail.

I put caravan in quotation marks because the group that reached Tijuana hardly qualifies for the term. Just a few dozen would-be entrants presented themselves at the Port of San Ysidro on Sunday — only to be told that U.S. immigration officials were too busy to attend to them. Another several hundred were reported to be in the general area, waiting their turn to attempt to cross the border.

Trump has spoken of these people as if they were some kind of rampaging horde. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has accused them of “a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.” The truth is that this sort of thing happens every year: Would-be migrants seek safety in numbers as they make the long and perilous trek north through Mexico.

Sessions probably understands this context; Trump probably doesn’t. But I believe both are sincere in their desire to stanch the flow of Latino immigration — not, I strongly suspect, because of drugs or crime, but because they loathe the demographic and cultural change that is taking place.

While he and his administration were being appropriately roasted at the White House Correspondents’ Associationdinner on Saturday evening, Trump was at a rally in Michigan saying that our immigration laws are “corrupt . . . so corrupt” and that the motives of those who defend our nation’s traditional role as a haven for asylum seekers are political. “The Democrats actually feel, and they are probably right, that all of these people that are pouring across are going to vote for Democrats, they’re not going to vote for Republicans.”

They’re not going to vote for anybody, of course, since they’re not citizens. Truth doesn’t matter to Trump. But you knew that.

What seems to really drive the president crazy is that the United States remains a haven for those fleeing persecution. Trump laid out his complaint Saturday: “If a person puts their foot over the line, we have to take them into our country, we have to register them. We then have to ask them a couple of questions. Lawyers are telling them what to say. How unsafe they are. And once they say that, we have to let them go, to come back to court in like a year. Only one problem: They don’t come back, okay. That’s the end. Welcome to the United States.”

You will have noticed that missing from Trump’s rant is any sense of morality or mission.

There is a reason the law makes provision for those seeking asylum. In 1939, Congress rejected a bill that would have admitted 20,000 German Jewish children. Later that year, authorities refused to allow the St. Louis, a ship carrying about 900 German Jews, to dock in Miami; the Coast Guard sent out patrol boats to warn the ship away. The St. Louis was forced to return to Europe, and 254 of its passengers later perished during the Holocaust.

That shameful history led to changes in immigration policy that prohibit rejecting claims of asylum out of hand. The bar is high, but many of the Central American asylum seekers probably clear it.

In El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, the major threat comes from rampant gang violence. Boys are often offered a stark choice: Join a gang or be killed. Girls are threatened with rape. It is easy to say this is a problem local elected officials and police ought to solve, but government institutions are weak, and corruption is widespread. What choice does a family under imminent threat have but to flee? What would you do?

It is of course true that not every Central American who asks for asylum truly merits it. That’s why each case is examined and evaluated, with all the time needed to reach a proper determination — which is how the migrants now at the border must be handled, despite what Trump and Sessions might prefer.

To close our eyes and hearts to legitimate claims of persecution would be to repeat the shameful and tragic mistakes of the World War II era. If the subjects of Trump’s demagoguery were summarily denied entry, as he apparently would like, most would be forced to go home and some would be killed. That would be a terrible stain on the nation’s conscience.

I’m tempted to add that it would be a stain on Trump’s conscience as well, but it’s not clear that he has one.

Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

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

I remember walking through the “St. Louis Exhibit” at the Holocaust Museum (on an EOIR-sponsored tour, no less, for a long ago and far away Annual Judges Conference — my how official racism & xenophobia have changed things) and asking myself how we could have done that to our fellow human beings.

Then, we had a “special session” explaining the catastrophic failure and cowardice of the German Judiciary during the Nazi rise to power. Judge after judge “adhered to the rule of law” even when those laws unfairly disenfranchised Jews, deprived them of their properly and lawful occupations, and eventually sentenced them to mass death!

I’ve now come to the unhappy realization that the St. Louis might have represented the norm, rather than the exception, to the reality of American democracy and its serious anti-Semitic and racially biased undertones. And, the actions of the corrupt & cowardly German judges of that era are certainly what Trump, Sessions, and their cronies are referring to when they disingenuously pontificate about “the rule of law” and looking for judges, Government officials, and lawyers who are committed to applying it in a biased and one-sided fashion

It’s their rule of law, as they consistently misconstrue it to protect only their favored political and racial groups, and misuse it “punish enemies” and to carry our their increasingly racist, White Nationalist agenda.

And yet 40% of our fellow countrymen are enthusiastically supportive of this heinous agenda. What’s wrong with them? Why ask ourselves how Nazism could have overtaken Germany when we’re in the process of trying to repeat that sordid history here? It’s pretty easy to see Hitler rallies of the 1930s in the Trump rallies of today. The same vicious disregard of both the truth and humanity, scapegoating, and an attacks on the true rule of law and on those who stand up for democracy, all wrapped in an appeal to false religious nationalism!

We’re failing as a nation on both a moral and a legal basis. It remains to be seen whether the resistance to Trump, his supporters, and his enablers will be sufficient to preserve democracy and human decency in America.

PWS

05-01-18

CHILD ABUSE: COWARDLY ADMINISTRATION USES FALSE NARRATIVES & DISTORTED FACTS TO ATTACK PROTECTIONS FOR REFUGEE CHILDREN — Our National Morality & Human Decency In Free-fall Under Trump! — “It has been national law and policy that as adults we look out for children …. No longer.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/us/immigration-minors-children.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Eli Hager of The Marshall Project in the NY Times:

On April 4, the White House posted a fact sheet on its website warning that legal “loopholes” were allowing tens of thousands of immigrant children who entered the country on their own to remain in the United States.

The next day, another post went up: “Loopholes in Child Trafficking Laws Put Victims — and American Citizens — At Risk.”

And the same week, the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services not normally known for its politics, announced that it “joins the President in calling for Congress to close dangerous loopholes.”

Over the past month, the Trump administration has taken aim at a set of child protection laws created to protect young people who cross into the United States without a parent or guardian, perhaps aided by smugglers. The administration now sees some of these same youths as a threat, and is portraying the laws as “loopholes” that are preventing the quick deportation of teenagers involved in gangs.

The campaign is aimed at Capitol Hill, but the Trump administration is not waiting for legislation: In a series of at least a dozen moves across multiple federal agencies, it has begun to curtail legal protections for unaccompanied children who cross the border. Many of these safeguards were created by a 2008 law that provided protections for children who might otherwise be forced into labor or prostitution.

The young people affected by the administration’s measures have been fleeing deadly gang violence in Central America since 2014, when civil strife erupted in the region. They are a less politically shielded group of young people than the so-called “Dreamers,” most of whom came to this country as toddlers with their parents.

The new directives appear aimed at detaining more of these youths after their arrival and speeding deportation back to their home countries — where they may face violent reprisals from gangs or other forms of abuse.

“It has been national law and policy that as adults we look out for children,” said Eve Stotland, director of legal services for The Door, a youth advocacy organization in New York. “No longer.”

Endangered Central American Children

Among the many new directives, the State Department in November gave just 24 hours’ notice to endangered children in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador before canceling a program through which they could apply for asylum in the United States before getting to the border. About 2,700 of them who had already been approved and were awaiting travel arrangements were forced to stay behind in the troubled region.

The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, has sharply cut back on granting a special legal status for immigrant juveniles who have been abused, neglected or abandoned; the program dropped from a 78 percent approval rate in 2016 to 54 percent last year, according to statistics compiled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. In New York, Texas and elsewhere, the agency in recent months has also begun revoking this protection for children who had already won it, according to legal aid organizations in the states.

The Justice Department has also issued legal clarification for courts and prosecutors about revoking “unaccompanied child” status, which allows minors to have their cases heard in a non-adversarial setting rather than in immigration court with a prosecutor contesting them. (The White House has said that it intends to remove this protection altogether, but has not yet done so.)

And the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which provides social services to vulnerable immigrant youth, is now placing all children with any gang-related history in secure detention instead of foster care, whether or not they have ever been arrested or charged with a crime, according to an August memo to the President’s Domestic Policy Council.

“It’s law enforcement mission creep, and our office is ill-prepared for it,” said Robert Carey, who was director of the refugee agency under President Barack Obama.

A Focus on Gangs

The Trump administration has said that its actions are necessary to stem the tide of violent crime. It has focused on teenagers belonging to or associated with the Salvadoran-American street gang MS-13, which has been linked by the police since 2016 to at least 25 homicides on Long Island — a testing ground for many of the president’s new policies.

About 99 of the more than 475 people arrested in the New York City area during ICE raids for gang members had come to the U.S. as unaccompanied children, a representative for the agency said.

To fortify the “loophole” narrative, official announcements of these ICE actions often point out that a number of those arrested were in the process of applying for various forms of child protection.

Yet 30 of 35 teenagers rounded up during these ICE raids last year and who later filed a class-action lawsuit have subsequently been released because the gang allegations against them were thin, according to the ACLU. And the Sacramento Bee reported that a juvenile detention center in California recently cut back its contract with the federal government and complained that too many immigrant teens were being sent there with no evidence of gang affiliation.

The refugee agency acknowledged in its August memo to the White House that only 1.6 percent of all children in its care have any gang history.

“The arguments they’re making are just really challenging to basic logic,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas who teaches a clinic for immigrant families.

“The arguments they’re making are just really challenging to basic logic,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas who teaches a clinic for immigrant families.

. . . .

“**************************************

Read the complete article at the link.

Yes, folks, it’s way past time to use the correct term for the Trump Administration’s outrageous, and in many cases illegal, policies directed against primarily Hispanic migrant children: “Child Abuse!”

I met many of these kids and families coming through my court over the years. While there were a tiny number of “bad actors” (which the DHS did a good job of discovering) the vast, vast majority were nothing like what Trump, Sessions and others are describing. They actually much better represented “true American values,” courage, and the “American work ethic” than do Trump and his valueless cronies.

That’s right folks! OUR U.S. Government is using racist-inspired lies to conduct a war against Hispanic children and to illegally return many of them to deadly and life threatening situations! Bad things happen to nations that let bullies and cowards bully, demean, and harm children!

The Trump Administration’s abuse of migrant children and their legal and Constitutional rights could be taken right out of a State Department Country Report on human rights abuses in a Third World Dictatorship. Is this they way YOU want to be remembered by history?

No, Constitutional and statutory protections for children are NOT “loopholes.” What kind of human beings speak such trash? The Trump Administration’s response to the “rule of law” when, as is often the case, it doesn’t fit their White Nationalist agenda is always to tell lies, rail against it, and look for ways around it.

Stand up against the lawless behavior and immoral actions of Trump, Sessions, and the rest of their “hate crew!” Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight against the Trump Administration’s erosion of our national values, morality, and the true “rule of law” (which is there to protect migrants and the rest of us from abuse at the hands of our Government).

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

05-01-18

DAVID LEONHARDT @ NYT: FROM FORD TO NOW – HOW THE CONCEPT OF “NEUTRAL JUSTICE” & THE AGs WHO BELIEVED IT DISAPPEARED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHOUT A TRACE! – Today’s DOJ Offers A “Disingenuous Charade” Of “Equal Justice For All!” — “It undermines the idea of equal justice. It tells Americans that our legal system is merely another instrument of partisan battle, that our prosecutors and law-enforcement officers are political hacks in disguise.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/opinion/the-sense-of-justice-that-were-losing.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Leonhardt writes:

Edward Levi and Griffin Bell were very different men. One was the son and grandson of rabbis, a legal scholar whose life revolved around the University of Chicago. The other was a country lawyer who became a master operator in the Atlanta legal world. One was appointed to high office by a Republican president, the other by a Democrat.

Yet for all their differences, Levi and Bell came to share a mission. Together, they created the modern Department of Justice and, more important, the modern American idea of the rule of law.

They were the first two attorneys general appointed after Watergate — Levi by Gerald Ford and Bell by his fellow Georgian Jimmy Carter. And they both set out to refashion the Justice Department into the least political, most independent part of the executive branch. “Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” Levi said. It cannot become “anyone’s weapon.” Bell described the department as “a neutral zone in the government, because the law has to be neutral.”

They understood Richard Nixon’s deepest sins: He saw the law as an instrument not of justice but power. Yet Levi and Bell also knew that Nixon hadn’t been the only problem. Other administrations had also misused the law — investigating enemies and rivals, like civil-rights leaders. So Levi and Bell made sure that the crisis of Watergate didn’t go to waste.

They changed the rules for F.B.I. investigations. They put in place strict protocols for communication between the White House and Justice Department. They made clear — with support from Ford and Carter — that the president must have a unique relationship with the Justice Department.

“It’s perfectly natural and fine for the president and others at the White House to have interactions with the Justice Department on broad policy issues,” Sally Yates, the former deputy attorney general, told me last week. “What’s not O.K. is for the White House, and especially the president, to have any involvement with criminal prosecutions. That really turns the rule of law on its head.”

No administration has been perfect in the pursuit of neutral justice, but every one from Ford’s through Barack Obama’s stayed true to the post-Watergate overhaul. They allowed uncomfortable investigations to proceed unimpeded. They did not treat the law as a weapon.

Then came President Trump.

The story of Levi and Bell highlights how fragile the rule of law is. Much of it does not depend on the Constitution or legislation. It depends on political culture and habits. And that culture and those habits can change. In the sweep of history, the reforms of Levi and Bell are still quite young.

The most obvious ways that Trump is undermining the law involve the Russia investigation. Like Nixon, Trump is enraged that anyone in his administration would investigate anyone else in it. But Russia is only one part of the problem: Trump really does view the law as a weapon, to protect his allies and strike his enemies.

The incomplete list includes: He suggested an end to the prosecution of someone he likes (Joe Arpaio) and the start of prosecutions of people he hates (Hillary Clinton, James Comey). Trump defended his personal lawyer by claiming that the government regularly fabricates evidence. Trump has dragged federal prosecutors into politics, bringing one of them — John Huber, Utah’s top federal prosecutor — to the White House to give a speech lobbying for new immigration laws.

Other presidents did none of this. It undermines the idea of equal justice. It tells Americans that our legal system is merely another instrument of partisan battle, that our prosecutors and law-enforcement officers are political hacks in disguise.

The Trump attacks on the justice system demand a stronger response. The media can’t become numb. His aides and appointees need to stand up to him more often — rather than, for example, assenting to a baseless new inquiry into Clinton, overseen by none other than Huber.

And other Republicans, in Congress and private life, should summon more courage. “We don’t see senior Republican officials, either current or past, defending the Department of Justice and the F.B.I.,” John Bellinger III, a veteran of the George W. Bush administration, said last week at a Georgetown University conference on democratic norms. “It’s just inexplicable.”

Where are the Republican defenders of law and order? Where are you, John Ashcroft? What about C. Boyden Gray, Larry Thompson, Paul Clement, Ted Olson, Susan Collins and Ben Sasse? At least a few of them should be willing to take a little heat in defense of the American system of justice.

In retrospect, Levi almost seemed to be pleading with them in his 1977 goodbye speech as attorney general: “We have shown that the administration of justice can be fair, can be effective, can be nonpartisan. These are goals which can never be won for all time. They must always be won anew.”

You can join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook. I am also writing a daily email newsletter and invite you to subscribe.

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

Yup! And, in some cases, the disguise is pretty transparent — perhaps the only “transparency” in today’s DOJ.

This time period comes close to spanning my career in the DOJ. I worked for both Attorney General Ed Levi and Attorney General Griffin Bell (“known on the “5th Floor” of the DOJ as “Judge Bell”).

I don’t have a recollection of personally meeting Attorney General Levi. However, I did have a strong impression of his integrity because he disqualified himself from a key BIA disbarment case being then being written by my office mate Lauri Steven Filppu who later served with me as an Appellate Judge at the BIA.

The case was Matter of Koden, 15 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 1974; A.G., BIA 1976), aff’d , 564 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1977). The conflict apparently involved the fact that Levi’s wife served on the board of a charitable organization in Chicago where Koden had worked as an attorney.

Compare that with Jeff Sessions who continues to interfere in BIA cases by certification notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interest and ethically required disqualification stemming from his many pejorative (often untrue and/or distorted) statements about migrants exercising their legal rights, particularly asylum seekers.

I knew Judge Bell better. As INS Deputy General Counsel I accompanied my then boss General Counsel (now Judge) David Crosland to a number of meetings in Bell’s office. I believe that our response to the Iranian Hostage situation was the main topic. I remember him as having a very pronounced Southern accent and being just what I expected of a former judge — concerned with the fair enforcement of the law.

Those days are long gone. The DOJ now appears to have reverted to what it was in the Nixon Administration, when Attorney General John Mitchell actually plotted Federal Crimes from his office.

PWS

04-30-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

FOIA results: evidence of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch’s shocking prejudgment of all domestic violence asylum claims

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

May 6 Briefs Filed in Matter of A-B-

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The immigrant ‘caravan’ is a test. Trump wants us to fail.

Related posts:

Endangered Central American Children

A Focus on Gangs

Yes, folks, it’s way past time to use the correct term for the Trump Administration’s outrageous, and in many cases illegal, policies directed against primarily Hispanic migrant children: “Child Abuse!”

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts: