INSIDE TRUMP’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”): Where So-Called “Civil Immigration Detainees” Asserting Their Legal Rights Are Punished In Ways That Would Be “Cruel & Unusual” If Applied To Convicted Criminals!

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=6efdc532-da2a-4e07-8ea4-f1876c153c07&v=sdk

Tom K. Wong writes in the LA Times:

The Trump administration has attempted to close the door on asylum seekers who are looking for refuge in the United States. But even as it blocks entry — and sends tens of thousands of asylum seekers to Mexico to wait out their immigration proceedings — thousands of families with children are also being held in federal immigration detention facilities.

Because the administration has prohibited advocacy groups, journalists, immigration attorneys and even congressional staff from entering detention facilities to document conditions and interview detainees, the public has had only anecdotal glimpses into how detainees were treated. Now we have systematic evidence to support accounts of the harsh conditions that asylum seekers experience in immigration detention. In many ways, it is worse than we thought.

From October 2018 through June 2019, the San Diego Rapid Response Network (SDRRN) assisted approximately 7,300 asylum-seeking families at their shelters. These families, who were processed and then admitted into the U.S., totaled more than 17,000 people, including 7,900 children 5 years old or younger. My team and I at the U.S. Immigration Policy Center (USIPC) at UC San Diego independently analyzed intake data collected by the SDRRN for all of these families.

In a report released last week, we found that approximately 35% of the asylum-seeking heads of households we studied reported problems related to conditions in immigration detention, treatment in immigration detention, or medical issues. This finding is alarming since it’s very likely an underestimate, because the SDRRN was focused on providing needed services to the asylum-seeking families, not administering questionnaires. Moreover, abuses or problems in detention may be underreported by asylum seekers who are afraid that raising complaints may negatively affect their asylum case.

Of those who reported issues related to conditions in detention, approximately 6 out of 10 reported food and water problems, including not having enough to eat, being fed frozen food, being fed spoiled food, not being given formula for infants, not being given water, and having to drink dirty or foul-tasting water. Approximately half reported having to sleep on the floor, having to sleep with the lights on, overcrowded conditions, confinement, and the temperature being too cold in “la hielera,” the detention facilities known as the “iceboxes.” Approximately 1 out of every 3 reported not having access to clean or sanitary toilets, being able to shower or being able to brush their teeth.

About 1 out of 10 of the asylum-seeking heads of households — or more than 700 of them — reported verbal abuse, physical abuse or some form of mistreatment in immigration detention. Examples of verbal abuse include being told “we don’t want your kind here” and “you’re an ape,” among others. Examples of physical abuse include being thrown against the wall when attempting to get a drink of water.

The data also showed the great diversity of those who arrive at the southern border to seek refuge. The majority of the asylum-seeking families came from the “Northern Triangle” of Central America — Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. However, many also came from other continents, 28 in all, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia, Kazakhstan, India, China and Vietnam, to name a few. Any changes to U.S. asylum policies meant to deter Central Americans from entering at the southern border will affect asylum seekers from all over the world who are also looking to the U.S. for safety.

We also found that just over 1 out of 5 of these families do not speak Spanish as their primary language. The languages spoken range from indigenous Central American languages — including K’iche’, Q’eqchi’ and Mam — to Creole, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Vietnamese and Romanian, among others. This linguistic diversity presents another set of challenges.

When asylum seekers are released from detention, they are given detailed instructions on a form called the “Notice to Appear,” including instructions about their immigration court dates, times and locations. On the notice, immigration officials indicate the language that the asylum seeker was given these instructions in. For those whose primary language is not Spanish, nearly 9 out of every 10 were nevertheless given instructions in Spanish. If these families are not provided instructions about their immigration proceedings in a language they can understand, they will not be able to navigate an extremely complex legal process, which may infringe on their basic rights to due process.

From substandard conditions in immigration detention to verbal and physical abuse to serious due process concerns, the data show that the Trump administration is not abiding by its obligations under U.S. and international asylum and refugee law to treat humanely those who are seeking protection from persecution.

With the administration now determined to hold asylum-seeking families for potentially as long as it takes for their immigration proceedings to play out (which could be years), conditions may get worse. Cruelty, after all, may very well be the point.

Tom K. Wong is associate professor of political science and director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego.

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

What kind of country allows its leaders to impose these types of abuses on vulnerable individuals whose “crime” is seeking protection under our laws and the international conventions that they implement?

Why are “Big Mac” and other Trump sycophants at DHS allowed to lie with impunity about what is really happening in DHS detention, the real inhuman consequences of “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”), and abuse “Safe Third Country” agreements by dishonestly pretending that Guatemala, one of the world’s most notoriously dangerous and corrupt “failed states,” meets the statutory requirements?

A key point in Professor Wong’s article is that many, probably the majority, of those released from detention receive inadequate explanations of their obligations to report current addresses and appear for both Immigration Court Hearings and separate ICE detention “check-ins.” Combined with this Administration’s obstinate refusal to work closely and cooperatively with legal services groups to maximize representation, it leads to many unnecessary, yet largely intentional on the part of DHS & EOIR, so-called “no shows.” These, in turn, get bogus “in absentia orders” from Immigration Judges operating under excruciating and inappropriate pressure to “produce numbers, not justice.” This, in turn, feeds the demonstrably false DHS narrative, oft repeated by “Big Mac With Lies” & others, that a large number of asylum seekers will “abscond” if released in the U.S.

It’s all part of a White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda that when finally exposed in detail after Trump and his cronies leave office will paint America as foolish, corrupt, and cowardly. Is this the “legacy” we truly want to leave to future generations?

Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight to restore the rule of law and Constitutional order and to end the corruption and daily human rights abuses of the Trump Administration!

PWS

09-0-19

NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER: A Timeline Of The Trump Administration’s Cruel Attack on The Right Of Asylum & The Rule Of Law!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/08/a-timeline-of-the-trump-administrations-efforts-to-end-asylum.html

A Timeline of the Trump Administration’s Efforts to End Asylum

Last updated: August 2019

United States law enshrines the protections of the international Refugee Convention, drafted in the wake of the horrors of World War II. The law provides that any person “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum….”1 Since President Trump’s inauguration, the federal government has unleashed relentless attacks on the United States asylum system and those who seek safety on our shores. Internal memos have revealed these efforts to be concerted, organized, and implemented toward the goal of ending asylum in the United States as we know it.2 This timeline highlights the major events comprising the administration’s assault on asylum seekers.

Date and Event Policy Description and Status

July 2019

Asylum Ban 2.03 (barring migrants who cross through another country prior to arriving at the U.S. border from asylum eligibility)

√ The administration published an Interim Final Rule banning all people, including children, who have traveled through another country to reach the United States from applying for asylum.

√ Status: The rule is partially in effect and partially blocked. A federal district court judge in California issued a Temporary Restraining Order on July 16, 2019 in California in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant et al. v Trump, finding the ban to likely violate the asylum provisions of U.S. federal law and raising concerns regarding the administration’s failure to allow for notice-and- comment rulemaking.4 The government appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which kept the injunction in place only with regard to the geographic region covered by the Ninth Circuit (California and Arizona) and allowed the government to implement the rule across the rest of the southern border. On August 26th, the government

petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and allow implementation of the rule nationwide during the remainder of the litigation. That petition remains pending.5

All undocumented immigrants in the interior become targets for arrests and deportation through new Interim Final Rule expanding procedures that expedite deportation6

√ Pursuant to another major regulatory change implemented as an Interim Final Rule, any undocumented individual who cannot prove to have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least two years can be placed in a fast-track deportation process, without the opportunity to plead their case in front of an immigration judge or get the help of an attorney.7 Expedited removal proceedings do allow individuals to seek referral to an immigration court proceeding to seek asylum, but the program has been consistently criticized for officers’ failure to identify legitimate asylum seekers, resulting in the return of many to harm.8

√ Status: Because of its issuance as an Interim Final Rule, the expansion of expedited removal is already in place. A lawsuit challenging this inhumane rule was filed on August 6, 2019.9

Attorney General Barr certifies yet another case to himself and further diminishes grounds of asylum – Matter of L-E-A-10

√ Attorney General Barr reversed yet another BIA decision, this time strictly limiting asylum eligibility for individuals targeted and harmed due to their family membership.11

√ Status: This ruling effectively limits, or in some cases eliminates, the possibility of even presenting a claim for asylum for individuals who are fleeing harm on the basis of their membership in a particular family.

New pilot program gives border patrol officers the authority to conduct credible fear interviews12

√ Stephen Miller has been promoting the implementation and expansion of a pilot program that would allow CBP officers, rather than trained asylum officer working under USCIS supervision, to conduct credible fear interviews. Requiring asylum seekers, recently arrived and fleeing fresh trauma, to articulate their fear of return to uniformed CBP officers will certainly mean that many asylum seekers will be forcibly returned to harm and death.

√ Status: Unclear when this proposal will be formally implemented. Mark Morgan, Acting Chief of CBP, testified to Congress in July 2019 that CBP officers are currently undergoing training in order to conduct these types of interviews.13

2

The administration √ announces it has reached a deal with Guatemala to

halt the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S.14

In July the U.S. government announced it had reached an agreement with the government of Guatemala. Although the details are uncertain, the administration seems to consider the agreement to set the stage for a “safe third country” agreement that would require all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border who passed through Guatemala, other than Guatemalans, to be transferred to Guatemala to present an asylum claim there. The announcement of the agreement has prompted widespread condemnation in both countries, as it appears to constitute a back-door sealing of the southern border to asylum in the U.S. and would likely prompt an unmitigated political and humanitarian crisis in Guatemala, one of the most dangerous countries in the world.15

√ Status: Unclear whether or when the regulations and agreements necessary to implement the agreement will be finalized.

May 2019

USCIS issues a memo16 √ attempting to undercut protections provided to unaccompanied children during the asylum process

The memo undermines the few but essential protections provided to unaccompanied children in their asylum proceedings, including exemption from the one-year filing deadline and non-adversarial asylum interviews with an asylum officer, by requiring immigration adjudicators to continually re-adjudicate a child’s designation as unaccompanied.17 These new procedures undoubtedly impact children’s ability to effectively access their right to asylum by stripping away protections specifically designed to reflect the vulnerability of children who arrive at a border alone.

√ Status: The memo became effective June 30, 2019. In August 2019, a federal district court issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting USCIS’s implementation of the memo.18

April 2019

The White House releases a memo calling for regulations that would

√ Such regulations would include adding fees to the asylum application and work permit application, precluding asylum seekers from working lawfully during their asylum proceedings, and placing a 180 day limit for cases to be completely adjudicated with an immigration court, among others.20

3

. . . .

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

Read the full document with citations at the above link.

Attacking the most vulnerable.How cowardly and disgusting.

PWS

09-01-19

IMMIGRATION COURTS: “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE ON STEROIDS” — With Court System Reeling & Asylum Applicants Suffering, Administration Plans Another Round Of Massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), Reports Hamed Aleaziz @ BuzzFeed News!

https://apple.news/A3UINub7KSjuOLcKAHDJMLw

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

A Surge Of Immigration Judges Are Expected To Handle The Cases Of Thousands Forced To Wait In Mexico

“This will wreak havoc on court dockets across the country,” said one immigration court official.

Hamed Aleaziz

BuzzFeed News Reporter

A 10-month-old boy, whose family fled violence in El Salvador, waits in a tent in Tijuana, Mexico, for an immigration court hearing in the US.

Department of Homeland Security officials expect about 150 immigration judges from across the US will be selected to handle cases involving asylum-seekers forced to remain in Mexico while their cases proceed, according to a source with knowledge of the matter, a massive potential increase in assignments that threatens to overwhelm an already struggling court system.

Around a dozen judges currently presiding over courts in San Diego and El Paso, Texas, handle the cases of people referred under Migration Protection Protocols, the controversial Trump administration policy forcing asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico as their cases move through the immigration system. While the cases can take months or years to be scheduled, the number of individuals included in the program has expanded to more than 35,000, according to figures obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The Trump administration hopes to change that by soon opening facilities along the border to handle the cases. Officials plan to open two border courts in Texas — in Laredo and Brownsville — by the middle of September, in which they will hear up to 20 cases per day, according to a government briefing document obtained by BuzzFeed News. A DHS spokesperson said the date the facilities would open was still to be determined.

On Tuesday, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, who chairs the House DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, revealed in a letter that the agency had plans to transfer $155 million in federal disaster funds to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help fund the new facilities.

The cases heard at the border are expected to be conducted primarily via video teleconferencing, allowing for more judges across the country to be brought into the process. Assistants, working on contract, will help organize the hearings by taking roll call, send case documents to judges in other locations, and operate the video systems, according to a separate DHS planning document obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Judges assigned these cases could be forced to delay other asylum and deportation hearings that had already been scheduled, causing a ripple effect and further growing an already bloated court backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases.

People wait inside an immigration court in Miami.

“Once again immigration judges from courts across the country will have to push their home court dockets aside to preside televideo at border courts,” said one immigration court official who could not speak publicly on the matter. “This will wreak havoc on court dockets across the country.”

At a San Diego court that has presided over many “Remain in Mexico” cases for months, judges have been told to prioritize the hearings over others, according to a source with knowledge of the change. As a result, some immigrants who have waited for months or years for their previously scheduled cases will likely have their hearings delayed.

“The prioritization of MPP cases will place a huge burden on the immigration courts,” said a DOJ official involved with immigration matters. “Additionally, the postponement of previously scheduled cases will cause the backlog to grow even more, as the completion of these cases will be further delayed for months or even years.”

Rebecca Jamil, a former immigration judge under the Trump administration, said that the cases on judge’s dockets don’t go away when they are assigned new cases.

“Those families have been waiting for years to have their cases heard, and now will wait another two or three years, and due process is denied by the delay — evidence becomes stale, witnesses die, country conditions change,” she said.

The Department of Justice, which oversees the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which manages the nation’s immigration courts, is prepared to meet the demands from the DHS on any hearings, an agency spokesperson said.

The potential changes come as data revealed by Syracuse University indicates that asylum-seekers forced to wait in Mexico rarely have legal representation; just 1% of individuals are accompanied by attorneys at their hearings.

The Remain in Mexico program is one of the few hardline Trump immigration policies that has thus far survived a court injunction. While a federal court judge in San Francisco blocked the policy earlier this year, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel allowed it to continue as a legal challenge works its way through the court process.

Asylum-seekers who were returned to Mexico under the Trump administration have faced consequences of remaining there, according to advocacy group Human Rights First. The group found more than 100 cases of people returned under the program alleging rapes, kidnappings, sexual exploitation, or assault, according to a report released this month.

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

This is the result of the complete abdication of duty by the Ninth Circuit in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, that lifted a proper, life-saving U.S. District Court injunction and allowed the Administration’s patently illegal and immoral “Kill ‘Em in Mexico Program” to proceed.

The solution: There is no such thing as a “fair” asylum denial under this program. Yes, not everyone meets the criteria. But, everyone is entitled to a fair chance to present a claim, free from duress, coercion, and biased judging, which is not happening.

Advocates must flood the Ninth Circuit and the other border circuits with petitions for review and other types of court actions forcing these complicit Article III “Ivory Tower Judges,” who believe they have removed themselves from the fray, with the human carnage resulting from their gross dereliction of duty to enforce the statutory and Constitutional rights of asylum seekers.

The disgusting and spineless performance of the Article IIIs in light of the Administration’s bogus, illegal actions to “deter” legitimate asylum seekers is nothing short of a national disgrace. If not corrected, it will rightfully tarnish the reputation of the Federal Courts and the individual judges involved for generations to come.

PWS

08-30-19

IMMIGRATION COURTS: After Two Years Of Trump Administration Anti-Immigrant Shenanigans At EOIR, The Backlog Has Mushroomed To 975,298, Morale Has Hit Rock Bottom, & Due Process Is Mocked Every Day — There Is A Solution, But Will Our Republic Survive Enough To Reach It?

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/08/28/is-it-time-to-remove-immigration-courts-from-presidential-control

Julia Preston reports for The Marshall Project:

By JULIA PRESTON

A string of directives from President Donald Trump’s Justice Department that have reduced the authority of immigration judges and limited their control of their courtrooms has given new urgency to calls for a complete overhaul of the immigration courts.

Those courts now exist within the Justice Department and answer to the attorney general. Proposals for Congress to exercise its constitutional powers and create separate, independent immigration courts have long been dismissed as costly pipe dreams. But under Trump, judges and others in the court system say they are facing an unprecedented effort to restrain due process and politicize the courts with the president’s hard line on immigrants and demands for deportations.

“It’s time for the Department of Justice and the immigration courts to get a divorce,” said Jeremy McKinney, an attorney who is a vice-president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

In a letter in July, the immigration lawyers joined the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association and the immigration judges’ union to call on Congress to “establish an independent court system that can guarantee a fair day in court.” The idea is percolating in the Democratic presidential contests, with three candidates—Julián Castro, Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Elizabeth Warren—presenting specific plans. Another candidate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, drafted a bill last year to make the change.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, said he will hold hearings on the proposals this fall. There is little chance such a plan would have traction in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Under the proposals, the immigration courts would become a stand-alone agency that would not be run or controlled by outside officials, with the goal of insulating judges from political pressure by any administration.

Department of Justice officials say they are working on a fast track to modernize courts that have been relegated to institutional backwaters. They oppose any plan to separate the courts, saying it would create a bureaucratic and legal morass that would do little to resolve massive backlogs and other chronic problems.

The costs and logistical hurdles “would be monumental and would likely delay pending cases even further,” said Kathryn Mattingly, a Justice Department spokeswoman. The proposals present “significant shortcomings, without any countervailing positive equities,” she said.

But several judges, including three who spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to make public statements, said the Trump administration has pushed the courts too far. The latest salvo emerged from a thicket of legal language in a rule issued Monday by the Justice Department. In a major change, it gives the official in charge of running the courts, who is not a sitting judge, the last word in appeals of some immigration cases. It also gave that official—the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the formal name of the immigration court agency—expanded power to set broadly-defined “policy” for the courts.

The judges’ union reacted with alarm. Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the rule “removes any semblance of an independent, non-political court system.”

The judges’ association was already reeling after receiving what amounted to a declaration of war on Aug. 9, when the Justice Department filed a decertification petition that would bar judges, who are department employees, from being represented by the union.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions used his authority extensively, eliminating judges’ ability to close deportation cases and narrowing the path to asylum for migrant families from Central America fleeing domestic abuse, gang violence and cutthroat cartels. In a recent decision, Attorney General William Barr went further to deny families asylum, overruling long-standing opinions by judges.

Late last year the current director of the courts, James McHenry, under pressure from the White House, ordered judges in 10 busy courts to give priority to cases of families seeking asylum, pushing those cases to the front of their dockets while postponing others. Many judges are frustrated with the “rocket dockets,” finding that they deny many immigrants time to prepare for hearings while unreasonably delaying other cases, further stretching out backlogs.

In recent months McHenry, citing budget constraints, began to limit the availability of language interpreters for initial hearings, where judges see immigrants who speak many different languages. Translators have been replaced with videos providing boilerplate explanations of an immigrant’s rights. Judges said the videos are befuddling to immigrants in their first encounter with the court, and take away time for judges to address each person individually.

What really antagonized many judges was the imposition of quotas for finishing cases, tied to their performance reviews. Since last October, judges must complete at least 700 cases a year, with less than 15 percent of decisions being sent back to them by appeals courts. Time limits were set for many other decisions.

To remind judges of their standing, Justice officials designed a speedometer that sits on judges’ computer screens, with green marking numbers of decisions that meet the metrics and stoplight red indicating where they are lagging.

“So you sit down and you see that dashboard staring at you, updated every day, and you have 50 motions on your desk to decide whether to continue a case,” said Denise Noonan Slavin, who retired as an immigration judge in March after 24 years on the bench. The metrics, she said, inevitably discourage judges from granting more time for cases, even if an immigrant presents a valid argument.

“If judges get into that red, they can lose their job,” Slavin said.

Last October the Justice Department initiated performance metrics for immigration judges (referred to as IJs), setting benchmarks that they must complete at least 700 cases a year and finish other decisions within certain time limits. Speedometers sit on judges’ computer screens, with green showing they are on track with their cases and red signaling they are far behind. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

Most proposals to reconfigure the courts would have Congress act under Article One of the Constitution. The courts would become a separate agency governed by judges, but would remain within the executive branch. There is no appetite for the vast costs and litigation it would take to move the courts to the federal judiciary.

Reformers cite the example of the tax court, which Congress set up in 1969 to have independent judges deciding federal tax disputes, taking them out of the grip of the Internal Revenue Service. Similarly, Judy Perry Martinez, president of the American Bar Association, said in an interview that the immigration courts cannot be fully impartial while they are subordinate to the attorney general, the nation’s top prosecutor.

The Federal Bar Association, which has written a model bill for the transformation, insists it would not be as daunting as it sounds. The bill is drafted “with the idea of simply lifting the courts,” and their budget, out of the Justice Department, said Elizabeth Stevens, chair of the organization’s immigration law section. Under this plan, the courts would remain in existing facilities and current judges would continue to serve for four years before being re-appointed by Senate-confirmed appeals judges to serve in the new system.

Proponents have a harder time explaining how the transition would avoid even more of a bureaucratic sinkhole than existing courts, where the backlog stands at more than 930,000 cases. But Slavin said independent judges would take back their ability to manage cases efficiently, which she said micromanagement under Trump had eroded.

Advocates have few illusions that Trump and a Congress locked in immigration feuds will address their complaints soon. But they want to get the issue on the election year agenda, contending that Democrats and some judicial conservatives among Republicans could vote for an eventual bill.

The Justice Department can be expected to resist. But McKinney, from the lawyers association, said that with the sense of siege in the courts, “Suddenly something that was a dream or a theory is becoming something that could become a reality.”

Julia Preston covered immigration for The New York Times for 10 years, until 2016. She was a member of The Times staff that won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on international affairs, for its series that profiled the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico. She is a 1997 recipient of the Maria Moors Cabot Prize for distinguished coverage of Latin America and a 1994 winner of the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Humanitarian Journalism.

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

Lost in the shuffle: With all the money poured down the drain on mindless schemes to DENY DUE PROCESS rather than enhance it, after 19 years of “study and development,” EOIR IS STILL WITHOUT A FUNCTIONAL E-FILING SYSTEM!

Plenty of money for absurd “Judicial Dashboards;” none for even minimally competent court administration. And, how about the reduction in essential interpreter services mentioned in Julia’s article? Talk about “malicious incompetence” in action!

Also, the 975,298 “docketed” cases in the backlog (according to TRAC, as of 07-31-19) DOES NOT include most of the approximately 330,000 “Administratively Closed” cases that Sessions and Barr have idiotically tried to “force” back on the already-backlogged dockets. This week, the Fourth Circuit “called out” this illegal nonsense by emphatically rejecting Sessions’s scofflaw ruling in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (AG 2018). This development was reported in “Courtside” yesterday. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/08/29/gonzo-apocalyopto-slammed-unanimous-panel-of-4th-cir-rejects-matter-of-casto-tum-exposes-irrationality-of-biased-unqualified-restrictionist-former-ag/.

Unfortunately, however, the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Zuniga Romero v. Barr currently only applies in the Baltimore, Arlington, and Charlotte Immigration Courts. This leaves the rest of the country in the type of mass confusion and uncertainty that the Trump Administration strives to create.

It’s past time for the Article III Courts to do their duty, put this patently unconstitutional mess out of its misery, and appoint a “Special Master” to restore at least some semblance of Due Process, fundamental fairness, impartiality, quasi-judicial independence, and competent court management to this system pending Congressional reforms to comply with the Constitution.

Most important: judicial intervention might save some human lives that will otherwise be lost as a result of the “malicious incompetence” with which the Trump Administration regularly has abused the “captive” U.S. Immigration Courts.

PWS

08-30-19

JUSTICE FARCE: BARR PACKS APPEALS BOARD WITH “JUDGES” KNOWN AS ANTI-ASYLUM ZEALOTS! — Body Charged With Insuring Impartiality & Due Process Now Serves As “Chief Persecutor” Of Asylum Applicants — This Is America?

https://apple.news/A4TEHyWG1TfmB-yGzUmx3YA

Noah Lanard reports for Mother Jones:

The Trump Administration’s Court-Packing Scheme Fills Immigration Appeals Board With Hardliners

In his first six years as an immigration judge in New York and Atlanta, from 1993 to 1999, William Cassidy rejected more asylum seekers than any judge in the nation. A few years ago,Earle Wilson overtook Cassidy as the harshest asylum judge on the Atlanta court, which has long been considered one of the toughest immigration courts in the country.

Now both men have been elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which often has the final say over whether immigrants are deported, as part of a court-packing scheme by the Trump administration that is likely to make it even more difficult for migrants fleeing persecution to gain asylum.

Between 2013 and 2018, the average immigration judge in the country approved about 45 percent of asylum claims. The sixjudges newly promoted to the board have all approved fewer than 20 percent. Cassidy granted 4.2 percent of asylum claims. Another appointee, Stuart Couch, approved 7.9 percent. For Wilson, the figure was just 1.9 percent.

Paul Schmidt, who chaired the Board of Immigration of Appeals from 1995 to 2001, says the administration’s goal is to build a “deportation railway” in which cases move through the system as quickly as possible and then get “rubber-stamped by the Board.”

Until last year, the board had 17 members. The Trump administration expanded the board to 21 members, arguing it was necessary to handle an increase in appeals. That has allowed Attorney General William Barr to fill the panel with immigration hardliners. It’s reminiscent of President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated 1937 effort to overcome Supreme Court resistance to the New Deal by adding up to six additional justices—only immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, giving the department the power to expand the Board and fill the new openings with judges sympathetic to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

The promotions of the six judges this month, first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, are part of an intensifying effort to reshape immigration courts. Earlier this month, the Justice Department moved to eliminate the immigration judges’ union, which has been highly critical of the administration’s policies. On Monday, a regulation took effect that gives the head of the immigration courts, a political appointee, the power to decide appeals if judges do not hear them quickly enough. A rule that gives board members more authority to summarily deny appeals without issuing a full opinion takes effect on Tuesday.

Lawyers who have appeared before Cassidy, Couch, and Wilson say all three have intense tempers. All of them had many of their asylum denials reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Now they’ll be the ones deciding those appeals. (The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration court system, did not respond to a request to comment on details in this story.)

Cassidy is most associated with his decision to deport Mark Lyttle, a US citizen who did not speak Spanish, to Mexico during a mass deportation hearing. One Georgia attorney I spoke to blamed Immigration and Customs Enforcement for Lyttle’s removal, but Lyttle asserted that he told Cassidy twice about his US citizenship.

Glenn Fogle, an Atlanta immigration attorney, concluded in 2001, “You could have Anne Frank in front of him and he would say it was implausible that she could have hidden in the house for years and not be caught.” Now he says his feelings about Cassidy haven’t changed. He described a recent case in which Cassidy rejected a Congolese client who said he had scars on his back from being persecuted in his home country. Cassidy, presiding via an aging video system, asked the man to lift up his shirt and show the scars, then said he couldn’t see them. “Judge, how on earth could you see anything with this video?” Fogle recalls asking. Cassidy denied the asylum claim, noting in his decision that he couldn’t observe the scars.

Peter Isbister, a senior attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, says Cassidy sometimes writes orders denying bond requests while Isbister is still opening his argument. If he tries to finish, Cassidy can get frustrated and say something like, “You can take it up with the board. We’re done!”

In 2010, Cassidy had an asylum denial overturned because he had written the ruling before the hearing even began. The next year, Cassidy sat down in another judge’s courtroom in his judicial robe. In what one observer described as a “surreal” scene, Cassidy then raised his hand and told how the judge how the case should be handled. Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Deepali Nadkarni admonished Cassidy for his “inappropriate conduct.” In 2016, Cassidy compared an immigrant arriving at the border to “a person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood.”

Cassidy and Couch have both suggested that asylum seekers are dishonest and trying to scam their way into the country. A Charlotte immigration attorney, who requested anonymity because Couch is now handling appeals, heard Couch say he believes 85 percent of asylum seekers are lying, that 10 percent are telling the truth but not eligible for protection, and that 5 percent are both honest and eligible for asylum. Couch is also skeptical of lawyers. When an out-of-state lawyer couldn’t make it to a hearing because of a funeral, Couch called the funeral home to verify the claim, according to the Charlotte attorney.

In 2004, Couch, then a military prosecutor, attracted widespread attention for refusing to prosecute a Guantanamo detainee because he had been tortured. But as an immigration judge, Couch has almost always ruled against people who say they’ve been persecuted. He is best known among immigration attorneys for his 2015 decision to deny asylum to a woman who said she had been repeatedly physically and sexually abused by her ex-husband. One year later, the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned Couch’s ruling and ordered him to grant her asylum. But Couch again declined to do so. The case gained prominence when Jeff Sessions, then the attorney general, used it to issue a sweeping precedent that made it much harder for asylum seekers to claim domestic violence as a reason for asylum. (Couch isn’t uniformly anti-immigration—Jeremy McKinney, a North Carolina attorney and the vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, saw him lobby North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis to greatly expand Central Americans’ access to temporary visas—but has a narrow view of who qualifies for asylum.)

Wilson has the highest asylum denial rate of the six new appointees. His most notable habit is leaning back in his chair while respondents are testifying and closing his eyes so that it looks like he’s sleeping. In one case, according to an observer from Emory University’s law school, Wilson leaned back with his eyes closed for 23 minutes as an asylum seeker described the murder of her parents and siblings.

Like the others, Wilson has often been overturned by the appeals board he is now a part of. In one case, he ruled against a victim of domestic violence partly on the grounds that she had been able leave her abuser and reach the United States. “We disagree,” the Board decided. “Although the respondent did ultimately come to the United States to escape her abuser, by definition, any person applying for asylum in the United States has fled the harm that they experienced.”

Under the regulation that goes into effect Tuesday, Board members will have more authority to summarily deny appeals without providing any justification. Charles Kuck, an Atlanta attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Associations, expects that to lead to an assembly-line system like the one that existed under the George W. Bush administration, when Board members sometimes issued more than 50 decisions a day.

Two decades later, one Cassidy case still sticks with Fogle. His client was a former Ethiopian government official. As he was telling his story, Fogle remembers, Cassidy jumped up, turned off the court’s audio recorder, and yelled, “Bullshit!” His client insisted he was telling the truth.

Fogle says it was among the most unprofessional behavior he has ever seen from a judge. “I’ve been around,” he says. “I will never forget that.” He adds, “That’s the guy that’s going to be adjudicating appeals from other immigration judges.

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

Sounds like a Third World kakistocracy to me. And, over my years working on asylum cases, I became familiar with many of those. Never imagined the U.S. would hit these depths.

PWS

08-29-19

“GONZO APOCALYPTO” SLAMMED: UNANIMOUS PANEL OF 4TH CIR. REJECTS MATTER OF CASTO-TUM — Exposes Irrationality Of Biased, Unqualified Restrictionist Former AG — “ADR” Outed — “Although one of its purported concerns is efficient and timely administration of immigration proceedings, it would in fact serve to lengthen and delay many of these proceedings by: (1) depriving IJs and the BIA of flexible docketing measures sometimes required for adjudication of an immigration proceeding, as illustrated by Avetisyan, and (2) leading to the reopening of over 330,000 cases upon the motion of either party, straining the burden on immigration courts that Castro-Tum purports to alleviate.”

Zuniga Romero – CA4 Decision (8-29-2019)

ZUNIGA ROMERO V. BARR, NO. 18-1850, 4th Cir., 08-29-19, published

PANEL: AGEE, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Agee

KEY QUOTE:

In the absence of Auer deference, the weight given to a BIA decision “hinges on the thoroughness evident in [the BIA’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade”—that is, whether the interpretation should be afforded Skidmore deference. Zavaleta–Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 246 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). And here, a court reviewing Castro-Tum for Skidmore deference would not be persuaded to adopt the agency’s own interpretation of its regulation for substantially the same reasons it is not entitled to Auer deference: because it represents a stark departure, without notice, from long-used practice and thereby cannot be deemed consistent with earlier and later pronouncements. As a result, it lacks the “power to persuade.” Id.; see also Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2427 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (contending that an agency interpretation of a regulation should as an initial matter be “entitled only to a weight proportional to ‘the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade’” (quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140)). Put another way, even under the view set forth by Justice Gorsuch in Kisor, the Attorney General’s interpretation would amount to a failure of proof because the evidence—that is, Castro- Tum—comes too late in the game.

*** *

In sum, the result is that 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously confer upon IJs and the BIA the general authority to administratively close cases such that the BIA’s decision should be vacated and remanded.

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

A huge victory for the “New Due Process Army.” The “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” actually filed an amicus brief before Sessions in Castro-Tum raising many of the points found determinative by the Fourth Circuit. Our brief was, of course, ignored by “Gonzo,” who undoubtedly had already drafted his decision along the lines dictated to him by some restrictionist interest group.

Finally, an Article III Court “gets” how the DOJ under the Trump Administration is promoting “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) in an attempt to build the backlog, destroy the system, blame the victims (respondents and their, largely pro bono, attorneys), and dishonestly call upon GOP Legislators to mount a pernicious attack on constitutional Due Process by statute!

The idea that adding 330,000 cases to the already backlogged Immigration Courts was legally required or a good policy idea clearly is a piece of White Nationalist restrictionist propaganda promoted by corrupt public officials like Miller, Sessions, and Barr.

With the Democrats in control of the House, there is no way that Congress will eliminate “Administrative Closing” by statute. And, while the DOJ under the sycophantic Barr might try to change the regulation, this decision makes it very clear that there is no rational basis for doing so. Therefore, any future regulation change is likely to be tied up in litigation in the Article III Courts for years, adding to the confusion and ADR, as well as threatening to immobilize the Article III Courts.

Unless the Article III Courts want their dockets to be totally swamped with immigration appeals, the answer is to end this unconstitutional system administered by an Attorney General clearly unfit to act in a quasi-judicial capacity and place the Immigration Courts under a court-appointed independent “Special Master” to insure fairness, impartiality, and other aspects of Due Process until Congress fixes the glaring Constitutional defect by creating an independent U.S. Immigration Court outside of the DOJ.

PWS

08-29-19

DUE PROCESS: I Speak Out Against Latest DOJ Attack On Due Process & Judicial Independence!

https://apple.news/AF5h6SB1USvW1DbhapvzZLw

Alan Pyke reports for ThinkProgress:

Shakeup of immigration court system threatens migrants’ due process

Migrants may soon have a much harder time finding lawyers and understanding their rights in immigration court, as the Trump administration pursues a major overhaul of the agency that oversees those proceedings.

The crucial office that provides basic legal information to migrants and helps connect some of them to pro-bono immigration lawyers will be merged into a Trump-created unit widely viewed as the nerve center of his immigration power grab. Though Friday’s reorganization rule makes no specific threat to shutter those legal assistance programs, the president has wanted to kill them for more than a year.

The bureaucratic reshuffle leaves the assistance programs “buried deep in the bowels” of an agency that today “never does anything without some ulterior political motive relating to the restrictionist immigration agenda,” retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt told reporters Friday.

The regulations concern the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), where the work of applying immigration laws to individual human cases gets done. In addition to burying the legal-assistance work in a team Trump created, the rule endows EOIR’s director with vast new power to change how immigration laws are applied.

The proposal “shows [the] Trump Administration’s ‘weaponization’ of EOIR as a means of implementing restrictionist policies by precedent decision without going through legislation or rule making,” Schmidt told reporters in an email.

Immigration courts, despite their name, are not independent judicial forums. And because deportation is a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one, migrants who come before the courts are not guaranteed counsel.

Any given migrant’s ability to vindicate the rights they do have in immigration court therefore ends up resting, in many cases, with the presiding judge. If the law says a given migrant’s case might merit a stay of deportation or other relief, and an immigration judge applies the law accordingly, the system slows down and fewer people are evicted from the country.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed immigration judges to set aside those legal niceties in favor of rapid removal orders for almost everyone they see. Judges now face discipline if they fail to clear 700 cases per calendar year, a speed judges have repeatedly said makes a mockery of due process.

The big winner in Friday’s order is EOIR’s new Office of Policy, created at the start of President Donald Trump’s term. That team will take over management of a key legal orientation program for giving migrants a basic overview of the legal process they’re facing and the rights they have within it.

The Office of Policy has become the prime mover behind various Trump efforts to create a deportation assembly line that favors speedy removals over the fuller individual consideration envisioned in immigration law, experts said.

“The Office of Policy… has in many ways led the Trump administration’s agenda to reduce the independence of the immigration court system,” American Immigration Council policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said in an interview.

Currently, EOIR’s Office of Legal Access Programs helps link some migrants to pro-bono immigration attorneys as part of its legal orientation work. Having a lawyer “is arguably the single most important factor in determining whether someone is allowed to remain in the United States” at the conclusion of their immigration case, Reichlin-Melnick said.

The new rule moves the pro-bono program into the Trump-created policy office, along with the legal orientation system that’s meant to give migrants without attorneys a fighting chance.

There is nothing in the rule that says the DOJ is killing the pro-bono system or the legal orientation program, Reichlin-Melnick stressed.

“But we know in the past this is something the administration has gone after,” he said, noting that the White House tried to defund the legal orientation work in 2018 only for a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to insist it continue.

“It’s a popular program with pretty much everybody,” he said, “except those inside the Trump administration who think we shouldn’t be spending money on helping people know their rights, because that slows things down.”

The same Office of Policy is widely blamed for concocting the 700-case-per-year standard that judges and experts view as an intentional demolition of immigrants’ due process rights. It is also seen as the driving force behind a new piece of technology that displays a speed gauge on judges’ desks while they work, glaring red when they take the time to explore factual disputes or delve into process issues of a given case and fall behind the administration’s speed requirements.

“That kind of pressure creates problems, even if it doesn’t mean that people are going to explicitly deny cases because of it,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Even the most well-minded people are affected by someone essentially standing behind them tapping their watch.”

The case-completion rule in question technically came from a different EOIR office. But Trump’s new policy office is understood to have crafted it and passed it to the appropriate internal authority to promulgate.

Last year, National Association of Immigration Judges union head Ashley Tabaddor urged her colleagues to take whatever time a case requires regardless of the administration’s pressure tactics. This summer, the administration announced its intention to dissolve the NAIJ and strip judges of labor protections.

These maneuvers “create the appearance of coercion” of a professional legal staff who are responsible for applying the law to a complex array of individual circumstances, Reichlin-Melnick said. A political team that isn’t getting the results it wants from immigration courts when they scrutinize the facts is turning to threats – judges can be denied raises or terminated outright over the running-clock rules – and increasing the authority its Office of Policy holds over those judges.

The new rule “raises a number of concerns about conflict of interest that could play out. Maybe they won’t – at this point it’s a little bit premature to panic, or to make large declaratory statements about how this rule will affect the process,” he said. “But it certainly raises concerns.”

Former immigration judge Schmidt was blunter.

The new policy office’s “primary role appears to be to ensure that EOIR functions as an adjunct of DHS Enforcement and that any adjudication trends that enhance Due Process or vindicate Immigrants rights are quickly identified so that they can be wiped out by precedents or policy changes,” Schmidt wrote.

“Look for the [EOIR] Director over time to reinsert himself in the adjudicative activities of EOIR,” he wrote, “for the purpose of insuring subservience to [the] Administration’s political enforcement priorities.”

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

Thanks, Alan, for “telling it like it is.”

Pro bono lawyers have been very successful in both helping asylum applicants vindicate their rights and winning cases. They have also given those who lose before the Immigration Judge the ability to exhaust their remedies before the BIA and challenge wrongful denials in Circuit Courts. Almost every day, one or more Circuit Courts find that the BIA has erred or improperly cut corners in some way.

The success of the pro bono program in achieving asylum and other forms of protection is what the White Nationalists in the Trump Administration hate. They don’t like their immorality and illegality constantly exposed to public view. They would much rather “beat up on” defenseless, unrepresented applicants who can’t even understand English, let alone understand the system and the hyper-technical, intentionally restrictive criteria confronting them. Also, lots of denials, even if completely unfair, bolsters the Administration’s false statistical claim that most asylum claims are without merit.

PWS

08-26-19

“I Don’t Want To Do Your Dirty Work No More” — Is Mexico Tiring Of Committing Human Rights Violations In The Name Of Trump & The 9th Circuit?

“Times are hard

You’re afraid to pay the fee

So you find yourself somebody

Who can do the job for free

When you need a bit of lovin’

‘Cause your man is out of town

That’s the time you get me runnin’

And you know I’ll be around

I’m a fool to do your dirty work

Oh yeah

I don’t wanna do your dirty work

No more

I’m a fool to do your dirty work

Oh yeah”

From “Dirty Work” by Steely Dan (1972)

Listen on Youtube here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ghcsrblhn7A

Songwriters: Donald Jay Fagen / Walter Carl Becker

Dirty Work lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

https://apple.news/AzGaEoYZJR_KtFInPtWScxA

Gaby Del Valle reports for Vox News:

The Mexican government is finally pushing back against the controversial Trump policy of forcing some asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their immigration cases play out in court, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security Briefing obtained by BuzzFeed News.

More than 35,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols, colloquially referred to as the Remain in Mexico policy, since its start in January, according to the DHS document. That’s put migrants in danger and strained resources in Mexican Border Communities. Now, Mexican officials have reportedly begun limiting the days and times U.S. immigration agencies can send asylum-seekers back to Mexico and have cracked down on which migrants can be returned.

Mexican officials in El Paso, for example, have stopped accepting migrants after 1 p.m., even though some migrants have to return to Mexico after crossing into the U.S. for court hearings, according to the memo. As a result, Customs and Border Protection has had to detain more than half of the migrants who came to the city for hearings in August. The Mexican government has also occasionally refused to accept migrants who have been issued deportation orders but are fighting their cases, the memo says..

The policy has led to overcrowding at migrant shelters along the border, many of which are operated by nonprofits and religious organizations. At cities along the border, migrants have become easy prey for cartels and gangs. The people helping them have become targets, too: In Nuevo Laredo, members of an organized crime group kidnapped the director of a migrant shelter earlier this month. The violence against migrants is so pervasive that advocates refer to the MPP as the Migrant Persecution Protocols.

The Mexican government has attempted to alleviate the strain by busing migrants to cities further from the border, like Monterrey and Tapachula, the later of which is close to the country’s border with Guatemala. That has only complicated things further, since migrants have to return to the U.S. for their court hearings.

Being forced to wait in Mexico has also had legal consequences for migrants, many of whom struggle to find lawyers. A recent report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that less than 1% of migrants who have been forced to wait in Mexico as part of the MPP have lawyers.

Cover image: A security guard accompanies a group of U.S. asylum-seekers out of Mexican immigration offices after they were returned by U.S. authorities to wait in Mexico under the so-called Remain in Mexico program, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Wednesday, July 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Christian Chavez

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

As I’ve been saying all along, the bogus “Migrant Protection Protocols” (a/k/a “Return to Mexico,” a/k/a “Let “em Die In Mexico”) are nothing more than a very transparent scheme to deprive asylum applicants who have passed “credible fear” of their statutory, regulatory, and Due Process Constitutional right to be represented by counsel of their choice.

DHS has intentionally made it functionally impossible for U.S. pro bono groups to effectively represent those asylum seekers returned to Mexico. As we all know, without counsel, applicants have little, if any, realistic chance of succeeding on asylum claims, particularly under Trump’s restrictionist, openly anti-asylum regime.

For some reason, a complicit 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing this legal travesty to proceed. Vulnerable asylum applicants are being abused by Trump on the 9th Circuit’s watch with impunity.

PWS

08-25-19

COWARDLY ADMINISTRATION PICKS ON CHILDREN: “Big Mac With Lies” & Others Pushing False White Nationalist Agenda Create Largely Fact-Free Narrative To Support Their Vile Attack On Vulnerable Kids

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/24/opinions/trump-immigration-detain-migrant-families-indefinitely-reyes/index.html

Paul Reyes writes for CNN:

Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and a member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinions on CNN.

(CNN)When all else fails, lock up children. That’s the message from the Trump administration, which on Wednesday announced a regulation allowing it to indefinitely detain migrant families who arrive at our southern border. The new rule would replace a court agreement known as the Flores settlement, which sets minimum standards for migrant children in government custody, and limits their detention to 20 days.

<img alt=”Raul Reyes” class=”media__image” src=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150505105146-raul-reyes-profile-large-169.jpg”>

Raul Reyes

Speaking at the White House, President Trump told reporters that his new rule will “make it almost impossible for people to come into our country illegally.”

What the rule won’t do is help solve the humanitarian crisis at the border. The new rule is legally and logistically suspect. The only thing it guarantees is that more children will suffer greatly.

For decades, the treatment of detained migrant children has been governed by the Flores settlement. Aside from limiting the length of time that the government can keep immigrant children in custody, it mandates that kids be kept in the least restrictive setting possible, and that they receive food, water and other basic services.

Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan said the Flores settlement has been the driving force behind unauthorized migration from Central America to the U.S. “This single settlement has substantially caused, and continues to fuel, the current family unit crisis… until today,” he said Wednesday.

But he has no data to back him up. On the contrary, ample research shows that the migrants are driven here by violence, gang activity, poverty and civil instability in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

As they have done throughout American history, people are fleeing for their lives from dangerous nations to seek safety, a new start and better lives in our country. They are not rushing to the US to take advantage of Flores.

<img alt=”Yes, Obama deported more people than Trump but context is everything” class=”media__image” src=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170305143551-trump-obama-split-large-169.jpg”>

Yes, Obama deported more people than Trump but context is everything

Members of the Trump administration are fond of characterizing the Flores settlement as a “loophole” in need of fixing.

Not true.

The Flores settlement began as a 1985 class-action suit against the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the predecessor to the Department of Homeland Security, over its treatment of migrant children. It took 12 years of litigation and negotiation to reach the final agreement in 1997. The settlement was painstakingly crafted by immigrant advocates and government lawyers and has endured through Republican and Democratic administrations.

Getting rid of the Flores settlement would allow the government to lock children up for as long as their immigration cases take to resolve. This is chilling and simply inhumane, and not just because detention centers have repeatedly been found to be crowded, dirty and unsafe. Just this summer, DHS’s own inspector general found conditions at migrant detention centers to be “an immediate risk to the health and safety” of detainees.

Beyond that, doctors and child welfare experts are unanimous in their conclusion that imprisoning children harms their physical, emotional and psychological development. At least six migrant children have died in the Trump administration’s custody. Why would anyone want to place kids in detention for longer periods of time?

<img alt=”Tragic father-daughter photo is a moral stain on Trump&#39;s America” class=”media__image” src=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190625182031-01-father-daughter-border-drowning-large-169.jpg”>

Tragic father-daughter photo is a moral stain on Trump’s America

Replacing Flores would also amount to a logistical nightmare. The US has three family detention centers with a combined capacity of about 3,000. Contrast that with the roughly 432,000 MEMBERS OF “family units” arrested at the border between October and July, according to Customs and Border Protection. It defies reality to think that the administration could possibly come up with safe places to house such large numbers of people for long periods of time.

Instead they should be screened and processed in a timely manner, then released to family members or sponsors. The vast majority of children and families seeking asylum show up for their court dates when they receive appropriate support, like the kind they received through the Ice Family Case Management Program. Yet the Trump administration abruptly terminated this program in June 2017, indicating a lack of good faith in ensuring that migrants receive proper assistance and guidance with their immigration cases.

“No child should be a pawn in a scheme to manipulate our immigration system,” said McAleenan. He’s right. But it is the Trump administration that is using children as pawns to further its xenophobic agenda. Central Americans have the legal right to apply for asylum, and families should not face indefinite detention for exercising this right.

The administration’s new rule is sure to face significant legal challenges. In fact, a federal court judge recently affirmed that using detention as a deterrent to seeking asylum is an unconstitutional violation of due process.

Stay up to date…

Sign up for our new newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Trump’s attack on the Flores settlement is an attack on children. His administration’s lack of regard for the care and well-being of migrant kids is a betrayal of American values of fairness and compassion.

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

Reyes “hits the nail on the head” here:

Instead they should be screened and processed in a timely manner, then released to family members or sponsors. The vast majority of children and families seeking asylum show up for their court dates when they receive appropriate support, like the kind they received through the Ice Family Case Management Program. Yet the Trump administration abruptly terminated this program in June 2017, indicating a lack of good faith in ensuring that migrants receive proper assistance and guidance with their immigration cases.

“No child should be a pawn in a scheme to manipulate our immigration system,” said McAleenan. He’s right. But it is the Trump administration that is using children as pawns to further its xenophobic agenda. Central Americans have the legal right to apply for asylum, and families should not face indefinite detention for exercising this right.

With all of their cruel and wasteful gimmicks, schemes, and illegal actions, the one thing the Trump Administration has been unwilling to do is just follow existing law: Allow asylum applicants of all nationalities to be fairly and timely processed through the existing system under the law as it existed before the Trump Administration twisted it for the specific purpose of discriminating against legitimate asylum seekers. Then, we’d all finally know whether or not the individuals fleeing the Northern Triangle are “refugees” or something else. But, the Trump Administration won’t allow that to happen because it fears the answer.

Moreover, we should always keep in mind that even those who don’t meet the highly technical international definition of “refugee” might still be in real danger of harm or death upon return. They consequently could be strong candidates for some other type of temporary humanitarian protection (e.g., TPS, extended voluntary departure, prosecutorial discretion) short of asylum.

Also, as Reyes correctly points out, to maintain that a 20 year old consent decree in Flores, carefully developed and agreed upon among the Government, advocacy groups, and the U.S. District Judge to implement “best practices” in lieu of having the Judge unilaterally force the Government to take corrective action to meet basic constitutional standards, is the cause of a continuing Central American migration that has been happening to some extent or another over the past four decades, is beyond absurd. Indeed, the Government undoubtedly entered into the Flores consent decree to save itself from what almost certainly would have been a major litigation defeat on the merits and a public judicial rebuke of their unconstitutional treatment of minor children (which the Solicitor General probably would have declained to appeal to the 9th Circuit).

Only someone as disingenuous and subservient to Trump as “Big Mac With Lies” could possibly put forth such a ridiculously bogus theory in public with a straight face. Judge Gee should hold Big Mac and the rest of his White Nationalist restrictionist gang at DHS, DOJ, and the White House in contempt of court for even putting forth such a pack of lies (but, she won’t).

Stand up against the Trump Administration’s cruel and cowardly attack on children and families. Join the New Due Process Army and the daily ongoing effort to force our Government to follow the law and provide full Due Process for all!

PWS

08-25-19

NAIJ LASHES OUT AT BARR’S EVISCERATION OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Press release 8.23.2019

BREAKING: STATEMENT BY IMMIGRATION JUDGES UNION ON MAJOR CHANGE ANNOUNCED TO IMMIGRATION COURTS

Statement by the Hon. Ashley Tabaddor, Pres. of the National Association of Immigration Law Judges

In an unprecedented attempt at agency overreach to dismantle the Immigration Court, the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today published a new interim rule, effective next Monday, which takes steps to dismantle the Immigration Court system. DOJ’s action ends any transparency and assurance of independent decision making over individual cases.

By collapsing the policymaking role with the adjudication role into a single individual, the Director of EOIR, an unconfirmed political appointee, the Immigration Court system has effectively been dismantled,” said Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

The new rule is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While couched in bureaucratic language, the impact of this regulation is to substitute the policy directives of a single political appointee over the legal analysis of non-political, independent adjudicators. The creation of a mini-Attorney General in the EOIR’s Director, who

is a political appointee, not confirmed by the Senate and currently not empowered to

adjudicate cases, will in effect abolish the separation of functions where the Attorney General’s duties as a law enforcement agent are distinct and separate from his adjudicatory duties. The unprecedented creation of an Office of Policy within EOIR under the Director’s authority, designed to formulate, coordinate, and implement the executive branch’s immigration law enforcement policies

combined with the Director’s new direct adjudicatory role over individual cases, removes any semblance of an independent, non-political court system which ensures due process rather than political expediency.

Furthermore, this bold-faced power-grab undermines oversight by the public through the established notice and comment procedure.

The National Association of Immigration Judges received notice of this action only today when the press was advised. We are currently studying the regulation carefully to provide a more detailed analysis in the days ahead.

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

As I pointed out in my post earlier today, this is nothing less than a vicious attack on our Constitution and the rule of law. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/08/23/heres-my-quick-take-on-eoirs-interim-rule-on-reorganization/

Will Congress and the Article IIIs stand up to this grotesque abuse and prevent the DOJ from destroying democracy. Or, will impotent legislators and “go along to get along” Article III Judges continue to look the other way as a system driven by racist authoritarianism eats us up!

PWS

08-23-19

HARD RIGHT TURN: Barr Appoints “Death Squad” Of New “Appellate Judges” Tasked To “Snuff Out” Any Last Remaining Pockets Of Due Process For Asylum Seekers & Send As Many As Possible Unlawfully Into Harm’s Way! — Judge Earle Wilson Has An Astounding 98.1% Asylum Denial Rate, But His New Colleagues Are Hot On His Tail! — TAL @ SF CHRON REPORTS!

Tal Kopan
Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/AG-William-Barr-promotes-immigration-judges-with-14373344.php

AG William Barr promotes immigration judges with high asylum denial rates

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has promoted six judges to the immigration appeals court that sets binding policy for deportation cases — all whom have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims.

The six come from courts that have higher asylum-denial rates than the national average, including two from a court that has drawn complaints of unfair proceedings from immigration attorneys and advocates. A third has a long history of denying asylum to domestic violence victims, something the Justice Department has also sought to do.

The new appeals judges, who will now make up more than a quarter of the appellate board, were appointed as the administration works to speed up the immigration courts and narrow migrants’ use of asylum cases to come to the U.S. The six new appointees were sworn in Friday.

The hires are in a new role, in which judges will be allowed to continue serving at any immigration court in the country rather than having to move to suburban Falls Church, Va., where the appeals board’s headquarters are. The new appeals judges will also be allowed to serve as fill-in lower court immigration judges. Critics had suspected the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, created the new positions to pack the board with judges from courts with high rates of denying immigrants’ claims, who may otherwise not have wanted to move to D.C.

The board serves as the appellate body for the immigration court system, an entity separate from the federal courts.

As in the federal system, the immigration board has the power to overrule lower court decisions with three-judge panels. By a majority vote of all its 21 members, it can make those rulings binding on the nation’s nearly 400 immigration judges. Recently, Barr published a new regulation giving himself the power to make any appellate decision binding as well.

By law, the Justice Department is barred from considering political leanings when hiring judges. Agency officials say judges are selected based only on their qualifications for the job, and that their history of rulings is not taken into account.

According to data tracked by Syracuse University from 2013 through 2018, all the judges promoted Friday have records of denying asylum at much higher rates than immigration judges nationally. The Justice Department has in the past questioned Syracuse’s methodology, but does not provide statistics of its own.

Two of the new appeals judges were promoted by Barr from the Atlanta immigration court, which has one of the highest rates of asylum claim denials in the country. The court rejected 95.3% of claims from 2013 to 2018, compared with a national average of 57.6%, Syracuse found.

One of the two new appeals judges from Atlanta, William Cassidy, had a rejection rate of 95.8%, 22nd highest in the country.

Cassidy was also the subject of 11 complaints from immigration attorneys from 2010-2013, according to material obtained by the American Immigration Lawyers Association through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. That number of complaints was more than roughly 95% of all other immigration judges in that period, according to information from the lawsuit. Five of the 11 resulted in Cassidy being counseled by a superior on proper judicial behavior.

Also promoted by Barr from the Atlanta court was Earle Wilson, who denied 98.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018, according to Syracuse. That was more than all but five immigration judges in the U.S.

Wilson and Cassidy were also named in two complaints filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, in 2017 and 2018 that argued the Atlanta court was treating immigrants unfairly. The complaints said Wilson and Cassidy behaved in an intimidating fashion toward immigrants and their advocates.

It is not clear whether the Justice Department has responded to those complaints. The department said Friday it does not discuss personnel matters.

The other new appellate judges are:

• Keith Hunsucker, who has spent most of his time on the bench at the immigration court at the Port Isabel Detention Center in Texas. While there, he denied 81.6% of asylum cases, consistent with his court’s 81.1% average. Hunsucker is now in Cleveland.

• Deborah Goodwin, appointed from the Miami immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017, and through last year had a denial rate of 89.4%, above her court’s average of 79.6% in the 2013 to 2018 time frame measured by Syracuse.

• Stephanie Gorman, promoted from the Houston immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017 and has an 86.9% asylum denial rate, slightly below her court’s 89.3% average.

• Stuart Couch, who was appointed from Charlotte, N.C., denied 92.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018. That was above his court’s average of 88.2%.

Couch also authored a 2017 ruling denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman who was physically and emotionally abused and raped by her ex-husband, a decision that the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed. It was that appellate decision that Sessions overturned to align the law more closely with Couch’s interpretation, saying domestic violence was largely not grounds for asylum. A federal judge has blocked that ruling for now.

Couch’s original decision was one of 10 domestic violence-related cases in 2017 in which the Board of Immigration Appeals found his rulings were “clearly erroneous.” In all 10, Couch rejected the claims of Central American women who had been beaten, raped and otherwise abused by their husbands or partners. The cases were made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by immigration attorney Bryan Johnson.

The Justice Department stood behind all the judges.

“DOJ doesn’t track asylum approval and denial rates for individual immigration judges, and (Syracuse) uses its own methodologies in interpreting the data it receives, resulting in conclusions that we cannot verify,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “Collectively these judges combined, have nearly 120 years of immigration law combined, through multiple administrations. Advocates that attack their integrity and professionalism only undermine the entire system.”

Immigration attorneys fear the hires are part of an effort by the Trump administration to skew the courts against immigrants, who face deportation if their claims are denied.

“The board’s primary function is to ensure rule of law and impartiality, yet the department cherry-picked judges from the harshest jurisdictions with the lowest asylum grant rates in the nation,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “When we’re talking about asylum cases, these decisions are life or death for those seeking protection.”

Lynch’s group, along with the American Bar Association and national union for immigration judges, have called for the immigration courts to be removed from the Justice Department and made independent. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has pledged to pursue legislation that would do so through the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration she chairs in the House.

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

How many refugees will die or be subjected to additional torture and persecution because of thoroughly biased judges and a corrupt “judicial” system controlled by political hacks like Barr. Will Congress and the Article IIIs ever step in and restore some semblance of Due Process? Unless and until they do, the “blood of the innocents” will be on their hands.

Meanwhile, the complicit/complacent Article IIIs who have let this situation get out of control can look forward to being flooded with petitions for review, because the New Due Process Army will continue to fight this unconstitutional, fundamentally unfair, and evil perversion of American justice!

The idea that six Judges with asylum denial rates astronomically above the national average of 57.1% were the “best qualified” for these appellate jobs is simply absurd. Indeed, probably all of us in the Roundtable of Former Judges know of much better judicial candidates who were passed over so that Barr could install his “Death Squad.”

As Tal points out, unless piling up bar complaints, being cited by the public for rudeness, being reversed by their BIA, and denying an usually high number of asylum claims are among the “quality ranking factors” for these jobs, it’s hard to see how several of these judges would be considered even minimally qualified for promotion, let alone “best qualified.” It seems that a Congressional investigation into the selection process would be well warranted, including a look at the qualifications of candidates who were passed over.

Human lives are being trivialized by this White Nationalist regime and its enablers.

PWS

08-23-19

Here’s My “Quick Take” On EOIR’s “Interim Rule on Reorganization”

PWS “QUICK TAKES” ON EOIR INTERIM REORGANIZATION RULE

Enhances role of relatively new “Office of Policy” (“OP”)
- Remarkable because as a quasi-judicial court system, EOIR really is not supposed to be “making policy” except through BIA precedents
- Shows Trump Administration’s “weaponization” of EOIR as a means of implementing restrictionist policies by precedent decision without going through legislation or rule making
- Enhances policy role of Director, since Director controls OP
- OP primary role appears to be to ensure that EOIR functions as an adjunct of DHS Enforcement and that any adjudication trends that enhance Due Process or vindicate Immigrants rights are quickly identified so that they can be wiped out by precedents or policy changes

Diminishes role of Office of Legal Assistance Programs (“OLAP”)
- OLAP’s primary mission is to enhance and ensure maximum representation for migrants in Removal proceedings
  - That mission directly conflicted with the Administration’s use of EOIR as a “Deportation Railroad”
- OLAP is eradicated from the regulations and organizational chart and buried deep in the bowels of OP
- Look for OLAP to be slowly strangled and its functions in assisting migrants and providing them information and self-help materials in going through the Immigraton Court process to be reduced or eliminated
- OP can be expected to concentrate instead on how to limit migrants’ access to pro bono counsel and to make practice before the Immigration Courts as non-user-friendly as possible to discourage representation and expedite removals of clueless unrepresented migrants

Disingenuously designates BIA Members as “Appellate Immigration Judges”
- As their authority to act as fair, impartial, and independent adjudicators is diminished to lowest level in BIA history, “bogus retitling” appears intended to create an “appearance” of enhanced status of “AG’s patsies” before Article III Appellate Courts in support of DOJ’s arguments for high degree of deference and diminished scrutiny from Article IIIs

Uses administrative gobbledygook and slight of hand to give the Director individual case adjudication authority in certain instances where BIA’s “Mickey Mouse” adjudication deadlines are not met
- Back in 1995 (when I was appointed) the DOJ separated the functions of the Director and the BIA Chair, which until then had been merged in the same position
- Result of a perceived conflict of interest in having Director directly responsible to the AG while also having quasi-judicial responsibilities as BIA Chair
- Beginning to “re-merge” adjudication with administration reflects Trump DOJ’s disregard of ethical considerations in immigration adjudication and intent to use EOIR as enhanced enforcement tool
- Remarkably, the Director could actually issue precedent decisions in some instances
- Look for the Director over time to reinsert himself in the adjudicative activities of EOIR for the purpose of insuring subservience to Administrations’s political enforcement priorities
- Not clear whether the current authority to refer ”overdue” BIA cases has even been utilized (but, if it hasn’t been, why would the AG fear potentially being “overburdened” with such non-existent referrals and find it necessary to make this change?)

PWS

08-23-19

JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”

New from JMHS | An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

View this email in your browser

A publication of the Center for Migration Studies

Donald Kerwin, Executive Editor
John Hoeffner and Michele Pistone, Associate Editors

An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

By Paul Wickham Schmidt (Georgetown Law)

This paper critiques US immigration and asylum policies from perspective of the author’s 46 years as a public servant. It also offers a taxonomy of the US immigration system by positing different categories of membership: full members of the “club” (US citizens); “associate members” (lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees); “friends” (non-immigrants and holders of temporary status); and, persons outside the club (the undocumented). It describes the legal framework that applies to these distinct populations, as well as recent developments in federal law and policy that relate to them. It also identifies a series of cross-cutting issues that affect these populations, including immigrant detention, immigration court backlogs, state and local immigration policies, and Constitutional rights that extend to non-citizens. It makes the following asylum reform proposals, relying (mostly) on existing laws designed to address situations of larger-scale migration:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, in particular, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should send far more Asylum Officers to conduct credible fear interviews at the border.
Law firms, pro bono attorneys, and charitable legal agencies should attempt to represent all arriving migrants before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts.
USCIS Asylum Officers should be permitted to grant temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to applicants likely to face torture if returned to their countries of origin.
Immigration Judges should put the asylum claims of those granted CAT withholding on the “back burner” — thus keeping these cases from clogging the Immigration Courts — while working with the UNHCR and other counties in the Hemisphere on more durable solutions for those fleeing the Northern Triangle states of Central America.
Individuals found to have a “credible fear” should be released on minimal bonds and be allowed to move to locations where they will be represented by pro bono lawyers.
Asylum Officers should be vested with the authority to grant asylum in the first instance, thus keeping more asylum cases out of Immigration Court.
If the Administration wants to prioritize the cases of recent arrivals, it should do so without creating more docket reshuffling, inefficiencies, and longer backlogs

Download the PDF of the article

Read more JMHS articles at http://cmsny.org/jmhs/

Want to learn more about access to asylum on the US-Mexico border? Join the Center for Migration Studies for our annual Academic and Policy Symposium on October 17.

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

My long-time friend Don Kerwin, Executive Director of CMS, has been a “Lt. General of the New Due Process Army” since long before there even was a “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). Talk about someone who has spent his entire career increasing human understanding and making the world a better place! Don is a great role model and example for newer members of the NDPA, proving that one can make a difference, as well as a living, in our world by doing great things and good works! Not surprisingly, Don’s career achievements and contributions bear great resemblance to those of our mutual friend, the late Juan Osuna.

So, when Don asked me to consider turning some of my past speeches about our immigration system and how it should work into an article to honor Juan, I couldn’t say no. But, I never would have gotten it “across the finish line” without Don’s inspiration, encouragement, editing, and significant substantive suggestions for improvement, as well as that of the talented peer reviewers and editorial staff of JMHS. Like most achievements in life, it truly was a “team effort” for which I thank all involved.

Those of you who might have attended my Boynton Society Lecture last Saturday, August 10, at the beautiful and inspiring Bjorklunden Campus of Lawrence University on the shores of Lake Michigan at Bailey’s Harbor, WI, will see that portions of this article were “reconverted” and incorporated into that speech.

Also, those who might have taken the class “American Immigration, a Cultural, Legal, and Anthropological Approach” at the Bjorklunden Seminar Series the previous week, co-taught by my friend Professor Jenn Esperanza of The Beloit College Anthropology Department, and me had the then-unpublished manuscript in their course materials, and will no doubt recognize many of the themes that Jenn and I stressed during that week.

Perhaps the only “comment that really mattered” was passed on to me by Don shortly after this article was released. It was from Juan’s wife, the also amazing and inspiring Wendy Young, President of Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”):“Juan would be truly honored.”

Donald M. Kerwin
Executive Director
Center for Migration Studies

Juan P. Osuna (1963-2017)
Judge, Executive, Scholar, Teacher, Defender of Due Process

Wendy Young
President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)

PWS

08-19-19

COURAGEOUS U.S IMMIGRATION JUDGES LIKE PAUL GAGNON OF THE BOSTON IMMIGRATION COURT CONTINUE TO PROTECT ABUSED REFUGEE WOMEN UNDER THE LAW DESPITE SESSIONS’S EXTRALEGAL ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE PROTECTION IN MATTER OF A-B- — Continuing Threats By Bill Barr & EOIR Against Judges Who Act Fairly & Impartially Fail To Deter Some From Upholding Their Oaths Of Office — Of Course, “Women in Guatemala” are a “Particular Social Group,” As Beautifully & Convincingly Set Forth By Judge Gagnon’s Recent Decision, A Primer On The Proper Application Of Asylum Law That Carries Out The Intent Of The Supreme’s 1987 Decision in Cardoza-Fonseca!

Boston Judge Gagnon Decision

Thanks to Judge Jeffrey Chase, leader of our Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges for sending this to me.

Also, I join Judge Chase in congratulating Gerald D. Wall and the Greater Boston Legal Services (a clinical program of Harvard Law School) for providing pro bono representation in this case.

Note how succinct, straightforward, logical, and well-supported by authority Judge Gagnon’s decision is. Compare that with the nearly incomprehensible 30+ page anti-asylum, lie-filled, intellectually dishonest, and legally incorrect screed written by Sessions in support of his cowardly extralegal attack on some of the most vulnerable and deserving of protection among us in his Matter of A-B- atrocity.

Now think of how the system could work if Judge Gagnon’s correct decision were the precedent and all asylum applicants had access to qualified pro bono counsel.

Many cases could be promptly granted by an honest USCIS Asylum Office committed to properly applying protection law. They would not even have to reach the backlogged Immigration Courts or be subjected to toxic, counterproductive “gimmicks” like “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” or absurdities like claiming that everyone should apply in Guatemala, from which this respondent was fleeing for her life and which has neither a functional government nor a credible asylum system.

That, plus perhaps using retired judges from all types of courts and bringing back retired Asylum Officers and adjudicators trained to recognize and quickly grant “slam dunk” asylum cases like this would be the key to establishing a credible, independent, Immigration Court and a reestablishing a functioning asylum system of which we all could be proud.

Instead, our current maliciously incompetent White Nationalist regime continues to ignore our laws, our Constitution, and our international obligations in leading a cowardly and disreputable “race to the bottom” in which the richest and most powerful country in the world conducts itself as a “Banana Republic” led by a tinhorn dictator.

PWS

08-08-19

THE ROUNDTABLE IN ACTION: HON. ILYCE SHUGALL DELIVERS POWERFUL STATEMENT IN THE LA TIMES ON WHY SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS A JUDGE IN OUR OBSCENELY DISTORTED AND UNFAIR U.S. IMMIGRATON COURT SYSTEM – “But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-03/immigration-court-judge-asylum-trump-policies

By ILYCE SHUGALL

LA Times

AUG. 4, 2019

I have been an immigration lawyer dedicated to fairness and due process for immigrants my entire career. In 2015, convinced that my 18 years of experience as an advocate would make me a good immigration judge, I applied for the job.

Most immigration judges are former attorneys from the chief counsel’s office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, former assistant U.S. attorneys or former attorneys from other federal government agencies. Former advocates are appointed less frequently, but I believed in the importance of having judges from varied backgrounds on the bench and therefore applied.

I made it through the application and vetting process and was appointed to the bench in September 2017. I resigned this March because I could no longer in good conscience work as an immigration judge in the Trump administration.

I knew when I joined the bench that there would be frustrations, as immigration courts are governed by the Justice Department and lack the independence of other courts in the federal judicial system. But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.

I believed it was my job to ensure that all people who appeared before me understood their rights and had the opportunity to fully present their cases. I found the job fulfilling when I was hearing cases. I enjoyed learning about the lives of people from all over the world and analyzing complex legal issues. It was also heartbreaking. I heard stories of horrific violence, terror and pain. I was moved by the struggles and resolve of those who leave everything behind to seek safety and refuge, those who dedicate their lives to caring for family members, and those who overcome incredible obstacles to make a better future for themselves and their families.

In 2018, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration courts, began imposing quotas and performance metrics that affected the day-to-day function and independence of the judges. We were notified that all judges were expected to complete 700 cases a year to receive a satisfactory performance review. EOIR also published performance metrics for the judges that established specific timelines for adjudication of cases and motions.

During a conference of immigration judges in June 2018, agency leadership informed us that the quota policy would go into effect in October. Sessions, during his keynote speech at the conference, announced that he would be issuing his decision in the case of Matter of A-B-, which dealt with asylum claims based on domestic violence. His decision to prohibit grants of asylum for victims of domestic violence and persecution perpetrated by other nongovernment actors was announced later that day. I left the conference extremely demoralized.

My colleagues and I felt the impact of the case quotas on our ability to render correct and well-reasoned decisions. My calendar was fully booked with cases through 2021. The judges in San Francisco, where I served, were told we could not schedule any cases in 2022 until our calendars showed that three cases were scheduled every day through the end of 2021.

SPONSORED CONTENT

This meant that the judges were forced to schedule at least two cases in one time slot (there being two slots a day) — regardless of whether it was possible to hear two cases in such a short time frame or whether this would allow a judge to consider fully the merits of each case, which often involved determining life or death issues.

This was the way to push us to complete 700 cases a year. Failure to hit the quota would also result in failing to meet other performance metrics. In August 2018, Sessions also issued a decision limiting continuances of cases in immigration court.

Shortly after we were told to hear three cases a day, we were also told we could not schedule interpreters for two different languages in each of the morning or afternoon sessions. We were told we needed to match languages or pair English-language cases with other languages, though we had no tools to assist us in coordinating languages.

The impact of these administrative policies, while bad on judges’ morale and workloads, was worse for the immigrants appearing at court. The pressure to complete cases made me less patient and less able to uphold the constitutional protections required to properly adjudicate cases.

In addition to these policies, the Trump administration announced several new policy changes to limit the rights of noncitizens to apply for asylum. One was the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum applicants to stay in Mexico while awaiting their court hearings. Another was the administration’s attempt to eliminate eligibility for asylum for individuals who did not present themselves at a port of entry while simultaneously preventing asylum seekers from being processed at the ports of entry.

In November 2018, the EOIR director issued a memorandum to push through cases of “family units” on a fast track. These cases continue to be docketed and heard on an expedited basis. This policy prevents indigent noncitizens from having adequate time to secure counsel or evidence to support their cases. And it often leads to individuals being ordered removed without a hearing because clerical errors caused hearing notices to be sent to incorrect addresses.

As more policies were issued, it became clear that this administration’s attack on immigrants and the independence and functioning of the immigration courts would only get worse.

As I expected, the attacks continued. Since I resigned, the Department of Homeland Security has expanded expedited removal. Recently, EOIR began using a video to comply with federal regulations requiring that all noncitizens be advised of their rights and responsibilities in court. The video, which replaces in-person interpreters, will inevitably cause confusion and make it far harder for individuals to defend themselves.

Just last week, Atty. Gen. William Barr issued a decision that largely eliminates asylum eligibility for those facing persecution because of family ties. This ruling could affect thousands of legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence in Mexico and Central American countries, as well as other parts of the world.

I expect the Trump administration’s relentless attacks against immigrants and the immigration system to continue. The way to limit the damage is to establish an independent immigration court that is outside the Justice Department. Until that happens, the immigration courts will be subject to the politics driving the administration rather than the principles of justice immigration judges are sworn to uphold.

Ilyce Shugall is the director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

OPINIONOP-ED

Hon.

MORE FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

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

Well said, Judge Shugall, my friend, colleague, and fellow member of the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges!

Ilyce explains and gives “real life examples” of two concepts that I discuss often at “Courtside:”

AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”): Arbitrarily or maliciously moving cases around without actually deciding them to the disadvantage of the respondents, their lawyers, the judges, court staff, and often even ICE counsel (who, as far as I can tell, are never consulted in advance or given meaningful input on major policy changes at DHS, despite probably being the best qualified individuals in the agency to understand the real legal framework and practical implications of various policy decisions imposed “from above”);
MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE (“MI”): Using White Nationalist restrictionist policies, not based on either the law or empirical data, usually irrational and impractical, to limit the ability of migrants to exercise their legal rights, create chaos in the court system, and ultimately to destroy the system and replace it with something even more draconian and more completely unfair.

PWS

08-04-19

Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight to restore the rule of law and Constitutional order and to end the corruption and daily human rights abuses of the Trump Administration!

Related posts:

Related posts:

The solution: There is no such thing as a “fair” asylum denial under this program. Yes, not everyone meets the criteria. But, everyone is entitled to a fair chance to present a claim, free from duress, coercion, and biased judging, which is not happening.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Paul Schmidt, who chaired the Board of Immigration of Appeals from 1995 to 2001, says the administration’s goal is to build a “deportation railway” in which cases move through the system as quickly as possible and then get “rubber-stamped by the Board.”

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Stand up against the Trump Administration’s cruel and cowardly attack on children and families. Join the New Due Process Army and the daily ongoing effort to force our Government to follow the law and provide full Due Process for all!

Related posts:

BREAKING: STATEMENT BY IMMIGRATION JUDGES UNION ON MAJOR CHANGE ANNOUNCED TO IMMIGRATION COURTS

Related posts:

Related posts:

PWS “QUICK TAKES” ON EOIR INTERIM REORGANIZATION RULE

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: