Category: Paul Wickham Schmidt

BIA IN FANTASYLAND: Evidence Continues To Mount That BIA’s Deference To Border Statements In Matter of J-C-H-F- Was a Flight of Fantasy That No Reasonable Fact Finder Would Have Reached – How You Can Fight Back Against This Blatant Perversion Of Justice!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/03/26/uscis-records-abusing-asylum-seekers/

AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK writes in Immigration Impact:

As thousands of Central American families arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border asking for asylum in 2014, human rights organizations raised alarms about asylum seekers’ treatment by Customs and Border Protection officials. But these organizations were not the only ones expressing concern—asylum officers within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also raised alarms about CBP misbehavior.

A new Freedom of Information Act lawsuit hopes to reveal how asylum officials’ repeated concerns about CBP officer misconduct were left unaddressed. The lawsuit, filed by Human Rights Watch and Nixon Peabody LLP, seeks information about such misbehavior, including hundreds of reports that CBP failed to properly screen asylum seekers.

This lawsuit comes after Human Rights Watch, along with the American Immigration Council, filed a FOIA request asking for records of complaints made by officers in USCIS’s Asylum Division. The lawsuit asks USCIS to turn over all records of complaints about CBP misconduct from 2006 to 2015, arguing that the agency violated FOIA by failing to provide requested key documents following the original request. These documents included a spreadsheet where asylum officers purportedly documented hundreds of instances of “problematic Border Patrol practices.”

CBP officers at ports of entry and along the U.S. border are generally the first to encounter newly arriving asylum seekers. When asylum seekers express a fear of returning to their home country to a CBP officer, the officer is required to refer them to an asylum officer with USCIS for an interview. The asylum officer decides whether the asylum seeker has a “credible fear” of persecution, a determination which allows the asylum seeker to pursue an asylum case in immigration court.

Because these credible fear interviews occur after an asylum seeker has already been processed by CBP officers at the border or ports of entry, asylum officers are able to ask about any encounters with CBP. The limited records USCIS offered in response to the FOIA show that asylum officers often had serious concerns about the behavior of its sister agency.

The documents produced to date demonstrate how grave the problem is:

  1. One email from an asylum officer to a supervisor expresses a belief that there are “significant issues in how some Border Patrol officers are screening individuals.”
  2. A second email discusses an incident where “CBP mocked a transgender woman for hours and refused to record her fear” of returning to her home country. These internal reports of CBP abuse match the reports of many asylum seekers who encountered abuse at the hands of CBP officers during the same time period.
  3. A third email from an asylum officer expressed concerns that an asylum seeker was coerced into withdrawing his request for asylum, with the officer writing that: “What is especially disturbing about this is that … the record indicates that [the asylum seeker] has been subjected to harassment, intimidation, and physical mistreatment by CBP upon his recent entry into the United States, and this mistreatment. . . affected his decision to dissolve his case.”

Records of CBP’s mistreatment of asylum seekers is especially important as the numbers of asylum-seekers at the border continue to rise. Last year, groups sued CBP, alleging a pattern or practice of unlawfully turning away asylum seekers who arrived at ports of entry and requested asylum. In light of CBP’s own inadequate complaint system, this new lawsuit could substantiate the many reports of the agency’s misconduct.

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

Both Judge Jeffrey Chase and I have “roasted” in prior blogs the BIA’s disingenuous and “clearly erroneous greenlighting” of Border Patrol statements in Matter of J-C-H-F, 27 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2018). Quite contrary to the BIA’s unjustified “head in the sand” presumption of regularity given these flawed statements, there is clear public evidence, compiled over more than a decade, that such statements should be considered “presumptively unreliable.”

In addition to addressing the elements of the bogus “test” enunciated by the BIA in J-C-H-F- what should advocates do to fight this type of clearly biased, largely “fact free,” unwarranted pro-DHS decision-making by the BIA?

  • First, as Jeffrey and I have pointed out, get the publicly available reports of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (“USCIRF”) which show that glaring errors in accuracy and reliability raised as long ago as 2006 remained unaddressed as of 2016.
  • Second, use the additional materials cited in the above article to show how DHS has suppressed its own internal documents establishing the unreliability of the Border Patrol statements.
  • Third, get in touch with Human Rights Watch and the American Immigration Council to see if any additional FOIA materials have been made available which establish unreliability.
  • Fourth, ask someone from Human Rights Watch about a database I have heard they are establishing to provide “hard evidence” to challenge the reliability of Border Patrol statements.

In the “Age of Sessions,” I wouldn’t hold my breath for the “captive” BIA to recede from its travesty in J-C-H-F-. That’s why it’s critically important for advocates to do a great job of “setting the record straight” in the Courts of Appeals.

But, to do that, evidence challenging the Border Patrol statements must be offered at the trial stage before the Immigration Judge. Documenting and exposing the BIA’s disingenuous decision-making will also undermine the BIA’s overall credibility before the Courts of Appeals and perhaps eventually lead to a reversal of the unjustified “Chevron deference” the Board currently receives.

Today’s Board masquerades as a deliberative “expert tribunal” that neither publicly deliberates nor possesses any obvious expertise — a situation aggravated because nobody who works for the biased White Nationalist xenophobe Jeff Sessions can legitimately be considered “unbiased” or “impartial” when it comes to adjudication of migrants rights. Don’t forget, even if the BIA rules in the respondent’s favor, something that happens less and less these days, each an every BIA decision is subject to an inappropriate “certification and reversal” process by Sessions that he has shown little hesitation in invoking recently.

How can a respondent receive a “fair hearing” from a “court” where the Government’s leading enforcement figure holds all the cards? Obviously, he or she can’t! You can help make a record that eventually should force the “Article III’s” to shut down this “caricature of American justice.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-28-17

 

Related posts:

  1. 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”
  2. TWO MORE FROM HON. JEFFREY CHASE EXPOSING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY & HOW THE COMPLICIT FEDERAL COURTS FURTHER THESE ABUSES! — “How innocent women and children resigning themselves to being severely beaten, raped, and killed in their home countries constitutes all problems being solved is beyond comprehension.”
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”

BESS LEVIN @ VANITY FAIR: Trump Contemplating Misappropriating Military Funds For “His Wall!”

Bess writes in The Levin Report:

Of the untold number of stupid things that have come out of Donald Trump’s mouth, making a strong case for the stupidest was his claim, as he announced his candidacy for president, that he would build a wall on the southern border of the country and make the “criminals” and “rapists” in Mexico pay for it. So dumb was this declaration that even Trump eventually realized he would have to tweak it, probably around the time that Mexico’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto, said there was no way in hell he would fund the project. From there, Mr. Art of the Deal changed his story to taxpayers will put up the money initially, but Mexico will pay us back;which later became Mexico will pay for the wall through import tariffs; which quickly changed to Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly through NAFTA,” which morphed, earlier this month, into the wall will pay for itself. And now, the president has landed on a new idea: make the military pay for it.

Trump has privately been making the case that the Pentagon should use some of the $700 billion it received as part of last week’s spending bill to fund his vanity project, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. After mentioning it to several advisers last week, Trump reportedly floated the idea by House Speaker Paul Ryan in a meeting on Wednesday at the White House, to which Ryan “offered little reaction.” During another meeting, this one with senior aides, Trump apparently whined about how much money the Department of Defense was getting, noting that surely the Pentagon could afford to part with a few (or, say, 67) billion dollars. According to reporters Josh Dawsey and Mike DeBonis, President Temper Tantrum has had a hard time watching TV lately—heretofore his only solace in this cruel world—due to criticism of the spending deal he signed last week, and the fear that his base could sour on him without any wall progress. (The fact that he allegedly had an affair with a porn star, whom he subsequently paid off to stay quiet, is obviously a plus for them.) Currently, just $641 million is earmarked for new fencing, and it can only be used on “operationally effective designs that were already deployed last May,” meaning that unless something changes, the prototypes Trump recently visited in California will be just for show.

Of course, as everyone but the president seems to understand, it’s highly unlikely that the Pentagon would divert funds from the military to finance the wall, which experts say won’t actually stop the flow of illegal immigration at all, and which would require Congressional votes that Trump obviously doesn’t have. Not only will Democrats take a hard pass military spending paying for his fence, but Pentagon officials, per White House advisers, “may also blanch at the possibility.” In a statement to the Post,Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made his feelings pretty clear. “First Mexico was supposed to pay for it, then U.S. taxpayers, and now our men and women in uniform? This would be a blatant misuse of military funds and tied up in court for years. Secretary [James] Mattis ought not bother and instead use the money to help our troops, rather than advance the president’s political fantasies,” he said.

That virtually no one is going for the idea hasn’t stopped Trump from floating it in his preferred venue of choice. Over the weekend he suggested on Twitter that the military should scrounge up the money for national security reasons:


The national security argument might hold a bit more water if the Trump administration hadn’t targeted traditional border security measures for for cuts or delays in funding that experts say “[pose] a serious threat to border security.” (Those experts also say that the The Wall will largely useless “unless it’s 35,000 feet high.”) Meanwhile, at the White House, good soldier Sarah Sanders on Tuesday told reporters that the administration “still has plans to look for potential ways” for Mexico to pay for the wall.

Anyway, stay tuned for next week when Trump privately presses for the Department of Veterans Affairs to quit being so stingy and pony up the dough. How much money do they really need to treat PTSD?

Team Trump has a special treat in store for the bank industry

It’s the appointment of Jelena McWilliams at the F.D.I.C., which will result in a trifecta of deregulation-happy officials atop the nation’s banking regulators, per The Wall Street Journal:

When that happens, the F.D.I.C., the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency will be able to move ahead on a number of the Trump administration’s policy priorities, such as adjusting capital and liquidity requirements, easing restrictions on short-term consumer loans and relaxing the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law’s proprietary trading ban, the Volcker rule.

Ms. McWilliam’s arrival likely will coincide with the completion of a bill in Congress aimed at easing crisis-era banking regulations, another catalyst for changes to the financial rule book.

Isaac Boltansky, the policy research director at Compass Point Research & Trading LLC, told W.S.J.that, “With Congress likely to pass the only financial deregulatory bill for the near future, it will be the alphabet soup of new regulators who decide the tone and tenor of the new deregulatory agenda.” #MAGA!

Wilbur Ross does the G.O.P. a solid

Overriding the advice of career officials who warned that adding a question to the 2020 census about citizenship will lead to fewer responses from people worried about deportation, Ross decided on Monday to just go for it, writing in a memo he had “determined that reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire is necessary to provide complete and accurate census block level data” (the last time the citizenship question was on the census was in 1950). That’s an interesting argument, given that the very reason census officials didn’t want to reinstate the question is a fear that it will lead to lower response rates. Which may be all part of the plan:

Critics of the change and experts in the Census Bureau itself have said that, amid a fiery immigration debate, the inclusion of a citizenship question could prompt immigrants who are in the country illegally not to respond. That would result in a severe undercount of the population—and, in turn, faulty data for government agencies and outside groups that rely on the census. The effects would also bleed into the redistricting of the House and state legislatures in the next decade.

Others argued that an undercount in regions with high immigrant populations would lead not only to unreliable data but also to unfair redistricting, to the benefit of Republicans.

In response to the decision by Ross, the human equivalent of a smoking jacket and cigar, the states of California and New York have sued the Trump administration.

Trump takes full responsibility for stock-market sell-off

Just kidding, of course. The president, who took the time out of his busy day on Monday to pat himself on the back for yesterday’s rally, was suddenly too busy to tweet about today’s drop.

Elsewhere!

At least 50 people on Wall Street think “Billions” characters are based on them (Business Insider)

Ross says market is realizing the tariffs are bargaining chips for better trade deals (CNBC)

Zuckerberg Expected to Testify Before Congress on Cambridge Analytica Scandal (Wired)

The Billionaire Whisperer Who United Bezos, Buffett, and Dimon (Bloomberg)

The White-Collar Wives Club (N.Y.T.)

Trump claimed the tax bill would lead to a huge boost in business spending—but there’s no sign of it yet (Business Insider)

Deutsche Bank Examines Potential Successors to C.E.O. John Cryan (W.S.J.)

Manafort Asks Virginia Judge to Dismiss Tax, Bank-Fraud Case (Bloomberg)

Mulvaney nears victory in struggle with Mnuchin on tax rules (Politico)

Ring-bearing owl causes chaos at British wedding (UPI)

*********************************
Go on over to Bess @ Vanity Fair for the complete Levin Report at this link:
More threatening essentially to break or evade the law from our “Con-Man-In-Chief.” “Normalizing” this erratic, “Third World Dictator” conduct doesn’t make it “normal” or “acceptable.” It reflects on the folks willing to enable and apologize for Trump (although apology is something he never does, no matter how egregious his lies or misconduct.)

Ironically, Trump likely could have had “His Wall” funded if he had been willing to support a bipartisan “Dreamer Compromise” just a few weeks ago.

PWS
03-28-17

Related posts:

  1. VICTORY DANCE! — ICE’S HOMAN SAYS CLIMATE OF FEAR HAS STEMMED BORDER CROSSINGS & PROVES UNRESTRAINED, ARBITRARY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT WORKS! — “There’s no population that’s off the table,” he said. “If you’re in the country illegally, we’re looking for you and we’re looking to apprehend you.” — America Won’t Be Truly Safe Until The Last Cook, Gardner, Construction Worker, Nanny, Janitor, Tree Cutter, Mechanic, Handyman, Carpenter, Home Health Aide, Computer Programmer, Healthcare Worker, Lettuce Picker, Cow Milker, Landscaper, Lawnmower, Bricklayer, Roofer, Window Washer, Waiter, Sandwich Artist, Teacher, Minister, Coach, Student, Parent, Clerk, Fisherman, Farmer, Maid, Chicken Plucker, Meat Processor, Etc., Without Docs Is Removed And US Citizens Take Over All These Jobs!
  2. MARIA SACCHETTI IN WASHPOST: INSIDE THE “NAG” (NEW AMERICAN GULAG) — CRUEL, INHUMAN, DEGRADING TREATMENT APPEARS TO BE WIDESPREAD IN SO-CALLED “CIVIL” IMMIGRATION DETENTION! — Where’s The Outrage? — Where’s The Congressional Oversight? — Why Aren’t Guys Like “Gonzo” & Homan Who Knowingly Promote Violations Of Legal & Human Rights As (Unlawful) “Immigration Deterrence” Under Investigation For Their Roles In Violating Human, Constitutional Rights!
  3. STATE OF DISUNION! — TRUMP TRASHES IMMIGRANTS, THREATENS TO DESTROY CIVIL SERVICE — “[A] Flabby, Divisive Speech” From A “Shell President!”
  4. JAMELLE BOUIE @ SLATE: TRUMP, SESSIONS, MILLER & THE GOP RESTRICTIONISTS HAVE PUT GOOD OL’ 1920S RACISM AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST IMMIGRATION AGENDA! –“What good does it do to bring in somebody who’s illiterate in their own country, has no skills, and is going to struggle in our country and not be successful? . . . That is not what a good nation should do, and we need to get away from it.” — J. “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Attorney General of the United States of America & Unapologetic White Nationalist With A Long History Of Racism!

THE HILL: A Different Approach to DACA? Nolan Asks Whether Redefining DACA In Terms Of Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) Provisions Could Save The Day?

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/380265-trump-dems-can-solve-the-daca-problem-by-redefining-it

 

Family Pictures

Nolan writes:

“. . . .

It might be more productive at this point to put negotiations about DACA and DREAM Acts aside and try a different approach. My suggestion is to work on creating a place in the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program for the DACA participants.

This little-known humanitarian program makes lawful permanent resident (LPR) status available to undocumented alien children in the United States who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by one or both parents and who should not be returned to their own countries.

. . . .

DACA

Undocumented aliens were considered for the DACA program if they:

  1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  2. Came to the U.S. before reaching their 16th birthday;
  3. Have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007;
  4. Were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, when they filed their DACA applications; and
  5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012.

The aliens in both programs came to the United States as children and humanitarian relief is warranted in both situations to prevent them from having to return to their own countries. The SIJ aliens would be returning to abuse, neglect, or abandonment; and the DACA aliens spent their childhoods here and know no home other than America.

The need for the new category would end when all of the DACA participants have been taken care of, but this should not be a problem. Section 1059 of the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Actestablished Special Immigrant status for Iraqi and Afghan nationals who had served as translators for the U.S. Armed Forces, and the need for that program will end when the translators are no longer needed.

Trump’s Framework

The first pillar of Trump’s framework is the legalization program.

Putting the DACA participants in the SIJ program would facilitate a compromise on Trump’s pillar requiring an end to chain migration.

The SIJ provisions take away a participant’s right to confer immigration benefits on his parents when he becomes an LPR.  INA §101(a)(27)(J)(iii)(II)states that, “no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.”

This restriction continues even if they naturalize.

It might be necessary to amend this provision to include the rest of the family-based classifications that Trump wants to eliminate, but that would be a much smaller concession than terminating chain migration for everyone.

The other two pillars are the wall and ending the Diversity Visa Program(DVP).

Trump has made it very clear that he will reject any deal that does not include funding for his wall.

Lastly, terminating the DVP should not be a problem. The Democrats have shown a willingness to end that program. Section 2303 of Senator Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) Gang of Eight bill would have repealed the DVP if it had been enacted.

In any case, the parties have nothing to lose from trying this approach.”

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article.

This seems like an interesting idea that could work if, and it’s a big “if,” the parties can get over their respective “all or nothing” approaches.

For the Dems, it gives the Dreamers closure, permanent status, and a path to eventual citizenship. A very big deal!

At the same time, the GOP and Trump basically get three of “Trump’s pillars” in some form or another.

Yes, the inclusion of the “parent bar” could be a sticking point for the Dems. But, it will be at least three to five years after the Dreamers get their “green cards” before any of them would be eligible to naturalize. By that time, both the thinking and the politics behind the issue of status for parents of naturalized U.S. citizens could well change. We would definitely have better data about the “real universe” in terms of numbers.

Even now, many Dreamers no longer have two living parents who would be able to or interested in immigrating. Estimates of “future impact” based on the assumption that each Dreamer would “immigrate” two parents always have appeared wildly exaggerated to me. A “special immigrant program” would provide better data.

Also, once Dreamers become Lawful Permanent Residents and U.S. citizens, they are likely to be in a position favorably to influence the dialogue about parental migration.

PWS

03-27-18

 

Related posts:

  1. THE HILL: NOLAN UNIMPRESSED BY “GANG OF SIX’S” DREAMER COMPROMISE EFFORT!
  2. THE HILL: PROFESSOR (& FORMER USCIS CHIEF COUNSEL) STEPHEN LEGOMSKY ON WHY THE TRUMP/SESSIONS FALSE NARRATIVE ATTEMPTING TO DEMONIZE & CRIMINALIZE ALL IMMIGRANTS IS SO TOXIC FOR AMERICA!
  3. COURTSIDE HISTORY: HOW THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ RACISM ERASED A PRESIDENT’S DAUGHTER! — ALSO MY: “FRIDAY ESSAY — FROM MONTICELLO TO TRUMP, MILLER, SESSIONS, AND THE GOP WHITE NATIONALISTS”
  4. PLAYING CATCH-UP: Here Are Two “Courtside Regulars” From Earlier This Week: 1) The Gibson Report 01-21-19; and 2) Nolan On Trump & The Wall From The Hill!

JUDGE EDWARD C. PRADO DISSENTS FROM 5TH CIRCUIT’S ABANDONMENT OF CONSTITUTION IN BIVENS CASE — HERNANDEZ V. MESA

Hernandezv.Mesa,Bivens,5th

Hernandez v. Mesa, 5th Cir., 03-20-18, published

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court

BEFORE 5TH CIRCUIT EN BANC:  STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

MAJORITY OPINION: EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge, joined by STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, DENNIS,** CLEMENT, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES,*** HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

** Judge Dennis concurs in the judgment.
*** Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment and with the majority opinion’s conclusion that Bivens should not extend to the circumstances of this case.

DISSENTING OPINION: EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge, joined by GRAVES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

EXCEPTS FROM JUDGE PRADO’S DISSENT:

“Today’s en banc majority denies Sergio Hernandez’s parents a Bivens remedy for the loss of their son at the hands of a United States Border Patrol agent. The majority asserts that the transnational nature of this case presents a new context under Bivens and that special factors counsel against this Court’s interference. While I agree that this case presents a new context, I would find that no special factors counsel hesitation in recognizing a Bivens remedy because this case centers on an individual federal officer acting in his law enforcement capacity. I respectfully dissent.

. . . .

In sum, this Court is more than qualified to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. This case simply involves a federal official engaged in his law enforcement duties acting on United States soil who shot and killed an unarmed fifteen-year-old boy standing a few feet away. I would elect to recognize a damages remedy for this tragic injury. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). In this case, I would recognize a Bivens remedy for this senseless cross-border shooting at the hands of a federal law enforcement officer. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”

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

Judge Edward C. Prado is nor just “any” U.S. Circuit Judge. Among other things in his long and distinguished career, Judge Prado was the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas during the Reagan Administration. I dealt with him on some immigration issues during my as the Deputy General Counsel in the “Legacy INS” during that time.  He is a gentleman and a scholar.

Perhaps appropriately, this is likely to be Judge Prado’s last major published opinion. On March 22, 2018, he was confirmed by the Senate as the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. Congratulations Ambassador Prado; thanks for leaving us this great dissent as a reminder of how the law should be interpreted and applied!

PWS

03-25-18

 

 

Related posts:

  1. 🤡CLOWN CAPITOL:  J.R. PRESIDES OVER GOP CLOWN SHOW HE HELPED CREATE — Empowering The Koch Bros, Suppressing Minority Votes, Enabling GOP Gerrymandering, Ignoring Invidious Racial & Religious Motives, Turning A Blind Eye To Lies & Pretexts, It All Contributed To The Arrogant Display Of GOP Dishonesty & Impunity Now On Public Display In The Senate! — Plus Bonus Friday Mini-Essay: “Profiles in Fecklessness”
  2. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 
  3. WE KNOW THAT SESSIONS, WHITAKER, & BARR HAVE TURNED THE DOJ INTO A LEGAL, MORAL, PROFESSIONAL, & ETHICAL CESSPOOL — Some Federal Judges Are Beginning To Take Notice: “To say the least, it is disappointing that [DOJ] counsel, after consulting with other counsel including ‘prosecutors and appellate attorneys’ in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

INSIDE THE GATHERING STORM: Making America Porny Again: Daniels Says Skill Set From Adult Entertainment Career Gives Her A Leg Up In Dealing With Trump!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-eve-of-60-minutes-interview-stormy-daniels-says-working-in-porn-helped-prepare-her-for-public-scrutiny/2018/03/24/b1555594-2ea6-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html

 

Emma Brown & Frances Stead Sellers report for WashPost:

Stormy Daniels said Saturday that her work in the porn industry has helped her prepare for the international attention she faces on the eve of a much-anticipated television interview about her alleged affair with Donald Trump and the hush money she says she received to keep it quiet.

“Being in the adult industry, I’ve developed a thick skin and maybe a little bit of a dark sense of humor,” she told The Washington Post. “But nothing could truly prepare someone for this.”

Daniels is scheduled to be the star attraction of the CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” on Sunday evening, a broadcast that caps a two-week media blitz by her attorney, Michael Avenatti. As Daniels’s image and story have become 24/7 fodder for cable news shows, Avenatti has hinted repeatedly that there are more details yet to come out — including in a tweet Friday suggesting that he has a DVD with new information.

In a brief interview Saturday evening, with Avenatti on the line, Daniels sounded upbeat, even as she acknowledged that the media circus she’s attracted has changed her day-to-day life as a wife, mother and adult-film director.

“Without a doubt it’s cutting into my horse show time,” said Daniels, who is an avid equestrian. “And time with friends.”

. . . .

Daniels told The Post on Saturday that she’s been the target of hatred on social media in recent weeks. But she said she also has been overwhelmed by an outpouring of support. When somebody recently accused her of being a liar on Twitter, she said, she received a flood of messages with hashtags like #Ibelieveyou and #teamstormy.

“I didn’t do this to get any sort of approval from anyone or recognition,” she said. “I simply wanted to tell my personal truth and defend myself.”

. . . .

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

Go on over to WashPost at the above link for the complete article by Emma and Frances.

So far, the Stormster has outfoxed the Trumpster at ever turn. Which always brings me back to the same question: How did a smart, multi-talented, personable, on the ball individual like Daniels/Clifford get mixed up with a creep like Trump in the first place?

Tune in to “60 Minutes” tonight and maybe you’ll find out!

PWS

03-25-18

Related posts:

  1. WALL? WHAT WALL? – BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS BEST BAR TO (NEEDED) IMMIGRATION (Hey, I Could’ve Told ‘Em That!) – But, White Nationalist Goal Of Returning To A “White America” Ultimately Doomed — “You can slow the rate of Latino and Asian immigration, but it won’t make the population whiter,”. . . “It will just become less white at a slower pace.”
  2. VICTORY DANCE! — ICE’S HOMAN SAYS CLIMATE OF FEAR HAS STEMMED BORDER CROSSINGS & PROVES UNRESTRAINED, ARBITRARY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT WORKS! — “There’s no population that’s off the table,” he said. “If you’re in the country illegally, we’re looking for you and we’re looking to apprehend you.” — America Won’t Be Truly Safe Until The Last Cook, Gardner, Construction Worker, Nanny, Janitor, Tree Cutter, Mechanic, Handyman, Carpenter, Home Health Aide, Computer Programmer, Healthcare Worker, Lettuce Picker, Cow Milker, Landscaper, Lawnmower, Bricklayer, Roofer, Window Washer, Waiter, Sandwich Artist, Teacher, Minister, Coach, Student, Parent, Clerk, Fisherman, Farmer, Maid, Chicken Plucker, Meat Processor, Etc., Without Docs Is Removed And US Citizens Take Over All These Jobs!
  3. THIRD WORLD AMERICA! – THE ATTACK OF THE SWAMP RATS! — Under Trump’s GOP, Americans Now Correctly View White House As The Most Corrupt Institution — But, Who Are The Fools Who Voted These Immoral Jokers Into Control?
  4. TIMOTHY EAGAN @ NYT: “The Stormy Daniels Presidency” — She’s Probably Smarter, No More Dishonest, Less Biased, & A Heck Of A Lot More “Transparent” Than The Trumpster!”

TRUMPSTERS’ WHITE NATIONALIST IMMIGRATION POLICIES HURT SENIORS: No, There Was No Legal Requirement To Terminate TPS — It Was Just A Combination Of Disingenuousness, Stupidity, Racism, & Plain Cruelty!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-trump-targets-immigrants-elderly-and-others-brace-to-lose-caregivers/2018/03/24/72d5a0d0-2d3e-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html

Melissa Bailey reports for Kaiser Health News in the Washing gton Post:

BOSTON — The two women have been together since 2011, a 96-year-old originally from Italy and a Haitian immigrant who has helped her remain in her home — giving her showers, changing her clothes, taking her to her favorite parks and discount grocery stores.

“Hello, bella,” Nirva greets Isolina Dicenso, using the Italian word for “beautiful.”

“Hi, baby,” Dicenso replies.

Health and Science Email Alerts
Breaking news on health, science and the environment.
Sign up
But changes to federal immigration policy are putting both at risk. Haitian caregivers like Nirva, who got temporary permission to stay in the United States after the 2010 earthquake destroyed much of their homeland, now face a July 22, 2019 deadline for returning. If they and tens of thousands of other immigrants with similar jobs and tenuous legal status are forced to leave the country, Americans living with disabilities, serious illness or, like Dicenso, the frailties of old age could find themselves with few options besides nursing homes.

And many of those facilities could themselves be caught short of staff, at a time when more of the country’s aging baby boom generation could need care.

The situation reflects the crosscurrents that often roil immigration debates, with a central question being how many Americans are willing to fill the arduous, low-pay positions that immigrants often work. The expected fallout offers a glimpse into how such policy changes under President Trump will affect older Americans nationwide, especially those in large cities.

Some 59,000 Haitians live in the United States under temporary protected status (TPS), a humanitarian program that has given them permission to live and work in this country since the earthquake. Many are nursing assistants, home health aides and personal care attendants — the trio of jobs that often defines direct-care workers.

The Trump administration decided last November to curtail that protection, saying the island no longer faced the same adverse conditions and giving the immigrants until mid-2019 to leave or face deportation. In Boston, the city with the nation’s third-highest Haitian population, the action has prompted panic from TPS holders and pleas from health-care agencies that rely on their labor.

The decision “will have a devastating impact on the ability of skilled nursing facilities to provide quality care to frail and disabled residents,” Tara Gregorio, president of the Massachusetts Senior Care Association, warned in a letter published late last year in the Boston Globe. Nursing facilities in the state, which already are grappling with a shortage of several thousand workers, employ about 4,300 Haitians, according to Gregorio.

Nationwide, 1 in 4 direct-care workers are immigrants, said Robert Espinoza, vice president of policy at the New York-based Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute.

It’s not clear how many of those workers rely on the TPS program, but the Institute calculates that there are 34,600 who are non-U.S. citizens from Haiti, Nicaragua (for which TPS will end in January), El Salvador (in September 2019) and Honduras (in July, unless the Trump administration decides to renew protected status for individuals from this country). TPS decisions cannot legally take economic considerations into account, a Department of Homeland Security official said.

In addition, another 11,000 workers come from countries affected by Trump’s travel ban, primarily from Somalia and Iran, and about 69,800 are non-U.S. citizens from Mexico, according to the Institute.

Even immigrants with secure legal status may be affected when family members are deported, Espinoza noted: Under Trump, noncriminal immigration arrests have doubled. The “totality of the anti-immigrant climate” threatens the stability of the workforce — and “the ability of older people and people with disabilities to access home health care,” he said.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports more restrictive immigration policies, disputes such dire scenarios. Since three-quarters of direct-care workers are U.S. citizens, spokesman David Ray argues, then “these are clearly not ‘jobs that Americans won’t do.’ ” He does the math this way: The country has 6.7 million unemployed people, and if the health-care industry can’t find enough workers to replace those who lose TPS and other protected statuses, “then it needs to take a hard look at its recruiting practices and compensation packages.”

Yet nursing homes in Massachusetts are already losing immigrant workers who have left the country in fear, because of the White House’s immigration proposals and public remarks , according to Gregorio. Nationally, thousands of Haitians have fled to Canada.

“What people don’t seem to understand is that people from other countries really are the backbone of long-term care,” said Sister Jacquelyn McCarthy, chief executive of Bethany Health Care Center in Framingham, Mass., which runs a nursing home with 170 patients. She has eight Haitian and Salvadoran workers with TPS, mostly certified nursing assistants, who show up reliably for 4:30 a.m. shifts and never call out sick, she said. She already has six CNA vacancies and can’t afford to lose more, she said.

“There aren’t people to replace them if they should all be deported,” McCarthy said.

Nirva, who asked that she be identified only by her first name, works 70 hours a week taking care of senior citizens, sick and disabled patients. She started working as a CNA shortly after she arrived in Boston in March 2010 with her two sons.

She said she chose this work because of her harrowing experience in the earthquake, which destroyed her home and killed hundreds of thousands, including her cousin and nephew. After the disaster, she walked 15 miles with her sister, a nurse, to a Red Cross station to try to help survivors. When she got there, she recounted, the guards wouldn’t let her in because she wasn’t a nurse.

“So, when I came here — I feel, people’s life is very important,” she said. But at first, caring for elderly patients was difficult. “At the beginning, it was very tough for me,” she acknowledged, especially “when I have to clean their incontinence. . . . Some of them, they have dementia, they are fighting. They insult you. You have to be very compassionate to do this job.”

Nirva, 46, works with a soft voice, a bubbling laugh and disarming modesty. She says her faith in God — and a need to pay the bills to support her sons, now in high school and college — help her get through each week.

She started caring for Dicenso in her Boston home as the older woman recovered from surgery in 2011. With support from Nirva, another in-home aide and her daughter, Dicenso has been able to continue living alone. She now sees Nirva once a week for walks, lunch outings and shopping runs. The two have grown close, bonding in part over their Catholic faith. At home, Dicenso proudly displays a bedspread that Nirva gave her, emblazoned with the word LOVE.

Nirva also fills three shifts a week at a chiropractor’s office as a medical assistant. Five nights a week, she does an overnight shift at a Boston rehabilitation center.

The Trump administration’s immigration restrictions may exacerbate a serious shortage of direct-care workers, warns Paul Osterman, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. He forecasts a national shortfall of 151,000 workers by 2030 and of 355,000 workers by 2040. If immigrants lose their work permits, the gap would widen further.

“People aren’t going to be able to have quality care,” he said. “They’re not going to be able to stay at home.”

Angelina Di Pietro, Dicenso’s daughter, worries about who could help her mother if Nirva can’t. “There’s not a lot of people in this country who would take care of the elderly,” she said. “Taking care of the elderly is a hard job.”

“Nirva, pray to God they let you stay,” said Dicenso, sitting in her living-room armchair after a long walk and ravioli lunch. “What would I do without you?”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

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

Restrictionist myths:

  • Health care workers are unskilled;
  • At virtually 100% employment, there are other American workers to take these jobs;
  • There wasn’t a rational basis for continuing Haitian TPS;
  • There is a legal prohibition on taking humanitarian factors and US interests into account in making discretionary, unreviewable TPS determinations;
  • That legal requirements are a factor in the actions of  the Trump Administration (the most lawless and dishonest Administration in US history).

What will happen when xenophobes like David Ray of FAIR need help in their old age? Will they will get the benefit of the qualified, compassionate care that they would deny the rest of us? Or, will they be cared for by “anybody off the street” as they propose for others?

PWS

03-24-18

 

Related posts:

  1. VICTORY DANCE! — ICE’S HOMAN SAYS CLIMATE OF FEAR HAS STEMMED BORDER CROSSINGS & PROVES UNRESTRAINED, ARBITRARY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT WORKS! — “There’s no population that’s off the table,” he said. “If you’re in the country illegally, we’re looking for you and we’re looking to apprehend you.” — America Won’t Be Truly Safe Until The Last Cook, Gardner, Construction Worker, Nanny, Janitor, Tree Cutter, Mechanic, Handyman, Carpenter, Home Health Aide, Computer Programmer, Healthcare Worker, Lettuce Picker, Cow Milker, Landscaper, Lawnmower, Bricklayer, Roofer, Window Washer, Waiter, Sandwich Artist, Teacher, Minister, Coach, Student, Parent, Clerk, Fisherman, Farmer, Maid, Chicken Plucker, Meat Processor, Etc., Without Docs Is Removed And US Citizens Take Over All These Jobs!
  2. WALL? WHAT WALL? – BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS BEST BAR TO (NEEDED) IMMIGRATION (Hey, I Could’ve Told ‘Em That!) – But, White Nationalist Goal Of Returning To A “White America” Ultimately Doomed — “You can slow the rate of Latino and Asian immigration, but it won’t make the population whiter,”. . . “It will just become less white at a slower pace.”
  3. MLK DAY 2018 — DR. KING’S DREAM OF AN AMERICA CELEBRATING EQUALITY & RACIAL HARMONY IS UNDER VICIOUS ATTACK BY TRUMP, PENCE, SESSIONS, AND A HOST OF OTHERS IN TODAY’S WHITE NATIONALIST ENABLING GOP — Who Is Going To Fight To Reclaim The Dream, & Who Is Going To “Go Along To Get Along” With The 21st Century Version Of Jim Crow?
  4. JAMELLE BOUIE @ SLATE: TRUMP, SESSIONS, MILLER & THE GOP RESTRICTIONISTS HAVE PUT GOOD OL’ 1920S RACISM AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST IMMIGRATION AGENDA! –“What good does it do to bring in somebody who’s illiterate in their own country, has no skills, and is going to struggle in our country and not be successful? . . . That is not what a good nation should do, and we need to get away from it.” — J. “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Attorney General of the United States of America & Unapologetic White Nationalist With A Long History Of Racism!

SATURDAY SATIRE FROM ANDY BOROWITZ @ THE NEW YORKER: “Texas Weighs Ban on Women”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/texas-weighs-ban-on-women?mbid=nl_Borowitz 032318&CNDID=48297443&spMailingID=13173267&spUserID=MjQ1NjUyMTUwNjY5S0&spJobID=1362047596&spReportId=MTM2MjA0NzU5NgS2

“Texas Weighs Ban on Women

By

July 11, 2013

AUSTIN (The Borowitz Report)—Republican lawmakers in the Texas State Senate are proposing a precedent-setting new bill that would make it illegal for women to live in the state.

Senator Harland Dorrinson, one of the many pro-life lawmakers backing the woman ban, crafted his bill after witnessing Senator Wendy Davis filibuster an anti-abortion bill last month.

“That was our moment to say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” he said. “This comes down to a choice between life and women, and we choose life.”

Senator Dorrinson said his bill would call for a twenty-foot woman-proof fence to be constructed along the borders of the state.

“Women are great at talking, but not at climbing,” he observed.

But another G.O.P. state senator, Cal Jamson, believes that the total ban on women goes “too far” and is proposing a less draconian bill that would allow some women to remain in the state as guest workers.

“Texas needs women to cook, clean, and cheerlead,” he said. “If they show that they can do those things and stay out of politics, there could be a pathway to citizenship.”

Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

Photograph by George Rose/Getty.”

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

WARNING: THIS IS “FAKE NEWS” BUT COMES WITH MY ABSOLUTE, UNCONDITIONAL, MONEY BACK GUARANTEE THAT IT CONTAINS MORE TRUTH THAN THE AVERAGE TRUMP TWEET OR SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS NEWS BRIEFING, AND ALSO MORE FACTUAL ACCURACY THAN ANY REPORT PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF “AGENT DEVON!”

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

Yup. Definitely sounds like the Texas GOP. We are definitely seeing a blurring the line between satire and the simply incredible daily dishonesty and disingenuousness of the Trump GOP. Trump is killing almost everything American. Will American political satire be among the casualties?

PWS

03-24-17

Related posts:

  1. START YOUR SATURDAY OFF RIGHT WITH “SATURDAY SATIRE” FROM COURTSIDE – THE BOROWITZ REPORT – “Former Hippies Put in Horrible Position of Rooting for F.B.I.!”
  2. MIMI SWARTZ IN THE NY TIMES: Anti-Latino Racism Drives Texas To Pull Up The Welcome Mat For Some Of Its Most Productive Residents!
  3. SATURDAY SATIRE WITH ANDY BOROWITZ @ THE NEW YORKER — “Trump Gives Wife Beater Praise He Usually Reserves for Child Molesters and Nazis”
  4. SATURDAY SATIRE: DAVOS REPORT: TRUMP WOWS INTERNATIONAL FAT CATS WITH PROMISE THAT AMERICA WILL LEAD THE WORLD TO NEW HEIGHTS OF INCOME INEQUALITY — “Starving The Poor To Feed The Rich Will End Poverty,” Says Leader Of World’s Most Powerful Kleptocracy!

TAL @ CNN: A “Gold Star Father” Urges The Supremes To Reject Discriminatory “Muslim Ban!”

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/khizr-khan-brief-muslim-travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

Tal writes:

“Washington (CNN)Gold Star father Khizr Khan wrote a personal appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday to strike down President Donald Trump’s travel ban, using his family’s story to argue the ban is unconstitutional and “desecrates” his son’s sacrifice.

Known for his impassioned speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Khan is a lawyer and the father of Capt. Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed when he moved to stop a car containing suicide bombers headed toward his base in Iraq, for which he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star.
Originally from Pakistan and a Muslim, Khan filed the legal brief on Friday because, in his view, Trump’s travel ban “not only desecrates Humayun Khan’s service and sacrifice as a Muslim- American officer in the United States Army, but also violates Khizr Khan’s own constitutional rights,” his attorney wrote in the brief.

He lost his son in Iraq and drew Trump's ire. Now hear this Muslim American's Veterans Day message.

He lost his son in Iraq and drew Trump’s ire. Now hear this Muslim American’s Veterans Day message.
The brief describes the Khan family’s history and the service of Humayun Khan, mentioning as well Khan’s speech at the DNC where he held up a pocket Constitution and emotionally asked Trump if he’d read it.
The brief also notes Trump’s comments on the campaign trail that he wanted to institute a “Muslim ban,” a key component of critics’ arguments that the administration’s travel ban is a thinly veiled attempt to target Muslims.
Supreme Court sets travel ban arguments for final day of term
Supreme Court sets travel ban arguments for final day of term
“The taint of discrimination has not been washed away,” the brief argues, saying the latest travel ban and its predecessors all flow from that original idea.
“The message is that Muslims are unwelcome outsiders,” it continues. “And that message has been received loud and clear — not only by Muslims like Mr. Khan, but by those who have been denigrating and attacking Muslims with increasing frequency and vehemence since President Trump called for, and then began trying to implement, his unconstitutional Muslim Ban.”
Gold Star father Khizr Khan slams John Kelly's defense of Trump
Gold Star father Khizr Khan slams John Kelly’s defense of Trump
“The message is that Muslims are outsiders, regardless of the depth of their devotion to the Constitution, and despite paying the ultimate price to defend it. That message is painfully clear to Mr. Khan,” the brief states.
Khan’s attorney, Dan Jackson, said the Gold Star father felt compelled to weigh in because of the impact of the travel ban on his son’s legacy, and added Khan has a “fierce devotion” to the Constitution.”
*********************************
Go on over to CNN at the link to read Tal’s complete article.
The rich irony here is that the individuals who “designed” the “travel ban” — Trump, Sessions, Miller — have shown a total disdain for our Constitution. Time and time again, they have failed in their duty to protect the rights of everyone in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or status. What kind of country disrespects the memory of those who have died in its defense while allowing itself to be governed by biased, morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest individuals who reject the very notion of a Constitutional republic?
PWS
03-24-18

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮👎🏻THE TRUMP REGIME & A CORRUPT SOLICITOR GENERAL HAVE CONDUCTED A WAR OF ATTRITION AGAINST AMERICAN LAWYERS ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE BATTLE TO SAVE DEMOCRACY — John Roberts & His GOP Buddies On The Supremes Have Aided, Abetted, & Encouraged It! — Constant Improper & Ethically Questionable Interference With Thoughtful, Legally Correct Lower Court Rulings Holding The Regime Accountable Have Demoralized The Profession’s Best & Bravest! — The Answer Is Better Judges For A Better America!
  2. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  3. THE SADNESS OF PROPHECY WITHOUT POWER: Two Years Ago, I Gave A Speech Warning Of The Consequences Of “1939 Germany” — Now, We’re In “Germany 1938” With 1939 Just An Election Away! — Moscow Mitch, Lindsey The Toad, Texas Ted & The Rest Of The GOP Fellow Travelers & Cultists Would Be Right At Home With Franz van Papen!
  4. 👹🎃HALLOWEEN HORROR 🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻REICHSREPORT: GRUPPENFUHRER MILLER REVEALS “REICHSPLAN” FOR EXTERMINATION OF IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM, REFUGE BY EXECUTIVE DECREE!  — “The Final Solution??”  — Parents, Protect Your Kids, Families, & Your Country From This Grotesque Un-American Monster!

THE LATEST FROM THE HON. JEFFREY CHASE: “Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker” — PLUS: A Link To The Actual Brief! — MATUMONA V. SESSIONS, 10th Cir.

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/22/amicus-brief-filed-in-10th-cir-petition-for-remotely-detained-asylum-seeker

Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker

An amicus brief was filed yesterday by attorneys at the law firm of Sidley Austin on behalf of an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of Matumona v. Sessions.  Fleeing for his life and seeking asylum in the U.S., the petitioner upon arrival was detained by DHS in the Cibola County Detention Center in New Mexico.

To call Cibola remotely located is truly an understatement.  If you Google Map it, you will see that the detention center is surrounded on the east, south, and west by the stunningly scenic, 263,000 acre El Malpais National Conservation Area.  Moving out a bit further, the map shows reservations of the Zuni, Navajo, and Apache nations, beyond which lies the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, and both the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests.

In fairness, Albuquerque is an hour and a half drive away.  However, that city has a total of 36 attorneys who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, working for 25 offices or organizations.  By comparison, New York City has well over a thousand AILA members (not including many others located in the surrounding suburbs). The problem of representation is compounded by the fact that the petitioner, although detained at Cibola, had his removal hearings in the Immigration Court in Denver, 500 miles away.  The National Immigrant Justice Center was able to identify only 21 attorneys in all of New Mexico and Texas who would be willing to represent detainees at Cibola in their removal proceedings. For those requiring pro bono representation, the options are even fewer. According to the latest figures provided by DHS, there were 689 non-citizens being detained in Cibola, and that was less than the facility’s full capacity.

Therefore, close to none of those detained at Cibola are able to exercise their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, as assigned counsel at government expense does not exist in immigration proceedings.  A study by the Vera Institute of Justice found a staggering 1,100 percent increase in successful outcomes when universal representation was made available to the detained population at the Varick Street Detention Facility in New York City.  I will note that universal representation was possible there because the Varick Street facility is located in the heart of New York City, within walking distance of a multitude of immigration law offices, law school clinics, and not-for-profit organizations.

Left to represent themselves, asylum seekers detained at Cibola and other similar remote facilities are further hampered in their limited access to phones (which are necessary to contact friends and relatives abroad who might provide evidence to corroborate the asylum claim), and lack of access to the internet (which would allow detainees to research the law and to access and download country condition materials in support of their claims).  Additionally, detention centers tend to have inadequate law libraries. Furthermore, detainees are required to complete their applications, conduct research, and file supporting documents in English, which is incredibly difficult for someone such as the petitioner, whose native language is Lingala. EOIR’s own statistics show that only ten percent of respondents in removal proceedings last year had enough of a command of English to allow them to participate in their proceedings in that language.  As asylum seekers have often suffered torture or other violence, post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical or psychological remnants of their past mistreatment (which might be further exacerbated by their detention) creates an additional obstacle to self-representation. All of this overlooks the fact that U.S. asylum law is highly complex even for educated English-speakers.

The latest amicus brief raises these and other points on behalf of a group of former immigration judges and BIA Board members.  The brief further makes recommendations for practices to be adopted by immigration judges to help mitigate the above-cited obstacles to pro se applicants in pursuing relief. These recommendations include having the immigration judges explain the applicable legal standard (and any bars to relief) to pro se applicants; introducing country condition evidence (as well as making applicants aware of country condition resources available on EOIR’s own Virtual Law Library); and advocating for free, uninterrupted access to telephones for respondents in detention centers.

To my knowledge, our amicus brief filed with the BIA last summer in the U.S. Supreme Courts remand of Negusie v. Holder was the first time that former immigration judges and Board members identified as a group for amicus purposes.  The seven of us who participated in that brief doubled to 14 for the next such brief, filed with the Attorney General last month in Matter of Castro-Tum.  I see it as a positive development that in the short time since these briefs were filed, we have been called upon to provide our experience in expertise in two more cases, one filed last week in the Ninth Circuit on the issue of representation for children in immigration proceedings (C.J.L.G. v. Sessions), and now in this case filed yesterday in the Tenth Circuit.  Hopefully, this outstanding group will continue to contribute to the cause of justice for vulnerable noncitizens in removal proceedings.

And our heartfelt thanks to the dedicated attorneys at Sidley Austin, Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe, for drafting the outstanding brief.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

REPRINTED BY PERMISSION

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

HERE’S A COPY OF OUR BRIEF, PREPARED BY THE FABULOUS Jean-Claude André, & Katelyn N. Rowe, Sidley Austin LLP, LOS ANGELES, CA:

Matumona v Sessions Amicus Brief Final

HERE’S THE TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Identity and Interest of Amici Curiae …………………………………1

 

ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

I. Immigrants face significant obstacles to accessing justice when they are held in
remote detention facilities……………………………………………………………………………………….7

II. Immigrants are deprived of access to justice when they have no legal
representation, and Immigration Judges are unable to meaningfully fill this justice gap……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15

III. Immigration Judges should adopt certain best practices that can better enable
them to develop a proper record in cases involving pro se litigants…………………………….25

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..App. 1

HERE’S THE “CAST OF CHARACTERS:”

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September of 1997. From 1999 to June 2005, Judge Abrams served as the Immigration Judge at the Queens Wackenhut Immigration Court at JFK Airport in Queens. He has worked at the Immigration Courts in New York and Varick Street Detention facility. Prior to becoming an Immigration Judge, he was the Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York in the Criminal Division in charge of immigration. Judge Abrams retired in 2013 and now lectures on immigration in North Carolina.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr began serving as an Immigration Judge in New York in 1994. She was appointed Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills, and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. Judge Burr served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus. She also worked as the supervising attorney in the Legal Aid Society immigration unit. Judge Burr currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

 

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a solo practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He was also the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and is a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. Judge Einhorn is also a contributing op-ed columnist at the D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003. She then served in various positions at the Office of the General Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review from 2003-2017, including Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer, and Senior FOIA Counsel. Judge Espenoza presently works in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law and is also a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997), where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. Judge Espenoza is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, and in 2014 she was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year. She also received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990. Judge Espenoza has published several articles on Immigration Law.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as an Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law and taught immigration law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and more recently at the University of Maryland School of Law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland, and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. Judge Gossart is a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary member of the Board of Immigration Appeals for six months between 2010 and 2011. Judge King previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Eliza Klein served as an Immigration Judge from 1994 to 2015 and presided over immigration cases in Miami, Boston, and Chicago. During her tenure, Judge Klein adjudicated well over 20,000 cases, issuing decisions on removal, asylum applications, and related matters. Judge Klein currently practices immigration law at the Gil Law Group in Aurora, Illinois.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct professor of law and taught immigration law at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC, a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the Department of Homeland Security Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, New Jersey. She then became an Immigration Judge in Newark, New Jersey. Judge Roy has been in private practice for nearly five years, and two years ago she opened her own immigration law firm. She also currently serves as the New Jersey Chapter Liaison to the Executive Office for Immigration Review for the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association. In 2016, Judge Roy was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the New Jersey Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, Virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. Judge Schmidt authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995), which extended asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including Acting General Counsel (1986- 1987, 1979-1981) and Deputy General Counsel (1978-1987). He worked as the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, DelRey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995. He also practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C., office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992 and was a partner at the firm from 1990 to 1992. Judge Schmidt served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) and presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, a nonprofit that provides direct legal services to immigrant communities in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Judge Schmidt assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as writes and lectures on immigration law topics at various forums throughout the country. Judge Schmidt created immigrationcourtside.com, an immigration law blog.

HERE’S A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT:

Thousands of immigrants are currently detained in detention facilities that are located hours away from the nearest urban areas. See Kyle Kim, Immigrants held in remote ICE facilities struggle to find legal aid before they’re deported, L.A. Times (Sept. 28, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-access-to- counsel-deportation/ (“About 30% of detained immigrants are held in facilities more than 100 miles from the nearest government-listed legal aid resource.”); Human Rights First, Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.S. Immigration Detention System—A Two Year Review 44 (2011), https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and- Jumpsuits-report.pdf (“40 percent of all ICE bed space is currently more than 60 miles from an urban center.”). These immigrants will struggle, and often fail, to retain an attorney who has the time, resources, and relevant expertise to represent them through complex removal proceedings. Even when detained immigrants do secure legal representation, this relationship may be jeopardized by a variety of remote detention conditions: lack of adequate access to telephones in detention facilities; the possibility of being transferred from one detention facility to another; and the difficulty for attorneys to regularly visit remote detention facilities.

For those immigrants that must journey through the labyrinth of immigration court proceedings alone, countless obstacles abound. See Baltazar-Alcazar v. I.N.S., 386 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he immigration laws have been termed second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity. A lawyer is often the only person who could thread the labyrinth.”); Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98, 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (“This case vividly illustrates the labyrinthine character of modern immigration law—a maze of hyper-technical statutes and regulations that engender waste, delay, and confusion for the Government and petitioners alike.”); Lok v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 548 F.2d 37, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that the Immigration and Nationality Act bears a “striking resemblance . . . [to] King Minos’s labyrinth in ancient Crete”). Language barriers will often undermine an immigrant’s ability to effectively represent herself. Although pro se immigrants will receive interpreters during their court hearings, they are still required to complete asylum applications and other court filings in English. In addition, the law libraries at remote detention facilities often have inadequate legal resources that are not up-to-date and/or have not been translated into the immigrant’s native language. These obstacles make it extremely difficult for pro se immigrants to learn about possible claims for relief and determine whether they are even eligible to make such claims. See Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint to Reform America’s Immigration Courts 29 (2009), http://appleseednetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Assembly-Line- Injustice-Blueprint-to-Reform-Americas-Immigration-Courts1.pdf (“Those immigrants appearing without a lawyer, or ‘pro se,’ often enter the system without any understanding of the process before them, much less of the grounds for relief that may be available to them.”).

Petitioner Adama Heureux Matumona of the Democratic Republic of Congo faced many of these access-to-justice obstacles because he was detained at the Cibola County Detention Center, which is located approximately 300 miles away from some of the nearest pro bono legal services providers and 500 miles away from his immigration court hearings. (AR 20, 432) Mr. Matumona was unable to secure legal representation because he did not have the financial means to pay for a private attorney. (AR 10, 16, 277) Of the three pro bono legal services providers that the Immigration Judge recommended, two did not represent immigrants in Cibola and the third did not have adequate interpretation services to communicate with Mr. Matumona, who is a native Lingala speaker. (AR 250, 252, 432) In addition, Mr. Matumona could not find pro bono counsel on his own because he did not have enough money to pay for the telephone service at Cibola and was not granted free access to telephones at Cibola. (AR 10, 20)

As a pro se litigant, Mr. Matumona’s likelihood of securing relief in his removal proceedings was significantly limited. Despite the fact that Mr. Matumona does not speak English, the Immigration Judge expected him to complete his asylum application and other court filings in English. (AR 303) All the while, Mr. Matumona has endured residual trauma from fleeing his home country out of fear that his community organizing activities would lead to his imprisonment, disappearance, or death by the ruling regime. (AR 339-42) This trauma was further exacerbated by the many months Mr. Matumona has spent in detention, separated from his wife, eight children, and other family members. (AR 324) All of these factors made it more burdensome for Mr. Matumona to build and present his case than if he had been represented by counsel from the beginning.

In amici’s decades of experience, immigrants like Mr. Matumona who lack access to counsel and are held in remote detention facilities will be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to investigate and develop their cases to a degree that is consistent with the requirements of due process. Immigration Judges are limited in their ability to fill this justice gap due to time constraints caused by backlogged dockets and pressure to avoid coaching pro se immigrants because it contravenes their mandate of impartial arbiter. While Immigration Judges can grant continuances to give pro se immigrants additional time to find counsel or collect evidence, this action also has the negative consequences of increasing docket backlog and prolonging an immigrant’s time in detention. In addition, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has cautioned that “an Immigration Judge must carefully consider not just the number of continuances granted, but also the length of such continuances” and “should not routinely or automatically grant continuances absent a showing of good cause or a clear case law basis.” Exec. Office for Immigration Review, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances 3 (July 31, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/oppm17- 01/download (“OPPM 17-01: Continuances”). This kind of directive has a chilling effect on Immigration Judges who may be inclined to grant continuances in cases where they believe it is necessary to protect due process. Moreover, there is no guarantee that a continuance will enable a pro se immigrant to secure counsel or obtain needed evidence—especially in light of the other obstacles that detained immigrants face in remote detention facilities. Thus, the combination of remote detention and lack of legal representation not only impedes immigrants’ access to justice, but also overburdens the operation of the immigration system as a whole.

Amici respectfully submit that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not recognize the various access-to-justice barriers that Mr. Matumona faced in presenting his case to the Immigration Judge. Therefore, this Court should grant Mr. Matumona’s Petition for Review, vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, and remand his case. In addition, amici request that this Court encourage Immigration Judges to adopt certain best practices, described below in Part III, that will ensure a detailed record is developed in cases with pro se immigrants so that they receive meaningful review of their claims for relief.

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

Thanks again to J.C., Katelyn, Sidley Austin, and my wonderful colleagues who joined in the brief. For better or worse, there is no shortage of opportunities for Amicus involvement in the current climate.

PWS

03-23-18

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MINOR RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN 9TH CIRCUIT EN BANC REQUEST – C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 9th Cir., Filed March 15, 2018 – Read It Here!
  2. TAL @ CNN TELLS ALL ON HOW SESSIONS IS USING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE SCREWED UP U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS TO ATTACK DUE PROCESS & TARGET VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS — One Of My Quotes: “I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”
  3. MICHELLE BRANE @ WOMEN’S REFUGEE COMMISSION — “Why I March!”
  4. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”

GONZO’S WORLD: McCABE’S ATTORNEYS WONDER WHY HE WASN’T TREATED WITH THE SAME LENIENCY AS GONZO

Click on this picture for the NYT link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/sessions-fbi-investigation-perjury.html

Adam Goldman, Katie Benner, Matt Apuzzo report for the NYT:

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. investigated Attorney General Jeff Sessions for possible perjury last year over congressional testimony in which he said he had no contacts with Russians, according to three people familiar with the case.
In fact, Mr. Sessions later acknowledged, he had personally met the Russian ambassador to the United States during the campaign and was aware that George Papadopoulos, a campaign adviser, had developed Russian ties, too. F.B.I. agents were aware of both inaccuracies in real time. And last March, when Congress asked the F.B.I. to investigate the attorney general, agents began doing so, two of the people said.
Andrew G. McCabe, the F.B.I.’s deputy director at the time, authorized the investigation, the two people said. Mr. McCabe himself was recently fired for showing “lack of candor” in an internal investigation. Mr. Sessions rejected Mr. McCabe’s appeal and fired him hours before his retirement was to take effect, jeopardizing his pension.
The investigation into Mr. Sessions began before Robert S. Mueller III was appointed special counsel to investigate Russia-related matters. Mr. Sessions’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, said no investigation is being conducted now.
“The special counsel’s office has informed me that after interviewing the attorney general and conducting additional investigation, the attorney general is not under investigation for false statements or perjury in his confirmation hearing testimony and related written submissions to Congress,” Mr. Cooper said in a statement.
The investigation was first reported by ABC News.
Perjury investigations based on congressional referrals are common, and the F.B.I. frequently investigates but seldom charges. But the fact that the attorney general himself was a focus of the Russia investigation, even if only peripherally and temporarily, shows how entangled the Trump administration has become in the case. Mr. Sessions is recused from any aspect of the investigation.
The investigation also adds a new layer to Mr. McCabe’s firing. Mr. McCabe’s lawyers have said that he did not lie and acted quickly to fix any inaccuracies or misunderstandings. Mr. Sessions has offered a similar defense, saying he never intended to mislead Congress.

. . . .

Mr. McCabe’s allies have pointed in recent days to these clarifications and asked why Mr. McCabe did not receive the same benefit of the doubt as the attorney general. But it is impossible to compare the cases because the Justice Department’s inspector general has not released his report explaining his concerns about Mr. McCabe’s candor.

. . . .

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

Go to the above link to read the complete article in the NYT.

Double standards are the norm in the Trump Administration and the DOJ. Ethics laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, asylum laws, conflict of interest laws, civil service protections all are applied selectively to favor “friends of the Administration” and punish “enemies.” Just like in any good Banana Republic like the “B.A.R.!”

PWS

03-23-18

 

 

Related posts:

  1. PUTIN’S PATSIES: GOP RAMPS UP PLAN TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AT JUSTICE – With McCabe Ousted, DAG Rosenstein Appears To Be Next Target In GOP’s Move To Subvert American Government!
  2. THIRD WORLD AMERICA! – THE ATTACK OF THE SWAMP RATS! — Under Trump’s GOP, Americans Now Correctly View White House As The Most Corrupt Institution — But, Who Are The Fools Who Voted These Immoral Jokers Into Control?
  3. SLEAZE-BALL-IN-CHIEF: TRUMP WANTED TO FIRE MUELLER IN JUNE ON BOGUS GROUNDS — WHITE HOUSE LAWYER’S THREAT TO QUIT STOPPED HIM!
  4. GONZO’S WORLD: DEEP IRONY – He Might Have Fired McCabe Over Alleged “Lack Of Candor,” But Apocalyoto’s Own Lies, Misrepresentations, And Unlikely “Memory Lapses” Might Finally Catch Up With Him!

HON. JEFFREY CHASE RETURNS WITH MORE ANALYSIS OF RETIRED JUDGES’ AMICUS BRIEF IN C.J.L.G. V. SESSIONS

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/21/amicus-brief-filed-in-cjlg-v-sessions

 

Mar 21 Amicus Brief Filed in C.J.L.G. v. Sessions

On March 15, lawyers with the firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of 11 former immigration judges and BIA Board members in the case of C.J.L.G. v. Sessions. The case involves a child from Honduras who appeared in immigration court accompanied only by his mother. As the respondent could not obtain a lawyer in the time afforded, the immigration judge went forward with the hearing, informing the mother that she would “represent” her son.

The respondent is an asylum applicant whose gang-related claim rested on his ability to precisely delineate a particular social group pursuant to requirements complex enough to stump most attorneys. As his mother lacked any legal training, his hearing did not go well. On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of the claim. In its decision, the BIA determined that the respondent did not suffer past persecution when at the age of 13, members of MS-13, a brutal, multinational gang, threatened to kill him, his mother, and his aunt if he refused to join their ranks, put a gun to his head to emphasize their point, and told him that he had one day to decide. The BIA also found the hearing before the IJ to have been fair, and that the respondent was not denied due process because the immigration laws do not require the appointment of counsel in removal proceedings.

Hon. Dana Marks, an outstanding jurist and president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges, often states that immigration judges hear “death penalty cases under traffic court conditions.” What she means by this is that a genuine asylum seeker who is denied relief and deported faces the risk of death in the country from which he or she fled. Yet the conditions under which such life-or-death claims are heard are inadequate; the limited time and resources afforded to the judges hearing such claims are better suited for a court hearing much lower stakes matters such as traffic tickets. Courts hearing cases involving matters of life and liberty have a higher obligation to afford due process. First and foremost, a defendant facing criminal charges in a state or federal court is entitled to assigned counsel. However, although the stakes may be higher in an asylum case, respondents in immigration court have no such entitlement. Although the respondent in C.J.L.G. may face death if deported, having a judge determine it was fine to proceed, and telling his mother that she would represent him sounds like something that might be appropriate in traffic court.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the respondent’s petition for review. Interestingly, the respondent was found credible in his recounting of the death threats he suffered and as to his fear of return; the court accepted the statistics provided by respondent’s counsel that unrepresented respondents succeed on their claims only 10 percent of the time, whereas as represented minors enjoy a 47 percent success rate. The court also assumed that the respondent qualifies as an indigent (due to his mother’s inability to afford private counsel), and that ordering him removed would send him “back to a hostile environment where he has faced death threats in the past implicates his freedom.” The court further acknowledged that the immigration laws and regulations include assuring minors “the right to a ‘full and fair hearing,’ which includes the ‘opportunity to present evidence and testimony on one’s behalf,’ cross-examine witnesses, and examine and object to adverse evidence.” It would be difficult to argue that an unrepresented minor is capable of exercising such rights.

In spite of this, the court denied the petition, determining that there was no Constitutional right to assigned counsel at government expense to minors in removal proceedings. The court further found that the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice, as he had not established a nexus to a protected ground as required to establish eligibility.

The ACLU has filed a petition for the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. It is in support of this latest petition that the latest amicus brief was filed. I am one of the former IJs included in the brief; I join my colleagues in being proud to assist in such a noble effort as securing assigned counsel for immigrant children facing the legal complexities and dire consequences of immigration proceedings. In a nutshell, the brief argues that the efforts of an immigration judge to provide a fair hearing is no substitute for counsel. Immigration judges can only do so much faced with “overburdened and growing dockets, the complexity of immigration law, and, as Department of Justice (DOJ) employees, the constraints of administrative policy.”

The problem is compounded in cases in which the asylum claim is based on membership in a particular social group. The BIA has recently held that an asylum applicant must specifically delineate such group, a requirement that is clearly beyond the ability of a child (or his or her mother) to do. As the brief points out, in this case, the respondent “ and his mother showed no understanding of why a gang-related threat alone would not warrant asylum, but the IJ’s cursory inquiry ended without seeking the motivation for the threat.”

Of course, the entire issue could be resolved by the Department of Justice choosing to do what is right by agreeing to provide assigned counsel at government expense to this most vulnerable group.

Heartfelt thanks to partner Harrison J. “Buzz” Frahn and associate Lee Brand of the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett for their dedication and effort in drafting the excellent brief.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE
Mar 10 The AG’s Strange Decision in Matter of E-F-H-L-
fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog Archive Contact

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

As pointed out by Jeffrey, this is an incredibly important case for Due Process under our Constitution! Let’s hope that the en banc Ninth gives it a close look.

PWS

03-22-18

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 
  2. MICHELLE BRANE @ WOMEN’S REFUGEE COMMISSION — “Why I March!”
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”

ANOTHER WASHPOST LEAD EDITORIAL RIPS CRUEL, INHUMANE, ADMINISTRATION POLICIES ON SEPARATING CHILDREN – In Plain Terms, Our Government Is Engaging in Child Abuse!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dhs-keeps-separating-kids-from-their-parents–but-officials-wont-say-why-or-how-often/2018/03/20/0c7b3452-2bb4-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.8fe0d0d7b420

DHS keeps separating kids from their parents — but officials won’t say why or how often


Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters in Washington. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board March 20 at 7:31 PM

LAST FRIDAY night, a 7-year-old Congolese girl was reunited with her mother in Chicago, four months after immigration agents of the Department of Homeland Security separated them for no defensible reason. When the little girl, known in court filings as S.S., was delivered by a case worker to her mom, the two collapsed to the floor, clutching each other and sobbing. According to the mother’s lawyer, who was in the room, S.S., overwhelmed, cried for the longest time.

That sounds like a happy ending to a horrific story. In fact, according to immigrant advocates, such separations are happening with increasingly frequency — with no credible justification.

In the case of S.S. and her mother, known in court filings as Ms. L., the trauma visited on a little girl — wrenched from her mother, who was detained in San Diego, and flown nearly 2,000 miles to Chicago — was gratuitous. A U.S. official who interviewed Ms. L. after she crossed the border into California determined she had a reasonable asylum claim based on fear for her life in her native Congo. Despite that, mother and daughter were torn apart on the say-so of an immigration agent, and without explanation.

A DHS spokesman, Tyler Houlton , says separating children from their parents is justified when paternity or maternity is in doubt, or when it is in a child’s best interest. However, in court filings, officials present no cause for doubt about Ms. L.’s maternity, nor evidence that it was in S.S.’s “best interest” to be taken from her mother last November, when she was 6 years old.

Rather, in court filings, an official from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS agency, lists some documentary discrepancies on Ms. L.’s part, in which officials in Angola, Panama and Colombia recorded different versions of her name. Never mind the translation problems she may have encountered in Latin America as a speaker of Lingala, a language spoken only in central Africa.

Even if Ms. L. fudged her identity, how would that justify taking away her child? And if there were doubts about Ms. L.’s maternity, why didn’t ICE request a DNA test at the outset, before sundering mother and child? When a DNA test was finally done — four months later — it immediately established Ms. L.’s maternity.

Immigrant advocates say DHS has separated children from immigrant parents scores of times in recent months, perhaps to deter other asylum seekers by trying to convince them the United States is even more cruel than their native countries. Officials at DHS have floated that idea publicly in the past year. They insist it is not their policy. However, they also have declined to provide statistics showing the frequency of separations.

Responding to a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of parents separated from their children, ICE insists it has done nothing so outrageous that it “shocks the conscience” — a Supreme Court standard for measuring the denial of due-process rights.

Here’s a question for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: If it does not “shock the conscience” to traumatize a little girl by removing her from her mother for four months in a land where she knows no one and speaks no English, what does “shock the conscience”?

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

Stop the Trump Administration’s program of turning America into a reviled human rights abuser! What about “Gonzo Apocalyto’s” policies of turning our Immigration Courts into “enforcement deterrents” rather than protectors of fairness and Due Process?

Join the New Due Process Army now! Resist in the “real’ courts. Vote Trump, his abusers, and his enablers out of office! 

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us. Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-21-18

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  3. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
  4. TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!

BIA BUSTED AGAIN — 4TH CIR REAMS MATTER OF JIMINEZ-CEDILLO, 27 I&N DEC. 1 (BIA 2017) — Jiminez-Cedillo v. Sessions, March 20, 2018, Published — Unexplained Departure From Prior Rulings!

Jiminez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 4th Cir., March 20, 2018, Published

PANEL: Circuit Judges Thacker and Harris; Senior Circuit Judge Shedd

OPINION: Judge Pamela Harris

SUMMARY (FROM LEXISNEXIS IMMIGRATION COMMUNITY):

CA4 Vacates , 27 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2017)

Jimenez-Cedillo v. Sessions – “Pedro Josue Jimenez-Cedillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed from the United States after the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that sexual solicitation of a minor in Maryland, to which Jimenez-Cedillo pled guilty, is a crime involving moral turpitude. Under Maryland law, sexual solicitation of a minor does not require that the perpetrator know the victim’s age. And before this case, under Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, a sexual offense against a child categorically involved moral turpitude only if the perpetrator knew or should have known that the victim was a minor. Because the Board failed to explain its change in position, we grant Jimenez-Cedillo’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings. … Here, we are without a reasoned explanation from the Board for its change in position. … Because the Board’s “path” from the Silva-Trevino cases to Jimenez-Cedillo’s cannot “reasonably be discerned,” its decision is arbitrary and capricious and must be set aside. … If on remand the Board takes the position that a change in Silva-Trevino I’s approach to mental culpability is appropriate, then it also should consider whether, under the traditional factors that bear on retroactivity analysis, see ARA Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 71 F.3d 129, 135–36 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Retail, Wholesale & Dep’t Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 389–90 (D.C. Cir. 1972)), that new position may be applied to Jimenez-Cedillo and other aliens similarly situated.”

Here’s a link to the oral argument.

Hats way off to Ben Winograd (argued) and Helen L. Parsonage (on brief)!

********************************************
Congrats to my friends Ben Winograd and Helen Parsonage for holding the BIA accountable once again!
The BIA is caught improperly creating a harder, anti-immigrant line of legal precedent without complying with the basic legal requirements — like legal analysis!
A “real” Attorney General would certainly: 1) slow down the “Falls Church assembly line;” and 2) insist that the BIA take the time and care necessary to insure that its decisions, particularly published precedents, comply with basic legal and analytical requirements. That’s essentially “Due Process 101.”
Instead, White Nationalist xenophobe Jeff Sessions actually is taking steps to  make the a system with the “wheels coming off” go even faster and to truncate full hearings and proper legal analysis, while attempting — without providing basic due process — to change long-standing substantive rules of law to further screw migrants. How sick is this Dude!? How disgusting is it that he carries out his destructive agenda without any meaningful oversight by Congress?
The best way to solve this unacceptable situation, before our entire legal system is in shambles, is to see that both the individuals responsible for placing Jeff Sessions in office and those who have abdicated their duties to oversee his activities are removed from office through the ballot box. We know who is responsible for these miscarriages of justice. Now is the time to insure that they are no longer able to carry out their program of destroying America!

Join the New Due Process Army! Due Process Forever!

PWS
03-21-19

Related posts:

  1. VIEWS YOU CAN USE: SOPHIA GENOVESE SETS FORTH A BLUEPRINT FOR LEGAL RESISTANCE TO WHITE NATIONALIST XENOPHOBIA & SESSIONS’S ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS & THE RULE OF LAW FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS!
  2. GONZO’S WORLD: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DIVERSE “NATION OF IMMIGRANTS” ANOINTS A COMMITTED XENOPHOBE AS ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER? – Gonzo Is Deconstructing Our System Of Justice, One Day At A Time!
  3. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

VIEWS YOU CAN USE: SOPHIA GENOVESE SETS FORTH A BLUEPRINT FOR LEGAL RESISTANCE TO WHITE NATIONALIST XENOPHOBIA & SESSIONS’S ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS & THE RULE OF LAW FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2018/03/20/sessions-likely-to-end-asylum-eligibility-for-victims-of-domestic-violence-how-courts-can-resist.aspx?Redirected=true

Sophia writes at LexisNexis Immigration Communities:

“Violence against women is the most pervasive and underreported human rights violation in the world. Whether you live on the Upper East Side or in Gugulethu, South Africa, you likely know a woman or girl who has been the victim of sexual or gender-based violence. Maybe you are that woman or girl.[i]

International asylum frameworks have long grappled with how to address this gender-based persecution. After years of debating whether victims of domestic violence have a legitimate claim to asylum, the US Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finally recognized in 2014 that married women who are unable to leave their relationships may constitute a cognizable particular social group for the purposes of seeking asylum. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014); see also Matter of D-M-R- (BIA June 9, 2015) (clarifying that a victim of domestic violence need not be married to her abuser). Although some advocates argue the decision does not go far enough, the protections and opportunities that Matter of A-R-C-G– have provided to thousands of women cannot be understated. Despite these advancements, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has questioned whether such claims to asylum are legitimate by referring to himself a BIA case, Matter of A-B- (BIA Dec. 8, 2016), where the Board found that a victim of domestic violence was indeed eligible for asylum. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2017), Sessions may refer a case to himself for review, and has asked each party to submit briefs on “[w]hether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.” Matter of A-B-, I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018).

As brief background, in order to be granted asylum, the applicant must show that they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and that he or she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself of the protection of, their country of origin owing to such persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) & (2). To be granted asylum based on one’s membership in a particular social group, the applicant must show that the group is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. at 392. As set forth in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 212 (BIA 1985), a “common immutable characteristic” is defined as “a characteristic that either is beyond the power of the individual members of the group to change or is so fundamental to their identities or consciences that it ought not be required to be changed.” Under  Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and clarified in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), the social group must be defined with “particularity,” or be defined by boundaries of who is actually a member of the group. Finally, as explained in Matter of W-G-R-, “social distinction” is defined as the ‘recognition’ or ‘perception’ of the particular social group in society. 26 I&N Dec. at 216. The applicant must also show that her persecution was on account of her membership in the social group, and that the government in her country of origin is unable or unwilling to afford her protection from such persecution.

In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the Board found that the lead respondent had met her burden in establishing eligibility for asylum, and held that “[d]epending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, ‘married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship’ can constitute a cognizable particular social group that forms the basis of a claim for asylum or withholding of removal.” 36 I&N Dec. at 388. In this case, the lead respondent was married to a man who regularly beat her, raped her, and on one occasion, burned her. She had contacted local authorities several times to escape her abuser, but was told that the police would not interfere with domestic matters. The respondent had even moved out, but her husband found her and threatened to kill her if she did return. Fearing for her life, and knowing that she could not be safe if she stayed in Guatemala, the respondent fled to the United States.

The Immigration Judge in Matter of A-R-C-G- found that the respondent’s abuse was the result of “criminal acts, not persecution,” and further found that the respondent was not eligible for asylum. On appeal, the BIA found that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” is indeed a cognizable social group. First, the BIA asserted that the immutable characteristic in this matter was “gender,” and also found the marital status would satisfy the requirement where the woman is unable to leave the relationship. Second, the BIA found that the particular social group had been defined with particularity, where “married,” “women,” “who are unable to leave their relationship” have commonly accepted definitions in Guatemala, stating that it was particularly significant that the respondent had sought protection from the police but was denied protection due to her social group. Finally, the BIA found that the group was socially distinct in society, where Guatemala has a culture of “machismo and family violence,” where the respondent’s social group is easily perceived and recognized in Guatemalan society, and where Guatemala has created laws to protect the respondent’s social group, but has failed to successfully implement them. The BIA cautioned in their decision that particular social group analyses in cases that involve victims of domestic violence will depend heavily on the facts, including country conditions.

. . . .

Despite the BIA’s findings, and decades of tireless efforts by advocates, Attorney General Sessions now refers the case to himself and has asked parties to submit briefs on “whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.” Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018). There may have been bad faith on the part of the Immigration Judge below who held up A-B-’s case on remand, then sent it back to the BIA eight months later by raising a “facially bogus legal issue,” only to have AG Sessions refer the case to himself and stripping the BIA of jurisdiction.

Sessions has made clear his animus against immigrants, especially those fleeing persecution and seeking asylum in the United States, along with their ‘dirty’ immigration lawyers. The referral of the A-B- case to himself is yet another instance of such xenophobia on full display, where he seeks to deny protection to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world. While we hope this is not the case, Sessions will likely reverse the BIA’s findings on the Matter of A-B- case and declare that victims of domestic violence are no longer eligible for asylum in the United States, thus uprooting Matter of A-R-C-G- and particular social group claims based on domestic violence. Indeed, attempting to reverse the ability of a victim of domestic violence to seek asylum goes beyond being anti-immigrant. It is a full-frontal attack on human rights and undermines international obligations to provide protection to people fleeing persecution.  The respondent in Matter of A-B- will thus need to appeal to a federal appellate court to overrule Sessions.

One can hope that if successful on appeal, Matter of A-B- has the potential to broaden asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence by returning to the Acosta definition of particular social group, and clarify what Matter of A-R-C-G- left untouched, such as the nexus requirement and the inability or unwillingness of governments to provide victims protection from their abuses.

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

Go on over to LexisNexis at the above link for Sophia’s much longer full article.

More and more individuals are publicly “outing” the clear bias, White Nationalism, lifelong xenophobia, and disingenuous misstatements of facts, manipulation of the process, and disrespect for the true rule of law and our Constitutional guarantees of Due Process for all, which should have disqualified Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions from ever becoming the Attorney General and assuming control over the US. Immigration Courts. But, as Sophia cogently points out, by winning cases in the Article III Courts, the “NDPA” can actually turn the tables on Sessions and his restrictionist cronies by putting important principles of immigration law and fairness beyond their biased grasp.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us! Go New Due Process Army! Due Process Forever!

 

PWS

03-21-18

Related posts:

  1. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. NOTE TO NEW US IMMIGRATION JUDGES: YOU WOULD DO WELL TO IGNORE SESSIONS’S FALSE NARRATIVE & ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEMS PLAGUING OUR US IMMIGRATION COURTS – Lack of Due Process, Abusive Detention, Some Biased Colleagues, Too Few Lawyers, Inconsistent Decisions, Far Too Many Denials Of Legitimate Refugees – “But more importantly, asylum-seekers have suffered from serious human rights abuses and merit protection under our laws. Their cases are not denied because they are not bona fide. Their cases are not denied because they do not qualify as refugees under the INA. Indeed, most of these asylum-seekers were found to possess a credible fear of return upon their initial apprehension. Through a combination of lack of access to counsel, unfair and uneven adjudication by IJs, and impermissible interference by the Attorney General, credible and bona fide cases are frequently denied.”

HON. SUSAN ROY IN NJ.COM –No Counsel = No Due Process For Immigrants In Immigration Court!

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/03/why_nj_immigrants_arent_getting_fair_day_in_court.html

By Susan Roy

Deportation is one of the most extreme penalties our legal system has the power to impose on a person. Not only does deportation separate individuals from their children, their families and their communities, in some cases it means our government sends people back to countries where their lives are at risk because of extreme violence or instability.

Yet individuals going through removal proceedings in immigration court do not have the right to appointed counsel. This is because immigration law is civil, not criminal law, and the constitutional protections that apply to criminal court proceedings do not apply in immigration court. Since many immigrants fighting deportation cannot afford a lawyer, most people — 67 percent of New Jersey immigrant detainees — are forced to navigate our incredibly complex immigration laws alone.

Decrying MS-13 thugs, while deporting decent N.J. dads | Editorial

Decrying MS-13 thugs, while deporting decent N.J. dads | Editorial

To peddle his lie that immigrants are an existential threat, Trump points to the most violent offenders – while using our scarce federal enforcement resources to go after decent people.

It flies in the face of due process that detained immigrants, who have been deprived of their very liberty, do not have a right to counsel. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jennings v. Rodriguezthreatens the right of detained immigrants to seek bond, no matter how long their proceedings last, and makes the need for counsel, even more urgent.

As a former immigration judge at the Newark Immigration Court, and before that as a government attorney prosecuting deportation cases, I saw many immigrants who were eligible for legal status be deported because they did not have an attorney and therefore had no way of knowing that they had a path to stay in the U.S.

The right to counsel is critical to ensuring that immigrants have their fair day in court.  The government is always represented by experienced attorneys, whereas only 1 in 3 detained immigrants in New Jersey have a lawyer by their side.  I have also seen first-hand that the lack of access to counsel also contributes to inefficiencies in the court system, which then increases the ever-growing backlog of cases, as judges and government attorneys try to compensate for a respondent’s lack of representation.

Momentum is growing across the country to address this due process crisis, and — with Congress in a perpetual stalemate on immigration reform — it is up to state and local policy makers to lead the way.

Last year, New York became the first state to establish a state-wide universal representation program for detained immigrants in removal proceedings. Through public funds, New York now provides free, high-quality counsel to everyone in immigration detention that can’t afford a lawyer. Similar initiatives are underway in more than two dozen jurisdictions across the country.

A recent study evaluating the New York program found that immigrant detainees who were represented by attorneys won their cases almost 50 percent of the time, a 1,100 percent increase from the 4 percent success rate for unrepresented detainees before the program started. These statistics demonstrate both what a poor job our current system is doing of securing basic due process for people in immigration court, and what an incredible difference we can make — for New Jersey’s immigrants and for the fairness of our legal system — with a relatively small investment.

Last week, Gov. Phil Murphy allocated $2.1 million in his proposed budget to expand access to legal services for immigrants who are detained or facing deportation. This is a welcome first step for due process in New Jersey.

Undocumented immigrants avoiding ICE find sanctuary at N.J. church

Based on my experience as an immigration judge and attorney for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, where I specialized in handling detained criminal and national security cases, I firmly believe that providing access to counsel protects everyone — not just detainees, but also our immigration system, our citizens, and the Constitution.

Last year, 2,536 people were deported from New Jersey. Many didn’t have a lawyer to help them fight their case. And we have no way of knowing how many actually had the right to remain here. As immigration arrests skyrocket throughout New Jersey, guaranteeing immigrants the right to counsel has become even more urgent.  No matter what your political views about immigration, this is a radical failure of the rule of law in our country and our state has the responsibility to address it.

The Honorable Susan G. Roy was an immigration judge at the Newark Immigration Court and previously an attorney for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She currently works as an immigration attorney in private practice in New Jersey.

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

Sue has been a “stalwart” of the group of retired U.S. Immigration Judges seeking to restore Due Process and fairness as the sole focus of the U.S. Immigration Court system, as it originally was intended. The need for counsel in Immigration Court is one of a number of issues upon which our “informal group” has submitted Amicus briefs to various tribunals. Thanks for all you do, Sue!

PWS

03-21-18

Related posts:

  1. WASHINGTON POST: GONZO’S IMMIGRATION COURT “REFORMS” WILL CREATE “KANGAROO COURTS!” —Recent “moves to evaluate judges based on the speed with which they handle dockets that typically exceed 2,000 cases, rather than on fair adjudication, is a recipe for assembly-line injustice.”
  2. WASHINGTON POST/ABC POLL: TRUMP’S “CRUEL, MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE” APPROACH TO ASYLUM HIGHLY UNPOPULAR & INEFFECTIVE: Dems Can Build Support By Strengthening Current Asylum System & Making It Work! — The “Real Face” Of “Border Security” Has Little Or Nothing To Do With Trump’s White Nationalist Rants & Barrage Of Lies!
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?”