"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Unfortunately, you have to get “down to the fine print” (page 13 of 20) find the paragraph that should be the “centerpiece of restoring the rule of law” — a functional legal asylum processing at ports of entry that would encourage refugees to present themselves there for fair and humane processing rather than seeking irregular entry with the help of smugglers.
Port of Entry Processing
The imposition of the Title 42 public health Order severely restricted the ability of undocumented noncitizens to present at POEs for inspection and processing under Title 8. The closure of this immigration pathway for much of the time Title 42 has been in effect has driven people between POEs at the hands of the cartels. Returning to robust POE processing is an essential part of DHS border security efforts. Beginning in the summer of 2021, DHS restarted processing vulnerable individuals through POEs under Title 8, on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, pursuant to the exception criteria laid out in CDC’s Title 42 Order. These efforts, which we have recently expanded, offer individuals in vulnerable situations a safe and orderly method to submit their information in advance and present at POEs for inspection and subsequent immigration processing under Title 8. We also have enhanced Title 8 POE processing through the development of the CBP One mobile application, which powers advanced information submission and appointment scheduling prior to an individual presenting at a POE. We will make this tool publicly available and continue to expand its use to facilitate orderly immigration processing at POEs.
13 of 20
**************************************
The failure of Garland to appoint a new, expert BIA committed to due process and providing fair, practical positive guidance on the generous application of asylum law foreshadowed by INS v. Cardoza Fonseca a quarter of a century ago, but never realized in practice, is likely to become a millstone around the Administration’s neck. There is no substitute for due process and fundamental fairness. The current dysfunctional, mismanaged, and inappropriately staffed EOIR is not capable of providing the necessary leadership, consistency, and accountability.
Also, in light of U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays’s“off the wall” decision in Arizona v. CDC, it’s not clear that Title 42 will ever be lifted.
(1) The Supreme Court’s construction of “physical force” in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), and Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), controls our interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2018), which is incorporated by reference into section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2018); the Court’s construction of “physical force” in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014), is inapplicable in this context.
(2) Because misdemeanor domestic abuse battery with child endangerment under section 14:35.3(I) of the Louisiana Statutes extends to mere offensive touching, it is overbroad with respect to § 16(a) and therefore is not categorically a crime of domestic violence under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
PANEL:CREPPY, LIEBOWITZ, and PETTY, Appellate Immigration Judges.
OPINION: Judge Petty
*****************************
Sometimes, the BIA decides to “blow off” the Supremes! But not this time!
So, the DHS can’t make advance preparation for orderly resumption of legal processing for asylum seekers? Clearly fabricated “harm” over human lives and human rights? Ignoring the well-documented record of deadly harm inflicted on those seeking asylum by lawless Title 42 enforcement? Racist actions by a U.S. District Judge specifically directed against Hispanic migrants from the Northern Triangle? No realistic connection whatsoever to “public health?” Obviously this is a scheme by an unqualified Federal Judge and White Nationalist GOP state AGs to end asylum law at the border!
Stacy Caplow Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law PHOTO: Brooklyn Law website
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all:A new volume of the AILA Law Journal was released yesterday.It contained an article by Stacy Caplow, co-director of Brooklyn Law School’s Safe Harbor Project, called The Sinking Immigration Court: Change Course, Save the Ship.I’m not sure if all can access it, but the link is:
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, “a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system,” bears witness to the degrading of the court and, speaking with the voice of years of experience, has been an increasingly active and vocal critic of recent developments at the court both before Congress and as amicus curiae.
There are also citations to a couple of our group’s statements (including one to Congress) and an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the footnotes.
********************
How come the Biden Administration, and particularly AG Garland, don’t “get it?”
“Instead of caving into the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Republicans, Congress should work on real immigration reform that doesn’t exploit an arcane public health authority to deny people their basic, human right to seek asylum,” they wrote.
And the two mayors painted an optimistic picture of border management where security is not at odds with proper asylum management.
“Our offices are working closely with the Biden Administration and with various community organizations on the ground to ensure that there are resources in place to execute a comprehensive plan to process asylum seekers, crack down on cartels, and establish appropriate COVID-19 protocols. We must remain steadfast in our work to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries, just as our European allies are doing with Ukrainian refugees,” Romero and Mendez wrote.
**************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Hats off to Mayor Romero (Tucson) and Mayor Mendez (Brownsville) for standing up for the rule of law and human decency and pushing back against false xenophobic rhetoric from both the GOP nativists and their “values challenged” Dem “fellow travelers.”
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
AP: Under a program announced Thursday, the U.S. will streamline refugee applications for Ukrainians and others fleeing the fighting, but will no longer routinely grant entry to those who show up at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum. See also Biden administration taking heat for new Ukrainian settlement program.
CNN: The Democratic rebellion against President Joe Biden’s plans to lift pandemic-era border restrictions is growing, as candidates in marquee races from Nevada to New Hampshire break with the administration and Republicans turn immigration into a centerpiece of their midterm election messaging. See also Two border mayors come out in support of ending Title 42.
Politico: The report, which includes research in key swing states, shows that YouTube has proved to be a critical space for shaping opinion on immigration — and even influencing voting patterns. It also looks at how immigration advocates and opponents have used starkly different messaging strategies, with opponents largely being more effective by investing in digital media and tailoring their messages to undecided voters.
Guardian: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has contracted with private data brokers to get around some areas’ sanctuary laws, documents show
Reuters: U.S. and Cuban officials met in Washington for talks about migration on Thursday as the United States seeks to quell rising numbers of people attempting to cross its southern border, including increasing numbers of Cubans.
Reuters: In December, Royal Canadian Mounted Police intercepted 2,811 asylum-seekers crossing the border outside formal land ports of entry, the vast majority crossing into Quebec. In January and February they intercepted 2,382 and 2,164, respectively – compared to 888 and 808 in January and February of 2019.
Law360: U.S. Border Patrol has been undercounting migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border, compromising the data provided to lawmakers overseeing the agency’s efforts to reduce migrant deaths in the area, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
AP: A new immigration court will open in Indianapolis next year, taking over the state’s cases from a court in Chicago, the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the U.S. Justice Department said Tuesday. See also EOIR to Stop Holding Hearings in Pittsburgh on Sidney Street.
AP: Arrested after the encounter with U.S. agents, Úbeda learned two days later that he could not pursue asylum in the United States while living with a cousin in Miami. Instead, he would have to wait in the Mexican border city of Tijuana for hearings in U.S. immigration court under a Trump-era policy that will be argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.
BIA: If a State court’s nunc pro tunc order modifies or amends the subject matter of a conviction based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, the original conviction is invalid for immigration purposes and we will give full effect to the modified conviction; however, if the modification or amendment is entered for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying proceedings, the modification will not be given any effect and the original conviction remains valid.
Law360: The Fourth Circuit upheld a Virginia federal court’s decision to deport a Mexican native whose U.S. citizenship was revoked, saying his reliance on poor advice from his former attorney did not prevent him from knowing his risk for deportation.
Law360: The full Fifth Circuit kept intact a panel ruling that a multipart notice to appear tainted an immigrant’s in absentia removal order, but sparked a judge’s scathing dissent that the court wrongly blew wide open the deportation cases of thousands.
Law360: The Biden administration is relying on a week-old Sixth Circuit ruling reinstating its policy prioritizing certain migrants for removal, as it presses the Fifth Circuit to crack open a judge’s permanent block on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Law360: The U.S. government is claiming sovereign immunity to shake off the majority of a Washington district court lawsuit from a man accusing immigration officials of wrongfully imprisoning him, falsely affiliating him with gangs and stripping him of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals benefits.
AILA: “Uniting for Ukraine” will create a streamlined process to consider Ukrainians for humanitarian parole and work authorization in the U.S. DOS will expand refugee processing and NIV appointments for Ukrainians. Ukrainians presenting at land POEs without visas or preauthorization will be denied entry.
AILA: DHS notice of designation of Ukraine for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 4/19/22 through 10/19/23. (87 FR 23211, 4/19/22)
AILA: DHS notice of designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 4/19/22 through 10/19/23. (87 FR 23202, 4/19/22)
AILA: “Uniting for Ukraine” will create a streamlined process to consider Ukrainians for humanitarian parole and work authorization in the U.S. DOS will expand refugee processing and NIV appointments for Ukrainians. Ukrainians presenting at land POEs without visas or preauthorization will be denied entry.
AILA: EOIR rescinded PM 19-05, Guidance Regarding the Adjudication of Asylum Applications Consistent with INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii); PM 21-06, Asylum Processing; and PM 21-13, Continuances.
AILA: DHS 5-day notice and request for comments on a new public-facing Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Disenrollment Request website. Comments are due 4/26/22. (87 FR 23879, 4/21/22)
AILA: CBP request for public input on CBP processes, programs, regulations, collections of information, and policies for the agency to consider modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing in light of recent executive orders. Comments will be accepted through 6/21/22.
AILA: DHS announced it will extend Title 19 requirements and require non-U.S. travelers entering the United States via land ports of entry and ferry terminals at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide proof of vaccination upon request.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
A federal judge in Louisiana says he intends to block the Biden administration’s plans for rescinding Title 42, siding with GOP-led states that had asked for the courts to force the White House to temporarily retain the pandemic-era border policy.
The decision from Judge Robert Summerhays, an appointee of former President Trump, will prevent the Biden administration from carrying out its plans to end Title 42 on May 23 and once again allow migrants to seek asylum.
The order, though temporary, is a victory in a suit initially filed by Louisiana, Missouri and Arizona that now includes some 20 GOP-led states.
It’s not yet clear what the terms of the order will be, as a summary of the hearing — which was not open to the public — said “the parties will confer regarding the specific terms to be contained in the Temporary Restraining Order and attempt to reach agreement.”
. . . .
*************
Read the complete report at the link.
What’s wrong with a system where scofflaw judges undermine, rather than stand up for, the rule of law and the most vulnerable among us? The word “cowards” comes to mind!
This from my good friend and Alexandria neighbor Professor Alberto Benitez over at GW Law:
The attached article from the Washington Post reads like the affidavits we prepare and file in support of our clients’ asylum applications. Please read to the end. All respect to Sra. Alvarado, Sr. Osorio, and all the survivors, may the victims rest in peace, and thanks to Ms. Schneider and Mr. Langille.
Kevin Sieff Latin America Correspondent Washington PostNick Miroff Reporter, Washington Post
From the above article by Kevin Sieff & Nick Miroff @ WashPost:
*********************************
Obviously, what’s described elsewhere in the article is really “top notch” law enforcement work from DHS. It also illustrates one of my “continuing themes” of “effective interdisciplinary cooperation in immigration cases.”
The irony is that DHS now spends too much of its law enforcement time trying to “chase down the victims of persecution” and deny them their rights to apply for asylum and their opportunity have their cases fairly evaluated and adjudicated.
What if, if rather than yielding to disgusting political grandstanding by GOP nativists and, sadly, some misguided Dems, who want to misuse Title 42 to end asylum law, the Administration stood up for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers for fair and orderly processing and determination of their claims for protection? What if refugees were encouraged to apply at legal ports of entry and at points outside the U.S. Wouldn’t that leave more time for “real” law enforcement at DHS — at the border and everywhere else?
Interestingly, during the Trump regime, some ICE Special Agents came to the same conclusion. They unsuccessfully “lobbied” then DHS Secretary Nielsen for separation from the “gonzo civil enforcement” that ICE then was carrying out — concentrating on “terrorizing” local ethnic communities. Not surprisingly, this made local enforcement in many areas reluctant to cooperate with ICE on real law enforcement priorities — like that described in this case.
As this article suggests, there has been a real “mixed message” in DHS and DOJ in handling of asylum claims from the Northern Triangle. One arm acknowledges and prosecutes massive acts of persecution that are actually war crimes. Another arm, aided by bad judging at EOIR and poor leadership at DOJ, disingenuously denies that such persecutions took place — sometimes mischaracterizing it as “random violence” — and that violence amounting to persecution on account of a “protected ground,” particularly violence directed at women and children, remains widespread in Latin America today.
Clinicians affiliated with medical human rights programs throughout the United States perform forensic evaluations of asylum seekers. Much of the best practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who incorporate forensic reports into their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the affidavits resulting from mental health evaluations and explored their attitudes toward telehealth evaluations. We conducted semistructured interviews in April and May 2020 with nine former judges and systematically analyzed them using consensual qualitative research methodology. Our findings were grouped in five domains: general preferences for affidavits; roles of affidavits in current legal climate; appraisal and comparison of sample affidavits; attitudes toward telephonic evaluations; and recommendations for telephonic evaluations. Forensic evaluators should consider the practice recommendations of judges, both for telephonic and in-person evaluations, which can bolster the usefulness of their evaluations in the adjudication process. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to incorporate immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations, and the first to assess judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations.
Across the United States, clinicians working in collaboration with medical asylum clinics and torture treatment programs conduct forensic evaluations of asylum seekers.1,–,5 In such evaluations, clinicians investigate the physical and psychiatric sequelae of human rights abuses and document their findings in medico-legal affidavits that are submitted to the immigration judge as part of an individual’s application for immigration relief.1,6,7 The affidavits provide the evaluators’ written testimony explaining to a judge the relevance of their findings (e.g., the impact of trauma on memory). Medical providers experienced in conducting forensic evaluations have worked in consultation with attorneys to establish and disseminate best-practice guidelines for evaluations.6,–,10 Much of the best-practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who apply forensic reports in their decision-making. (One notable exception was a presentation of suggestions for writing medico-legal affidavits based on a qualitative study of a sample that included immigration judges, clinicians, and attorneys.11) As a result, forensic medical evaluators have limited insight into how immigration judges view the content of affidavits or how the documentation of forensic evaluations affects asylum cases.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical human rights programs have transitioned to conducting forensic evaluations by telephone or video.12,13 Forensic clinicians have also been using telehealth modalities to evaluate asylum seekers who have poor access to forensic services because they live in geographically remote areas of the United States, immigration detention centers, or Mexico border cities.14 Mental health practitioners have reported both comfort with and concerns about the limitations of telehealth forensic evaluations.15 Most literature on telehealth forensic evaluations has focused on evaluators’ perceptions of video-teleconference, applied across multiple dimensions of forensic mental health.16,–,20 Assessing the acceptability of remote evaluations to adjudicators of immigration claims and incorporating their perspectives into broader practice recommendations is particularly critical at this time, given that telehealth visits and telephonic interviews of asylum seekers have become standard as a result of both the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased number of asylum seekers in immigration detention facilities.
This study was to explore former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the medico-legal documents resulting from mental health evaluations. We also specifically identified participants’ attitudes and perceptions toward telehealth evaluations. This study adds to existing literature by incorporating immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations and by assessing judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations. We specifically investigated telephonic rather than video-based evaluations because asylum seekers may have limited access to the internet, and immigration detention centers often restrict access to video conferencing platforms.14 This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board.
************************
Full article at the above link.
This should be great information for practitioners, judges, ICE counsel, and administrators seeking a fairer, better functioning Immigration Court system.
This illustrates one of many “under-appreciated” aspects of modern immigration and human rights “practical scholarship:” Its virtually unmatched interdisciplinary usefulness and its “right off the shelf” ability to advance knowledge, fairness, 21st century efficiency, and best practices!
While EOIR might actually be “worse than your father’s and mother’s Immigration Courts,” not so the private bar, NGOs, and the academic (particularly the clinical) sectors! It’s where the action, upcoming talent, and quality is right now!
It’s a shame that more of those in charge of the Immigration Courts, the stumbling immigration bureaucracy, and the often behind the times “improperly above the fray” Article IIIs aren’t paying attention to both the types of individuals they should be hiring and the methods they should be using to improve the delivery of justice.
If change has to come from below, so be it! But, change and progress will eventually come to the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the bumbling bureaucracy surrounding and enabling this disgraceful systemic failure that is dragging down both our legal system and our democracy!
I learned earlier today that we had lost a great one, my friend, colleague, and mentor Michael Olivas. It is with a profound sense of loss that I reflect on how much he has meant to me personally (including to my family, who he always asked about individually by name) as well as professionally. Michael followed by son Tomas’s Little League baseball career and asked for annual updates at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, mentored me through tenure, and helped me land the deanship at UC Davis (by calling the Chancellor and putting in a good word).
“Law Professor and Accidental Historian is a timely and important reader addressing many of the most hotly debated domestic policy issues of our times—immigration policy, education law, and diversity. Specifically, this book examines the works of one of the country’s leading scholars—Professor Michael A. Olivas. Many of the academy’s most respected immigration, civil rights, legal history, and education law scholars agreed to partake in this important venture, and have contributed provocative and exquisite chapters covering these cutting-edge issues. Each chapter interestingly demonstrates that Olivas’s works are not only thoughtful, brilliantly written, and thoroughly researched, but almost every Olivas article examined has an uncanny ability to predict issues that policy-makers failed to consider. Indeed, in several examples, the book highlights ongoing societal struggles on issues Professor Olivas had warned of long before they came into being. Perhaps with this book, our nation’s policy-makers will more readily read and listen closely to Olivas’s sagacious advice and prophetic predictions.” (bold added).
In an introduction to Accidental Historian, I offered some thoughts on how much Michael had done for so many, myself included. Here is that intro. Download Law Professor and Accidental Historian
<div class=”player-unavailable”><h1 class=”message”>An error occurred.</h1><div class=”submessage”><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgn-M4bUbd0″ target=”_blank”>Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>
There no doubt will be many stirring tributes to Professor Michael Olivas in coming days. Many will miss him immensely. I sure will miss my guiding light and guardian angel. RIP Michael Olivas.
KJ
*******************************
Thanks, Kevin. Here’s more on Michael and his remarkable life and career:
“In a decision dated May 21, 2020, an Immigration Judge found the respondent to be removable as charged, denied her application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2018), and ordered her removed from the United States. On appeal, the respondent contests the Immigration Judge’s determination that her Virginia conviction for distributing a controlled substance renders her ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver, arguing that a State court issued a nunc pro tunc order reflecting that she was not convicted of distributing a substance controlled by Federal law. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) opposes the appeal. Because the nunc pro tunc order reflects the respondent has not been “convicted” of an offense relating to a controlled substance within the meaning of the INA, the respondent’s appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.”
Many congrats, Ben!😎 A rare win for the rule of law and the “good guys” at the BIA. And, give the BIA panel (Judges Goodwin, Gorman, & Greer) credit for rejecting the ICE position and getting this one right under the categorical approach.
**********************************
Hello all,
Just wanted to share some good news! A client had her merits hearing yesterday afternoon in Seattle. Her asylum claim was based on her PSG of being an immediate family member of a police officer. She had been threatened by some maras and approached because the maras knew her husband was an officer. She fled within 2 weeks. The judge granted and DHS surprisingly did not put up much of a fight.
Sincerely,
Ramon Trujillo
—
Ramon Trujillo
Law Offices of Ramon Trujillo
********************
Many congrats, Ramon! Clearly the correct result under Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 1988). A former policeman is a PSG; so, undoubtedly the immediate family is also. And certainly, that relationship was “at least one central reason” for the persecution.
Imagine what a “Better Immigration Court” could look like if everyone had the awareness and integrity of the group in court for this case. Justice is a “team effort,” and it sounds like that’s what happened in your case.
That’s what should happen every day in every case at EOIR!
Also, I’ll bet there are more cases like this that were unfairly “locked out of our refugee/asylum system” by abusive use of Title 42 by the Trump and Biden Administrations.
U.S. officials say a majority of the Ukrainian refugees want to stay in Eastern Europe because they have family fighting in the war and eventually hope to return home.
Advocates have said the U.S. should take far more than 100,000 refugees and do more to expedite the process.
To qualify for admission to the U.S. under the new expedited program, officially known as Uniting for Ukraine, people must have been in Ukraine as of Feb. 11; have a family sponsor in the United States; complete vaccinations and other public health requirements and pass background checks.
Typically, they would start the application process in their home country, but that’s no longer possible because the U.S. pulled its diplomats from Ukraine. The State Department will expand resettlement operations in Eastern Europe under the new program to compensate.
Most will receive two years of residence and authorization to work in the United States under what’s known as humanitarian parole. Those who coming to the U.S. through the formal refugee process, including thousands who will come as members of religious minority groups, will have permanent legal residency.
It will be a streamlined process in Europe, but refugees won’t be able to complete it in Mexico, senior administration officials told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the program before the public announcement.
Instead, Ukrainians who show up at the border will generally be turned away without being able to apply for asylum under a public health order known as Title 42 that has been in place since the start of the pandemic in March 2020.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said the use of Title 42, which has been used to turn away more than 1.7 million people, is set to end May 23. The agency is under pressure to keep it in place not to control COVID-19, as it was supposedly intended, but to help ease an increase in migrants seeking to cross the border.
Critics of the use of Title 42 at the border have pointed out that it denies people their right under U.S law and international treaty to make claims for asylum and forces migrants to return to dangerous conditions in Northern Mexico and elsewhere.
***************
Read the full article at the link.
Actually, although you wouldn’t know it from the Biden Administration’s bizarrely twisted policies, an “asylee” is a “refugee” who shows up at our border and seeks admission. Except that we eliminated our asylum program at the border without any legislative repeal. Got that?
White Ukrainian refugees who came to the border because we had no functioning refugee program in Europe have been admitted over the past few weeks, racing ahead of non-White refugees who have been stuck in Mexico under the Administration’s ill-advised, immoral, and illegal continuation of Stephen Miller’s bogus Title 42 charade aimed at barring refugees of color. Now the Biden Administration proposes to treat Ukranians at the Mexico-U.S. border just as horribly as it does Haitians, Central Americans, and African refugees.
But, perhaps not quite as badly. They probably won’t be able to “orbit” them back to torture and death in Ukraine because of logistics, if for no other reason.
Ironically, in a relatively short period of time, humanitarian organizations had put together a program for the orderly screening and admission of Ukrainian asylum seekers whom the Administration quickly found a way to “exempt” from their Title 42 charade.
Logic might suggest that such a program could be expanded to non-Ukrainian refugees at the border. But, logic, common sense, courage, and expertise play little role in Biden Administration human rights policies. Instead, the Administration has just mindlessly decided to screw everyone at the border, with some largely unprincipled exceptions, until May 23, when they might, or might not, begin following the law again.
Wonder how politicos of both parties will react as Ukrainians at the southern border are now left to “twist in the wind” as if they were “mere refugees of color?” That’s likely to lead to some pretty ugly media coverage.
Honestly! Is this any way to “run the railroad” with human lives at stake?
Eliana Weinstein research assistant in the department of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine PHOTO: CornellProfessor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
By ELIANA WEINSTEIN and STEPHEN YALE-LOEHR, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
Abortion bans have far-reaching consequences. Within the first 30 days of the enactment of the Texas abortion ban last September, the state saw a 60% decline in abortions. Refugees — who are disproportionately represented in southern states along the U.S. border — are among the most endangered groups. These individuals face imminent danger, violence or persecution in their home country.
Due to inherent instability, refugees are especially vulnerable to sex trafficking along the migration journey. The fear of deportation, lack of immigration status, lower educational attainment, inability to speak English and unfamiliarity with U.S. employment protections mark them as targets. Immigrant women make up 80% of sex-trafficked individuals in the United States.
The glaring omission of exceptions for rape or incest under the Texas law is disturbing. An estimated 5% of rapes among victims of reproductive age result in pregnancy, which by one estimate amounts to 32,000 rape-related pregnancies each year in the United States. The six-week mark under the Texas law allows a maximum buffer of two weeks from the time a pregnant woman misses her period, the first sign of pregnancy. In a third of rape-related pregnancy cases, victims do not discover they are pregnant until the second trimester, 13 weeks into the pregnancy.
. . . .
The shadow of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision lies at the intersection of human rights, law, and medicine. Abortion transcends partisan politics, with far-reaching consequences for women, children, healthcare providers, and all tax-paying citizens.
Rather than prioritize the life of an unborn child, our country must consider the lives that will be forever altered by a birth into desperate circumstances. States should enact protections for groups that will be most vulnerable, including victims of assault or rape, sex-trafficked individuals, and refugees. By defending our nation’s most vulnerable, we would see substantial benefits to the nation as a whole.
Weinstein is a research assistant in the department of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine. Yale-Loehr is an immigration professor at Cornell Law School.
****************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
But, as some of my NDPA colleagues would say, isn’t cruelty and hurting refugee women of color the point of the far right’s war on abortion?
It’s certainly not about the welfare of children and women for which they care not a fig. See, e.g., vicious attacks on vulnerable LGBTQ kids and their families; end of child tax credits; child separtion; unrepresented kids in Immigration Court; making “White kids feel good” at the expense of their minority classmates; seeking to circumvent protections for unaccompanied minors at the border; disparaging statements calling U.S. citizens “anchor babies,” etc.
Ironically, children of migrant women are considered by the GOP to be “persons” as long as they are in the womb. Once they are born, they become “nonpersons” with few if any rights that Repubs are willing to recognize.
If they could (and that might be next), they would strip kids of undocumented parentage of citizenship. Who says today’s Supremes wouldn’t go along? Having a class of “nonpersons” makes their job easier. No rights, no problems for righty judges and right wing politicos!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
“I really do not find enough words to let you know how grateful I am to all of you for your wise and timely guidance at all times and for the dedication and commitment that you assumed from the first moment towards our asylum case.”
Please join me in congratulating Immigration Clinic client T-G and her son F-P, from Venezuela, and their student-attorneys Karoline Núñez, Samuel Thomas, Alexandra Chen, and Jeremy Patton. The clients’ asylum application was filed April 28, 2017, their interview at the Asylum Office was on November 1, 2021, and the grant was issued March 21, 2022. T-G received the grant yesterday.
T-G is a survivor of domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He’d punch T-G, force her to have sexual relations, infected her with a STD, and he blamed her for their daughter’s neurological issues. Their daughter contracted Zika but was unable to receive the appropriate treatment because T-G was not a supporter of the Maduro government. Their daughter died at age 14.
Many congrats to the GW Immigration Clinic and all the GW All-Stars! 🤮⚖️
Let’s get behind the intentional dehumanization and the chronically misleading “numbers” being thrown around by nativists, some so-called “moderate” Dems, and the DHS. Put a “human face” on our nation’s dereliction of legal duty and abandonment of values at out Southern border.
The Faces Of Human Suffering @ Our Border PHOTO: The Guardian
This case is a compelling example of the types of refugees, many women and children and most people of color, who are stuck at our Southern Border as illegal suspension of asylum laws, based on racially- motivated bogus “public health” grounds grinds on. With some legal assistance and a fair and orderly system in place, many of those waiting could qualify for asylum if given a fair chance under the law.
Access to the asylum system, representation, and fair and impartial adjudication are essential to success. Right now, the Biden Administration is denying all three.
Make no mistake, this disingenuous action would kill asylum for good! These guys don’t even have the guts to admit that they are now carrying out Stephen Miller’s xenophobic war on immigrants and refugees of color.
Biden ran on an elimination of Title 42 and restoration of the legal asylum process. If 18 months after the election they lack a “plan,” there is no reason to believe that 60 more days would make a difference. It’s now or never!
60 days would bring us even closer to the mid-terms. If Dems are scared to follow the law now, that’s not going to improve as the midterms get even closer.
You can be sure that once the midterms are past, particularly if Dems get “blown out” as they fear, they will claim that the time “isn’t right” for any immigration “reform” (although, following the law is hardly a real “reform”) in advance of the 2024 election. If the GOP wins in ’24, the effective elimination of legal immigration — with or without legislation — will be finalized.
This has nothing to do with COVID at this point. It never really did. It was always about finding a pretext to close the border and keep it closed — at least to non-White refugees. But, since COVID constantly mutates, there will always be some sort of “COVID emergency” out there for the foreseeable future.
Asylum applicants have NOT been a significant source of COVID.They are far less of a threat to our health, safety, and security than GOP “magamorons” who eschew vaccination and basic public safety precautions. The Biden Administration should have a plan in place to insure that asylum seekers are tested and if necessary vaccinated before admission.
If we have no legal asylum system at the border, no functional refugee system abroad, and no hope for the future, the only way for individuals to seek protection will be by using smugglers to enter illegally and then hoping to “lose themselves” in a burgeoning “extralegal population” throughout out America. Once we abandon any pretext of a legal system for asylum seekers, the border will get further and further out of control. That will add to the GOP’s claims that more and more cruel, draconian, and punitive measures are necessary. But, they won’t stop desperate people from attempting entry until they either succeed or die in the process.
Contrary to the misguided blather of some Dems, there will never be a better time for Dems to support asylum seekers. They are concentrated in border areas, and eager to have their claims heard. Orderly processing and admitting as many as qualify, in a period of artificially reduced migration, would help the economy, raise tax revenues, and address supply chain issues. If not now, when?
Restoring asylum law is a legal requirement, not a “strategy,” “policy,” or “political choice.” If Dems turn their backs on the rule of law, what makes them different from the GOP?
If this divisive nonsense and backsliding on basic constitutional, racial justice, and social justice issues continues, progressive Dems are going to be faced with having to make a decision about the party’s future.
Progressive Dems make up a key part of the party’s core base and a disproportionate amount of the “boots on the ground, grass roots enthusiasm.” Republicans aren’t going to vote for Dems, no matter how xenophobic, hateful, and racist Dems are toward migrants. So-called “independents,” are neither going to fill the Dems coffers nor pound the pavement and work the phone lines to “get out the vote.”
So, arrogant “Title 42 Dems” are assuming that they can “spit on” immigrant justice, racial justice, economic justice, and social justice and that their “core support” among progressives won’t diminish because they will always be preferable to “Trump Republicans.”
All in all, it’s a “big middle finger” to progressives and their social justice agenda. That’s an agenda that Biden actually successfully ran on.
If progressives really believe in a pro immigrant, pro rule of law, racial justice agenda, then they need to stand up to the backsliders and let them know that there will be real consequences of yet another “sellout of immigrants’ rights.” We’ll see whether progressive Dems have more backbone and courage than their “Title 42/Miller Lite wing.”
But, the Post badly missed the larger point — NO refugee can afford to wait, be they White Ukrainians, Black Haitians, Cameroonians, and Congolese, or Latinos from the Northern Triangle, Venezuela, and Nicaragua! Our obligations to asylees are not supposed to be “race-based!”
The U.S. has had a legal refugee and asylum system for more than four decades. During that time, Congress has made several amendments of the law to allow DHS to rapidly process and summarily remove those appearing at the border who, after prompt expert screening by Asylum Officers, cannot establish a “credible fear” of persecution.
Restrictionists and shamefully some so-called moderate Democrats, and sometimes CBP, seem to have conveniently “forgotten” that the law was designed to deal fairly and promptly with so-called “mass migrations” long before the advent of the bogus Title 42 charade.
For some periods during the 40 years since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has run functional refugee and asylum programs. Not “perfect” or perhaps even “optimal,” but “functional.”
They have done this by employing experts, cooperating with NGOs (domestic and international), and building resettlement and support systems spearheaded by NGOs, using Government grants, and promoting teamwork and coordination with states and localities.
It has only been when Administrations of both parties have mindlessly turned away from human rights experts and followed the misguided and tone-deaf gimmicks advocated by nativists and apostles of “enforcement only deterrence” that the legal systems for refugees and asylees, and efficient, humane border enforcement, have fallen into disorder.
While refugee and asylum laws could undoubtedly be improved, contrary to the media blather and nativist grandstanding, we have the basic legal framework to deal with the current refugee and asylum situations at our borders and beyond. The question is whether the Biden Administration and Dems have the will, vision, competence, and willingness to cooperate with human rights experts to fix the mess intentionally created by Trump and return human decency, competence, and the rule of law to our borders! If not now, when?
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
VOA: A U.S. State Department annual report highlighted concerns about continuing human rights abuses in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Egypt and other authoritarian nations, as well as the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on rights practices around the world.
Reuters: The 210,000 migrants arrested in March, a figure made public in a court filing on Friday night, is the highest monthly total on record since February 2000, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics dating back to 2000.
RAICES: On Monday, April 18th, 2022, immigrant legal services providers, advocates and community members will hold a press conference to announce the launch of the Harris County Immigrant Legal Services Fund (ILSF), which will provide free legal representation for immigrant members of the county who are detained and facing the threat of deportation. As of February 2022, Harris County had the most residents with pending immigration court cases in the country.
CNN: While immigration advocates celebrated the decision to reverse Title 42, many moderate Democrats have sounded the alarm warning that lifting the policy without an adequate plan in place will lead to a rapid influx of migrants at the Southern border, something that Republicans will be quick to seize on the campaign trail.
AP: The bill was filed after Wyandotte County passed a “sanctuary” ordinance in February that would provide local identification cards for immigrants and other residents and would prevent local law enforcement from helping the federal government enforce immigration laws unless public safety is threatened. Lawrence and Roeland Park have similar ordinances.
Law360: A federal watchdog rebuked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for an $87 million no-bid contract to house migrant families in hotels, saying the agency hadn’t justified directly awarding the deal to a nonprofit inexperienced in emergency family residential services.
Denver Gazette: The Cuban government has not been accepting deportations of Cuban nationals from the U.S. for more than six months, at a time when tens of thousands are leaving the island to reach the U.S. in the largest exodus since the 1980s Mariel boatlift.
WTTW: An expanded class of low-income workers will permanently get a larger tax break via the Earned Income Tax Credit, and that benefit will be extended to those who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), something that Rep. Aaron Ortiz, D-Chicago, said is important to many immigrants who play an important role in the state’s economy. Illinois is allocating $70 million for healthcare for undocumented immigrants. See also Illinois launches health care coverage for older immigrant adults aged 55 to 64.
Law360: The Fourth Circuit refused to award attorney fees to a man who convinced the full appeals court that the federal government had arbitrarily rejected him for special immigrant juvenile status, saying the U.S. was justified in fighting the suit.
Law360: The Seventh Circuit seemed unconvinced Wednesday that it should unsettle the dust in a dispute over a Trump-era public charge rule that the Biden administration has already begun redrafting by letting a group of Republican-led states enter the fray.
Law360: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will grant naturalization requests made by two immigrant veterans after federal courts refused to toss the soldiers’ lawsuits alleging the agency unfairly disqualified them from expedited processing of their citizenship bids.
Law360: A D.C. federal court has denied the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s bid to block inspections of detention facilities that immigration advocates say are denying inmates access to counsel, but the government did get its choice of monitor for the probe.
Law360: Eighteen additional states on Thursday signed on to a lawsuit started by Arizona, Louisiana and Missouri to challenge the Biden administration’s decision to wind down a pandemic-related order known as Title 42 that allows the quick expulsion of migrants arriving at U.S. land borders.
Hill: A coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking information from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the agency’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), a so- called alternative to detention program that has ballooned during the Biden administration.
NJ Monitor: Police do not have to — and should not — advise crime suspects that their cooperation could impact their immigration status, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Friday.
USCIS: Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the designation of Cameroon for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. Only individuals who are already residing in the United States as of April 14, 2022, will be eligible for TPS.
DHS: The key program areas include: Applying for naturalization; Accessing humanitarian protection during immigration processing
Bidding on DHS contracts; Countering all forms of terrorism and targeted violence; Filing complaints and seeking redress in DHS programs and activities; Airport screening; Accessing Trusted Traveler Programs.
AILA: USCIS announced that its website will now feature a Lockbox Filing Location Updates page, where customers can track when lockbox form filing locations are updated. Updates will also be emailed and announced on social media.
EOIR: Since April 2021, Judge Cheng has served as the Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge for the Eastern Region at EOIR. She previously served as a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge from 2017 to 2021, and she was the Acting Principal Deputy Chief Immigration Judge from August 2020 to February 2021. Judge Cheng has also served in the New York Immigration Court both as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge from 2015 to 2017, and as an Immigration Judge from 2009 to 2015. Before joining EOIR, she served as Assistant Chief Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from 2002 to 2009; and before that, she practiced immigration law in New York from 2000 to 2002.
AILA: EOIR announced the appointment of Beth Liebmann as a member of BIA by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. Biographical information for Liebmann has been provided.
BIA: Whether, in light of U.S. v. Herrold, 941 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc), and regardless of the specific mens rea of an underlying crime, the commission or attempted commission of a felony, theft, or an assault under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(3) necessarily supersedes or implicitly contains generic burglary’s intent element, which requires an “intent to commit a crime” upon entry into a building or habitation. Due Date: May 3, 2022
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
