U TX Law – immigrationcourtside.com

AMY HOWE @ SCOTUSBLOG — Supremes Take Up 4th Cir. Case Granting Bond Hearings in “Withholding Only” Cases –Albence v. Guzman Chavez

AMY WRITES IN SCOTUSBLOG:

And in Albence v. Guzman Chavez, the justices will decide which provision of immigration law – 8 U.S.C. § 1231 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 – applies to the detention of a noncitizen who is seeking withholding of removal after a prior removal order has been reinstated. As John Elwood explained last week, the issue is arcane but the distinction between the two provisions matters, because under Section 1226 noncitizens generally have the right to a bond hearing, while the government argues that they do not have that right under Section 1231.

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

This was another of Solicitor General Francisco’s petitions, after the DHS and DOJ quite deservedly lost on the bond issue in the Fourth Circuit.

While presented as an issue of statutory interpretation, the DOJ/DHS restrictive bond procedures are riddled with 5th Amendment unconstitutionality, including denial of opportunity to seek a bond before an fair and impartial decision-maker, putting the burden of proof on the prisoner, and failing to consider ability to pay, to name a few.

These abuses came to light recently in a comprehensive ruling invalidating unconstitutional bond practices in the Baltimore Immigration Court, Miranda v. Barr, U.S.D.C. D. MD., U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, 05-29-20.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/05/30/due-process-victory-us-district-judge-requires-baltimore-immigration-court-to-comply-with-due-process-in-bond-hearings-round-table-warrior-judge-denise-noonan-slavin-provides-key-evidence/

It’s not a difficult constitutional issue. It would take a Court that saw immigrants as fellow human beings and were willing to apply its own due process precedents about six sentences to unanimously throw DOJ and DHS out on their tails for such unconstitutional behavior, statute or no.

But, this version of the Supremes is all over the place on immigration. While immigrants have scored a few well-deserved victories, mostly on issues involving misinterpretation of statutes by the immigration bureaucracy, the Supremes have “tanked” on the larger issues involving constitutional and human rights.

They actually have furthered and in some cases bought into the false narratives and dehumanization of migrants, particularly asylum seekers, by Trump & co. That’s why folks who probably should be granted asylum or long since admitted as refugees were the government required to follow the law and the Court’s 1987 ruling in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca are instead illegally condemned to rot in Mexico, suffer in refugee camps, arbitrarily and capriciously returned to danger zones to face torture and possible death, separated from their families, or put in cages and “iceboxes.”

Depending on how you characterize it, the Supremes’ majority have been part of judicially-enabled child abuse or “Dred Scottification” of immigrants. Either way, it’s legally wrong and morally indefensible. Equal justice and social justice for all in America will continue to be both elusive and divisive until we get a majority of Supreme Court Justices who believe in it, put it first, and require it even in the face of a recalcitrant Executive whose political agenda is built on the exact opposite.

I’m certainly not the first or last critic of the “Supreme failure” of our highest judges to show the necessary legal and moral leadership at this key point in our history. Professor Steven I. Vladeck from U. of Texas Law essentially says the same thing in a more circumspect manner in an op-ed today’s NY Times. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/05/30/due-process-victory-us-district-judge-requires-baltimore-immigration-court-to-comply-with-due-process-in-bond-hearings-round-table-warrior-judge-denise-noonan-slavin-provides-key-evidence/

I find no reason for circumspection about the failure of privileged judges at the top of our legal system who are unwilling to treat vulnerable individuals as human beings and to give them the legal and constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Enabling the cruel, illegal, and racially-driven Trump immigration agenda is disgraceful conduct that deserves to be called out. Three-plus years into a regime dedicated to running roughshod over our Constitution and eradicating human rights we “are where we are” to a large extent because those empowered and entrusted to prevent such abuses have failed — miserably!

And, with an emboldened scofflaw Administration promoting an unconscionable and illegal trashing of the little still left of our imperfect, yet previously functional and occasionally aspirational, asylum system by Executive fiat, the worst is yet to come if we don’t get better performance from the Supremes! We have a “Frankenstein proposal” out now because we have a Supremes’ majority who think “Frankenstein is OK” as long as the monster only devours migrants and their families (folks apparently below their “humanity index”). Wait till it turns on them and their families!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

06-17-20

STEVE VLADECK @ JUST SECURITY: 9th Circuit Expedited Removal Case Might Further The “Dredscottification” Of Migrants — Are They Becoming “Non-Persons” Under Our Constitution? – What’s The Ultimate Cost To Us Of “Selective Application” Of Constitutional Protections?

https://www.justsecurity.org/53822/trouble-undocumented-immigrants-suspension-clause/

Steve writes:

“Back in August 2016, I wrote a lengthy post about the Third Circuit’s decision in Castro v. Department of Homeland Security, which held that recently-arrived undocumented immigrants, who are physically but not lawfully within the territorial United States, are not protected by the Constitution’s Suspension Clause—and therefore have no right to judicial review of their detention (or removal). Among many other problems with the Third Circuit’s analysis (see my original post for more), it created the anomalous result that enemy combatants held at Guantánamo, who have never set foot on U.S. soil, have more of an entitlement to judicial review than Central American women and their minor children in immigration detention in the United States who are seeking asylum (the petitioners in Castro).

The one saving grace to Castro was that it was only the law of the Third Circuit—Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and, yes, the U.S. Virgin Islands. But a new case flying almost entirely under the radar in the Ninth Circuit has raised the same issue, and, thus far, has produced results no different from Castro. As I explain in the brief post that follows, if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the Third Circuit’s deeply problematic reasoning in Castro, and believes that undocumented immigrants seeking asylum have a right to meaningful judicial review of their asylum claim before their removal, it needs to stay the removal of Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, and use his case to give plenary review to the jurisdictional (and constitutional) question.

Thuraissigiam is a Tamil from Sri Lanka who was tortured in his home country by individuals he has identified as government intelligence officers before fleeing and eventually attempting to enter the United States—surreptitiously—across the U.S.-Mexico border. He was apprehended shortly after crossing the border (on U.S. soil), and then issued an expedited removal order after the government determined (with no judicial review) that he didn’t have a credible fear of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.

Thuraissigiam attempted to challenge his expedited removal (and the credible-fear determination) through a habeas petition, and also sought an emergency stay of removal pending the disposition of his habeas petition. On March 8, the district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the unavailability of habeas for non-citizens subject to expedited removal did not violate the Suspension Clause, largely because of Castro, the “analysis and ultimate conclusion [of which] are incredibly persuasive to the Court.” And because the court lacked jurisdiction over Thuraissigiam’s habeas petition, it also denied his motion for an emergency stay of removal.

Thuraissigiam appealed to the Ninth Circuit and renewed his motion for an emergency stay of removal. On March 12, a two-judge motions panel (Silverman & Christen, JJ.) denied the motion without meaningful discussion, leaving intact the original appellate briefing schedule (which would have opening briefs due on May 8). Of course, it’s possible that, once the case is fully briefed and argued before a merits panel, the Ninth Circuit will have a full opportunity to consider Castro‘s many flaws—and to hold that the Suspension Clause requires meaningful judicial review of these kinds of asylum claims, even when brought by undocumented immigrants who surreptitiously enter the United States.

The problem is that the case may well be moot by then, as, without a stay of removal, Thuraissigiam could well be sent back to Sri Lanka in the interim. And although Thuraissigiam sought reconsideration en banc, the Ninth Circuit’s General Orders only require such requests to be referred to staff attorneys, not to the full court. So it was, late last night, that the two-judge panel noted that the motion for en banc reconsideration was “referred to the Court” and denied.

That leaves emergency relief from Justice Kennedy (or the full Supreme Court) as the only remaining means for Thuraissigiam to stay his removal pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the merits. (The Ninth Circuit could also expedite its consideration of the merits to moot the need for a stay, but it hasn’t yet…) Unless such relief is granted, the Ninth Circuit may never have a proper opportunity to decide whether or not to follow the Third Circuit down Castro‘s rabbit hole. And without such a ruling, it stands to reason that there will be more cases like Thuraissigiam’s, in which Castro serves to practically foreclose review, even if it’s not the law of the relevant circuit.

That’s no way to run a railroad, especially when the result is to send individuals back to countries in which they very well may credibly fear persecution (or worse).

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

The only thing I take issue with in Steve’s outstanding analysis is his statement in the last paragraph “That’s no way to run a railroad!”

No, that exactly how Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions wants to and is running the “Deportation Railroad.” He’d love to apply “expedited removal” with no due process and no review to everyone in the United States.

I figure that once he gets done “crashing” the U.S. Immigration Court system, he’ll be asking Congress for “Universal Summary Removal,” having proved that due process for foreign nationals, or those believed by DHS to be foreign nationals, is simply too convoluted and impractical. This ties in nicely with the Administration’s view that the Due Process clause protects only the U.S. Government and Administration political officials.

Disturbingly, to date, I can find little evidence that the Courts of Appeals or the majority of the Supremes care about what happens to asylum applicants at the border and whether they are imprisoned or railroaded while here and sent back to death or torture abroad. As long as nobody on the Court of Appeals or nobody that they care about or consider human is affected, the Constitutional problems appear to be “out of sight, out of mind.”

Now, that might be “No way to run a railroad.”

PWS

03-15-18

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: