"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.
Elizabeth Keyes Associate Professor Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic U of Baltimore Law Photo: U of Baltimore Law WebsiteKate Evans Clinical Professor Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic Duke Law Photo: Duke Law Website
All,
In the hopes this will be helpful to any of you who are dealing with Negusie issues, I wanted to share my forthcoming article on Duress in Immigration Law, which evolved from my own litigation in this arena. As we challenge this new AG decision (for however long it lasts!), I highly, highly recommend Kate Evans’s Drawing Lines Among the Persecuted, as well.
I am so looking forward to critiquing the AG’s decision thanks to the scholarship Margaret Taylor and Maureen Sweeney have done around deference in the context of AG certification. This community is unendingly helpful!
Liz
Elizabeth Keyes
Associate Professor, Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic
University of Baltimore School of Law
*******************
Thanks for sharing, Liz & Kate!
Soon, Billy will be peddling his bias, bigotry, and balderdash in Breitbart News or the National Enquirer where it deservedly will get little notice outside the “Twilight Zone” where Billy and his buddies operate! (Sorry, Billy, but you might have fallen below the “Fox News Threshold!”)
Folks like Liz and Kate are leading intellects with experience and credentials earnedby working in the trenches at the “retail levels” of our now-cratering justice system! They would solve problems, “get this system working” the way it should, and make equal justice for all a reality!
I hope that the Biden-Harris Administration will give them, and others like them, many women and minorities, a chance to do just that when it comes to filling judicial and public policy positions! We need to get the immense brain power, humanity, energy, and positive leadership currently available in the private, NGO, and clinical academic sectors into public policy positions where they can achieve “maximum common good” for all of us!
Lawsuit Seeks to Uncover Secretive Expansion of Judicial Black Sites for Immigration Cases
WASHINGTON, DC — Immigration groups filed a lawsuit today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—which oversees immigration courts—and the General Services Administration (GSA) requesting information on the expansion and creation of immigration adjudication centers, which were established as part of EOIR’s Strategic Caseload Reduction plan designed to accelerate removal proceedings at the expense of due process.
The lawsuit—filed by the American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Chicago AILA Chapter, and the National Immigrant Justice Center— seeks the disclosure of records on the obscure procedural rules for immigration adjudication centers. The centers are a new initiative created under the Trump administration where immigration judges adjudicate immigration cases from around the country in remote-only settings that are closed to the public.
Immigration adjudication centers appear to have been created to address immigration court backlogs, but attorneys and immigrants facing deportation have little instruction on the procedures for appearing before these centers. Immigration lawyers and advocates have expressed concerns after public reports indicate the potential expansion of immigration adjudication centers across the country.
The lawsuit challenges EOIR’s failure to disclose information in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in March 2020. EOIR and GSA have failed to disclose critical information about what immigration courts presently exist, immigration court expansion, and contracts governing this expansion.
“Immigration lawyers and advocates have an interest in pressing for more transparency in the immigration courts, helping ensure the due process rights of all who appear in court, and providing guidance to the lawyers representing people before these courts,” said Claudia Valenzuela, FOIA senior attorney at the American Immigration Council.
“Transparency is essential to a fair day in court. Unfortunately, the secretive creation and expansion of immigration adjudication centers where immigration judges conduct remote-only proceedings in facilities closed to the public demonstrate how opaque an already complex immigration court system has become at the hands of this administration. While the Department of Justice regulations require immigration hearings to generally be open to the public, this administration has imposed significant new barriers to the public’s ability to observe these proceedings and has led to some hearings being conducted in secret, calling into question whether the fundamental elements of due process are being met. We are proud to stand alongside our partners in this effort,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“Everyone deserves a fair day in court. The lack of transparency in EOIR operations compromises the integrity of our immigration system and undermines public confidence in this system,” said Nell Barker, chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Chicago Chapter. “The secretive expansion of immigration courts is a blow to due process and adds a layer of unnecessary unpredictability to a system that struggles to inform stakeholders about changing procedures. We are concerned about the increasing inaccessibility of immigration courtrooms to lawyers, clients, and the public.”
“The secretive and inaccessible immigration adjudication centers, where judges determine whether noncitizens will be deported to persecution and torture or permanent family separation, are a disturbing example of the manner in which this administration has developed and expanded numerous policies and procedures intended to expedite the deportation of noncitizens without due process,” said Sarah Thompson, senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “EOIR must make public its plan for future adjudication centers and the procedures under which these centers operate.”
The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members. Follow AILA on Twitter @AILANational.
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through a unique combination of direct services, policy reform, impact litigation and public education. Visit immigrantjustice.org and follow @NIJC.
******************
The current system is specifically designed to “break” asylum seekers and their representatives in body and mind.
Will a lawless regime get another four years to finish the job of destroying American democracy and eradicating justice? Or, will there be hope on the horizon for a better future for all Americans!
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
The Government appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.), granting Carlos Alejandro Velasco Lopez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Velasco Lopez was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which provides for discretionary detention of noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings. His habeas petition challenged the procedures employed in his bond hearings, which required him to prove, to the satisfaction of an immigration judge, that he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. We hold that the district court correctly granted the petition, and provided the correct remedy by ordering a new bond hearing in which the Government bore the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Velasco Lopez was either a danger or a flight risk.
KEY QUOTE:
The irony in this case is that, in the end, all interested parties prevailed. The Government has prevailed because it has no interest in the continued incarceration of an individual who it cannot show to be either a flight risk or a danger to his community. Velasco Lopez has prevailed because he is no longer incarcerated. And the public’s interest in seeing that individuals who need not be jailed are not incarcerated has been vindicated.
**********************************
Judge Parker is correct insofar as he cogently states what should be a “win-win-win” under a functioning Government. I wholeheartedly join lead counsel Julie Dona of the Legal Aid Society, NY, in appreciating and recognizing Judge Parker’s understanding of the grim realities of today’s mal-functioning Immigration Courts and the important Constitutional rights being abridged by DHS & EOIR (essentially one and the same under the Trump kakistocracy).
But, that statement of how Government should be functioning glosses over the unfortunate reality of the Trump regime’s lawless, White Nationalist, nativist immigration agenda. The Trump regime doesn’t seek to create “win-win-win” situations! Instead, they seek to make political statements, dehumanize and degrade “the other,” and promote the biases of their “base” over sound public policy that benefits the common good.
The purpose of imprisonment in the Trump Gulag all too often has little or nothing to do with the legal criteria of danger to the community or flight risk. Rather, detention in the Gulag is used by the Trump regime’s DHS, with the connivence of the DOJ and often the courts, to punish individuals who choose to assert their legal rights; make it more difficult for them to obtain effective representation; and to coerce them into abandoning viable claims for relief, appeals, and judicial review. It’s all about punishment and deterrence, not mainly about the public interest, which is ill-served by most of Trump’s biased and counterproductive immigration policies.
DHS detention in the Trump era primarily serves Trump’s political interests and the interests of those running the for-profit prisons comprising much of Trump’s New American Gulag. Any time Trump’s policies match up with a legitimate national interest, it’s purely happenstance, not part of some overall plan to govern in the public interest.
Miller’splans are so explosively ugly, overtly racist, and anti-American that they are being kept under wraps (for now) because of a (quite legitimate) fear that they could drive the small, yet potentially significant, minority of voters of color that Trump needs to have any chance of extending his rule to do something rational and in their self-interest: Vote for Biden-Harris. Look for things like eliminating birthright citizenship, eradicating all refugee and asylum laws, making it difficult or impossible for family members and people of color to immigrate legally, a wave of summary deportations, deporting “Dreamers,” and exterminating every last ounce of compassion and humanity from our laws. If you think that Black Lives don’t matter much to Trump and his cronies, just wait until he turns the Gruppenfuhrer loose! Think the Federal Courts will stop him? Just look at Trump’s “wholly owned and proud to brag about it” Supremes’ majority! And, he’s also “stacked” — effectively “packed” — the lower Federal Courts with loyalist ideologues.
America can no longer afford life-tenured judges who treat Trump as “normal” and are unwilling or incapable of “connecting the dots” among the dehumanization and demonization of migrants, institutionalized racism, and the end of American democracy. Immigrants’ rights are human rights; human rights are Constitutional rights; dehumanization of “the other” dehumanizes us all!
It’s past time that America stopped granting the privilege and responsibilities of life-tenure to those who won’t publicly adhere to those fundamental truths! Not rocket science! Just basic Constitutional law and human decency! Better judges for a better America! It all starts with a better President and a better Senate! That’s why this election might be our final chance to take back our country and preserve our democracy!
Elsy M. Ramos Velasquez Associate Clark Hill PLC D.C.Patrick Taurel Senior Attorney Clark Hill PLC D.C.
Elsy M. Ramos Velazquez reports:
Mr. Siahaan is an Indonesia Christian who has resided in the United States for over thirty years. Mr. Siahaan is married and a father of two U.S. citizen children. Mr. Siahaan was ordered removed over a decade ago. In 2012, he was placed on and Order of Supervision. In February 2020, he was arrested by ICE. In March 2020, In April 2020, he was released and again placed on an Order of Supervision. On September 10, 2020, Mr. Siahaan was arrested by ICE agents at his home which is located on the property of Glenmont United Methodist Church in Maryland.
On October 2, 2020, Judge Paul W. Grimm granted our Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Court found habeas jurisdiction to stay the removal of Mr. Siahaan until he can obtain Article III review of his motion to reopen to seek asylum based on changed country conditions. Judge Grimm ordered that Mr. Siahaan be returned to Maryland. On October 15, 2020, Mr. Siahaan was released from ICE custody.
I have included a photo for Patrick Taurel, my colleague and co-counsel, who also represented Mr. Siahaan before the district court. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Elsy M. Ramos Velasquez
Associate
CLARK HILL PLC
***********************
Way to go Elsy & Patrick! Thanks for all you do and for saving lives in this time of national darkness and irrational, race-driven policies!
Just think of the time, money, resources, and lives that could be saved with rational policies, serving the national interest, rather than policies driven by a White Nationalist, nativist agenda.
Kangaroos https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
City Bar Report Highlights Threats to Independence of Immigration Court System — Calls for Creation of Independent Article I Court
October 21, 2020
The New York City Bar Association has released a report on recent immigration policy changes “to highlight its concerns about their impact on the independence of the immigration court system as well as the due process rights of those who pass through the immigration system.”
The “Report on the Independence of the Immigration Courts” responds to an “inherent conflict of interest” in housing a judicial adjudicatory body such as the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice, “a federal agency primarily charged with law enforcement,” which the City Bar says has been exacerbated by various actions that DOJ has taken that “prioritize the administration’s political agenda over fairness in the immigration court system.”
According to the report, the DOJ “has taken several steps to reorganize immigration courts and the [Board of Immigration Appeals] in a way that aligns them more closely with the [current] administration’s goals of enforcing harsher and more restrictive immigration policies.” These steps include hiring practices that place judges “with records of much higher than average asylum denial rates” on the BIA; implementation of restrictive performance metrics for immigration judges, made in the name of efficiency but that in actuality “ignores the underlying reasons for the backlog;” a practice of reassigning cases “on a large scale in a manner that undermines judicial independence;” and a campaign to stifle immigration judges who speak up, including “efforts to decertify the union of IJs in a manner that further undermines the independence of the immigration courts.”
The report describes how Attorneys General in recent years have made use of “a previously rarely-used procedural tool, self-certification…to rewrite immigration court policies through changes in substantive case law, rather than following more traditional pathways of issuing regulations and legislative recommendations, both of which, notably, are more lengthy and transparent processes.” Moreover, the report details the ways in which “basic procedural mechanisms and immigration court scheduling functions are being limited or curtailed in a manner that promotes political objectives over due process,” by pushing judges to rush decisions or by restricting access to the courts and to appellate review with administrative barriers.
As detailed in the report, these legal and structural changes in the immigration judicial system have “turn[ed] its corridors into a maze. Without transparency and accountability, due process is inevitably eroded. The lack of transparency also impedes meaningful attempts at reform.” New policies have restricted public access to information, forced asylum seekers to mount their applications from outside the U.S., and prevented meaningful oversight from independent observers. All of these measures, according to the report, “tip the scales towards more and faster deportations, at the expense of due process.”
The report concludes that “moving the immigration court system out of the DOJ and making it into an independent Article I court would safeguard immigration law from being rewritten by each administration, and would thus ensure due process for the immigrants appearing before the courts.” This step is now more crucial than ever, as “the many steps that the current administration has taken to politicize the court…have frayed the bare threads of justice that existed before to the point of a complete rupture, leaving not even the appearance of justice or due process of law.”
Many thanks to my friend and NDPA stalwart Elizabeth Gibson of the NY Legal Assistance Group for distributing this.
“[N]ot even the appearance of justice or due process of law.” Yup! “Courtside” has been saying it for a long time!
There is a dual problem here. The failure of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace. But, an even bigger disgrace is the failure of the GOPSenate and the Article III Judiciary to end this farce that kills people and is destroying the integrity of the entire U.S. Justice system while promoting racism and unequal justice.
Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out. We need to get a start on saving democracy and getting better judges for a better America — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes!
HERNANDEZ-CARTAGENA v. BARR, 4th Cir., 10-15-20, published
PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER
KEY QUOTE:
Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion in this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s own conflict with the gang precipitated any of the events in question. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that at least one central reason Petitioner was targeted was her membership in the Hernandez-Cartagena family. The unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates that the threats and violence against Petitioner, her child, and her siblings were designed to get her parents to pay up. Pursuant to Hernandez-Avalos, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.
11
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for review is granted, the decision of
the BIA is reversed, and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
********************
Why this is important: It delivers a totally deserved “double whammy” to two of the worst and most biased precedents issued during the Trump White Nationalist “kangaroo court era” at the BIA.
First, in Matter of L-E-A, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), (“L-E-A- 1”) the BIA recognized the “nuclear family” as a “particular social group.” Yet, to produce the necessary asylum denial sought by their “Trump handlers” at DOJ, the BIA erroneously found that the threatened harm had no “nexus” to the PSG.
To reach this improper and illogical result, the BIA disingenuously trashed the “normal” rules of causation. Those say that nexus is established if the harm would not have occurred “but for” membership in the protected group. Of course, there could be multiple “but fors” in a particular case, recognizing the “at least one central reason” statutory language for nexus.
That respondent was targeted for harm by gangs because his family owned a drug store that the gangs wanted to access to distribute illegal drugs. Had the respondent not been a member of his particular family, there is no reason to believe he would have have been targeted for any harm, or indeed have been of any interest to the gangs at all.
In other words, “but for” his membership in that particular family PSG, the threats would not have occurred. Essentially, a “no brainer” asylum grant that could have been quickly granted by a competent adjudicator. Any DHS appeal should have been a strong candidate for summary dismissal.
Instead of doing the obvious, the BIA invented new rules of causation. Contrary to the record, they found that family membership was essentially irrelevant to the threatened persecution. No, according to the BIA, the threats against the respondent were motivated solely the gang’s desire to sell illegal drugs through the family store, not a protected ground.
By searching for “any other motivation” and then basically substituting it to the exclusion of the clear family PSG motivation, the BIA bizarrely and erroneously concluded that the PSG was not “one central reason” for the persecution. This allowed the BIA to deny asylum to a respondent who fit squarely within the “refugee” definition.
Although the decision might have been cloaked in garbled legalese and irrational, result-oriented analysis, the overall message to Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges was clear: faced with facts that demanded an asylum grant to a Central American refugee, the adjudicator should manufacture “any reason other than a protected ground” to deny protection. The BIA will have your back.
Let’s play out the BIA’s intentionally perverted analysis on a larger scale. The leaders of the Nazi movement stood to profit mightily from the eradication of the German Jewish community. Stolen artwork, confiscated wealth and property, and even the proceeds of the gold and silver obtained from collecting and melting down the dental fillings of gassed Jews found their way into Nazi bank accounts, many abroad. Thus, the BIA could view the Holocaust not as religious, nationality, or racial persecution, but rather part of an overall criminal scheme to enrich Nazi leaders by stealing from prosperous or vulnerable individuals. No persecution there!
Happily, in Hernandez-Cartagena, Judge Thacker and her colleagues blew through the type of bogus analysis set forth in L-E-A- 1. Although not specifically citing the BIA’s defective precedent, the court applied “normal rules of causation” rather than the BIA’s “any reason to deny” approach.
The petitioner was a “conduit” In the gang’s scheme to extort money from her parents. The court recognized that “it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.”
Good bye and good riddance L-E-A- 1. Hello, rational analysis and well-merited protection, although sadly only within Fourth Circuit, for now.
But, that’s not the end of the tale of woe from America’s most blatantly biased, unprofessional, deadly, and totally unconstitutional “21st Century Star Chambers.” Not satisfied with the BIA’s illegal denial of protection in L-E-A- 1, two years later, Attorney General “Billy the Bigot” Barr “certified” that case to himself. That became Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- 2”).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
His purpose? To reverse the only correct part of L-E-A- 1: the BIA’s recognition of the “nuclear family” as a “PSG.” As we all know, the nuclear family is one of the oldest, most well-established, well-defined, and universally recognized social units in human history. Not surprisingly, then, it has been recognized as a “PSG” under the Refugee Act of 1980 in numerous judicial and BIA decisions as well as by a myriad of human rights and international law scholars.
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license
No matter to Billy! In an exercise in disingenuous legal gobbledygook and counter-rationality, he tried to explain why it was wrong to recognize the obvious: that the nuclear family” is a “cognizable PSG” for asylum adjudication purposes.
Instead, Billy substituted what I call the “Kardashian rule.” Only those families who have some sort of widespread recognition in society as a whole should be considered to possess the “social distinction” (the characteristic formerly known as “social visibility”) to qualify as a “cognizable PSG.”
Billy Barr’s Vision Of A “Cognizable Particular Social Group” By hotrock pictures – Vimeo: Kardashian Kollection at Sears (view archived source), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82871460 Creative Commons License
Again, without specifically citing L-E-A- 2, (perhaps the OIL was too embarrassed to argue it) Judge Thacker and her colleagues “blew away” its bigoted and irrational nonsense:
We have repeatedly held “a nuclear family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group” cognizable in our asylum framework. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been a leader in recognizing the nuclear family as a PSG, going all the way back to a case where they reinstated some of my rulings as an Immigration Judge that had been wrongfully reversed by the BIA: Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). But, hey, who remembers stuff like that from nearly a decade ago where I was once again proved right and the BIA was wrong?
Yeah, I’ll have to admit that after eight years of regularly getting “stuffed” by my BIA colleagues at en banc, there were few things in my professional life more satisfying than having a Court of Appeals “stuff” the BIA on a case where I had dissented as a BIA Judge or been reversed as an Immigration Judge!
So Billy the Bigot’s attempt to impose the absurdist “Kardashian rule” (sorry Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe) in L-E-A- 2 bites the dust, at least in the Fourth Circuit. I hope it will serve as a “blueprint” to eradicate the “twin travesties” of L-E-A- 1 & 2across the nation!
Exhilarating as this case is, it’s just one step in the right direction. The unconstitutional White Nativist bias and abuse being heaped upon refugees and other migrants by a “Star Chamber” beholden to the likes of “Billy the Bigot” Barr and his predecessor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions won’t end until EOIR is abolished and replaced with a real court system that complies with 5th Amendment Due Process. If the Article III Courts don’t have the guts to get the job done, then its up to future better Congress to make it happen!
🌟First and foremost, Aaron Caruso, Esquire, of Abod & Caruso, Wheaton, MD. He appeared before me in Arlington. He’s the “total pro,” a “judge’s lawyer:” scholarly, unfailingly courteous, prompt, well-prepared, practical, wrote outstanding “to the issue” briefs that didn’t waste my time, took tough cases, and never gave up on his clients. In a “better world,” he’s definitely someone I could see on the Federal Bench at some level. A member of the NDPA, for sure!
Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit Photo From Ballotpedia
🌟Judge Stephanie Thacker of the Fourth Circuit. I haven’t studied all of her judicial opinions. But, based on this opinion and her outstanding and totally correct dissent in Portillo-Flores v. Barr where she cogently castigated her fellow panel members for “going along to get along” with the BIA’s “at worst nonsensical and cursory at best” asylum denial, she appears one of a painfully small number of Article III Judges who both understand the mockery of justice going on in our Immigration “Courts” and have the guts to take a strong stand against it. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/04/%E2%80%8D%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8Finjustice-watch-4th-cir-judge-stephanie-thacker-cogently-castigates-colleagues-for-misapplying/
Interestingly, this is the same panelas in Portillo-Flores. And, the BIA’s sloppy and incompetent analysis, including ignoring the evidence of record, presents largely the same issues. Only, this time Judge Thacker’s colleagues paid attention to what she was saying!
That says something about both her persuasiveness and her colleagues’ willingness to listen and take a better approach to judicial review. That’s also what’s known in the business as “making progress every day, one case, one life at a time.”
Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP right wing pols have turned Federal judicial selection into a race to control justice until at least 2060. That has forced the Dems to finally wake up and do likewise the next time they get the chance. The upshot: At 55, although still in the “prime years” of her career from a professional standpoint, Judge Thacker has probably “aged out” of the sweepstakes to be the “heart and soul” of the Supremes for the next four decades.
The good news: She should be around to continue saving lives, speaking truth to power, and serving as a great role model for younger, aspiring jurists and public officials of all races and genders for many years to come.
Compare Judge Thacker’s clear, concise, cogent analysis in this case with the wandering legal gobbledygook and pure nonsense put forth by the BIA and Barr in L-E-A- 1 & 2.
🌟Judge Julius N. Richardson and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit also deserve stars. I really lambasted these two Trump appointees for their tone-deaf performance in Portillo-Flores. But, here they surprised me by joining fully in Judge Thacker’s analysis. Shows a capacity for teamwork, listening, adjusting views, and taking judicial review seriously, all really good things!
Additionally, it’s really important and significant when Trump appointees “do the right thing” and uphold due process, fundamental fairness, and recognize asylum seekers as “persons” entitled to equal justice under our Constitution.Given the large number of fairly young Trump appointees on the Federal Bench, it’s critical that as many of them as possible join their colleagues in resisting the White Nationalist assault on the rights and human dignity of people of color, particularly migrants and asylum seekers, being orchestrated by Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the regime’s gang of bigots.
Don’t know if this will be repeated in the future, but the votes of Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum in this case are an encouraging sign for the American justice system. Will it be a trend or an aberration? Can’t tell, but stay tuned.
🌟Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hats off for Sandra Marleny Hernandez-Cartagena. In the face of a bogus “court” system controlled and operated by White Nationalist racist bigots for the purpose of wiping out asylum laws, demoralizing applicants through dishonest procedures and rules meant to discourage them from seeking protection, and to “send a message” that they aren’t wanted in our country, she persisted for herself, her family, and others similarly situated. Her victory in this case is a victory for American justice and for every one of us who believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all.
Thanks, Sandra, for inspiring us with your courage and unrelenting persistence in the face of evil and institutionalized, illegal, bias!
Dahlia: I wonder what you thought of Barrett’s statement, about how she reads each of her opinions through the eyes of the losing party. As you have written, the losing party tends to be the prisoners, the Black worker, the teen seeking abortion, the asylum seeker. It reminded me of Justice Samuel Alito testifying at his hearings about his great solicitude for immigrants.
Mark: Barrett’s opening statement made me think about one of her worst decisions (so far), in which she approved the deportation of an asylum seeker because there were small, trivial variations in his account of persecution. Over a dissent, Barrett said, yep, this asylum seeker must be sent home to be tortured and murdered because tiny details in his story changed over time. Would a judge who views the case through the eyes of the asylum seeker really dismiss his claims so cavalierly? I doubt it.
. . . .
************************
Read the complete dialogue at the link.
So much for intellectual honesty! It also shows Barrett’s fundamental lack of experience and legal understanding of what Immigration “Courts” really are and how they have been politicized and weaponized against asylum seekers by “judges” who report to overtly biased and xenophobic politicos in the Executive Branch. Just how would this “naked farce” satisfy any rudimentary concept of Due Process? Clearly it doesn’t. And just as clearly, intentionally tone-deaf judges like Barrett don’t care!They lack the guts, relevant experience representing migrants, and the intellectual presence to stand up for the Constitutional and human rights of “the other.”
How would YOU like to be sentenced to torture and/or death based on trivial inconsistencies found by an Immigration “Judge” working directly for the Attorney General and his regime in a badly flawed assembly line process designed to achieve political policy objectives, not justice?
Also, did anyone else pick up the facial absurdity of Barrett’s disingenuous claim to be “apolitical” while pledging allegiance to GOP “superhero” the late Justice Antonin Scalia, probably the most overtly “political Justice” of modern times?
Bottom Line:Once you’re out of the womb, this is one mother you don’t want on your case!🏴☠️☠️⚰️
Better Judges For A Better America! Judge/Justice Barrett is part of the problem, not the solution! The best way to insure that she is among the last, far-right, anti-democracy, inhumane judges given life tenure on the Supremes or anywhere else, vote ‘em out, vote ‘em out! Then, we’ll discover the “true meaning” of Barrett’s “I’m not there to make policy nonsense!” (Indeed, I would submit that the sole reason for her appointment was the GOP’s belief and expectation that she will reliably elevate disingenuous right-wing policies, biases, and prejudices over the Constitutional, individual, and human rights of individuals and that she will be a steadfast opponent of Constitutionally-required equal justice under law.)
Justice for the George Floyds, Breonna Taylors, dehumanized dead asylum seekers, and wrongfully imprisoned migrant kids of the world (e.g., the end of unconstitutional “Baby Jails”) will require a different type of “Justice” than Amy Coney Barrett in the future! Far from being truly “independent” and “apolitical,” Barrett is likely to be the perfect representative of the warped man who appointed her and his anti-democracy party. And, that’s likely to cause problems for all Americans of good will far into the future!
Last month, a nurse at a federal immigration detention center in Irwin, Georgia, filed a whistleblower complaint detailing the abhorrent treatment of people detained there. She charged that women in detention were subjected to hysterectomies and invasive gynecological exams without their knowledge or consent, and often without assistance from interpreters.
The complaint is heartbreaking, but far from surprising. These atrocities are consistent with practices employed at U.S. detention centers for decades, and they are sadly consistent with our tragic history of forced sterilization of minority women. The implications of the complaint are perfectly clear: we must end the civil detention of immigrants, so fraught with systemic racism that undervalues the lives of Black, Indigenous and other people of color. There is no other option.
With over 200 detention centers, the United States has the largest immigration detention system in the world. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has over the past two years detained an average of 40,000 daily, an astonishing number that surpasses the population of Wisconsin cities like Brookfield and Wausau. Yet the detention of immigrants is just a microcosm of the inhumanity that characterizes our immigration system today. Many immigrants come to the U.S. to seek refuge and a better life for themselves and for their families. But when they arrive in this country, they are forced into conditions that violate human rights principles under both international and domestic standards, and that, frankly, violate our moral obligations to each other as human beings.
ICE has the authority to release most people from detention through monetary bonds or parole, and ICE policy requires that people seeking asylum are released from detention when they can establish their identity and demonstrate they are neither a danger nor a or flight risk. Instead of using these tools, though, ICE almost always chooses detention, ostensibly to deter others from coming into the country. But far from showing detention to be an effective deterrent, statistics reveal the opposite: harsher penalties have not reduced the numbers of undocumented migrants crossing U.S. borders. What the data does show is how immigrant detention has become a big business, with taxpayer dollars helping to subsidize a billion-dollar private prison industry that profits from human trauma.
Often located in remote places, immigrant detention facilities are ripe for the abuse of detained migrants. There is no community oversight and little — often no — access to legal representation. People in detention will only have an attorney if they can afford one or are lucky enough to find pro bono representation.
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of Erin’s article at the link! Erin reinforces points that I make often here on Courtside: the real objectives of unnecessary and highly cost-ineffective “civil detention” are to deprive migrants of access to counsel, coerce them into abandoning potentially successful claims, punish them for exercising legal rights, and deter others from asserting legal rights.
All of these are clear violations of Constitutional due process and equal protection! The conditions under which these non-criminals are held to “punish” them for their audacity to assert their legal rights also violate the Eighth Amendment, as some lower Federal Court Judges have found.
Unfortunately, too many Article III Judges have abdicated their oaths to uphold the Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable persons among us in the face of improper political pressure and a regime overtly out to undo American democracy and institute a far-right reactionary, white nationalist kakistocracy.
And, here’s info on a great “virtual event” that Erin helped organize to raise awareness of the existence and devastating effects of “Baby Jails” in the U.S. Allowing such cruel and inhuman abominations to flourish in our nation is beyond disgraceful! (See also the recent book Baby Jails: The Fight to End the Incarceration of Refugee Children in America, by my good friend and Georgetown Law colleague Professor Phil Schrag).
The Flores Exhibit: Stories of Children Held in Immigrant Detention Facilities
WHEN
Wednesday, October 14, 2020
7:30 pm to 8:30 pm
WHERE
Virtual
EVENT DESCRIPTION
Artists, lawyers, advocates and immigrants read the sworn testimonies of young people under the age of 18, who were held in two detention facilities near the U.S./Mexico border in June 2019. Followed by a discussion with panelists.
Organized by the Immigrant Justice Clinic, Latinx Law Student Association, and American Constitution Society at UW Law School.
Zoom link will be sent to via email to those who register.
I proudly note that my good friend Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase and other distinguished members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges are “readers” in “The Flores Exhibit.”
I am also inspired by all that Erin has accomplished and the lives she and her students have saved through the Immigrant Justice Clinic at my alma mater, UW Law!
Erin and others like her are exactly the type of progressive, practical, scholar-problem solvers that we need as Federal Judges and in key Government policy-making positions. We need to replace the reactionary kakistocracy with a progressive, equal justice oriented, practical, problem-solving humanitarian meritocracy.
“Equal Justice For All” isn’t just a “throwaway slogan.” It’s a vision of a better, more efficient, more effective, more tolerant, more inclusive, more diverse, more representative Government that will work with people of good faith everywhere to maximize opportunities for all and promote a brighter future for everyone in America! It’s in our power to make it happen,and the necessary change starts this Fall.
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
ROUND TABLE STAR 🌟 HON. SUE ROY REPORTS ON NJ AILA LITIGATION ABOUT IMMIGRATION COURTS⚖️!
By Hon. Sue Roy
Former U.S. Immigration Judge
Exclusive to Courtside
Oct. 8, 2020
As Paul had written about in August, the New Jersey chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA-NJ) filed a complaint against the Department of Justice/Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ/EOIR) over the arbitrary re-opening of the Newark Immigration Court for in-person hearings on July 13, 2020, without proper COVID-19 safety procedures and protocols in place.
This is despite the fact that in March, numerous individuals contracted COVID-19 because the Court did not timely close at the outset of the pandemic. To date, a well-respected immigration attorney who was present in the building during that time passed away from COVID-19 complications. Three additional people who worked in the building have also passed away from COVID-19, and many individuals became quite ill due to the exposure; some of whom have permanent health complications as a result.
As of now, most courts in NJ remain closed; courts at the municipal, country, state, and federal level have successfully utilized either telephonic or televideo technology to ensure that cases move forward. In fact, the NJ District Court is literally next door to the Newark Immigration Court; it remains closed, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which is located in the same building as the Newark Immigration Court, remains closed as well.
Before filing the lawsuit, AILA-NJ asked EOIR to provide them with information regarding what safeguards were going to be implemented at the time of reopening, but EOIR declined to respond.
It should be noted that the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) has been seeking the same information from EOIR, and EOIR has refused to release information to NAIJ as well.
Accordingly, AILA-NJ, through the pro bono representation of Gibbons, P.C., filed a complaint and an injunction request in the NJ District Court. DOJ, represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, advised the Court that it was not their responsibility to ensure the safety of individuals utilizing the Court; it was the parties’ responsibility to follow proper COVID-19 safety protocols. While Judge Vasquez did not grant the injunction, he was extremely critical of DOJ’s position, calling it “shocking” and “disheartening.” He noted that it was impossible for him to determine if EOIR had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in reopening the Newark Immigration Court without being advised as to what went into the decision-making process.
Two and ½ weeks ago, DOJ asked for a 2-week extension to file their responses to Judge Vasquez’s requests for information regarding EOIR’s safety plans, any policy discussions/memoranda from the various agencies who were allegedly involved in the decision to reopen Newark Immigration Court in July. DOJ also indicated that, despite previously stating that televideo proceedings were not possible, they were looking into setting them up at Newark. AILA-NJ agreed to the continuance request.
The Newark Immigration Court has held a few televideo hearings over the past two weeks. Attorneys are required to have their clients present with them in their offices when appearing before the Court. One attorney who was forced to do this tested positive for COVD-19 two days later and is now in quarantine.
Instead of then complying with Judge’s Vasquez’s order, last Thursday, DOJ filed a letter brief asking the Judge to dismiss the lawsuit as moot. AILA-NJ offered to settle the matter through the use of a consent order; DOJ refused. Therefore, AILA-NJ has opposed the request to dismiss the lawsuit, noting the continuing safety issues, the lack of any uniform procedures for the video hearings, the fact that televideo hearings are subject to individual judges’ discretion, and other concerns.
There is a telephonic conference now scheduled before Judge Vasquez for Thursday, October 8, at 11:30 am.
As of now, televideo hearings are only being offered at Newark Immigration Court, (not nationwide) and only to AILA-NJ attorney members who request it. Non-AILA-NJ attorneys are not being offered this option, and neither are pro se litigants, who are required to appear in person for master calendar and individual hearings. Court staff, interpreters, and immigration judges are required to be physically present for hearings, thus risking exposure to COVID-19, which is currently on the rise again in New Jersey generally, and in Newark in particular.
We have always suspected that EOIR had no safety plans or protocols in place before it decided to arbitrarily reopen the Newark Immigration Court. This view is shared by the NAIJ. The fact that EOIR reversed course and set up televideo hearings in Newark in less than 2 weeks and are now seeking to not release any information demonstrates just how disingenuous and unscrupulous DOJ has become.
NAIJ, the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Hispanic Bar Association, and the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, among others, have all issued statements in support of the AILA-NJ litigation.
Hon. Susan B. Roy is a member of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and the principal of Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC in Princeton Junction, New Jersey.
*****************
Thanks, Sue, for all you do for due process!
Here are links to my previous reports on the litigation:
Most Asylum Seekers Have No Legal Counsel. This Villanova Program Trains Non-Lawyers to Step In.
By Katherine Mangan
Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova University, stands in front of Pennsylvania’s
York County Prison, one of the largest immigration detention centers in her region. Pistone
has created a college course in which laypeople can learn to advocate for immigrants.
The contrast, for a young lawyer in a high-powered New York firm, couldn’t have been clearer. In 1991, Michele R. Pistone was part of a team of lawyers helping Donald J. Trump restructure his massive debts as his Atlantic City casinos hemorrhaged money. Pistone, who was 25 at the time, recalls walking into her client’s office with closing documents and being greeted by an entire floor-to-ceiling wall of framed magazine covers with his photo.
Fast-forward a few months to the pro bono assignment that would change the course of her career and inspire her to start a program at Villanova University aimed at expanding legal assistance to immigrants and asylum seekers.
Volunteering for a group now called Human Rights First, she represented a father and son who had fled Somalia during a bloody civil war. The father, a minister whose life had been threatened during the uprising, had been charged with alien smuggling since his son did not have a visa. If forced to return to his country, the elderly man faced the possibility he could be killed.
About six years after she won their case, the son, who had just earned U.S. citizenship, and his father gave her a colorful straw bag as a thank you. It is a constant reminder, she said, of the power and privilege she has as a lawyer. “It was so amazing to be in a position to save someone’s life.”
Pistone, who led lobbying efforts in the mid-90s in Washington, D.C., to protect asylum seekers, estimates that she has helped free more than 100 clients from detention, including former child soldiers, women who fled gender-based violence, and children who fled gang violence.
As a professor of law at Villanova, her focus now is on making sure that more refugees and asylum seekers, six out of 10 of whom confront the immigration system alone, get that help.
After a successful pilot that ended in May, she started a program this fall to certify students to become legal advocates for migrants and refugees. “Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates,” offered through the university’s College of Professional Studies, is described as the first university-based, fully online program to train immigrant advocates. That format, planned before the pandemic forced most courses online, allows easier access for working professionals, including those in rural areas, and keeps costs low.
Graduates can apply to become Department of Justice “accredited representatives,” non-lawyers who are authorized to provide inexpensive legal representation to migrant and refugee families. Accredited representatives, who must work or volunteer for a recognized group like a nonprofit or faith-based organization, can sign legal documents, accompany clients to interviews, and perform other duties a lawyer would handle in court.
In the United States, where deportation cases are civil proceedings, immigrants are not entitled to court-appointed lawyers the way they are in criminal proceedings.
Access to legal representation makes a huge difference, according to the Vera Institute of Justice. The nonprofit research and policy group found that immigrants are 12 times more likely to get available relief when they have an advocate.
“Tens of thousands of people each year go unrepresented, including asylum seekers, longtime legal residents, immigrant parents or spouses of U.S. citizens, and even children,” the Vera Institute notes. “They are left to defend themselves in an adversarial and notoriously complex system against the United States government, which is always represented by counsel.”
The Committee for Immigration Reform Implementation estimated in 2014 that at least one million of the unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. were eligible for legal relief and would be permitted to live in the U.S. if they had access to legal representation.
Few people facing the threat of deportation can afford to hire lawyers, and nationwide, there are only about 300 fully accredited representatives authorized to counsel clients in court, Pistone said. That’s where VIISTA hopes to make a difference.
The program is divided into three 14-week modules. The certificates students earn after completing each module authorize them to take on increasing levels of responsibility for representing immigrants. The first module, which prepares students to interview and be sensitive to the needs of immigrants, addresses why people migrate, the structure of government immigration systems, and cultural differences. The second and third focus on immigration law and train people to become partially or fully accredited representatives. Students can complete one, two, or three modules.
Among the students who completed all three modules in the pilot this spring is Eileen Doherty-Sil, an adjunct associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania who teaches about forced migration. It’s one thing, Doherty-Sil said, to teach about the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and quite another to represent a client who could face torture if returned to his home country.
The insights she gained in the program will enrich her teaching, she said. “Michele’s program gave us a really clear-eyed idea of what it looks like for someone to face a judge and say, ‘Please don’t send me back.’”
Without someone to advise him, an asylum seeker who fears he could be tortured or killed if he’s returned might instead say in court that his goal is to get a good job and be a good citizen. “They can’t possibly know that that’s the wrong thing to say,” Doherty-Sil said. Asylum is for refugees fleeing persecution, not for someone seeking a better life.
Pistone likens the development of specialized legal representatives to the growth of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the medical field. (The role is different from paralegals, who are trained to support lawyers within their offices but aren’t authorized to appear in court.)
The problem of representation became more acute as mounting tuition and shrinking job opportunities caused the number of law-school applications to tumble beginning in 2008-9. But even when people complained about a glut of lawyers, there never seemed to be enough people willing, or financially able, to represent the poorest clients.
“A lot of people in the legal academy think the solution to access to justice is lawyers, yet we’ve been trying for so long using lawyers,” Pistone said. The system, she said, is clearly broken. “It’s up to those of us in the system to come up with a viable, scalable solution.”
All three modules of the VIISTA program can be completed in 10 months, for a cost of under $4,000.
Pistone’s students have included teachers, social workers, and others who want to play a more active role in helping immigrants.
“I want to train 1,000 people a year,” Pistone said. “And if they each represented one client a month, that’s 12,000 families that are getting an advocate in immigration court.”
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Director, Clinic for Asylum, Refugee & Emigrant Services (CARES)
WASHINGTON — The five U.S. attorneys along the border with Mexico, including three appointed by President Trump, recoiled in May 2018 against an order to prosecute all undocumented immigrants even if it meant separating children from their parents. They told top Justice Department officials they were “deeply concerned” about the children’s welfare.
But the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon, according to a two-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general into Mr. Trump’s “zero tolerance” family separation policy.
“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”
Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants.
“Those two cases should not have been declined,” John Bash, the departing U.S. attorney in western Texas, wrote to his staff immediately after the call. Mr. Bash had declined the cases, but Mr. Rosenstein “instructed that, per the A.G.’s policy, we should NOT be categorically declining immigration prosecutions of adults in family units because of the age of a child.”
The Justice Department’s top officials were “a driving force” behind the policy that spurred the separation of thousands of families, many of them fleeing violence in Central America and seeking asylum in the United States, before Mr. Trump abandoned it amid global outrage, according to a draft report of the results of the investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, the department’s inspector general.
The separation of migrant children from their parents, sometimes for months, was at the heart of the Trump administration’s assault on immigration. But the fierce backlash when the administration struggled to reunite the children turned it into one of the biggest policy debacles of the president’s term.
Though Mr. Sessions sought to distance himself from the policy, allowing Mr. Trump and Homeland Security Department officials to largely be blamed, he and other top law enforcement officials understood that “zero tolerance” meant that migrant families would be separated and wanted that to happen because they believed it would deter future illegal immigration, Mr. Horowitz wrote.
The draft report, citing more than 45 interviews with key officials, emails and other documents, provides the most complete look at the discussions inside the Justice Department as the family separation policy was developed, pushed and ultimately carried out with little concern for children.
This article is based on a review of the 86-page draft report and interviews with three government officials who read it in recent months and described its conclusions and many of the details in it. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss it publicly, cautioned that the final report could change.
Before publishing the findings of its investigations, the inspector general’s office typically provides draft copies to Justice Department leaders and others mentioned in the reports to ensure that they are accurate.
Mr. Horowitz had been preparing to release his report since late summer, according to a person familiar with the investigation, though the process allowing for responses from current and former department officials whose conduct is under scrutiny is likely to delay its release until after the presidential election.
Mr. Sessions refused to be interviewed, the report noted. Mr. Rosenstein, who is now a lawyer in private practice, defended himself in his interview with investigators in response to questioning about his role, according to two of the officials. Mr. Rosenstein’s former office submitted a 64-page response to the report.
“If any United States attorney ever charged a defendant they did not personally believe warranted prosecution, they violated their oath of office,” Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement. “I never ordered anyone to prosecute a case.”
The Government did not seriously question the correctness of this finding!
Intentionally violating Constitutional rights (not to mention lying and attempting to cover it up) is clearly a violation of 18 USC 242.
Here’s the text of that section from the DOJ’s own website:
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Sure looks like an”open and shut” case for prosecution.
The irony: Families and their kids have been traumatized for life, perhaps even killed or disabled by the actions of these criminal conspirators; however, the “perps” remain at large.
Hamilton is on the public dole continuing to wreak-havoc on the Constitution, the rule of law, the Immigration Courts, and human decency at the corrupt Barr DOJ; Rosenstein works for a “fat cat” law firm hauling down a six figure salary while he avoids justice and accountability for his misdeeds; “Gonzo” had the absolute audacity to try to reinsert himself onto the public dole by running for the Senate from Alabama (thankfully, unsuccessfully, even though he previously held the seat for years and misused it as a public forum to spread his racist ideas, xenophobic venom, lies, false narratives, and unrelenting cruelty).
Where’s the “justice” in a system that punishes victims while letting “perps” prosper and go free?
Paul Schmidt, who served as a board member and board chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals under the [Clinton] administration, said that Trump is not the first to manipulate the courts. In 2003, President George Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft removed board members whose views did not match the administration’s ideas for immigration. “You can track the downward trajectory of the immigration courts from Ashcroft,” he said. “We call it the purge. If you’re not with the program, your job could be on the line.… Ashcroft rejiggered the system so there’s no dissent.”
Schmidt said he “got bounced” because of his views, which makes him skeptical of the courts ever being independent in the current system. “How can you be a little bit independent?” he said. “It’s like being a little bit pregnant. You either are, or you aren’t.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Congrats to Marcia for recognizing that while the seeds of the current Immigration Court disaster originated in the Bush II Administration, they also grew steadily because of the Obama Administration’smismanagement and misuse of the Immigration Courts.
Given a rare chance to create a truly progressive, due-process-oriented judiciary, without any interference from Mitch McConnell and the GOP, the Obama group chose another path. They promoted “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR to meet improper political policy objectives. At the same time, they almost totally “shut out” the human rights, clinical, and immigration bars by appointing over 90% of Immigration Judges from Government backgrounds, overwhelmingly DHS prosecutors.
Notwithstanding a process that did not require Senate Confirmation, the Obama Administration politicos took a mind boggling average of two years to fill Immigration Court judicial vacancies! They also left an unconscionable number of unfilled positions on the table for White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions to fill!
Sure, it’s not “malicious incompetence” like the Trump regime. But, for asylum applicants and other migrants whose lives and due process rights are now going down the drain at an unprecedented accelerated rate, the difference might be negligible.
Dead is dead! Tortured is tortured! Missed opportunities to save lives are lives lost!
First, and foremost, Biden/Harris need to get elected. But, then they must escape the shadow of Obama’s immigration failures and do better for the many vulnerable and deserving folks whose lives are on the line.
Shouldn’t be that hard! The progressive legal talent is out there for a better Federal Judiciary from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes.
It just requires an Administration that takes due process, human rights, human dignity, and equal justice for all seriously and recognizes that in the end, “it all runs through immigration and asylum!” The failure to establish a sound, independent, institutionalized due process and equal justice foundation at the U.S. Immigration Courts, the “retail level” of our courts, now threatens to infect and topple the entire U.S. justice system! We need to end “Dred Scottification” before it eradicates all of our individual rights.
Why Legal Representation Is Essential To Due Process For Asylum Seekers (In Fewer Than 200 Words)
By. Paul Wickham Schmidt
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Courtside Exclusive
Oct. 5, 2020
Unlike criminal defendants, asylum seekers have no right to “appointed counsel.” Yet, never in the history of our country has access to legal assistance been more important to asylum seekers’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.
The Justice Department and the DHS have actively sought to skew asylum law against asylum seekers by reversing favorable precedents and promulgating restrictive regulations intended to evade the protections available under the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration & Nationality Act, and international conventions. They have also used arrests, detention, shortened filing deadlines, pressure on Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges to deny more asylum applications, and other “gimmicks” to discourage legitimate asylum seekers from filing, documenting, and pursuing their applications.
Without access to competent counsel, experienced in the latest developments in asylum law and enforcement, asylum seekers have little chance of prevailing at the administrative level and virtually no chance of successfully seeking review and intervention from Article III Courts to protect and vindicate precious, often life-saving, statutory and Constitutional rights.
A federal judge in Maryland has granted an undocumented Indonesian immigrant temporary reprieve from deportation, ruling Friday evening that immigration authorities cannot remove him from the country until he has a chance to pursue religious asylum.
Binsar Siahaan, a 52-year-old father to two U.S. citizens, attracted considerable support from faith-based activists nationwide after he was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last month at his home on the grounds of Glenmont United Methodist Church in Silver Spring, Md. He and his wife, also an undocumented Indonesian immigrant, work there as church caretakers.
Siahaan’s attorneys, Elsy Ramos Velasquez and Patrick Taurel, had argued the arrest was made under false pretenses, without a warrant and in violation of ICE’s policy that typically prohibits agents from making arrests on church property. They also argued that Siahaan, who is Christian, should not be deported to majority-Muslim Indonesia until he has a chance to fully pursue religious asylum.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm agreed, granting Siahaan a preliminary injunction that blocks ICE from removing him from the country until the Board of Immigration Appeals, or a higher federal court, makes a ruling on his pending appeal. Siahaan is being held at a detention center in Georgia, where he was transferred from Baltimore to await deportation. Grimm also ordered ICE to bring him back to Baltimore, where he will remain in custody closer to his family.
“When the ruling came down, we were really relieved,” said the Rev. Kara Scroggins, pastor at Glenmont United Methodist. “We’re glad that he’s closer to home at the detention facility in Baltimore, but we’re going to keep fighting until he’s home with his family.”
ICE could not immediately be reached for comment Saturday but previously said Siahaan was arrested “after he received full due process in the nation’s immigration courts.”
. . . .
************************************************
Read the full article at the link.
Hats off to the litigation team and to U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm! By ordering ICE to return Siahaan to Maryland, rather than detaining him in Georgia, generally known as one of the worst places in the “New American Gulag,” Judge Grimm took the kind of effective action necessary to stop the abusive actions of ICE and to guarantee real due process!
In a functioning system with an independent U.S. Immigration Court comprised of Judges with expertise in asylum and human rights laws and a commitment to due process and the rule of law, Immigration Judges could take the actions necessary to protect fundamental rights and hold ICE accountable without constant resort to the U.S. District Courts. A “captive” Immigration Court, where Immigration Judges are subservient to Billy the Bigot Barr and pressured to act as “ICE enforcement in robes” ill-serves the national interest! It’s also highly inefficient and wasteful of public resources!
Thanks to my good friend Deb Sanders for bringing this incident to my attention!
