NICOLE NAREA @ VOX: As Life Threatening Due Process & Statutory Violations Predictably Mount Under The Ninth Circuit’s “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” Program, Congressional Dems Demand IG Investigation Of “Tent Courts,” A/K/A Kangaroo Courts!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/18/20920000/house-democrats-investigation-tent-courts-border-port

House Democrats are calling for investigations into two temporary immigration courts that opened along the southern border last month where migrants who have been waiting in Mexico are fighting to obtain asylum in the US, according to a letter sent Thursday.

The courts — located in tent complexes near US Customs and Border Protection ports in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas — were built to hear cases from migrants who have been sent back to Mexico under President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.

Unveiled in January, the policy has affected over 50,000 migrants found to have credible asylum claims, including those who present themselves at ports of entry on the southern border and those who are apprehended while trying to cross the border without authorization.

The tent courts, which opened in early September with no advance notice to the public, have the capacity to hold as many as 420 hearings per day in Laredo and 720 in Brownsville conducted exclusively by video. Immigrants and their attorneys video conference with judges and DHS attorneys appearing virtually, streamed from brick-and-mortar immigration courts hundreds of miles away.

Democratic leaders, led by Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair Joaquin Castro, raised concerns Thursday that the tent facilities have led to violations of migrants’ due process rights by restricting their access to attorneys and relying on teleconferencing. They also expressed alarm that asylum seekers processed in the facilities are being returned to Mexico even though they are in danger there and that the public has largely been barred from entering the tent facilities, shrouding their operations in secrecy.

“Given the lack of access to counsel and the limitations of

, we are concerned these tent courts do not provide full and fair consideration of their asylum claims, as required by law,” the lawmakers wrote, urging the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s inspectors general to investigate. “The opening and operations of these secretive tent courts are extremely problematic.”

Few have been allowed to enter the courts

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan had assured that members of the public and the press would be permitted to access to the facilities so long as they do not “disrupt proceedings or individuals’ privacy.”

In practice, however, that’s not how they have operated, and as House Democrats pointed out Thursday, preventing the public from viewing immigration court proceedings violates federal regulations.

“We are concerned that the administration has intentionally built these tent court at Customs and Border Protection ports of entry to justify limited public access to these facilities, and that this lack of transparency may allow DHS to hid abuse and due process violations that may occur in the tents,” their letter said.

Laura Lynch and Leidy Perez-Davis, attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association who visited the port courts shortly after they opened in September, said they and other lawyers from the National Immigrant Justice Center, Amnesty International, and the Women’s Refugee Commission were barred from observing proceedings in the courts absent a document showing that they were representing one of the migrants on site.

The few attorneys that had such agreements were allowed to enter the facility a little more than an hour before their clients’ hearings to help them prepare — insufficient time given that, for many, it is their first opportunity to meet in person, Perez-Davis said.

In the first few days that the courts were open, the only people allowed in the hearing rooms were immigrants and their attorneys — but critically, not their translators, Lynch said. There were few attorneys representing asylum seekers in proceedings at the port courts, and even fewer spoke fluent Spanish and could have conversations with their clients.

Officials have since allowed translators into the hearing rooms, Lynch said, but neither DHS nor the DOJ have issued any formal clarification of their policy.

Attorneys are also not allowed to attend “non-refoulement interviews” at the tent facilities, in which an asylum officer determines, usually over the phone, whether a migrant should be sent back to Mexico or qualifies for an exemption allowing them to go to a detention facility in the US.

Limiting access to the port courts also inhibits legal aid groups’ ability to conduct presentations for migrants informing them of their rights in immigration proceedings, as they typically do in immigration courts.

Perez-Davis said that she observed one hearing from San Antonio — where some of the remote immigration judges handling cases in the ports courts are based — in which a young migrant woman was confused about what “asylum” means. That kind of knowledge would have previously been provided in presentations by legal aid groups.

Videoconferencing doesn’t facilitate a fair proceeding

The use of video conferencing in immigration court proceedings has long been a subject of controversy. In theory, teleconferencing would seem to make proceedings more efficient and increase access to justice, allowing attorneys and judges to partake even though they may be hundreds of miles away.

But in practice, advocates argue that teleconferencing has inhibited full and fair proceedings, with some even filing a lawsuit in New York federal court in January claiming that it violates immigrants’ constitutional rights.

Immigrants who appear in court via teleconference are more likely to be unrepresented and be deported, a 2015 Northwestern Law Review study found. Reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Executive Office of Immigration Review have also raised concerns about how technical difficulties, remote translation services, and the inability to read nonverbal communication over teleconference may adversely affect outcomes for immigrants.

Yet despite such research, the immigration courts have increasingly used video as a stand-in for in-person interaction.

In the port courts in Laredo and Brownsville, video substitutes for that kind of interaction entirely — but it has not been without hiccups so far.

Lynch, Perez-Davis, and Yael Schacher, a senior US advocate at Refugees International, said they all observed connectivity issues. For migrants who must recount some of the most traumatic experiences of their lives to support their asylum claims, video conferencing makes their task harder, Perez-Davis said.

“I have been asking myself what happens if you’re in the middle of the worst story you’ve ever had to tell, and the video cuts out?” she said.

These courts are sending immigrants back to danger in Mexico

Migrants are required to travel in the dark and show up for processing before their hearings at the port courts early as 4:30 in the morning.

That puts them at increased risk, with recent reports of violence and kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo, which is directly across the border from Laredo, and Matamoros, which is adjacent to Brownsville. The State Department has consequently issued a level four “Do Not Travel”warning in both Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.

Lynch and Perez-Davis said that attorneys are also increasingly afraid of crossing the border into Mexico in light of those safety concerns. Where they used to cross over the border to deliver presentations informing migrants of their rights and the US legal process in Mexican shelters, that is no longer happening to the same degree.

“It has chilled any sort of ability to provide legal representation,” Perez-Davis said.

DHS purports to exempt “vulnerable populations” from the Remain in Mexico policy and allow them to remain in the US, but in practice, few migrants have been able to obtain such exemptions in non-refoulement interviews.

The advocacy group Human Rights First issued a report earlier this month documenting dozens of cases in which inherently vulnerable immigrants — including those with serious health issues and pregnant women — and immigrants who were already victims of kidnapping, rape and assault in Mexico were sent back under MPP after their interviews.

With attorneys barred from advocating for migrants in these interviews, migrants will likely continue to be sent back to Mexico even if they should qualify for an exemption under DHS’s own guidelines.

“These interviews are a basic human rights protection to ensure that no one is returned to a country where they would face inhumane treatment, persecution or other harm,” Democrats wrote Thursday. “We are concerned that DHS is returning asylum seekers to harm in Mexico.”

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

This situation persists as a direct and predictable consequence of the Ninth Circuit’s atrocious decision staying the District Court’s properly issued injunction in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan!

As I told the US District Court, District of Rhode Island, 2019 District Conference on “Independence & the Courts” today:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change. Make the guys in the ivory tower “own” the deaths, human rights abuses, unrelenting human misery, and mockeries of justice that their intransigence and failure to carry out their oaths to faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. is causing to the most needy and vulnerable among us — that is, to those who have the audacity to assert their legal rights under our laws.

What good are “independent” courts who won’t stand up for our individual rights under the Constitution? “Independence” does not entitle judges to use their privileged positions to be complicit or complacent in the face of great tyranny and the human misery and irreparable harm it causes!

And, thanks to Nicole for “keeping on” this horrifying chronicle of calculated and premeditated human rights abuses by an Executive Branch “gone rogue,” and the disastrous real life human consequences of ivory tower appellate judges failing to perform their Constitutional duties. They will not escape the judgment of history for their unwillingness to stand up to the abuses of a White Nationalist regime carrying out a predetermined agenda totally unrelated to governing in the public interest or complying with the rule of law.

Also, many thanks too Laura and Leidy for having the courage and dedication to put themselves “on the line” to let us know exactly what’s happening as a result of the massive failure of all three branches of our Government.

Join the New Due Process Army and take the fight to preserve our American values and our Constitution to all three branches of Government until they do their duties and stop the illegal and unconstitutional abuses of asylum seekers!

PWS

10-18-19

“THE ASYLUMIST” INTERVIEWS RETIRED CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE MARYBETH T. KELLER – Chronicling The Rise & Sad Demise Of EOIR: From Protector To Abuser Of Due Process: “Under Director McHenry, the advice of the agency’s career executives was often not even solicited, and did not appear to be valued. His approach caused many to question the soundness of his operational decisions, and his commitment to the mission of the court, as opposed to accommodating the prosecutorial goals of DHS.”

http://www.asylumist.com/2019/10/15/an-interview-with-marybeth-keller-former-chief-immigration-judge-of-the-united-states/

MaryBeth Keller was the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States from September 2016 until July 2019. She was the first woman to hold that position. The Asylumist sat down with her to discuss her career, her tenure as CIJ, and her hope for the future of the Immigration Courts.

Asylumist: Tell us about your career. How did you get to be the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States?

Judge Keller: I was appointed to the position by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016. By that time, I had been at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) for 28 years, and had a lot of experience with and knowledge of the entire organization, especially the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (“OCIJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

After law school at the University of Virginia, I clerked for state court judges in Iowa. I wanted to return to DC, and in those days – the late 1980s – there were a lot of options. I submitted my resume to a federal government database and was selected to interview at the BIA for a staff attorney position (they liked the fact that I had taken an immigration law class with Professor David Martin at UVA). At the interview, I knew it would be an incredible job. The BIA is the highest level administrative body in immigration law, and the people I met seemed happy to be there. I thought I would stay maybe two years and then move on, but I ended up remaining with EOIR for 31 years.

MaryBeth Keller

I was at the BIA for about 15 years, nine of those as a manager. In my early days as a staff attorney, I helped revitalize the BIA union, which was basically defunct when I arrived. Some employees had wanted to simply decertify the union, but a colleague and I convinced the majority of attorneys and staff that it could be a useful organization, so they voted to keep it. I was the union president for several years. After I later became a manager, my colleagues joked that my penance for having led the BIA union was to have to deal with the union from the other side. I helped then-Chairman Paul Schmidt revamp and restructure the BIA in the mid-1990s.

From there, I served as EOIR’s General Counsel and was involved with many reforms, including the institution of the first fraud program and a program to address complaints about the conduct of Immigration Judges. This ultimately led to my appointment as the first Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (“ACIJ”) for Conduct and Professionalism (“C&P”). At the time, David Neal was the Chief Immigration Judge, and we built the C&P program from whole cloth. In addition to responsibility for judge conduct, performance, and disciplinary issues, I supervised courts from headquarters and was the management representative to the judges’ union. All of this experience led to me to the position of Chief Judge.

Asylumist: What does the CIJ do? How is that position different from the EOIR Director or General Counsel?

Judge Keller: I view the CIJ’s job as leading the trial level immigration courts to execute the mission of EOIR, including, most importantly, managing the dockets to best deliver due process. In practical terms, this involved hiring and training judges and staff, determining the supervisory structure of the courts, directing the management team of Deputies, ACIJs, and Court Administrators, overseeing the Headquarters team that supports the field, including an administrative office, a business development team, legal advisers, an organizational results unit, and an interpreters unit. The CIJ also collaborates with the other senior executives such as the Chairman of the BIA, the General Counsel, and the Director of Administration to coordinate agency activities on a broader scale. In years past, the CIJ acted as a high-level liaison with counterparts in DHS, the private bar, and other governmental and nongovernmental groups.

The regulations–specifically 8 C.F.R. 1003.9–describe the function of the CIJ. I kept a copy of that regulation on my wall. The regulations set forth the CIJ’s authority to issue operational instructions and policy, provide for training of the immigration judges and other staff, set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases, and manage the docket of matters to be decided by the immigration judges.

Despite the regulation, under the current Administration, much of the CIJ’s, authority has been assumed by the Director’s Office or the newly created Office of Policy. Court operational instructions, court policy, the provision of training, setting priorities and time frames for case disposition, and many other matters are now being performed by the EOIR Director’s Office, with minimal input from the CIJ and OCIJ management. I do recognize the regulation setting forth the authority of the Director, as well as the fact that the CIJ’s authority is subject to the Director’s supervision. However, reliance on career employees and specifically the career senior executives (Senior Executive Service or SES) at the head of each EOIR component is significantly diminished now. I believe that is compromising the effectiveness of EOIR as a whole. Senior Executives have leadership skills and incredible institutional knowledge and experience that should bridge that gap between policy and operations. They should be a part of developing the direction of the agency and its structure to most effectively accomplish its functions, but are instead largely sidelined and relegated to much more perfunctory tasks. I worry that people with valuable skills will not be satisfied with decreased levels of responsibility, and will leave the agency. This will make it more difficult for EOIR to meet the challenges it is facing.

To answer the question as to how the CIJ position is different from the Director and General Counsel, the EOIR Director manages all the components of the Agency (BIA, OCIJ, Administration, and OGC) and reports to the Deputy Attorney General. The EOIR General Counsel provides legal and other advice to the EOIR component heads and the Director.

Asylumist: What were your goals and accomplishments as CIJ? Is there anything you wanted to do but could not get done?

Judge Keller: I was fortunate to serve as the CIJ at a time of many changes: Hiring an unprecedented number of IJs, finally beginning to implement electronic filing, and creating new ways to effectively complete cases. At the same time, we faced challenges, such as the ever-changing prioritization of certain types of cases, an increased focus on speed of adjudication, and the creation of the new Office of Policy within the agency, which was given far-reaching authority.

Amid these changes, one of my goals was to use my experience at the agency and my credibility to reassure judges and staff that, despite any changes, our mission of delivering fair hearings and fair decisions would remain unchanged. I always told new classes of judges that their primary responsibility was to conduct fair hearings and make fair decisions. Due process is what we do. And if we don’t get that right, we are not fulfilling the mission of the immigration court. I had the sense that my presence as CIJ gave people some level of security that we were holding on to that mission during all of the change.

Another goal was to hire more staff. I thought I would have more control over hiring and court management than I ultimately did. In terms of hiring, while we greatly increased the number of IJs, it is important to remember that IJs cannot function without support staff: Court administrators, legal assistants, clerks, interpreters, and others. The ratio is about 1-5, judges to support staff. Our hope was also to have one law clerk per IJ and we made some major progress in that regard. It might be wiser for EOIR to take a breather from hiring more judges and focus on hiring support staff, because that is imperative for the court to function. Overall, I was not able to prioritize staff hiring as I would have liked, nor was I confident that my office’s input had much impact on hiring decisions.

Aside from hiring many more judges, some of the positive changes we made while I was there included implementing shortened oral decisions–we do not need a 45-page decision in every case. Shorter decisions, where appropriate, are vital to increasing efficiency. We also encouraged more written decisions. It seems counterintuitive, but written decisions can actually be more efficient than oral decisions. If you have the written material available, as well as law clerks, and the administrative time to review the decision, written decisions save the time that would be spent delivering the oral decision and that time can be used for additional hearings. For this purpose, we greatly increased the accessibility of legal resources for both judges and staff through the development of a highly detailed and searchable user-friendly electronic database of caselaw, decisions, and other reference material.

Importantly, we were also working on ways to replace the standard scheduling based on Individual and Master Calendar Hearings. Instead, in a manner more like other courts, we would schedule cases according to the particular needs of the case, including creating, for example, a motions docket, a bond docket, a short-matters docket. Cases would be sent to certain dockets depending on what issues needed to be addressed, and then move through the process as appropriate from there. Different judges might work on one case, depending on what was needed. During the course of this process, many cases would resolve at the earliest possible point, and some would fall out–people leave the country, they obtain other relief, etc. But in the meantime, such cases would not have taken up a normally-allotted four hour Individual Calendar hearing block in the IJ’s schedule. We were looking to do at least three things: Secure a certain trial date at the start of proceedings, allot time judiciously to each matter, and reduce the time between hearings. If the immigration courts could successfully transition to this model, it would improve the timeliness and rate of completion of final decisions.

While I was CIJ, we also looked to see how other courts dealt with issues such as technology. For example, we went to see the electronic systems at the Fairfax County, Virginia court. That system is more advanced than EOIR’s, and it would, for example, allow a judge to give advisals that are simultaneously translated into different languages for different listeners. This would eliminate the time it takes to do individual advisals, without sacrificing the face-to-face time with the judge. We also investigated video remote interpreting, which is having the interpreter in the courtroom via video, so everyone can see and hear each other as if they were in the same place. IT infrastructure to properly support such initiatives is very expensive, but is obviously currently available and used by other court systems. Changes like improving the interpretation system and implementing e-filing and a user friendly electronic processing system would make a profound difference in how the courts operate.

I believe that some of these ideas are still being considered, but the problem is that there does not seem to be much patience for changes that are not a quick fix. I had hoped to move things further than we were able to, but we did make progress as I discussed.

As another example of a positive accomplishment, EOIR is now very effectively using more contractors for administrative support. This was started by Juan Osuna when he was Director of EOIR, and it has been highly successful. Because our growth has been so rapid, contract employees allow us to get top-notch people quickly, and gives us the flexibility to easily replace someone whose performance is not up to speed. Contractors are not a substitute for permanent employees, but can bridge the gap between a vacancy and a new hire. Once contractors have some experience, they can apply for permanent positions and by then, we have good knowledge of their skills and can hire experienced workers.

Finally, a major accomplishment was that I was the first female Chief Immigration Judge. Even though my experience was extensive, I still had to fight to get the job, including nine hours of interviews. At the time, I think I underestimated how much the workplace was still unaccustomed to women in particular positions. The emails I received after I left the job were astounding. Men and women alike wrote to tell me how much it meant to them to have a female CIJ.

Asylumist: How did things at EOIR change between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration?

Judge Keller: Things now are unlike any time in the past. As I think we have been seeing throughout government during this Administration, the difference seems to be that there is now a fundamental distrust of people and organizations in the federal government. Over three decades, I have worked through a variety of administrations at all points on the political spectrum. Long-time federal employees are very accustomed to altering course when new administrations come in, whether or not the political parties change. Many employees and executives like me welcomed change as an opportunity to move their organizations forward and make the delivery of their services better. But if those in political power do not trust their subordinates and the functions of the agencies they run, it’s a very different and difficult scenario.

Some of the “small p” political pressure was happening by the end of the Obama Administration. For example, we saw this with children’s cases and the instruction we received from Justice Department leaders in political positions to prioritize those cases on our dockets. Still, in that instance, once the political goal was set, the best way to accomplish the goal, and even its ongoing feasibility, was largely left to senior staff in the agency with operational expertise to implement or to ultimately advise superiors that a different course of action might be needed. Now, very often both the political and the operational decisions down to the smallest details are dictated from above. For example, even my emails and communications to staff were edited from above. Aside from the very questionable advisability of having operational determinations made by persons with no operational expertise, this approach subjects the court process to claims that it is not neutrally deciding cases but instead deciding cases in the manner that political leaders would like.

Until recently, I had never really thought very hard about an Article I court for immigration cases. I thought that the line between politics and neutral adjudication was being walked. There was no major concern from my perspective about EOIR managers navigating that line. Now, the level of impact of political decisions is so extraordinary that I wonder whether we do need to remove the immigration courts from the Department of Justice. I’ve just started to seriously consider the validity of this idea and I need to do more research and thinking about it. The American Bar Association’s recommendations are very persuasive and of significant interest to me. Before, I would not have thought it necessary.

Of course, moving the Immigration Courts to Article I status would not solve all our problems, but it could free us from some of the questions that have been raised over the years about politicized hiring, how cases are being politically prioritized, and whether that is appropriate for a court.

Another large change came in our ability to talk to those we serve. To best function, you have to talk to stakeholders on both sides: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the private bar/respondents. This used to be standard procedure in past administrations, and it was done at both the upper and ground levels. Recently, such conversations were much more limited, and took place primarily at higher levels, often above my position and that of my Deputies. This change was touted as a way to streamline the Agency’s messaging system, but cutting off other forms of communication is detrimental, and I think EOIR has been hampered by our inability to talk at different levels to stakeholders.

We previously had a great relationship with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”). For example, when I was working on conduct and professionalism for Immigration Judges, AILA was a great help. At the time, AILA’s message was the same as our message (poor conduct of adjudicators and representatives should be addressed), and we successfully partnered for a long time. Similarly, the CIJ previously had regular interactions with DHS’s Principal Legal Advisor and others in the DHS management chain, but that is no longer the case. Another change to the management structure that I believe was ill-advised was abolishing the “portfolio” ACIJs who bore targeted responsibility for several very important subjects to immigration court management: Judge conduct and professionalism, training, and vulnerable populations. In my experience, having officials whose specialized function was to oversee programs in these areas increased the integrity, accessibility, credibility, and efficiency of the court.

Asylumist: While you were CIJ, EOIR implemented quotas. IJs are now supposed to complete 700 cases per year. Can you comment on this?

Judge Keller: Many different court systems have performance goals and I am generally in favor of those. But the question is, How do you establish and implement them? Are you consulting the managers and IJs about it? How do you come up with the goals? Should they be uniform across the courts? The current requirements were not developed by me or my management team. Numeric expectations alone are not going to fix things. Timeliness is more important in my view than specific numbers. Moreover, the way that the emphasis is being placed on these numbers now sends the wrong message to both the parties and our judges and court staff. Also, court staff and stakeholders would more likely buy into such a change if they understood how the goal was developed, and why. My experience is that IJs are generally over-achievers and they want to do well and will meet or exceed any goals you set. In my view, completing 700 cases may be an appropriate expectation for some judges and dockets, and might be too high or even too low for others. Courts, dockets, and cases are vastly different from the southern border to the Pacific Northwest to the bigger cities, so I’m not sure about a one-size-fits-all approach.

Asylumist: What about the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Can you comment on the effectiveness or efficacy of this program?

Judge Keller: The MPP began right before I left EOIR. In the MPP, as with all dockets, the role of the immigration court is simply to hear and resolve the cases that DHS files, but there were and still are, many legal and procedural concerns about the program. For example, what is the status of a person when they come across the border for their hearing, are they detained or not? Also, there were significant practical considerations. If you bring people across the border and plan to use trailers or tents for hearings, you need lines for IT equipment, air conditioning, water, bathrooms, etc. All that needs to be taken care of well in advance and is a huge undertaking. My impression of the MPP was that it was a political policy decision, which, even if an appropriate DHS exercise, is evidence of how asking the court to prioritize political desires impacts the overall efficiency of the court. The resources it required us to commit in terms of planning, and the resources it took away from the remaining existing caseload will likely contribute to further delay in other cases.

Asylumist: According to press reports, you and two other senior EOIR officials–all three of you women–were forced out in June 2019. What happened? Why did you leave?

Judge Keller: Unless there is something I don’t know about my two colleagues, none of us was forced out. I was not. We could have stayed in our same roles if we had chosen to do so. At the same time, I would not necessarily say that our departures were completely coincidental. I do know that the nature of our jobs had changed considerably.

For me, the previous level of responsibility was no longer there, and I did not have the latitude to lead the OCIJ workforce. My experience and management skills were not being used and I was mostly implementing directives. Any time three experienced, high-level executives depart an agency, there should be cause for concern. The fact that we were all women certainly raises a question, but EOIR has always been pretty progressive in that regard. Nevertheless, appropriate equal respect for women in the workplace is something that unfortunately still needs attention everywhere.

Leaving EOIR was a hard decision for me to make, and I think it was a big loss for EOIR that all three of us chose to exit.

The politicization of the court was also a concern for me. Historically, the Director of EOIR was always a career SES appointee, not a political SES. I viewed that as critically important, symbolically and practically, for a court system, especially one like the immigration court within the Executive Branch. Director James McHenry is in a career Senior Executive position. However, his path to the position was through the new Administration, which had detailed him from his position as a relatively new Administrative Law Judge to Main DOJ as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for a while before he became the Director. It appears that the large majority of his career otherwise was at DHS in non-managerial positions.

Successfully overseeing or managing an organization the size of EOIR with all of its challenges today would be difficult even for a seasoned executive with a lot of management experience.

The question at this time for EOIR is, How does your mission of fair adjudication of immigration cases fit within the broader immigration goals of the government? It takes deft and nuanced management to ensure the integrity of a court of independent decision-makers while maintaining responsiveness to political leaders. A good manager listens to people with expertise and is skilled at motivating others, getting the most from each employee, developing well-thought-out operational plans to reach policy goals, and even changing course if necessary. Under Director McHenry, the advice of the agency’s career executives was often not even solicited, and did not appear to be valued. His approach caused many to question the soundness of his operational decisions, and his commitment to the mission of the court, as opposed to accommodating the prosecutorial goals of DHS. I didn’t think there was as much focus on improving how we heard cases, as there was on meeting numeric goals and adjusting to the priorities of the DHS.

Asylumist: The BIA recently added six new members. All are sitting IJs and all had lower than average asylum approval rates. Do you know how these IJs were selected? What was the process?

Judge Keller: This was stunning. I can’t imagine that the pool of applicants was such that only IJs would be hired, including two from the same city. I think IJs are generally eminently qualified to be Board Members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that. At both the courts and the BIA, we used to get applicants for judge positions from academia, the private sector, BIA, and other governmental entities. More recently, we also had experienced judges and adjudicators from various other administrative systems, the military, and state and local courts applying to be IJs. I find these recent BIA hires to be very unusual.

I do not know the process for selection, but suspect that Board Chairman David Neal* had minimal input into these hires. I find this scenario very odd.

* Note: Since this interview took place, the Chairman of the BIA, David Neal, left his position and retired from the federal government. Before serving as Chairman of the BIA, David Neal held many other leadership positions at EOIR over many years, including the Vice-Chairman of the BIA and Chief Immigration Judge.

Asylumist: EOIR has made some moves to decertify the IJ union. Do you know why? What do you think about this?

Judge Keller: This happened after I left, but of course, it is easier to run an organization without people questioning you. Good managers recognize that you want opposing viewpoints. Maybe I am biased because I was a union officer, but I was also a manager longer than I was a union leader, and I’ve seen both sides. When I first learned that attorneys and judges were unionized, I was surprised, but I have seen the value of that. As a manager, the union is a great source of information. There are inherent conflicts between management and any union, but the union often has goals similar to those of management. The relationship between a union and management must be carefully developed, managed, and maintained. In the end, I felt it was worth the extra effort.

Now, I think management is more comfortable without public questions. I think decertifying is a mistake, particularly now when there are so many other changes that demand focus.

Asylumist: When he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions gave a speech to EOIR where he claimed that most asylum cases were fake. This is also a line we frequently hear from the Trump Administration. What was your opinion of that speech?

Judge Keller: I think you may be referring to a press conference the Attorney General held at EOIR in October 2017. In a speech that day, the Attorney General said that the asylum system was “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” That was disheartening. Fraud is not a factor in the large majority of cases. We know about fraud and we have been dealing with it probably since the inception of the immigration court. But it is not true that overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers are coming to immigration court trying to fraudulently obtain benefits. Whether the majority of their claims ultimately lack merit is a different question. But it is the very fact that we have a robust system to examine and decide asylum claims that makes our country a role model to others. I do not think statements like that made by the Attorney General are helpful to the court’s credibility. If IJs had that speech in mind in court, they would be labeled as biased, and bias is not a good thing for a judge or a court.

For the current Administration, I think there is an underlying skepticism about the extent to which the system is being manipulated. The process is indeed imperfect. But if you think that there are inappropriate “loopholes,” then we need to fix the law or the process. That is why comprehensive, or at least extensive, immigration reform has been discussed for so long. The Attorney General articulated some potential improvements he wanted to make, but also unfortunately focused in that speech on fraud and abuse, as if it was a problem greater than I believe it is.

When I would give my speech to new IJs, I would tell them that they would see the best and the worst of human nature in immigration court. As an IJ, you see persecutors and those who were persecuted; courageous individuals and liars. It is a huge responsibility. Therefore, you can’t go into court as an IJ and be thinking either that everyone is telling the truth, or that everyone is manipulating the process. You have to have an open, yet critical mind. It seems to me that Attorney General Sessions did not have a full appreciation for our particular role. This again brings us back to the idea of an Article I court, or some other solution to solidify the independence of immigration court adjudicators.

Asylumist: What do you think should be done about asylum-decision disparities? Does something need to be done?

Judge Keller: Yes. I think that asylum decision disparities should be evaluated by immigration court managers as they may be a sign of an underlying problem that may need to be addressed. However, I do not believe that they can or should be entirely eliminated.

If a judge is significantly out of line with his or her colleagues in the local court, it might be a red flag. Sometimes, simple things impact grant rates. For example, did the IJ miss some training in a particular area and is that affecting the grant rate? Is the judge assigned or does a court have a docket that by its nature (detained, criminal) will result in a higher or lower grant rate? Court managers should be alert to and manage those issues.

We’ve been looking at this issue for a long time. I remember talking about it with many EOIR leaders and judges over the last 10 years. But each case is different from the next and you don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers. Decisions on such important human matters should be made by people who know the legal requirements, and can exercise sound judgment.

One way we thought about addressing seemingly significant disparities was temporarily assigning IJs with high or low grant rates to courts where the grant rates are different. Sometimes, the best way to evaluate your own opinions is to think through them with people who have different views. The hope was that judges would have the time and opportunity to reflect on their approach to asylum.

Once, former Director Osuna and I went to Chicago to visit the judges of the Seventh Circuit, which was at the time highly critical of our judges. We met with several of the Circuit Judges and talked about many things, including disparities in immigration court. We explained our approach to disparities, namely, addressing training needs, addressing any inappropriate conduct via discipline, and improving resources. One of the Circuit Judges mentioned that he was appreciative of our approach, and suspected that if anyone looked at it, there are probably similar disparities at the circuit court level too. As long as human beings are deciding immigration cases, there will always be some disparities. However, significant disparities should be evaluated and action taken only if the disparity is the result of something inappropriate, that is, something other than the proper exercise of independent legal judgment.

Asylumist: What is your hope for the future of EOIR?

Judge Keller: I hope EOIR can hold onto its core focus of hearing and deciding cases fairly and impartially. I also hope that the parties in the process know that we are listening to them. Parties in any court should feel that they’ve received a fair shake and a fair decision. They should understand the reasons why their cases were decided a certain way, and should not have to wait for years to get resolution. That is our reason for being – to deliver that service.

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

Sorry, MaryBeth, but for many of the reasons you so cogently point out, the “EOIR we once knew” is gone forever. You have accurately described the “maliciously incompetent” politicized mis-management that has put EOIR “at war” with its sole Due Process mission, with migrants, particularly targeting the most vulnerable asylum applicants, and with the courageous lawyers trying to represent them in an intentionally hostile environment.

The good news is that the New Due Process Army will eventually win this war, and that EOIR will be abolished and replaced by an independent court system focused on Due Process and incorporating the values of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork.

PWS

10-16-19

WELCOME TO A NEW BRIGADE OF THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY: Justice Action Center! — Litigate, Litigate, Litigate — Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Karen Tumlin
Founder
Justice Action Center

Karen Tumlin, Founder

Karen Tumlin is a nationally recognized impact litigator focusing on immigrants’ rights. She successfully litigated numerous cases of national significance, including a challenge to the Trump Administration’s effort to end the DACA program and the Muslim Ban, as well as the constitutional challenge to Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. She formerly served as the Director of Legal Strategy and Legal Director for the National Immigration Law Center, where she built a legal department of over 15 staff who developed and led cases of national impact.

Contact Karen: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org

https://justiceactioncenter.org/

A Brief Description of JAC

Justice Action Center is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. There is tremendous unmet need in the litigation landscape for immigrant communities. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to bear to address unmet needs in currently underserved areas. There is also untapped potential in how litigation can be combined with digital strategies to empower clients and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants. Communications content around litigation that focuses primarily on putting forward legal voices to talk about immigrants does not have the same authentic voice as putting forward immigrants as the protagonists. JAC will focus on the creation of original content that amplifies immigrant voices. We believe that real change will come only when a larger base of supporters are activated on immigration issues—only then will courthouse wins pave the way for lasting change. JAC will partner with direct service providers and organizers to leverage the power of the existing landscape of immigrants’ rights organizations and also to fill in holes where impact litigation should be brought (but currently isn’t), or where communications and digital expertise could help reshape the narrative around immigration and immigrants.

The Problem

Urgent, Unmet Legal Need in the Immigrants’ Rights Field

Impact litigation has been an essential tool in blunting the Trump administration’s abuses against immigrants—but capacities are stretched thin and deployed unevenly. As a result, important civil rights abuses are going unchallenged.

Lawsuits attract media attention at key moments, but little planning is done to drive the narrative. Deliberate, client-driven communications plans are needed to maximize these moments to engage new audiences on immigration

Unequal Treatment

Precious impact litigation resources are currently being spread unevenly. While there is a deep bench of attorneys ready to take on high-profile issues, such as the termination of DACA or the latest asylum ban, other issues appear to have no legal advocacy. Examples include the massive worksite raids in underserved states such as Ohio and Texas or the severe abuses immigrants face in the nation’s vast detention system.

Underrepresented in Digital Media

There is a paucity of original, immigrant-centered digital content. The nation’s narrative no longer has to be set only by policymakers—it can be shaped by everyday people, including immigrants. We have not harnessed the power of the current digital landscape to promote pro-immigrant messages and engage new audiences.

JAC’s Solutions

1. Litigate on topics and in locations of unmet need.

2. Create original, immigrant-centered content designed to activate new audiences

3. Partner with direct services providers and organizers to elevate movement impact.

Get Involved

You can be part of helping build Justice Action Center.

Donate to Justice Action Center’s first year now.

Donate

Home
About

Who
Donate
Contact Us

Subscribe for JAC Updates

First Name

Last Name

Email (required) *

Constant Contact Use.

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

Welcome Karen and the JAC to the fight for Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency! Nothing less than the survival of our nation, and perhaps civilization, is at stake here!

The litigation angle is so critically important to this all-out war! The Federal Appellate Courts, and particularly the Supremes, have been largely complicit in Trump’s White Nationalist attack on the Rule of Law. There is no excuse whatsoever for the continuing unconstitutional outrages against individuals being committed by a biased Immigration Court System unlawfully controlled by biased and corrupt politicos.

Would a Federal Appellate Court Judge or a Supreme Court Justice agree to be tried for his or her life in a “court” before “judges” controlled by their prosecutor? Of course not! So why is it “Constitutionally OK” for asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals to be “tried” (often without lawyers or even “in absentia”) by “judges” controlled by Trump, Barr, and indirectly McAleenan? Why it “Constitutionally OK” for individuals whose only “crime” is asserting their legal rights to be detained indefinitely (sometimes until death) in conditions that would be held unconstitutional in an eyeblink if applied to convicted criminals?

Think I’m making this up? Check out he dissent by Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) in Barr v. East Side Sanctuary Covenant. There, seven of her spineless colleagues didn’t even bother to justify their decision lifting a lower court stay of a grotesque attack by the Trump Administration on the legal rights (and lives) of asylum seekers that violated the Constitution, a host of statutes and regulations, and international standards. Not only that, but it also enables a lawless Solicitor General to continue to cynically “short-circuit” the legal system and go directly to what Trump and his followers (contemptuously, but apparently correctly) believe to be a thoroughly compromised Supreme Court. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/11/supreme-tank-complicit-court-ends-u-s-asylum-protections-by-7-2-vote-endorses-trumps-white-nationalist-racist-attack-on-human-rights-eradication-of-refugee-act-of-1980/

These consequences aren’t “academic.” Innocent individuals, including children, will die, be tortured, or have their lives ruined by the Supremes’ abdication of duty and abandonment of human decency. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/20/profile-in-judicial-cowardice-article-iiis-dereliction-of-duty-leaves-brave-asylum-applicants-and-their-courageous-attorneys-defenseless-against-racist-onslaught-by-trump-administration/.

Undoubtedly energized by this exercise in “Supreme Complicity,” the Trump Administration has released a dizzying barrage of new attacks on the legal rights and humanity of migrants of all types, from asylum seekers to green card holders and immigrant visa applicants, in the weeks following East Side Sanctuary.

Or, check out this dissenting statement of Eleventh Circuit Judge Adelberto Jose Jordan in Diaz-Rivas v. U.S. Att’y Gen.:

In my view, Ms. Diaz-Rivas’ statistics—showing that from 2014 through 2016 asylum applicants outside of Atlanta’s immigration court were approximately 23 times more likely to succeed than asylum applicants in Atlanta—are disquieting and merit further inquiry by the BIA. See City of Miami, 614 F.2d at 1339. If these statistics pertained to a federal district court, the Administrative Office would begin an investigation in a heartbeat.

So what’s the result of the Eleventh Circuit majority’s cowardly abandonment of the Fifth Amendment? In a spectacular “in your face” move undoubtedly meant to play on the spineless response of the Eleventh Circuit to the “Asylum Free Zone” created in the Atlanta Immigration Court, Billy Barr actually promoted two of the Atlanta judges with the highest asylum denial rates, renowned for their rude and disrespectful treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers, to the Board of Immigration Appeals as part of his “court packing scheme” to promote worst practices and anti-asylum bias.

In other words, as a consequence of the Eleventh Circuit’s spineless complicity in the face of clear Due Process violations, these unqualified judges have now been empowered to abuse and refuse asylum applicants from coast to coast. Judicial corruption and complicity has real human life consequences for those trying to just survive below the “radar screen” of exalted overprivileged Ivory Tower Federal Appellate Judges.

The Ninth Circuit’s illegal “greenlighting” of the deadly “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” program in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan is another egregious example of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges abandoning their oaths of office (and writing complete legal gibberish, to boot).https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/05/07/fractured-9th-gives-go-ahead-to-remain-in-mexico-program-immigration-law-lab-v-mcaleenan/.

Every time an Appellate Judge signs off on a removal order produced without a fair and impartial adjudication in the unconstitutional Immigration Courts he or she is violating their oath of office. We’ve had enough! Why have life-tenured judges if they won’t stand up for our individual rights? It’s time to put an end to this cowardly judicial complicity in violation of our fundamental Constitutional rights (not to mention a host of statutory and regulatory violations that go unchecked in Immigration Courts every day).

That’s where the “5 C’s” come into play: Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

At the same time, make an historical record of those judges who “stood small” in the face of Trump’s vicious and corrupt assault on our Constitution and our democratic institutions, not to mention the lives and well-being of vulnerable migrants!

PWS

10-05-19

COMPLICIT SUPREMES & 9TH CIRCUIT HELP TRUMP & “BIG MAC WITH LIES” ABUSE ASYLUM SEEKERS IN MEXICO — “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” Is A Disgrace Enabled By Judges Who Have Abandoned Humanity & Rule Of Law By Failing To Protect The Legal & Human Rights Of Asylum Seekers! — History Will Remember Those Judges Who “Stood Small” Against Trump’s Neo-Nazi Authoritarian State!

https://apple.news/AfIK6simhS6q_vgKolp3lYA

Jonathan Blitzer writes in the New Yorker:

Dispatch

How the U.S. Asylum System Is Keeping Migrants at Risk in Mexico

Under a Trump Administration policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols, asylum seekers are forced to wait in dangerous border towns for court proceedings that can drag on for months.

The Pan de Vida migrant shelter, in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, which houses two hundred asylum seekers in a cluster of yellow cabins, is a half-hour drive from the nearest port of entry, in downtown El Paso. The surrounding streets are bare and unpaved, with a few small houses made of cinder block dotting the roadside. When I visited, on a sweltering afternoon in August, none of the residents I met were comfortable going outside, not even in broad daylight. “It’s just too dangerous,” Denis, a thirty-eight-year-old from Honduras, who was with his daughter and son, ages thirteen and seven, told me. A few nights earlier, he said, a truck full of armed men in masks circled the grounds of the shelter a few times, and then left. No one knew who they were, what they were looking for, or when they might return.

Denis was especially nervous. A few months earlier, his wife had left the city of San Pedro Sula with the couple’s two other children, including the eldest, who, at seventeen, was being targeted to join a local gang; after he resisted, gang members began threatening the entire family. Denis stayed behind to earn a bit more money before following with the couple’s other children. His wife arrived at a port of entry in El Paso, and immigration agents allowed her and the children to enter the U.S. while their asylum case was pending. Denis planned to use the same process. But, shortly after he and the two children reached Juárez, in mid-August, a group of local gangsters kidnapped them and held them for five days in an abandoned church on the outskirts of town. They eventually escaped and travelled directly to the U.S. border crossing. “It doesn’t make sense to try to cross illegally,” he told me. “The smugglers will just take your money and then abandon you.”

By the time they arrived in El Paso, the asylum process had changed: Denis and his children were briefly detained, given a court date in December, and then sent back to Mexico to wait, under a U.S. policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols (M.P.P.). For Central Americans trying to obtain asylum in the U.S., M.P.P. now requires them to remain in Mexico for the duration of their legal proceedings, which can last several months. When it’s time to appear before a U.S. immigration judge, asylum seekers must travel back to the port of entry and reënter custody; at the end of the day’s proceedings, they’re bused to Mexico, where they must remain until their next court date. Denis didn’t understand all the details, just that he and his family were being shunted back to the place where they’d been kidnapped days before. “I begged them. I said, ‘Put me in prison. Do anything to me, whatever you want. Just let my kids through,’ ” Denis told me. “My biggest fear is that in Mexico they’ll rape my daughter.”

Since M.P.P. went into effect, in January, in Tijuana, the Department of Homeland Security has extended it, city by city, to locations along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. In mid-March, it came to Mexicali and Juárez. In July, M.P.P. was instituted in the state of Tamaulipas, on the Gulf of Mexico, a stronghold for criminal cartels. Close to fifty thousand asylum seekers have now been returned to Mexico, where many of them have faced extreme levels of violence. On August 3rd, cartel members arrived at a shelter in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, demanding that the pastor in charge, Aarón Méndez, hand over a group of Cubans to be ransomed; when Méndez refused, he was abducted, and he hasn’t been seen since. Later in the summer, a few miles away, a dozen asylum seekers who’d just been returned to Mexico were promptly kidnapped. “The people in migration turned us over to the cartels,” one of the victims later told Vice News. “They know what they are doing. They don’t care if you’re killed or not.” According to an analysis by Human Rights First, there have already been three hundred and forty-three reported cases involving the rape, kidnapping, and violent assault of asylum seekers in the M.P.P. program.

Nearly everyone at Pan de Vida had been placed in M.P.P., including a few people who were no longer sure where they stood in the process. Gabriel, a Honduran who was sleeping in the same cabin as Denis, along with fifteen other people, retrieved a small slip of paper from his wallet, an artifact of the period before M.P.P. was instituted in the El Paso area. At the time, Customs and Border Protection agents “metered” migrants at the ports of entry, using an informal system in which migrants were given a number on a waiting list and told to come back when it was their turn. Since March, while asylum seekers from other countries continue on the wait-list protocol, Central Americans have had to go through M.P.P. Gabriel didn’t realize it, but the five-digit number on his slip of paper corresponded to the old system. The next time that he goes to the port of entry, he’ll be put into M.P.P., and the waiting will begin again.

The residential cabins at Pan de Vida are on the perimeter of a large, dusty plot, where a makeshift soccer pitch and playground are hemmed in by a border made of rubber tires. A mess hall with an open kitchen and long tables sits at the front of the compound. Outside, a weathered blue pickup truck was filled with trash bags, which the shelter’s director would soon drive to a nearby dump. I was walking back to the mess hall, preparing to leave, when two women approached me from one of the cabins. “Don’t you want to talk to us, too?” one of them asked. Her name was Dilcea. She was from Honduras and was travelling with her twelve-year-old son, Anthony. The two had been in Juárez since June and had their first court hearing in mid-August. “There were so many people in the courtroom that I wasn’t given a chance to say anything to the judge,” she said. She had wanted to explain to him that she had diabetes and was running out of insulin.

The other woman, Betty, was from Guatemala City. Her seventeen-year-old daughter, Marielos, followed quietly behind her. After arriving, in early August, the two of them had been given a court date for late October, but they’d been robbed immediately after returning to Juárez. Betty had kept their court documents and identification in her purse, which was now gone. In theory, she could arrive early on the day of her court date and try to explain the situation to a border agent. But there was an added complication: without identification, how could she prove that she and her daughter were, in fact, related? Marielos would turn eighteen in September, making her a legal adult. Would the government treat her as a minor, based on when she first arrived at the border? Or was there a chance that the government would now split mother and daughter into two separate cases? The only consolation of their long wait to return to El Paso, Betty told me, was that they had some time to try to sort out what to do.

Criminal groups aren’t alone in targeting migrants. Earlier this summer, I spoke with a twenty-year-old woman from northern Honduras named Tania. In early April, she and her fourteen-year-old sister were separated at an El Paso port of entry. Her sister was sent to a children’s shelter run by the Department of Health and Human Services and eventually placed with their mother, who lives in Boston. Tania spent six days in detention in the U.S., in a frigid holding cell known among migrants as a hielera, before Mexican immigration agents picked her up and took her back across the border, into Mexico. They dropped her off at a migrant shelter that was already full. She roamed the streets, looking for another place to stay. Her tattered clothes and accent marked her as foreign, and her race—she’s black and belongs to an indigenous community called the Garifuna—led to several episodes of public abuse. “People would shout and spit at me when I was on the street,” she said. “If I sat down somewhere, people would get up and move away.”

She made it to her first court date, on May 15th, back in El Paso. Dozens of other asylum seekers were massed together in court; there were no lawyers present, and the judge read everyone their rights before sending them back to Mexico with a future court date. “People told me the whole legal proceeding was a lie, all the hearings and everything,” Tania said. Back in Mexico, she decided that it was pointless to wait any longer. She and another woman from Honduras hired a smuggler to help them cross into the U.S. Neither of the women realized it at the time, but the smuggler was in league with a cadre of Mexican federal policemen. For two nights, she and the other woman were driven to different stash houses along the border. On the last night before they expected to cross, they were taken to yet another house, where there were four other women and a group of armed men, including policemen in uniforms, keeping watch. That night, one of the policeman held a gun to Tania’s head and ordered her to perform oral sex on him. “I could hear the other women getting beat up in the background,” she said. Early the following morning, Tania and another woman were transported to a separate location, where they were repeatedly raped. A week passed before local authorities found them and took them to a hospital.

Migrant-rights advocates estimate that, to date, a dozen people have been granted asylum under M.P.P. The U.S. government has filed appeals in almost all of the cases. In September, the Department of Homeland Security opened two tent courts along the border, in Laredo and Brownsville, where as many as four hundred asylum seekers in M.P.P. can be processed each day. People who show up at ports of entry for their hearings will be sent directly to these makeshift courts, rather than to brick-and-mortar courthouses. The rationale behind this plan, according to a report in the Washington Post, is for U.S. authorities “to give asylum seekers access to the U.S. court system without giving them physical access to the United States.” Kevin McAleenan, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security, said, “We are bringing integrity to the system.”

The legality of M.P.P. has been challenged, most notably by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a case against it that came before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. Meanwhile, another recent development has further complicated the legal landscape. In September, the Supreme Court ruled to allow a new executive-branch regulation, which effectively ends asylum at the border, to remain in effect for the next several months while it goes through a separate series of court challenges. The ruling now makes it impossible for tens of thousands of migrants to obtain asylum when they reach the U.S., including those who are currently in Mexico under M.P.P. Anyone who arrived at the border after July 16th can only hope to seek what’s called “withholding of removal,” which protects individuals from being sent to countries where they’re likely to be persecuted or tortured. Such orders are more difficult to obtain than asylum, and confer significantly fewer legal benefits.

Judy Rabinovitz, the lead A.C.L.U. attorney challenging M.P.P., told me that the case raises two specific claims. The first is that the executive branch does not have the authority to forcibly return these asylum seekers to Mexico. The second is that, in doing so, the government is violating one of the most basic precepts of human-rights law: namely, the doctrine of non-refoulement, which prohibits any government from knowingly sending a refugee to a place where she will likely be persecuted. The new executive-branch regulations, Rabinovitz told me, “won’t change our case against M.P.P.” The main problem with M.P.P. was that the U.S. could not force migrants to wait in Mexico while they were going through their legal proceedings in the United States. She added, “Our concern is that people are being subjected to the risk of persecution and torture while in Mexico.”

Denis and his two children were unaware of the latest legal developments. One afternoon earlier this month, the three of them had grown restless at Pan de Vida and decided to walk to a supermarket a few hundred yards from the shelter, to get some ingredients for dinner. There, in the parking lot, they saw one of their kidnappers, standing next to a truck. “It’s hard when you’re foreign,” Denis said. “People look at you differently. I can’t just point him out to the police, and say, ‘There he is.’ Better just to thank God that nothing worse happened.” He steered his children back to the shelter and immediately began making arrangements to leave Juárez. A relative knew someone with a room in Monterrey, a less dangerous city around seven hundred miles south. They took a bus there a few days later. There were still two months before they were expected back in El Paso, for a preliminary hearing that typically lasts an hour.

The idea for M.P.P. originated in the White House, in July of 2018. At the time, the President’s family-separation policy was causing a national uproar, and top Trump Administration officials, who privately acknowledged the failure of the program’s implementation, responded by redoubling plans to increase enforcement efforts at the border. During a string of meetings held at C.B.P. headquarters, in Washington, the main concern, according to a person in attendance, was how the government could detain asylum seekers while they waited for their hearings before an immigration judge. The status quo, which the President lambasted as “catch and release,” allowed thousands of migrants to enter the country as their cases moved through the backlogged immigration-court system. To Trump and his senior adviser Stephen Miller, this practice was not only a legal “loophole” that immigrants could exploit but amounted to “open borders.”

What the Administration wanted most of all was a deal with Mexico known as a safe-third-country agreement, which would force migrants to apply for asylum in Mexico rather than in the U.S. For months, the Mexican government resisted. But, late last fall, discussions between the two countries turned to an alternative plan, which became known informally as Remain in Mexico. “This was the backup to the safe-third deal, when it became clear that the Mexican government wouldn’t agree to that deal,” the Administration official told me.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador had recently been elected as Mexico’s President, and his new administration was eager to avoid an immediate confrontation with the U.S. Officials within Mexico’s Interior Ministry, which included the National Immigration Institute and the Refugee Assistance Commission, were opposed to Remain in Mexico (later officially titled M.P.P.), citing a lack of resources and concerns about the welfare of asylum seekers. But López Obrador’s incoming team at the foreign office overruled them. When the agreement was announced, in December, “it was presented publicly, in Mexico, as a unilateral move made by the U.S.,” a Mexican official told me. “But there was already agreement on it.”

One morning last month, I visited another migrant shelter in Juárez, called Buen Pastor, a complex of squat white buildings arranged around a small square paved in asphalt and surrounded by iron gates. Juan Fierro, a pastor who runs the shelter, told me that the space was designed to accommodate sixty people. But in the past several months he had been housing between a hundred and a hundred and thirty migrants at a time. “The same day they announced M.P.P. was coming to Juárez, I got a call from Grupo Beta”—Mexican immigration agents—“asking me how many people I could take,” he said. Fierro has received no additional financial support from the Mexican government to deal with the influx. He was using recent donations from local residents and N.G.O.s to invest in the construction of a separate facility, across the street.

There are more than a dozen migrant shelters in Juárez, many of which are run by different church dioceses. Buen Pastor is smaller than Pan de Vida, but larger than some others, which range from actual facilities—with beds, showers, and dining areas—to church basements that can accommodate one or two families at a time. The city’s best known shelter, Casa del Migrante, is already at capacity. This summer, the municipal government announced a new plan, called the Juárez Initiative, to repurpose an old export factory, or maquiladora, as a holding station for asylum seekers who are returned under M.P.P.

Buen Pastor isn’t just holding migrants who are in M.P.P. When I visited, there was a large contingent of people from Uganda and a few Brazilians. None of them are covered by M.P.P., but they still face long waits in Juárez, because, each day, U.S. immigration agents are interviewing fewer asylum seekers at the ports of entry. One official at Customs and Border Protection told me that, in El Paso, M.P.P. was a significant cause of the delays. Customs, the official said, “is so damn busy with M.P.P. people coming back to the bridge. They have to get these M.P.P. groups in, because they have court dates.” When I met Fierro, at Buen Pastor, he told me that it had been several days since C.B.P. accepted anyone at the port of entry. Each morning, asylum seekers at the shelter would pack their bags and say goodbye to Fierro, expecting their numbers to be called, only to return later in the evening.

Originally, M.P.P. was meant for migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, the three countries in the region with the highest levels of emigration to the U.S. But, in June, after Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico if the country didn’t do more to limit the flow of migrants to the U.S., the program was expanded to cover anyone from a Spanish-speaking country. In Juárez, where growing numbers of Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans were already arriving, en route to the U.S., the result was further chaos. By the strict dictates of U.S. asylum law, which prioritizes cases involving specific forms of political and identity-based persecution, a large share of the Central American asylum seekers showing up at the border have weak legal claims. They’re often fleeing gang or domestic violence, or trying to outrun the brutal consequences of entrenched poverty, hunger, and political corruption. The cases of Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans fleeing authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, more often tend to meet the requirements for asylum laid out in U.S. law. But, as the Administration has overhauled the asylum system, even these migrants have struggled to file legal claims.

One morning, at Buen Pastor, a thirty-four-year-old teacher from Cuba named Dani Torres sat in the mess hall and watched as a group of children played with small toys. Back home, the country’s intelligence agency had tried to compel Torres and her sister to share information about their mother, who belonged to a political opposition group called the Damas en Blanco. Torres’s sister left for Panama, and Torres travelled through nine countries to reach the U.S. When she arrived in Juárez, in May, the port of entry was blocked because of metering. She was given a wait-list number: 18,795. She initially planned to wait her turn, but she changed her mind when she learned that M.P.P. was being expanded to include Cubans. “One day, I had a chance-cito and tried to cross the river,” she told me. Border Patrol agents immediately apprehended her and put her into M.P.P. At her first court hearing, she was determined to expedite her case. “A lot of people don’t know about the papers they need to bring, but I was ready,” she said. “I raised my hand and said, ‘I have my forms and my petition for asylum.’ ” Through a translator, the judge responded that she could bring them to her next hearing, which was scheduled for five months in the future.

Fierro keeps track of everyone’s court dates, on a spreadsheet on his desktop computer. Every Tuesday, at the Casa del Migrante, a fleet of buses leaves for Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, carrying asylum seekers who have given up and opted for what’s called “voluntary departure.” Those who have decided to leave Buen Pastor appear in yellow on Fierro’s sheet; when he showed it to me, they accounted for about a third of the names. From July to August, in Juárez alone, Mexican authorities bused more than five hundred and fifty asylum seekers back to Central America, according to one Mexican official. Thousands of others, in border cities from Tijuana to Matamoros, have likely left on their own.

From the standpoint of the Trump Administration, such high rates of attrition were a welcome by-product of a more overt aim: deterring future asylum seekers from making the trip north in the first place. Even before Trump took office, the Department of Homeland Security had developed a raft of policies known, collectively, as the Consequence Delivery System, which includes everything from prolonged detention to the use of criminal charges and the deliberate deportation of migrants to remote locations in their home countries. The idea was to make crossing the border so difficult that migrants stopped trying. “M.P.P. is the logical extension of the Consequence Delivery System,” one D.H.S. official told me. “By the logic of it, M.P.P. is the biggest deterrent of all.”

A flat white scar runs the length of Alejandra Zepol’s right forearm, the result of a knifing that she suffered at the hands of a schoolmate, nineteen years ago, when she first confessed that she was gay. She was fourteen at the time and living in southern Honduras. After the attack, which left her hospitalized for a month, Zepol never stayed anywhere in Honduras for more than a few years at a time, enduring a predictable cycle of threats, assaults, and acts of vandalism at each stop, once neighbors or friends found out about her sexual orientation. On a number of occasions, small businesses that she owned—a stationary store, a food cart—were boycotted, and she’d run out of money. Eventually, she met someone, and they moved in together in a small town in the western part of the country. For a while, they ran a restaurant and kept a low profile; to deflect suspicions, Zepol told people that she was living with her sister, and the two were careful never to be seen kissing or holding hands in public. Yet one day, in late 2018, a neighbor overheard one of their conversations, and news about the couple spread. A man broke into their house soon after, beating and raping Zepol’s partner before threatening to return and kill them both. Zepol’s partner fled first, to the U.S., where she had family. Once she arrived, she sent money to Zepol, so that she could make the trip, too. When Zepol arrived in Juárez, in mid-April, she was one of the first asylum seekers to be put into M.P.P.

“After I first made it to the port of entry, I was dropped off in Juárez at three in the morning,” she told me, in August. We were sitting in the office of a church, on the west side of Juárez, where Zepol had spent the previous several months. “I didn’t have money or a cell phone,” she recalled. “I didn’t know where to go. I didn’t trust anyone on the street. But then I saw this Honduran woman. She had two kids with her. I felt I could trust her, and I asked her where to go. She was the one who directed us to a shelter, and that’s how I got here.” Her lawyer, an El Pasoan named Linda Rivas, who joined us that morning, beamed. They were meeting to prepare for Zepol’s fourth and final court hearing, scheduled to take place in El Paso later that week, and both of them were nervously optimistic.

I’d heard from a few immigration lawyers in El Paso that Zepol’s case looked as if it could be the first one in West Texas to end in a grant of asylum since M.P.P. was instituted. El Paso is among the most difficult places in the country to win an asylum case, with rejection rates above ninety per cent. With M.P.P. in place, it’s become even harder to win asylum. Migrants who are forced to wait in Mexico are much less likely to find lawyers to represent them, and, even if they do, the dangers of living in Juárez, coupled with the complicated logistics of making it back to the port of entry to go to court, have led thousands of asylum seekers to miss their hearings, resulting in immediate deportation orders. Zepol, who met her lawyer through a nun at the church and got rides to the bridge every month to go to court, was comparatively lucky.

On the Friday before Labor Day, I received a text message from Rivas. “We actually went through almost five whole hours of testimony today,” she said. “She did amazing. She felt very comfortable telling the details of her story.” Still, the judge said he needed more time to make his decision and scheduled another hearing, in two weeks, to announce his verdict. This was where the mechanics of M.P.P. broke down: the system was not predicated on people winning their cases or even making it to an advanced stage in the proceedings. M.P.P. was conceived not as a way to streamline or improve the asylum process but as a way to keep asylum seekers from entering the U.S. As far as Rivas knew, they were in uncharted territory, at least in El Paso. Mexican authorities in Juárez were reluctant to accept someone who was so close to a final ruling, and D.H.S. refused to release her in the U.S. while she waited. “She’s in limbo,” Rivas said. Eventually, Zepol was transferred to ICE detention. A few weeks later, Rivas sent an update about Zepol’s case. The judge had reached a verdict—a denial.

Jonathan Blitzer is a staff writer at The New Yorker. Read more.

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

Visit the Holocaust Museum. See how the German Judiciary failed to stand up to Hitler.

The Article IIIs could preserve the Constitution and the rule of law, as well as save human lives. While lower Federal Court Judges have stood up, the Supremes and too many Courts of Appeals have gone “belly up” in the face of Trump’s blatant assault on American democracy.

This isn’t about “Presidential Power” or “conservative” or “liberal.” It’s about an unqualified, unstable individual out to destroy the nation with the help of corrupt, immoral (or in some cases amoral) officials on our public payroll. These aren’t legitimate legal debates. There is only one right side of history here. And, so far, the Supremes have been on the wrong side.

PWS

10-02-19

MEET THE PRESS: NAIJ President Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor & Others Appear @ National Press Club To Explain Need For Independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court In Light Of Trump Administration’s All-Out Assault On Due Process!

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

Dear NAIJ Members,

On Friday, September 27, 2019, the National Press Club (NPC) convened a Headliners “Newsmaker” Press Conference entitled “Immigration Courts in Crisis.” Moderated by NPC President and award-winning AP Washington Investigations Editor journalist Alison Fitzgerald Kodjak, the panel presentation explored sweeping and controversial changes in the nation’s Immigration Courts. The presentations were led by NAIJ President Ashley Tabaddor, followed by the ABA President Judy Perry Martinez, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Second Vice President Jeremy McKinney. The trio expressed broad consensus around key concerns undermining the independent decision making authority of Immigration Judges and compromising the integrity of the court.

Judge Tabaddor honed in on the specifics of how the decisional independence of judges and the independence of the court is under attack by the Department of Justice through their actions ranging from the imposition of unrealistic and unreasonable quotas and deadlines to the recent announced DOJ regulation, effective immediately, which collapsed into a single individual the role of the chief policy director with the role of the chief appellate judge. The EOIR Director was previously prohibited from engaging in any judicial role over cases because of the political nature of the position, but has now been given authority to interfere in individual cases, direct the result of cases, and to sit as an appellate judge over immigration judge decisions. Judge Tabaddor also reported on Friday’s filing of two unfair labor practice petitions against the Department of Justice with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The ULPs stem from the Agency’s efforts to decertify the Association under the guise of reclassifying the Immigration Judges as managers and policy-makers and its subsequent personal attacks on the Association leadership from the podium of the Department of Justice.

ABA President Perry Martinez (Judy) was a powerful voice on a number of important issues ranging from support for fair proceedings and the rule of law to the importance of effective representation for individuals in removal proceedings.

Finally, AILA Vice President McKinney (Jeremy) reported on the impact of the “tent” courts that have been shrouded in secrecy with wholly inadequate operational logistics related to attorney access. He said, “DHS not only has complete control over access to these facilities, but DHS also has complete control over attorney/client representation when migrants are on the U.S. side of the border.” He explained that the program creates insurmountable hurdles to attorney representation, and as a result, as of the end of June, only 1.2% of asylum seekers had been able to obtain counsel.

The three speakers were aligned in the NAIJ’s call for a lasting solution to these and other problems plaguing the Immigration Court system — legislative action to restructure the courts in a manner offering independence from the Department of Justice, and the creation of an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Several national and local news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, CNN, and others, were present and have reported on the event. To watch the press conference, see:

https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/RRowcRdtrK

For a sampling of the articles, please check out the NAIJ website at:

https://www.naij-usa.org/news

If you have any questions or comments, or if you would like to have copies of the ULPs or Judge Tabaddor’s remarks, please feel free to reach out to Judge Tabaddor directly atashleytabaddor@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Your NAIJ Executive Board

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

Keep up the fight!

Every day, the Trump Administration is further reducing the Immigration Courts to “Kangaroo Courts” while Congress and the Article IIIs shirk their respective duties to protect Due Process!

PWS

10-03-19

COURTS OF INJUSTICE: How Systemic Bias, Bad Precedents, Gross Mismanagement, & Poor Decision-Making Threaten Lives In Immigration Court — What Should Be “Slam Dunk” Grants Of Protection Are Literally “Litigated To Death” Adding To Backlogs While Mocking Justice! — Featuring Quotes From “Roundtable” Leader Hon. Jeffrey Chase!

Beth Fertig
Senior Reporter
Immigration, Courts, Legal
WNYC & The Gothamist

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog

https://gothamist.com/news/they-fled-gang-violence-and-domestic-abuse-nyc-immigration-judge-denied-them-asylum

Beth Fertig reports for WNYC:

They Fled Gang Violence And Domestic Abuse. An NYC Immigration Judge Denied Them Asylum

BY BETH FERTIG, WNYC

SEPT. 26, 2019 5:00 A.M.

Seventeen year-old Josue and his mom, Esperanza, were visibly drained. They had just spent more than four hours at their asylum trial inside an immigration court at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, answering questions from their attorney and a government lawyer. We are withholding their full names to protect their identities because they’re afraid.

“It was exhausting,” said Josue, whose angular haircut was neatly combed for the occasion. In Spanish, he told us the judge seemed nice but, “you feel bad if you don’t know if you are going to be allowed to stay or if you have to go.”

The teen and his mother crossed the U.S. border in California in the summer of 2018. At the time, a rising number of families were entering the country, and the Trump administration wanted to send a message to them by swiftly deporting those who don’t qualify for asylum. But immigration judges are so busy, they can take up to four years to rule on a case. In November, judges in New York and nine other cities were ordered to fast track family cases and complete them within a year.

This is how Esperanza and Josue wound up going to trial just 10 months after they arrived in the U.S. and moved to Brooklyn. They were lucky to find attorneys with Central American Legal Assistance, a nonprofit in Williamsburg that’s been representing people fleeing the troubled region since 1985.

Listen to reporter Beth Fertig’s WNYC story on Josue and Esperanza’s cases.

Play/Pause

Volume

EMBED

Winning asylum was never easy. But in 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions made it tougher for people like Josue and Esperanza when he issued his own ruling on an immigration case involving a woman from El Salvador who was a victim of domestic violence. He wrote: “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”

Immigration judges were bound to give heavy weight to that ruling. Their courts are run by the Department of Justice, whose boss is the Attorney General. And the AG’s boss, President Trump, frequently asserts that too many migrants lie about being threatened by gangs when they’re just coming for jobs. “It’s a big fat con job, folks,” he said at a Michigan rally this year.

Esperanza and Josue went to court soon after Sessions’ decision. She was fighting for asylum as a victim of domestic abuse; Josue claimed a gang threatened his life. Both would eventually lose their cases.

Josue’s case

Esperanza and Josue are typical of the Central American families seeking asylum these days, who say they’re escaping vicious drug gangs, violence and grinding poverty. The two of them came from a town outside San Pedro Sula, one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

During their trial, Josue testified under oath about how gang members repeatedly approached him outside his high school, asking him to sell drugs to the other students. He tried to ignore them, and gave different excuses for resisting, until one day when they spotted him playing soccer and became more aggressive. That’s when he said the gang leader put a gun in his face.

“He told me that if I didn’t accept what he wanted he was going to kill my whole family, my mother and sister,” he said, through a Spanish interpreter.

“I was in shock,” he said. “I had no other choice to accept and said yes.”

He told his mother and they left Honduras the next day. When Josue’s lawyer, Katherine Madison, asked if he ever reported the threat to the police he said no. “That was practically a suicide,” he said, explaining that the police are tied to the gang, because it has so much power.

Josue said his older sister later moved to Mexico because she was so afraid of the gang.

Winning asylum is a two-step process. You have to prove that you were persecuted, and that this persecution was on account of your race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Madison, Josue’s attorney, argued that in Honduras, defying gangs is a risky political statement.

“They function in many ways as the de facto government of the areas where people like Josue lived,” she told WNYC/Gothamist, summing up the arguments she submitted to the judge. “They make rules. They charge basically taxes, they say who can live there and who can’t.”

And they’re known to kill people who don’t obey.

In her ruling, issued in August, Immigration Judge Oshea Spencer found Josue did experience persecution. But she denied his application for asylum. She said much of what he described “were threats and harm that exist as part of the larger criminal enterprise of the gangs in Honduras and not on the basis of any actual or perceived opposition to the gangs.”

Esperanza’s case

Esperanza’s attorney argued that her life was at risk because the gang member threatened Josue’s family. But Spencer didn’t find that specific enough. She wrote that the gang members “were motivated by their efforts to expand their drug trade, not the family relationship.” Among other cases, she referred to a recent decision by the current Attorney General, William Barr, that makes it harder for the relatives of someone who’s been threatened to win asylum.

Esperanza also lost on a separate claim that she deserved asylum because she was repeatedly beaten by Josue’s father. In court, she testified about years of abuse culminating in an incident in which he chased her with a machete. She said she couldn’t get the police to issue a restraining order, and said he kept threatening her after she moved to another town to stay with relatives.

Madison argued that women like Esperanza belong to a persecuted social group: they can’t get help from the authorities in Honduras because they’re viewed as a man’s property. The country is one of the deadliest places to be a woman; police are known to ignore complaints; and it’s extremely hard for women to get justice.

But Spencer ruled that there is no persecuted social group made up of “Honduran women who are viewed as property” for being in a domestic relationship.

Echoing the Sessions’ ruling, the judge said these categories “all lack sufficient particularity,” and called them “amorphous” because they could be made up of a “potentially large and diffuse segment of society.”

She also cited evidence submitted by the government that showed conditions in Honduras are improving for women. This evidence came from a 2018 State Department report on human rights in Honduras. Immigration advocates claim it’s been watered down from the much harsher conditions described in the last report from 2016. It’s also much shorter in length.

Jeffrey Chase, an immigration lawyer and former New York immigration judge, said it’s not surprising that Esperanza and Josue would each lose asylum. Judge Spencer only started last fall and is on probation for her first two years in the job.

“This was decided by a brand new judge who didn’t have any immigration experience prior to becoming an immigration judge,” he said, referring to the fact that Spencer was previously an attorney with the Public Utility Commission of Texas. He said she went through training which, “These days, includes being told that we don’t consider these to be really good cases.”

Sitting judges don’t talk to the media but Chase noted that they must consider the facts of each individual case, meaning the former Attorney General’s ruling doesn’t apply to all cases. He noted that some women who were victims of abuse are still winning asylum. He pointed to a case involving a Guatemalan woman who was raped by her boss. A Texas immigration judge found she did fit into a particular social group as a woman who defied gender norms, by taking a job normally held by a man.

During Josue and Esperanza’s trial, there was a lot of back and forth over their individual claims. A trial attorney from Immigration and Customs Enforcement questioned why Esperanza didn’t contact the police again after moving to another town, where she said her former partner continued to threaten her. Esperanza said it was because her brother chased him away and the police “don’t pay attention to you.”

The ICE attorney also asked Josue if his father was physically violent with anyone besides Esperanza. Josue said he did fight with other men. San Diego immigration lawyer Anna Hysell, who was previously an ICE trial attorney, said that could have hurt Esperanza’s case.

“The government was able to make the arguments that he didn’t target her because of being a woman that was in his relationship,” she explained. “He just was probably a terrible person and targeted many people.”

Hysell added that this was just her analysis and she wasn’t agreeing with the decision.

Attorney Anne Pilsbury said she believes Esperanza would have won her case, prior to the asylum ruling by Sessions, because she suffered years of abuse. But she said Josue would have had a more difficult time because gang cases were always tough. And like a lot of migrants, Josue had no evidence — he was too afraid to go to the cops. Pilsbury said immigration judges are even more skeptical now of gang cases.

“They’re getting so that they won’t even think about them,” she said. “They aren’t wrestling with the facts. They’re hearing gang violence and that’s it.”

She said Judge Spencer does sometimes grant asylum, and isn’t as harsh as other new judges. New York City’s immigration court used to be one of the most favorable places for asylum seekers. In 2016, 84 percent of asylum cases were granted. Today, that figure has fallen to 57 percent, according to TRAC at Syracuse University. Meanwhile, the government is forcing migrants to wait in Mexico for their immigration court cases or seek asylum in other countries before applying in the U.S., as the national backlog of cases exceeds one million.

Pilsbury, who founded Central American Legal Assistance in 1985, said immigration courts are now dealing with the result of a regional crisis south of the border that’s never been properly addressed since the wars of the 1980s.

“The anti-immigrant people feel it’s broken because people get to come here and ask for asylum and we feel it’s broken because people’s asylum applications aren’t seriously considered,” she explained. “We should be doing more to understand what’s going on in those countries and what we can do to help them address the chronic problems.”

Esperanza and Josue’s cases will now be appealed. Madison said she believes the judge ignored some of her evidence about gangs. She’s now turning to the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, it’s also controlled by the Justice Department — meaning the odds of getting a reversal are slim. If they lose again, the family can go to a federal circuit court which may have a broader definition of who’s eligible for asylum.

But Esperanza and Josue won’t be deported as long as their case is being appealed. On a late summer day, they seemed relaxed while sitting in a Brooklyn park. Esperanza talked about how happy she is that Josue is safe at his public high school, and can even ride a bike at night with his friends.

“He goes out and I’m always trusting the Father that just as he goes out, he comes back,” she said.

Even if they knew they would lose their asylum case, both said they still would have come to the U.S. because the risk of staying in Honduras was too great. Josue said the gang would definitely find him if he ever returned because their networks are so deep throughout the country. He’s now taking the long view. He knows there will be a Presidential election next year.

“It’s like a game of chess,” Josue said. “Any mindset can change at any moment. Maybe Trump changes his mind or maybe not. But I would have always made the decision to come.”

With translation assistance from Alexandra Feldhausen, Lidia Hernández-Tapia and Andrés O’Hara.

Beth Fertig is a senior reporter covering immigration, courts and legal affairs at WNYC. You can follow her on Twitter at @bethfertig.

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

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this posting incorrectly identified Beth’s network affiliation. She reports for WNYC.

By clicking on the link at the top and going to Beth’s article on The Gothamist, you will be able to get a link to the original WNYC audio broadcast of this story.

It’s not “rocket science.” Better, fairer outcomes were available that would have fulfilled, rather than mocked, our obligation to provide Due Process and protection under our own laws and international treaties.

Here’s how:

Esperanza’s claim is a clear asylum grant for “Honduran women” which is both a “particular social group” (“PSG”) and a persecuted group in Honduras that the government is unwilling or unable to protect.
- Here’s a much better recent decision along those lines from Judge Howard Hom of the same Immigration Court granting a very similar case based on the PSG of “Guatemanlan women.” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/19/the-good-news-gender-based-asylum-claims-continue-to-win-in-the-post-a-b-era-the-bad-news-applicants-subjected-to-let-em-die-in-mexico-compl/
Although the last two Administrations have intentionally twisted the law against Central American asylum seekers, Josue has a clear case for asylum as somebody for whom opposition to gang violence was an “imputed political opinion” that was “at least one central reason” for the persecution. See, e.g, https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/6/3/3rd-generation-gangs-and-political-opinion.
In any event, on this record, Josue clearly showed that he faced a probability of torture by gangs with the acquiescence of the Honduran government, and therefore should have been granted mandatory protection by the Immigration Judge under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”).
The Immigration Judge’s assertion that things are getting better for women in Honduras, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for women where femicide is rampant, not only badly misapplies the legal standard (“fundamentally changed conditions that would eliminate any well founded fear”) but is also totally disingenuous as a factual matter. See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/05/opinion/honduras-women-murders.html.
Additionally, Honduras remains in a state of armed conflict. See, e.g., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23740973.2019.1603972?needAccess=true. Under an honest Government, granting TPS to Hondurans (as well as Salvadorans and Guatemalans affected by environmental disasters heightened by climate change) would be more than justified.
Under honest Government following the rule of law, well-documented cases like this one could be quickly granted by the USCIS Asylum Officer or granted on stipulation in short hearings in Immigration Court. Many more Central Americans could be granted CAT relief, TPS, or screened and approved for asylum abroad. They could thereby be kept off of Immigraton Court dockets altogether or dealt with promptly on “short dockets” without compromising anybody’s statutory or constitutional rights (compromising individual rights is a “specialty” of all the mostly ineffective “enforcement gimmicks” advanced by the Trump Administration).
Over time, the overwhelming self-inflicted Immigration Court backlogs caused by the Trump Administration’s “maliciously incompetent” administration of immigration laws (e.g., “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) would be greatly reduced.
- That, in turn, would allow the Immigration Courts to deal with cases on a more realistic timeline that would both aid rational, non-White-Nationalist immigration enforcement and provide real justice for those seeking protection under our legal system.
As I’ve said before, it’s not “rocket science.” All it would take is more honest and enlightened Government committed to Due Process, good court management, and an appropriate legal application of laws relating to refugees and other forms of protection. I doubt that it would cost as much as all of the bogus “enforcement only gimmicks” now being pursued by Trump as part of his racist, anti-migrant, anti-Hispanic agenda.
Poor judicial decision making, as well illustrated by this unfortunate wrongly decided case, not only threatens the lives of deserving applicants for our protection, but also bogs down an already grossly overloaded system with unnecessarily protracted litigation and appeals of cases that should be “clear grants.”
Contrary to the intentionally false “party line” spread by “Big Mac With Lies” and other corrupt Trump sycophants at the DHS and the DOJ, a much, much higher percentage, probably a majority, of asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle who apply at our Southern Border should properly be granted some type of legal protection under our laws if the system operated in the fair and impartial manner that is Constitutionally required. The Trump Administration aided by their sycophants and enablers, all the way up to the feckless Supremes, are literally “getting away with murder” in far, far too many instances.
Consequently, quickly identifying and granting relief to the many deserving applicants would be a more efficient, humane, and lawful alternative to the “Kill ‘Em Before They Get Here” deterrence programs being pursued by Trump, with the complicity of the Supremes, the Ninth Circuit, and some of the other Federal Circuit Courts who have been afraid to put a stop to the extralegal nonsense going on in our Immigraton Courts, detention centers (the “New American Gulag”), our Southern Border, and countries like Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and El Salvador where we are basically encouraging extralegal abuses and gross human right violations against migrants. It will eventually come back to haunt our nation, or whatever is left of our nation after Trump and his gang of White Nationalist thugs, supporters, appeasers, apologists, and enablers, are done looting and destroying it.

PWS

09-30-19

WHILE IMPOTENT CONGRESS & FECKLESS ARTICLE IIIs TURN THEIR COLLECTIVE BACKS: THINK THAT U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT HASN’T BECOME “CLOWN COURT” WITH POTENTIALLY DEADLY CONSEQUENCES? – Try This Out For Size: “Border Patrol Agents Are Writing ‘Facebook’ As A Street Address For Asylum-Seekers Forced To Wait In Mexico: ‘It’s wild…People are having to make things up as they go along.’”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/asylum-notice-border-appear-facebook-mexico

Adolfo Flores reports for BuzzFeed News:

An asylum-seeker from Honduras who presented himself at the southern border this summer seeking protection was forced to wait in Mexico until his court date in the United States. In case the government needed to contact him, a Border Patrol officer listed an address on his forms: “Facebook.”

The man, who asked to only be identified by his last name Gutierrez, told BuzzFeed News that shortly before he was sent back to Mexico along with his family, a Border Patrol agent asked him to confirm that a shortened version of his name was indeed the one he used on Facebook.

“I said ‘Yes, why?'” Gutierrez recalled. “The agent told me ‘Because that’s how we’re going to send you information about your court case.’ I thought that was strange, but what could I do?”

The form Gutierrez was given, called a Notice to Appear (NTA), is a charging document issued by the Department of Homeland Security that includes information on where an immigrant must present themselves for their first court hearing, and critically, should include an address where the applicant can be contacted if the time, date, or location of the hearing is changed.

If an immigrant fails to appear at court hearings they run the risk of being ordered deported in absentia by an immigration judge, which makes having accurate and detailed information on the forms crucial for asylum-seekers.

Gutierrez said he was never contacted about his case via Facebook and it’s unclear how DHS officials would contact an immigrant via social media.

A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesperson did not respond to questions about why an agent would write “Facebook” as a known address, or whether the agency was using immigrants’ social media accounts as a way to inform them of any changes or updates to their hearings.

Attorneys and advocates working with asylum-seekers at the border, including those forced to wait in Mexico under the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) said they’ve seen other notices with “Facebook” addresses, or no address at all.

“‘Facebook’ is the most egregious example of the Department of Homeland Security doing away with the aspect of proper notice,” Leidy Perez-Davis, policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association told BuzzFeed News. “Facebook is not an adequate way to serve an NTA.”

Perez-Davis said she’s heard from other attorneys who had viewed documents from immigrants with improper or inadequate addresses such as shelters, which are often already full or only allow immigrants to remain there for a few days. Asylum-seekers are often given initial US court dates months in the future.

“This is procedurally incorrect, but DHS has been doing it anyway because there hasn’t been oversight on insufficient NTAs,” Perez-Davis said.

An immigrant in Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), shows documents to a US border agent at Paso del Norte border bridge to attend a court hearing for asylum seekers.In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that an immigrant’s notice to appear was invalid because it didn’t have the date or location of his scheduled court appearance. Attorneys have pointed to the ruling to argue that NTAs with inadequate information should also be invalid.

The Trump administration policy, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” has seen more than 47,000 asylum-seekers sent back to the country, straining local resources that help immigrants in the border communities. In addition to facing violence, kidnappings, and discrimination, some immigrants live on the streets and rely on donations to feed themselves.

If an immigrant receives an improperly addressed notice to appear, they can challenge whether it was legally serviced in court, Perez-Davis said, giving an immigrant the chance to reopen their case if they do not appear at their scheduled hearing and are ordered removed in their absence.

“It goes back to the issue of due process,” Perez-Davis said. “They can’t initiate proceedings without telling someone the details of the proceedings.”

Zoe Bowman, a law student who interned with Al Otro Lado, a binational border rights project and legal service provider, said she saw at least five immigrant NTAs that had “Facebook” listed as the known address. The first of which she saw in May or June of this year.

“It’s wild,” Bowman told BuzzFeed News. “Some wouldn’t have any addresses listed at all.”

The US asylum process is not set up for cases to be fought from Mexico, making the issue uncharted territory for the US government, immigrants, and attorneys, Bowman said.

“The issues with the NTAs is just one branch of that,” Bowman said. “People are having to make things up as they go along.”

Many of the other asylum-seekers returned to Mexico along with Gutierrez left for their home countries almost immediately. Gutierrez tried to wait for his court date, but only lasted three weeks in Tijuana. Facing a months-long wait for their first court hearing without money or space in a shelter, Gutierrez said he decided to go back to Honduras with his family.

“Tijuana is dangerous, I can’t be traveling with my family to the bridge at 4 a.m.,” Gutierrez said of the early hour he was expected to appear at a border crossing for his hearing. “We were in Mexico without money or a place to stay, I couldn’t make my daughter suffer through that.”

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

Yup! This won’t go down as one the finest moments for America, the Executive, the Article III Courts, or any of the folks involved in implementing what can only be termed a program of blatantly illegal and overt human rights abuses.

Those of us fighting for our Constitution, human life, and the true rule of law appear to be losing the battle for the time being, given the cowardly and inept performances of those few institutions like Congress, the Supremes, and Article III Appellate Courts who could put an end to these travesties and require reform and compliance with the Constitution and the rule of law respecting treatment of refugee applicants.

But, we are making a legal and historical record of who stood up for human rights and who planned, executed, and enabled what can only be termed “crimes against humanity.”

This week’s coveted “Five Clown Award” goes jointly to the Supremes and Congress for their joint catastrophic failure to put an end to this illegal nonsense and reestablish Due Process and the Rule of Law.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

09-27-19

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE BLOG PRESENTS “THE FLORES EXHIBITS” – Truth, No Matter How Terrible & Disturbing, Is The Best Antidote To Notorious Human Rights Abuser “Big Mac With Lies” & His Truly Despicable Knowingly False Narratives & Immoral Actions! – “At this time when our nation is led by scoundrels, we are in need of heroes.”

Elora Mukherjee
“American Hero”
Clinical Professor of Law & Director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic
Columbia Law School

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/9/22/vjwdefjb62lfre600ktwsfj8q1dsab

The Flores Exhibits

“I’m held with my son in a cage. There are about 60 people in my cages, and more in some of the other cages. There are six cages in my area. They are all very, very full.”

The above words are part of “Exhibit 29,” which is read by my friend Lenni Benson, a professor at New York Law School and founder of the school’s Safe Passage Project, which provides representation to unaccompanied children in immigration court. The words are the sworn declaration of a 17-year-old girl, identified by the initial “L.”

There are 65 such declarations, each the actual statement of a child detained at border detention facilities in this country in June 2019. Recently, Waterwell, the wonderful civic-minded theater and film production company responsible for the immigration court based play The Courtroom filmed a number of actors, lawyers, clinical professors, advocates, and other interested individuals in a dark studio in the East Village in New York City. I was honored to be one of those filmed. We each sat at a simple table with the written exhibit and a glass of water, and under the direction of Waterwell’s Artistic Director, Lee Sunday Evans, each read a single declaration.

Article 37(b) of the Convention of the Rights of the Child states that “No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.” A 1997 settlement agreement, known as the Flores Settlement, legally binds our government in limiting the length of time it can detain immigrant children, and holding the government to a standard of humane treatment under prescribed conditions of health, hygiene, education, and privacy. From the contents of the declarations, the Trump Administration has made a mockery of these rules.

Exhibit 3, read by David Gomez, the president of Hostos Community College, memorializes the words of a five year old from Honduras separated from his father upon arrival at the border, as he states “I have not been told how long I have to stay here. I am frightened, scared, and sad.” My fellow former immigration judge, Betty Lamb, read the statement of a 14 year old girl, who was taking care of two younger parentless girls (one of them 4 years old and sick), who said that she was holding the two in her lap as she spoke trying to comfort them. She then added “I need comfort, too. I’m bigger than they are, but I am a child, too.” (Exhibit 54).

At this time when our nation is led by scoundrels, we are in need of heroes. Towards this end, please take a moment to write down the name of Elora Mukherjee, a true hero. She is a clinical professor of law and Director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. She has devoted her career to aiding immigrant children, whom she began visiting in detention facilities in 2007, and litigating violations of the Flores Settlement. Watching her read her own 22 minute statement gave me nightmares. She described the overwhelming stench of the hundreds of detained children, who were very hungry and seriously traumatized. One six year old she tried to question ended up sitting in her lap crying inconsolably, until a guard eventually gave him a lollipop “as an incentive to bring him back to his cell.” (Exhibit 63). Many of the children were seriously in fear of the guards. A number of the children were sick.

I am a native-born American citizen. I have lived here my entire life. Yet I never felt more foreign than while watching these videos. I hope that readers of these words feel the same way. No government of a country that is truly ours, that reflects the morals and values that we possess and believe in, could ever treat children this way. And no decent, moral people, regardless of their political affiliation or their views on immigration, could ever support or approve of the government responsible for such treatment. These children will never get over this. It is one thing for children to arrive here already traumatized and be granted safe haven under our laws. It is entirely another matter for the government of this country to deliberately cause children to suffer in a way that will scar them for life.

Please visit the site of these powerful videos through this link. You can also view the one-minute trailer here. And then please, please help amplify by sharing through social media and email.

Thanks for this project go to Columbia Law School’s Center for Institutional and Social Change and Immigrants’ Rights Clinic; to Waterwell, the Broadway Advocacy Coalition, and Project Amplify; and to all those who participated as readers in the videos.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

(Below: iPhone photo of me filming my segment, taken by Elizabeth Lamb).

Go to Jeff’s blog at the link for the picture of him presenting.

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

What kind of country tortures and torments vulnerable children in search of legal protection while actually employing their corrupt, cowardly, and totally dishonest abusers, like Kevin “Big Mac With Lies” McAleenan, on the public payroll? Big Mac was at it again today, presenting a fictionalized defense of the Administration’s policy of promoting and encouraging human rights abuses, lying about the Flores settlement, and endangering the lives of refugee families!

McAleenan and his fellow immoral sycophants are a disgrace to America!

And, as I have said before, both Congress and the Federal Judges who have enabled these crimes against humanity by failing to take strong action to stop the Trump Administration’s abuse and to hold perpetrators like McAleenan legally accountable also share a major part of the responsibility!

PWS

09-23-19

BLOOD ON THEIR JUDICIAL ROBES! — WHEN A CORRUPT, XENOPHOBIC, RACIST GOVERNMENT IS ASSISTED BY COMPLICIT FEDERAL COURTS, HERE’S WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LIVES OF THE REFUGEES THEY ARE BETRAYING: “The MPP sends people back to Mexico, where many have been repeatedly victimized by organized criminals or other dangerous groups,” Clarens said. “Their access to the legal system in the U.S.—which had already been severely reduced by the Trump administration—is effectively cut off. MPP will force people to remain for a significant period of time in one of the most vulnerable and dangerous living situations they’ve ever imagined experiencing.”

https://apple.news/AHwi8LL9GT8qKZ3YHhAPcrQ

Leon Krauze reports for Slate:

The World

Mexico’s Capitulation to Trump Has Put Thousands of Lives in Danger

The Mexican foreign minister says his government has nothing to be ashamed of. He’s wrong.

September 20 2019 4:51 PM

In recent months, at least 3,000 immigrants have been sent back to towns along the Mexican border between Tamaulipas and Texas, one of the country’s most dangerous areas. What they have faced there defies the imagination. The city of Nuevo Laredo is a well-known hotbed of extortion and kidnapping. Immigrants make easy targets. “These people have been thrown into the lion’s den,” local journalist Daniel Rosas told me recently.

According to Rosas, President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program has been particularly harmful, placing thousands of immigrants in imminent danger. “If even us locals are going through a very difficult time dealing with violence here, just imagine what life is like for an immigrant who doesn’t have a home and doesn’t know anyone. This place is completely unsafe,” Rosas told me. In the city of Nuevo Laredo, Rosas described a Dantean scene in which people working for cartels are tasked with identifying and abducting immigrants, who are then taken away to safehouses where they are held for ransom.

“In Tamaulipas, migrants are the most vulnerable. They suffer every kind of abuse imaginable,” he told me. Rosas seemed particularly worried for women and children in Tamaulipas. “They are completely defenseless,” Rosas told me. “When they were waiting and trying to rest under the bridge, there were kids sleeping on cardboard, without any help. They live through sheer horror,” he said.

This nightmare is the predictable result of recent actions by governments on both sides of the border. Three months ago, faced with Trump’s tariff blackmail, Mexico’s government capitulated and agreed to a series of unprecedented measures to reduce the flow of Central American immigrants reaching the United States. Terrified by the possibility of a trade war, President Andres Manuel López Obrador’s administration deployed thousands of troops along Mexico’s southern border, gave control of the country’s immigration authority to an expert in incarceration and enforcement, and pledged full cooperation with some of Trump’s more controversial immigration policies. As part of the deal, Mexican government officials agreed to return to Washington every few months with evidence of results, a recurrent humiliating pilgrimage in search of Trump’s approval and a renewed deferral of the looming tariff threat.

Ten days ago, after his first assessment in Washington with Trump’s inner circle—and, briefly, the president himself—Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard gave a victorious but ultimately unfortunate news conference. Ebrard claimedthat the much-touted downward trend in the number of immigrants reaching the United States would likely be “permanent,” although historical trends suggest the flow of immigrants will likely increase during the fall. Ebrard then said the Mexican government had demanded new and strict gun control measures in the United States. The goal, Ebrard boasted, was to “freeze” gun trafficking along the border. This is disingenuous. Ebrard knows any sort of significant reduction in gun smuggling from the United States would require legislative measures that the Trump administration and the Republican Party will not pursue.

Ebrard then concluded by saying the López Obrador administration had nothing to apologize for on immigration. “We do not regret anything of what’s been implemented,” Ebrard said. “We haven’t done anything we should be ashamed of.”

He is wrong.

The Mexican government’s cooperation with Donald Trump’s punitive immigration strategy has created a calamity along the country’s northern border. Of the many complications, none is more potentially catastrophic than the broad implementation of Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols program, better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The measure forces potential refugees to wait for months (or years) in Mexico for a slim chance at asylum in the United States. It has opened the door to the creation of a massive community of rootless and marginalized immigrants living in perilous limbo in some of Mexico’s most dangerous areas. There are now close to 38,000 immigrants waitingin Mexico because of MPP. After meeting with Ebrard, the White House announcedthe program would be expanded “to the fullest extent possible,” dramatically increasing the number of potential refugees returned to Mexico, many to regions of the country where they face almost certain peril.

No place seems safe, not even shelters run by religious organizations, one of the few reliable options in other border towns like Tijuana. In Nuevo Laredo, organized crime knows no bounds. Just last month, local pastor Aarón Méndez, who runs the “Casa del Migrante AMAR” shelter in the city, reportedly tried to protect a group of Cuban migrants from a group of abductors. They kidnapped Méndezinstead. No one has heard from him since.

Things aren’t much better in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas. In recent years, the city has seen “open warfare” between rival cartels. American attorneyKristin Clarens, who has been traveling to the region over the past few months to assist potential refugees and make sense of the dire situation in the region, told me she has never met an asylum-seeking immigrant who felt safe in Mexico. “To the contrary,” Clarens said, “most of the people I’ve met described routine and regular acts of violence, such as kidnapping, assault, and extortion.” According to Clarens, migrants in Matamoros, like those in Nuevo Laredo, are facing a full-blown humanitarian crisis. “The heat is intense and unrelenting, and they lack access to sanitation, water, shade, food, and basic shelter,” she told me. “People hike down to the river and use the river to clean themselves, wash their clothes, and occasionally drink. Children and adults are sick and covered with bug bites and lesions.”

Like Rosas, Clarens believes “Remain in Mexico” has complicated the already formidable immigration challenge in the region. “The MPP sends people back to Mexico, where many have been repeatedly victimized by organized criminals or other dangerous groups,” Clarens said. “Their access to the legal system in the U.S.—which had already been severely reduced by the Trump administration—is effectively cut off. MPP will force people to remain for a significant period of time in one of the most vulnerable and dangerous living situations they’ve ever imagined experiencing.” Clarens thinks the crisis will likely worsen. “I know that Mexico can be a safe and stable place for many people, but impoverished and incredibly vulnerable Central Americans who are desperate for security and are leaving their countries of origin for the first time are not able to stay safe,” she told me.

If Mexico continues to quietly go along with the radical expansion of the MPP program, the number of immigrants waiting for asylum in the country could reach the hundreds of thousands. With Mexico’s official refugee agency operating on a ridiculous $1.3 million yearly budget, the López Obrador administration is not remotely ready for such an undertaking. The consequences could be severe. If that happens, Ebrard should be asked again if Mexico really has nothing to be ashamed of.

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

Those who should really be ashamed are the cowardly life-tenured judges of the Supremes, the Ninth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit who as a group have utterly failed to protect migrants’ statutory, Constitutional, and Human Rights from lawless, invidious, and very intentional abuse by Trump’s White Nationalist regime and his DHS and DOJ sycophants.

Article III Federal Judges are absolutely immune from liability for their wrongdoing and abuses. But, they shouldn’t be immune from shame and the judgment of history for abandoning our system of justice and the most vulnerable it is supposed to protect at their greatest time of need. That’s basically the definition of legal incompetence and moral cowardice.

PWS

09-22-19

AS U.S. COURTS FAIL, DARTH VADER TAKES OVER ASYLUM OFFICE – Use Of CBP Agents As “Asylum Officers” Over Objection Flies In Face Of Statute & Shows Administration’s Utter Contempt For Cowardly ARTICLE IIIs Afraid To Stand Up For The Rule Of Law & For The Rights Of Vulnerable Asylum Seekers! — “They’re not trained and geared toward refugee protection, any more than I’m trained to go look for tracks in the desert and chase people.”

Molly O’Toole
Immigration Reporter
LA Times

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=34ad22a1-b89c-4dd4-8b5f-ac66ea536940&v=sdk

Molly O’Toole reports for the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Border Patrol agents, rather than highly trained asylum officers, are beginning to screen migrant families for “credible fear” to determine whether applicants qualify for U.S. protection, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

The first Border Patrol agents arrived in Dilley, Texas, last week to start training at the South Texas Family Residential Center, the nation’s largest immigrant family detention center, according to lawyers working there and several employees at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The move expands the Trump administration’s push for Border Patrol agents to take over the interviews that mark the first step in the lengthy asylum process. Border Patrol agents began training to conduct asylum interviews in late April, but agents have now deployed to family detention facilities for the first time.

As a result, Border Patrol agents — law enforcement personnel who detain migrant families at the border — will also have authority to decide whether those families have a “credible fear” of being persecuted in their home countries.

Customs and Border Protection has provided few details about the Border Patrol asylum training and has not publicly acknowledged whether agents have yielded significantly lower approval rates than federal asylum officers, but internal communications and other official documents obtained by The Times indicate early problems with the program.

The Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel requested anonymity for fear of retaliation. Neither the agency nor Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol’s parent agency, responded to requests for comment by deadline.

Agents at Dilley are not wearing the Border Patrol’s well-known olive-green uniforms, and are identifying themselves to migrant families and children as asylum officers, said Shay Fluharty, an attorney with the Dilley Pro Bono Project, who has been in interviews conducted by the agents.

“It’s creating significant strain for our clients — not just because [agents are] unprepared and untrained,” Fluharty told The Times. “We understand that the intention is to significantly limit asylum officers who are conducting these interviews and have them be primarily conducted by Border Patrol.”

The Trump administration’s ultimate goal with the Border Patrol training program is to make it more difficult for migrants to win asylum, according to asylum officers, officials and lawyers, because White House officials believe agents will be more adversarial and less likely to approve asylum requests. Actual asylum officers work under Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Homeland Security agency that administers the legal immigration system and benefits.

Under Homeland Security regulations, the credible-fear interview must be conducted in a “non-adversarial manner.”

Michael Knowles, special representative for the federal asylum officers’ union, said many members are concerned about the use of law enforcement personnel for crucial interviews with people seeking refuge. Neither the union nor its officers have been given official notice of or explanation for the shift, Knowles said.

“I don’t mean to denigrate the proper and legitimate role of Border Patrol, but it’s different,” Knowles said. “They’re not trained and geared toward refugee protection, any more than I’m trained to go look for tracks in the desert and chase people.”

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, confirmed that agents were undergoing training in which they conducted credible-fear interviews with family units. But he pushed back against the idea that Border Patrol agents would be “tougher” against asylum seekers.

“I’ve personally had conversations with both President Trump and Stephen Miller,” Judd said. “It’s always been my understanding that the reason to have Border Patrol agents do the credible-fear interviews is to ensure the asylum process begins at the earliest practicable moment…. The narrative being painted that Border Patrol agents will deport more persons doesn’t hold water.”

According to a Customs and Border Protection training timeline obtained by The Times, 10 Border Patrol agents from the El Centro sector in California began training to do credible-fear interviews in April, and by August a total of 60 agents were due to conduct their first credible-fear interviews. A new group started training in early September, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel.

The agents are all “nonbargaining employees,” meaning they are not members of a union.

The timeline states three times that “additional training will be required” if the Border Patrol role in asylum interviews expands to family units. Homeland Security officials also assured congressional staffers in August that the Border Patrol was not going to cover family units because of that requirement, a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee aide told The Times. Department officials did not inform the committee they’d be deploying agents to family detention centers.

It’s unclear whether the agents sent to the detention center in Dilley received additional training, or whether any Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers will remain at the facility after they finish instructing the agents. Several officers have already been reassigned.

According to separate records obtained by The Times, as of last month, Border Patrol agents had completed 178 credible-fear screenings with asylum seekers from more than 15 countries — all of whom were single adults. Agents determined 54% met the credible-fear standard and 35% did not. They closed 11% of the cases without making a determination.

While the newly trained Border Patrol agents have yet to complete many screenings, that’s a far lower approval rate than is typical for initial interviews. Congress deliberately set a low standard for “credible fear” in order to ensure that the U.S. government did not return people to potential harm, and roughly 80% of asylum seekers pass the first interview.

Ultimately, only about 1 in 5 asylum seekers wins their case, according to the Justice Department. The Trump administration cites that disparity to argue that most asylum seekers have fraudulent cases, and the president frequently disparages asylum as a “hoax.” He also has lamented that Border Patrol and military personnel are restricted from getting “rough” with migrants.

Advocates argue that the disparity only shows how difficult it is to win the right to stay in the United States. With the backlog of immigration cases now surpassing 1 million, a final decision can take years.

The asylum division at Citizenship and Immigration Services has faced heavy pressure from the White House and from Ken Cuccinelli, who was named acting director of the agency in June.

John Lafferty, asylum division chief for six years, recently was reassigned to a service center and replaced on an acting basis by Andrew Davidson, who oversaw fraud detection.

Lafferty was outspoken about his directorate being forced to implement dramatic changes to U.S. immigration policy with what he said was little to no advance notice or consultation. Knowles, the union representative, called Lafferty’s reassignment “diplomatic exile.”

All decisions made so far by Border Patrol agents at the “credible fear” stage have been reviewed by a supervisory asylum officer before they were issued, according to the records obtained by The Times.

But critics of the training program worry that the administration will use it to get around requirements for asylum officers and supervisors to have special training and extensive experience — with comparatively inexperienced and less-trained Border Patrol agents in effect policing themselves rather than having their decisions reviewed by a Citizenship and Immigration Services supervisory officer.

Based on internal communications obtained by The Times, Border Patrol agents appear to have already stepped outside their allowed roles.

Last week, Ashley Caudill-Mirillo, deputy chief of the asylum division at Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote to leaders in the field stressing that agents could only screen credible-fear claims from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and “under no circumstances” should they interview Cubans.

“There are no exceptions to this rule,” she said, adding that officials “may follow up with you if it is found these assignments occurred in the event we are asked to explain.”

Fluharty said she and her colleagues have witnessed a range of issues. The handful of Border Patrol agents deployed to Dilley are all male, effectively preventing clients who’ve suffered from severe sexual or gender-based violence from requesting a female asylum officer.

Some agents are conducting interviews over the phone — a first at Dilley, where all screenings had previously been in-person — and with children as young as 6 years old. Other screenings are lasting far longer than normal, more than six hours.

And agents are consistently asking irrelevant questions, while leaving out the most critical ones, she said.

“It’s most difficult for families who have to share really traumatic experiences under really stressful circumstances,” she said, “And now with someone without the appropriate knowledge or training.”

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

Simply outrageous! This is a direct result of the stunning cowardice of the Supremes’ majority and U.S. Circuit Court Judges who have “tanked” by failing to take a strong stand against the Administration’s constant perversion of immigration statutes and constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection.

How spineless! Asylum Officers (and some U.S. Immigration Judges), who are mere Civil Servants, are willing to put their careers and livelihood on the line to speak up against the Administration’s abuses, but life-tenured Federal Judges who, unlike Asylum Officers, are protected from political retaliation are afraid to do their sworn duty!

The specific intent behind the Asylum Officer statutory requirement was to insure that impartial, specially trained asylum professionals, oriented toward protection, NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS, handle the “credible fear” process.

Just think about the recent gender-based asylum grant described in yesterday’s blog.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/19/the-good-news-gender-based-asylum-claims-continue-to-win-in-the-post-a-b-era-the-bad-news-applicants-subjected-to-let-em-die-in-mexico-compl/

What’s the chance that a hastily trained Border Patrol Agent would recognize such a potentially successful claim in the “credible fear” process? Not much! This is a serious, life threatening, intentionally created defect in the system, reflecting malicious intent on the part of Trump and his DHS sycophants, that the Article IIIs are sweeping under the carpet by not requiring that the Trump Administration must follow the Constitution and the immigration statutes protecting asylum seekers.

PWS

09-20-19

PROFILE IN JUDICIAL COWARDICE: ARTICLE III’S DERELICTION OF DUTY LEAVES BRAVE ASYLUM APPLICANTS AND THEIR COURAGEOUS ATTORNEYS DEFENSELESS AGAINST RACIST ONSLAUGHT BY TRUMP ADMINISTRATION! – “NDPA” Stalwarts Laura Lynch & Leidy Perez-Davis Blog Daily About What’s REALLY Happening At The Border As A Result Of JUDICIAL MALFEASANCE By Life-Tenured Federal Appellate Judges Who Were Supposed To Protect Our Rights, But Are Failing To Do So!

Here’s their blog from the “front lines” of the New Due Process Army’s battle to save lives in South Texas, updated daily:

https://thinkimmigration.org/blog/2019/09/16/due-process-disaster-in-the-making-a-firsthand-look-at-the-port-courts-in-laredo-and-brownsville/

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

It’s beyond disgusting! Life-tenured judges who should know better becoming “Modern Day Jim Crows!” What truly horrible, negative “role models” for younger attorneys fighting for the rights of the most vulnerable and to uphold our Constitutional system.

Speaking of good role models (in addition, of course, to Laura and Leidy, who are among the “best ever”), Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg should be congratulated for having the courage to speak out forcefully in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant on the “right side of history” and against their colleagues’ disgraceful dereliction of duty and betrayal of their oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And, there have been few greater enemies of the U.S. Constitution and the true “rule of law” than Trump and his band of political, bureaucratic, and judicial sycophants!

Due Process Forever, Cowardly Judging Never!

PWS

09-20-19

SUPREME TANK: COMPLICIT COURT ENDS U.S. ASYLUM PROTECTIONS BY 7-2 VOTE — Endorses Trump’s White Nationalist Racist Attack On Human Rights & Eradication Of Refugee Act Of 1980 — On 09-11-19, Supremes Celebrate By Joining Trump’s Attack On America & Humanity! — Only Justices Ginsburg & Sotomayor Have Guts To Stand Up For Constitution & Rule Of Law!

Death On The Rio Grande — Supremes Sign Death Warrants For Vulnerable Refugees, Trash Refugee Act of 1980

19a230_k53l

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 1 SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 19A230 _________________
WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [September 11, 2019]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction and September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting from grant of stay.
Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law. After several organizations representing immi- grants sued to stop the rule from going into effect, a federal district court found that the organizations were likely to prevail and preliminarily enjoined the rule nationwide. A

2 BARR v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
federal appeals court narrowed the injunction to run only circuit-wide, but denied the Government’s motion for a complete stay.
Now the Government asks this Court to intervene and to stay the preliminary decisions below. This is an extraordinary request. Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces. Because I do not believe the Government has met its weighty burden for such relief, I would deny the stay.
The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the rule at issue here on July 16, 2019. See 84 Fed. Reg. 33829. In effect, the rule forbids almost all Central Americans—even unaccompanied children—to apply for asylum in the United States if they enter or seek to enter through the southern border, unless they were first denied asylum in Mexico or another third country. Id., at 33835, 33840; see also 385 F. Supp. 3d 922, 929–930 (ND Cal. 2019).
The District Court found that the rule was likely unlawful for at least three reasons. See id., at 938–957. First, the court found it probable that the rule was inconsistent with the asylum statute, 94 Stat. 105, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1158. See §1158(b)(2)(C) (requiring that any regulation like the rule be“consistent”with the statute). Section 1158 generally provides that any noncitizen “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States . . . may apply for asylum.” §1158(a)(1). And unlike the rule, the District Court explained, the statute provides narrow, carefully calibrated exceptions to asylum eligibility. As relevant here, Congress restricted asylum based on the possibility that a person could safely resettle in a third country. See §1158(a)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A)(vi). The rule, by contrast, does not consider whether refugees were safe or resettled in Mexico—just whether they traveled through it. That blunt approach, according to the District Court, rewrote the statute. See 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 939– 947, 959.

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 3
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
Second, the District Court found that the challengers would likely prevail because the Government skirted typical rulemaking procedures. Id., at 947–951. The District Court noted “serious questions” about the rule’s validity because the Government effected a sea change in immigration law without first providing advance notice and opportunity for public comment. Id., at 930; see also 5 U. S. C. §553. The District Court found the Government’s purported justifications unpersuasive at the preliminary-injunction stage. 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 948–951 (discussing statutory exceptions to notice-and-comment procedures).
Last, the District Court found the explanation for the rule so poorly reasoned that the Government’s action was likely arbitrary and capricious. See id., at 951–957; 5 U. S. C. §706. On this score, the District Court addressed the Government’s principal justifications for the rule: that failing to seek asylum while fleeing through more than one country “raises questions about the validity and urgency” of the asylum seeker’s claim, 84 Fed. Reg. 33839; and that Mexico, the last port of entry before the United States, offers a fea- sible alternative for persons seeking protection from persecution, id., at 33835, 33839–33840. The District Court examined the evidence in the administrative record and explained why it flatly refuted the Government’s assumptions. 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 951–957. A “mountain of evidence points one way,” the District Court observed, yet the Government “went the other—with no explanation.” Id., at 955.
After the District Court issued the injunction, the Ninth Circuit declined the Government’s request for a complete stay, reasoning that the Government did not make the required “ ‘strong showing’ ” that it would likely succeed on the merits of each issue. ___ F. 3d ___ (2019), 2019 WL 3850928, *1 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). Narrowing the injunction to the Circuit’s borders, the Ninth Circuit expedited the appeal and permitted

4 BARR v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
the District Court to consider whether additional facts would warrant a broader injunction. 2019 WL 3850928, *2– *3.
The lower courts’ decisions warrant respect. A stay pending appeal is “extraordinary” relief. Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U. S. 1309, 1311 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers); see also Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (listing stay factors). Given the District Court’s thorough analysis, and the serious questions that court raised, I do not believe the Government has carried its “especially heavy” burden. Packwood v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U. S. 1319, 1320 (1994) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). The rule here may be, as the District Court concluded, in significant tension with the asylum statute. It may also be arbitrary and capricious for failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its conclusions. It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere—without affording the public a chance to weigh in.
Setting aside the merits, the unusual history of this case also counsels against our intervention. This lawsuit has been proceeding on three tracks: In this Court, the parties have litigated the Government’s stay request. In the Ninth Circuit, the parties are briefing the Government’s appeal. And in the District Court, the parties recently participated in an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record. In- deed, just two days ago the District Court reinstated a na- tionwide injunction based on new facts. See East Bay Sanc- tuary Covenant v. Barr, No. 4:19–cv–4073, Doc. 73 (ND Cal., Sept. 9, 2019). Notably, the Government moved to stay the newest order in both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit. (Neither court has resolved that request, though the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to allow further deliberation.) This Court has not considered

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 5
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
the new evidence, nor does it pause for the lower courts to resolve the Government’s pending motions. By granting a stay, the Court simultaneously lags behind and jumps ahead of the courts below. And in doing so, the Court side-steps the ordinary judicial process to allow the Government to implement a rule that bypassed the ordinary rulemaking process. I fear that the Court’s precipitous action today risks undermining the interbranch governmental processes that encourage deliberation, public participation, and transparency.
***
In sum, granting a stay pending appeal should be an “extraordinary” act. Williams, 442 U. S., at 1311. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively. See, e.g., Vladeck, The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket, 133 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming Nov. 2019). Not long ago, the Court resisted the shortcut the Government now invites. See Trump v. East Bay Sanc- tuary Covenant, 586 U. S. ___ (2018). I regret that my colleagues have not exercised the same restraint here. I respectfully dissent.

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

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent says it all, but, alas, in vain.

09-11-19 will be remembered as the day that justice, human rights, and human decency died in America!

Shame on Justices Breyer and Kagan for “going along to get along” with the dismantling of the Refugee Act of 1980. The “blood of the innocents” will be on their hands and the hands of their five colleagues.

The “Dred Scottification” (or “dehumanization”) of immigrants, Latinos, and other minorities that Justice Breyer once predicted, yet lacked the guts to speak out against in this case, is now in full swing. It will increase unabated, now that the Supremes’ sellout to authoritarian racism is assured. And don’t expect “Moscow Mitch” and his gang of toadies to put up any opposition.

The American justice system has been dismantled. But history will remember the roles of each of those “Black Robed Cowards” who participated in its demise.

With this atrocious decision, the Supremes have basically made themselves irrelevant to the battle for fairness and individual rights under the Constitution. As I have suggested before, self-created irrelevance might come back to haunt them.

PWS

09-11-19

TED HESSON @ POLITICO: Is Trump Winning The Border Battle?

Ted Hesson, Immigration, Pro — Staff mugshots photographed Feb. 20, 2018. (M. Scott Mahaskey/Politico)

Someone using POLITICO for iPad wants to share this article with you:

Trump’s plan to stem border crossings gets results

Ted Hesson

President Donald Trump’s plan to force Mexico to stem the flow of migrants across the southwest border of the U.S. appears to be working. Border arrests, a metric for illegal crossings, plummeted to 51,000 in August, according to preliminary government fig…

READ ON POLITICO.COM

Download the POLITICO app for your iPhone, iPad, or Android device

Follow POLITICO on Twitter: @POLITICO

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

Trump’s “methods” are highly problematic in terms of human lives and legal requirements. Also, since the “enforcement only” approach fails to deal with the causes of forced migration, I doubt that the “success” will be sustainable in the long run.

PWS

09-08-19

KIT JOHNSON & NOLAN RAPPAPORT UNITED IN CAUSE OF JUSTICE FOR MARIA ISABEL BUESO — Different Methods, But One Objective: Justice!

Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
UC Davis School of Law

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/09/trumps-death-sentence-for-immigrant-who-followed-the-law-merits-private-bill.html

Summary from Dean Kevin Johnson @ ImmigrationProf Blog:

Nolan Rappaport: Trump’s ‘death sentence’ for immigrant who followed the law merits private bill

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Kit Johnson has been blogging on the case of Maria Isabel Bueso, who at age 7 came to the United States for specialized health care for a life-threatening matter and now is threatened with removal — and possible death — by the Trump administration.

Nolan Rappaport on the Hill is more optimistic than Kit on the possibilities for a private bill allowing Bueso to gain lawful immigration status and remain in the United States. He writes, “In 30-some years as an immigration lawyer, I have not seen a more compelling justification for a private bill than the way the administration has treated Maria `Isabel’ Bueso.”

KJ

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

Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the link for all the links to the story highlighted by Nolan and Kit.

Sometimes Trump’s immigration policies bring folks together: in united opposition.

Thanks to Nolan and Kit for highlighting this case! Hopefully, unity and publicity will bring success and save lives in this and other cases

PWS

09-07

-19

CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST: Trump & His GOP’s Cowardly “War On Children” Should Outrage Every American! — Join The “New Due Process Army” & Fight To Save Humanity!

Catherine writes in the Washington Post:

You’ve heard of the Wars on Drugs, Terror, Poverty, even Women. Well, welcome to the War on Children.

It’s being waged by the Trump administration and other right-wing public officials, regardless of any claimed “family values.”

For evidence, look no further than the report released Wednesday by the Department of Health and Human Services’s own inspector general. It details the trauma suffered by immigrant children separated from their parents under the Trump administration’s evil “zero tolerance” policy.

Thousands of children were placed in overcrowded centers ill-equipped to provide care for them physically or psychologically. Visits to 45 centers around the country resulted in accounts of children who cried inconsolably; who were drugged; who were promised family reunifications that never came; whose severe emotional distress manifested in phantom chest pains, with complaints that “every heartbeat hurts”; who thought their parents had abandoned them or had been murdered.

Such state-sanctioned child abuse was designed to serve as a “deterrent” for asylum-seeking families, as then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and other administration officials made clear.

Of course, they failed to recognize just how horrific are the conditions these asylum-seeking children are fleeing — conditions that further decreased HHS’s ability to adequately care for them.

“Staff in multiple facilities reported cases of children who had been kidnapped or raped” back in their home countries, the IG report states. Other children witnessed family members raped or murdered.

But hey, Trump believes these kiddos must be punished further for the crime of seeking refuge — a.k.a., the “invasion” of America.

Despite this and other abundant evidence that government facilities are not able to care for children for extended periods, last month, the administration also announced a new policy that would allow it to keep children (along with their families) in jail-like conditions for longer periods of time.

This is hardly the only way the administration has knowingly enacted policies that harm children.

In August, it finalized a rule that would make it more difficult for immigrants to receive green cards if they have used certain safety-net services they’re legally entitled to — or if government officials suspect they might ever use such services. Confusion and fear about the policy and whom it affects abound. This has already created a “chilling effect” for usage of social services, with immigrant parents disenrolling even their U.S.-citizen children just to be safe.

Last fall, for instance, I interviewed a green-card-holding mother who decided not to enroll her underweight newborn in a program that would have provided free formula (even though the program in question was not mentioned in the rule, and the baby is a U.S. citizen). Huge recent declines in children’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollment are also believed to be at least partly a result of fears about this policy change.

If Your Dog Does This, It Could Be Them Signaling A Warning

And lest you think only immigrant or brown children are being targeted in this war: U.S. servicemembers’ children, of all sorts of backgrounds, are being hurt, too.

The Trump administration is siphoning billions from various defense projects to fund border wall construction, despite promises that Mexico would pay for it. This might sound unlikely to affect kids, but somehow the Trump administration found a way. Among the projects losing funds are schools for the children of U.S. servicemembers based in Kentucky, Germany and Japan, and a child-care center at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

Trump’s proposed federal budgets have likewise axed funding for other programs that serve children, such as subsidized school meals and Medicaid. Indeed, both federal and state GOP officials more broadly are still working to kill the Medicaid expansion, as well as other Affordable Care Act provisions that benefit kids.

The GOP has likewise ignored the pleas of children who want their lives protected from gun violence, or who want their futures protected from a warming planet.

A year ago, I offered a suggestion : that Democrats make children the theme of their midterm campaign. They mostly ignored me and still did okay. Nonetheless, I’m re-upping it.

Because even without Trump’s baby jails and proposed Medicaid cuts, our country’s emphasis on children’s well- being is seriously deficient.

Last year, for the first time on record, we spent a greater share of the federal budget servicing the national debt than we did on children, according to an analysis out next week from First Focus on Children. Spending on children as a share of the federal budget is also expected to shrink over the coming decade, crowded out by both debt service and spending on the elderly.

This is despite the fact that spending on children (especially low-income children) has among the highest returns on investment of any form of government spending.

Whatever the opposite of Trump’s War on Children is, that’s what Democrats should be running on.

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

Thanks, Catherine, for speaking out so clearly and articulately about what has become our #1 National Disgrace: Trump’s War On Human Decency & Future Generations and its sleazy cast of supporting characters like Pence, Kelly, Miller, Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies,” Homan, Albence, Morgan, “Cooch Cooch,” “Gonzo Apocalypto,” Barr, Cotton, Graham, and others with their glib immorality and disregard for truth, our Constitution, the rule of law, and basic human values.

Who thought the U.S. would ever stoop so low — to use our government’s power and might to abuse defenseless, already traumatized, and highly vulnerable children. (Catherine’s article does’t even get into how, with the help of scofflaw Attorneys General Sessions and Barr and some complacent Article III Judges, the Administration has manipulated asylum law and Immigration “Court” procedures to deny children and other asylum seekers the legal protection to which they are entitled under U.S. and international laws.)

There are many groups out there in the “New Due Process Army” fighting every day against this kind of outrageous behavior by our elected leaders, their corrupt cronies, and their many “go along to get along” enablers in the bureaucracy. Join or donate to one today!

The war to save America and humanity from Trump’s vile and cowardly agenda is one that we can’t afford to lose: For the sake of future generations!

PWS

09-06-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s where the “5 C’s” come into play: Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

At the same time, make an historical record of those judges who “stood small” in the face of Trump’s vicious and corrupt assault on our Constitution and our democratic institutions, not to mention the lives and well-being of vulnerable migrants!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Jeffrey Chase, an immigration lawyer and former New York immigration judge, said it’s not surprising that Esperanza and Josue would each lose asylum. Judge Spencer only started last fall and is on probation for her first two years in the job.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this posting incorrectly identified Beth’s network affiliation. She reports for WNYC.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever, Cowardly Judging Never!

Related posts:

09-11-19 will be remembered as the day that justice, human rights, and human decency died in America!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The war to save America and humanity from Trump’s vile and cowardly agenda is one that we can’t afford to lose: For the sake of future generations!

Related posts: