"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.orgRev. Craig Mousin Ombudsperson Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy DePaul University PHOTO: DePaul Website
FEBRUARY 23, 2023 CRAIG B. MOUSIN SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Lawful Assembly Podcast
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
00:00
|
24:29
Rewind Speed Forward
Info
LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
FEB 23, 2023 SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Craig B. Mousin
In this interview, Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy interviews Heidi Altman, the Policy Director of the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org). Ms. Altman discusses a proposed rule that will effectively preclude most asylum-seekers from safely and effectively applying for asylum in the United States. She advocates for humanitarian asylum welcome. She previously served as the legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and was a Teaching Fellow in the immigration clinic at Georgetown University Law School.
ACTION STEPS
1. Invite friends and family to learn how the proposed rule will undermine refugee protection and encourage them to respond to their elected representatives and the Biden administration urging withdrawal of the proposed rule.
2. The Sanctuary Working Group of the Chicago Religious Leadership Network currently serves and advocates alongside newly arrived asylum seekers in the Chicagoland area. There are many impactful ways you can help asylum seekers, from providing sponsorship and temporary housing to covering legal fees and advocating for policy change. Interested individuals, faith communities, or organizations may contact CRLN staff/consultant David Fraccaro at davidfraccaro99@gmail.com to talk about ways to partner together in supporting and protecting our newest neighbors.
Craig Mousin volunteers with the National Immigrant Justice Center. We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com
Thanks, Craig and Heidi for a very interesting and informative session!
T. Swift. Loss of chance to attend her latest concert due to Ticketmaster SNAFU caused immediate bipartisan Congressional outrage and hearings! Loss of chance to plead for life because of DHS CBP One App SNAFU, not so much! Dehumanization of our fellow humans degrades our society. LOS ANGELES – Swift at 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards on March 14, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Glenn Francis/Pacific Pro Digital Photography) Creative Commons License.
Here are “my takeaways:”
Asylum seekers have a legal right, established by the Refugee Act of 1980 and international conventions, to seek asylum at our border or in the U.S., regardless of status and/or nationality;
The Trump and Biden Administrations have abrogated this right without legislation;
The Trump Administration’s anti-asylum actions and intentional dehumanization of asylum seekers was rooted in White Nationalist nativism;
Despite recognition during the 2020 campaign of the invidious motivation for Trump’s anti-asylum policies, the Biden Administration has retained, or even enhanced, the dehumanization and denial of rights to asylum seekers at the border;
Over the past two Administrations, acceptance of the basic rights and obligations of the U.S. toward asylum seekers, incorporated in the Refugee Act of 1980, has been eliminated or reduced to a superficial “shell” (“asylum in name only,” as some advocates have termed Biden’s latest proposed anti-asylum border policies);
By abandoning the framework set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Trump and Biden Administrations have re-injected the ad hoc approach,disorder, nationality bias, and ideological preferences at the border that the Refugee Act of 1980 was specifically enacted to eliminate;
There is much under-appreciated support for welcoming, fairly treating, and helping refugees and asylum seekers among Americans in communities throughout our nation;
NGOs and experts have dozens of great ideas for restoring and improving the legal right to seek asylum in fair, humane, non-discriminatory ways which they have shared or are happy to share with the Biden Administration;
The Biden Administration to date has shown little if any interest in adopting and implementing better humanitarian solutions for asylum seekers at the border;
Both parties lack leaders with the integrity and courage to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers;
We must continue to discuss ways to break the cycle of dehumanization, cruelty, and scofflaw treatment of asylum seekers and replace it with enhanced humanitarian procedures and a welcoming culture, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol, and the very best traditions of our nation of immigrants.
Legal asylum seekers from Central America might have thought that cruelty, illegality, and stupidity went out with the Trump Administration. They were wrong! Now Biden proposes to lawlessly “presume denial” of asylum — with no legal basis — and dump legal asylum seekers of color from his “disfavored nations” back into Mexico, whose asylum system is dysfunctional and where abusive treatment of asylum seekers has been well documented and recognized by a Federal Court! Women suffering from gender-based persecution are particular targets of this Administration’s campaign against humanity! Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Many groups issued immediate statements of outrage and protest at this cruel, lawless, and intellectually dishonest betrayal! I set forth two of them here:
From the American Immigration Council:
PRESS RELEASE
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2023—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will implement a new asylum transit ban—one of the most restrictive border control measures to date under any president. The policy will penalize asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly or fail to apply for protection in other nations they transit through on their way to the United States.
As described in the NPRM, the proposed asylum transit ban rule would all but bar asylum for any non-Mexican who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry, unless they had previously applied for—and been denied—asylum in another country before arrival.
Specifically:
The rule would apply to all non-Mexican migrants (except unaccompanied minors) who had not been pre-approved under one of the Biden administration’s parole programs, which are currently open only to certain nationals of 5 countries; pre-register at a port of entry via CBP One or a similar scheduling system (or arrive at a port of entry and demonstrate they could not access the system); or get rejected for asylum in a transit country.
During an asylum seeker’s initial screening interview with an asylum officer, the officer will determine whether the new rule applies to them. If so, they will fail their credible fear screening unless they can demonstrate they were subject to an exception such as a medical emergency, severe human trafficking, or imminent danger—which would “rebut the presumption” of ineligibility.
Migrants subject to the rule, who do not meet the exceptions above, would be held to a higher standard of screening than is typically used for asylum (“reasonable fear”). If a migrant meets that standard, they will be allowed to apply for asylum before an immigration judge—although the text of the proposed regulation is unclear on whether they would actually be eligible to be granted asylum.
Migrants who do not meet the credible or reasonable fear standard can request review of the fear screening process in front of an immigration judge.
Once the regulation is formally published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposal. The administration is legally required to consider and respond to all comments submitted during this period before publishing the final rule, which itself must precede implementing the policy. Given the Biden administration’s expectation that the new rule will be in place for the expiration of the national COVID-19 emergency on May 11, and the potential end of the Title 42 border expulsion policy at that time, the timeline raises substantial concerns that the administration will not fulfill its obligation to seriously consider all comments submitted by the public before the rule is finalized.
Furthermore, the sunset date for the new rule, two years after it becomes effective, is after the end of the current presidential term—making it impossible to guarantee it will not be extended indefinitely.
In 2020, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked the Trump administration’s asylum transit ban from being applied to thousands of asylum seekers who were unlawfully prevented from accessing the U.S. asylum process. The ban was later vacated by the D.C. District Court.
The American Immigration Council was a part of the Al Otro Lado v. Wolf class action lawsuit on behalf of individual asylum seekers and the legal services organization Al Otro Lado (AOL), which challenged the legality of the previous asylum transit ban as applied to asylum seekers who had been turned back at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Jeremy Robbins Executive Director American Immigration Council PHOTO: AIC websitel
The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director, The American Immigration Council:
“President Biden committed to restoring access to asylum while on the campaign trail, but today’s proposal is a clear embrace of Trump-style crackdowns on asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing from globally recognized oppressive regimes. For over four decades, U.S. law has allowed any person in the United States to apply for asylum no matter how they got here. The new proposed rule would all but destroy that promise, by largely reinstating prior asylum bans that were found to be illegal.
“Not only is the new asylum transit ban illegal and immoral, if put into place as proposed, it would create unnecessary barriers to protection that will put the lives of asylum seekers at risk. While the rule purports to be temporary, the precedent it sets—for this president or future presidents—could easily become permanent.
“For generations, the United States has offered a promise that any person fleeing persecution and harm in their home countries could seek asylum, regardless of how they enter the United States. Today’s actions break from his prior promises and threaten a return to some of the most harmful asylum policies of his predecessor—possibly forever.”
###
For more information, contact:
Brianna Dimas 202-507-7557 bdimas@immcouncil.org
******************************
From the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2022
Contact: Tim Young | tyoung@lirs.org
Washington, D.C. – In preparation for the end of Title 42 asylum restrictions, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule severely limiting asylum eligibility for those who did not first seek protection in a country they transited through to reach the United States, or who entered without notifying a border agent. The proposed rule will be subject to a 30-day period of public comment before it can take effect.
The new rule mirrors a transit asylum ban first implemented under the Trump administration, which was ultimately struck down by federal judges in multiplecourts. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that people seeking protection may apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry, and does not require them to have first applied for protection in another country.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah CEO Lutheran Immigrantion & Refugee Service
In response to the proposed asylum eligibility rule, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said:
“This rule reaches into the dustbin of history to resurrect one of the most harmful and illegal anti-asylum policies of the Trump administration. This transit ban defies decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements, and flagrantly violates President Biden’s own campaign promises to restore asylum. Requiring persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems themselves is a ludicrous and life-threatening proposal.
While the Biden administration has launched a smartphone app for asylum appointments and expanded a temporary parole option for an extremely limited subset of four nationalities, these measures are no substitute for the legal right to seek asylum, regardless of manner of entry. It is generally the most vulnerable asylum seekers who are least likely to be able to navigate a complex app plagued by technical issues, language barriers, and overwhelming demand. Many families face immediate danger and cannot afford to wait for months on end in their country of persecution. To penalize them for making the lifesaving decision to seek safety at our border flies in the face of core American values.
We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule denies protection to those most in need of it. Officials must recognize that decades of deterrence-based policies have had little to no impact in suppressing migration. Instead, they should focus on managing migration humanely through expanded parole programs, efficient refugee processing in the hemisphere, and an equitably accessible asylum system.”
**************************
Lest anyone believe the absolute BS coming from the Biden Administration that they “had no choice” and that this “wasn’t the choice they wanted,” here’s an article setting forth the many southern border solutions that the Administration ignored or was too incompetent to carry out in their dishonest, immoral pursuit of the anti-asylum “vision” of Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists.
💡💡”There’s many things Biden could do. We published a resource called “Forty-Two Border Solutions That Are Not Title 42.” We could have done 142,” says immigration expert Danilo Zak in The Border Chronicle! The Biden Administration has ignored, failed, or is prepared to shrug off most of them!🤯
Danilo Zak Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy Church World Service PHOTO: The Border Chronicle
Zak was interviewed by Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle:
There are many changes that the Biden administration and Congress could make to alleviate suffering at the southern border. Immigration policy expert Danilo Zak recently published a report that offers several solutions, from rebuilding the refugee resettlement program to expanding nonimmigrant work visas to more countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Zak, formerly of the National Immigration Forum, is Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy for the nonprofit Church World Service. He spoke with The Border Chronicle about the increase of forcibly displaced people in the Western Hemisphere and the current situation at the border. “For many, there is no line to get into—no ‘right way’ to come to the U.S.,” Zak says.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
Notably, better, more robust, use of Refugee Programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980 is among Zak’s “top three.” This is something that I have been “touting” since Biden was elected, but where the Administration has failed to meet the challenge.
And, contrary to what the Administration and others might say, there is nothing unachievable about using refugee programs to deal with emergency humanitarian situations. Also, with respect to cases taking forever to process, no need for that nonsense. It’s a matter of poor bureaucratic execution rather than a defect in the legal authority.
The Refugee Act of 1980 (“RA 80”) is basically a modified version of the “emergency parole, resettle with NGOs, and petition Congress to adjust status” that was used on an ad hoc basis to resettle Indochinese refugees and others on an emergency basis prior to the RA 80. Except, that the criteria, resettlement mechanisms, and adjustment process were all “built in” to the statute. Consequently, although Congress was to be consulted in advance, that process was designed to run smoothly, efficiently, and on an emergency basis if necessary.
While “Congress bashing” is now a favorite pastime of the Executive, Judiciary, and media, in 1980 Congress actually provided a mechanism to regularize the processing of type of refugee flows now facing the U.S. The statutory flexibility and the legal tools to deal with these situations are in RA 80.
A subsequent Congress even added the “expedited removal” and “credible fear” process so that initial asylum screening could be conducted by expert Asylum Officers at or near the border and those “screened out” would be subject to expeditedremoval without full hearings in Immigration Court. Clearly, there was never a need for the Title 42 nonsense for any competent Administration.
Basically, if an Administration can run a large-scale parole program, which the Biden Administration did for Afghanistan and is doing now for Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti, it can run a legal refugee program beyond our borders, even in a “country in crisis” if necessary.
The idea that a statutory scheme specifically designed to have the flexibility deal with future mass refugee situations couldn’t be used to deal with the current humanitarian situation in the Western Hemisphere is pure poppycock!
Also unadulterated BS: The Biden Administration’s proposal to make the “end of asylum” at the southern border “temporary,” for two years! In 2025, the Biden Administration might not even be in office. If there is a GOP Administration, you can be sure that the demise of asylum at the border will become permanent, with or without legislation.
Also, what would be an Administration’s rationale for resuming asylum processing at the southern border in two years. Surely, there will be some other “bogus border crisis” cooked up to extend the bars. And, if there is no such crisis, the claim will be that the bars are “working as intended” so what’s the rationale for terminating them.
The argument that complying with the law by fairly processing asylum seekers regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or manner of arrival, as the law requires, might actually encourage people to apply for protection will always be there — hanging over cowardly politicos afraid of the consequences of granting protection. Fact is, the current Administration has so little belief in our legal system and their own ability to operate within in, and so little concern for the human lives involved, that they are scared to death of failure. That’s not likely to change in two years — or ever!
“The DOJ issues a hollow statement condemning FGM. But, when it comes to building on a 27-yr-old precedent to help gender-based refugees, they have been largely indifferent to suffering and the dire need for protection.” PHOTO: Creative Commons 4.0
Dan Kowalski from LexisNexis Immigration Community sent in this recent asylum victory from the Denver Immigration Court:
Hats off to Judge Burgie and Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas for showing how effective advocacy and good judging can save lives and “move” cases at the “retail level” of EOIR.
This decision is comprehensive, straightforward, understandable, and logical. This is exactly the type of precedent that the BIA should be (but isn’t) issuing and enforcing on a consistent, nationwide basis! Why isn’t EOIR getting the job done under Garland?
While Judge Burgie didn’t cite Matter of A-R-C-G- on asylum based on domestic violence, she did cite a number of my “favorite precedents” from the long-gone but not totally forgotten “Schmidt-Board:” Matter of Kasinga, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, Matter of D-V-, and Matter of S-P-, as well as the BIA’s oft-cited but seldom followed “seminal” asylum case Matter of Acosta, which was the starting point for Kasinga and other favorable asylum precedents of the past.
Judge Burgie also cited and followed favorable 10th Circuit precedent. She got the “unwilling or unable to protect,” “internal relocation,” and “nexus” issues correct. She used the regulatory presumption based on past persecution effectively. Significantly, she also included a correct additional analysis of why this case, and others like it, should be granted based on “egregious past persecution” (“Chen grant”) even in the absence of a current well-founded-fear. Most of these cases should be “easy grants” preferably at the Asylum Office, but if not, at EOIR.
Instead, some IJs and many BIA panels “invent” reasons to deny that mock asylum law and distort the reality of conditions for women in the Northern Traingle and elsewhere!
I recently commented elsewhere on the irony of Garland’s DOJ issuing a “pro forma declaration” endorsing “Zero Tolerance for FGM Day,” while doing such a poor overall job of actually protecting those who have suffered that and other forms of gender based persecution. Action over hollow rhetoric, please!
Seems to me EOIR didn’t do a very good job of “building on the saving potential” of Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), my “landmark” opinion finding that FGM could be a basis for granting asylum. Indeed, after the “Ashcroft purge” removed those of us BIA judges committed to protecting refugees suffering from gender based persecution, the BIA intentionally misconstrued Kasinga and shamefully tried to limit it.
So transparently horrible was this effort that one of Ashcroft’s Bush II successors, AG Mukasey, hardly a voice for progressive jurisprudence and women’s human rights, finally had to intervene to put a stop to the BIA’s deadly nonsense. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008). This was only after after blistering criticism of the “post-purge” BIA’s disingenuous approach by some of Judge Mukasey’s “former Article III superiors” on the Second Circuit.SeeBah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The BIA refers, in passing, to the act of female genital mutilation as “reprehensible,” . . . but its entirely dismissive treatment of such claims in these cases belies any sentiment to that effect.” Straub, Circuit Judge concurring).
Judge Staub’s criticism of the BIA’s shallow and disingenuous treatment of too many asylum claims, particularly those based on gender persecution, remains just as true today under Garland as it was then. “Throwaway lines” — basically “boilerplate” —disingenuously expressing sympathy, but then misconstruing facts and law to deny life-saving protection, are no substitute for competent, fair judging at EOIR!
More than a quarter-century after Kasinga, I still don’t see much commitment at DOJ/EOIR to consistently protecting women from gender-based persecution. That being said, some IJs, particularly (but not only) those with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers, like Judge Burgie, are doing a good job of applying Cardoza, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, D-V-, O-Z-&I-Z-, the regulatory presumption, expert testimony, and an honest reading of country conditions to grant desperately-needed protection in gender-based cases. The BIA, not so much.
Also, while issuing this statement, DOJ is “sitting on” gender based regulations, promised by President Biden on “day 1” to be delivered by the Fall of 2021! Reportedly, there is considerable “Miller Lite” restrictionist opposition within the Administration to treating protection claims for gender-based refugees fairly, generously, and consistently. See, e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-asylum-limits-us-mexico-border-arrivals/.
Kind of makes me wonder what, if anything, Dems REALLY stand for when the chips are down, human lives are at stake, and courageous, informed, bold leadership is required! GOP White Nationalist nativist bullies are only too happy to express their disdain for the rights and contempt for the humanity of all vulnerable refugees. They specifically target women.
But, when it comes to standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, most of them already written into our laws, Dems often “hide underneath the table.” That’s particularly true of this Administration’s incredibly poor and spineless approach to asylum at the Southern Border and their failure to address the asylum disaster at EOIR.
And, it’s not that Biden’s morally and legally vapid approach to asylum seekers has won any support from the right, progressives, or independents. Almost everyone is suing or threatening to sue the Administration about some aspect of their hapless, mushy, often self-contradictory handling of asylum. It’s a traditional, perhaps endemic, problem that once elected, Dems have a hard time distinguishing friends from foes. At least on immigration, they spend far too much time catering to the views and bogus criticisms of the latter while ignoring the informed views and experiences of the former.
Judge Burgie is a Barr appointee, but has a diverse background that includes not only service as an EOIR JLC and fraud and abuse prevention counsel, but also time representing and advocating for refugees and asylum seekers. Her asylum grant rate has gone up steadily over three years on the bench and currently stands at approximately 75%, well within the range I’d expect from a competent, expertIJ handling a non-detained docket.
That’s about 2X the national average grant rate of 37.5%. And, the latter is “up” from its artificially suppressed rate under Trump! Better EOIR judges at the “grass roots level” can make a difference and save lives even in the absence of leadership from Falls Church and “Main Justice!”
As this case confirms, there is “substantial judicial potential” on the the EOIR bench, most of it at the trial level. That’s particularly true of some of Garland’s most recent appointments who are widely-recognized and universally-respected asylum experts — “practical scholars” if you will.
But, EOIR still has not reached the “critical mass” of outstanding jurists necessary to “turn this broken system around” in the absence of leadership, positive examples, and operational reforms “from the top!”
That’s why I advocate for “change from below as the way to go” to save some lives and institutionalize fair judging and best practices at EOIR. So, NDPA heroes, keep those applications flowing forupcoming vacancies on the Immigration Bench, at all levels. I want YOU to bring justice to the broken “retail level” of our legal system! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/.
The Biden administration fell into the trap of letting its opponents define the terms of the debate. . . . .
Arranging care for asylum seekers would have been necessary even with a better metric. However, managing the humanitarian flow would have been easier if the Biden administration had allowed those seeking asylum to apply in an orderly, timed fashion at a lawful port of entry.. . . .
. . . .
Members of Congress and others who oppose the Biden administration’s parole program raised no objections to the Trump administration dismantling the U.S. refugee program. They also have not advocated for any other legal way for people escaping oppressive governments to enter America. Without paths to enter lawfully, it is inevitable that more people will cross into the U.S. illegally.
. . . .
Critics of the increase in CBP encounters argue, without much evidence, that individuals would not come to America if U.S. immigration policy were harsher—in other words, if Biden were more like Trump.
Despite what his supporters assert, Trump’s policies did not reduce illegal immigration or discourage people from applying for asylum. Pending asylum cases rose by nearly 300 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2020 (from 163,451 to 614,751), according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Apprehensions at the southwest border (a proxy for illegal entry) rose more than 100 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2019 (from 408,870 to 851,508). Apprehensions fell for several months at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but by August and September 2020, apprehensions returned to the approximate level of illegal entry for the same months in FY 2019.
Providing individuals with legal ways to work or seek protection in America is the only viable way to reduce illegal immigration. Treating people humanely is not a sign of weakness. Allowing for orderly entry is a smart policy consistent with America’s best tradition as a nation of immigrants and refugees.
******************
I highly recommend reading Stuart’s complete article at the link. Members of the so-called “mainstream media,” whose stories often do not accurately reflect the legal right to apply for asylum at the border, which has been shamefully ignored and/or abridged by both Trump and Biden, would also do well to read Stuart’s accurate description of our needlessly screwed up administration of refugee and asylum laws. Most media articles also fail to accurately distinguish between those (often vainly) seeking just to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum at the border and other individuals who might irregularly cross the border.
The real, oft-ignored, problem here is that the Trump Administration dismantled the legal refugee programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980. Then, they unlawfully “repealed” asylum law at the border. Worse yet, Congress and bad GOP appointed Federal Judges let them get away with this outrageously illegal and highly counterproductive conduct (at least to date).
By the time the Biden Administration took office, the real “solvable” part of the problem at the Southern Border was well defined by experts: The US Government’s intentional violation of laws protecting refugees and legal asylum seekers and guaranteeing the latter fair and timely assessment and adjudication of their claims.
The Biden Administration could and should have “hit the ground running” with an aggressive program (and defense thereof) of restoration of the rule of law for refugees, who could and should have been processed in larger numbers outside the U.S. in Latin America and the Caribbean, combined with a restoration of the rule of law for asylum seekers at the, border, led by a reformed EOIR and USCIS Asylum Office, both staffed with true asylum experts!
Instead, the Biden Administration, after an “initial burst” of promising yet highly ineffective rhetoric (see, e.g., “reforms” of gender-based asylum), gave immigration, human rights, and the interconnected problem of racial justice, low priority. Instead of seeking and employing dynamic, progressive, problem-solving leaders, with new and creative ideas, they relied largely on “bureaucratic retreads” who showed little interest in or affinity for taking the bold, often courageous, actions necessary to address the festering humanitarian crisis at the border!
Too many of these individuals seemed to accept the false GOP nativist proposition that elimination or unduly restrictive applications of asylum law were the best way to “deter” unlawful entries, and that we didn’t want to “encourage” refugees from Latin America or the Caribbean by recognizing the legitimacy of their claims and/or running robust, realistically large “overseas” refugee programs for them.
Moving refugees and asylum seekers into an orderly, functioning, legal process at or away from the border would also allow CBP to focus resources on individuals who are not seeking legal refugee in the U.S. Because of the inaccurate and misleading statistics used to “count” border activity, as accurately described by Stuart in his full article, we actually have little idea how large a “cohort” of individual border arrivals legal asylum seekers represent.
“Mixing apples and oranges” certainly plays directly into the hands of GOP restrictionist/nativists who love to lump them all together under the dehumanizing and intentionally demeaning “false rubric” of “illegals.”There is nothing “illegal” about appearing at the U.S. border and asking for refuge under our domestic laws and international conventions to which we are party!
What is “illegal” is our Government suspending legal processing for asylum, and also, even for those chosen under largely arbitrary criteria for processing, delivering a badly flawed biased process that is neither fair nor timely. Also, mixing those merely seeking a chance to state their legal case for asylum with those seeking entry for other purposes certainly “dilutes” the enforcement resources and effectiveness of CBP in preventing “real” unlawful entries.
Instead, the Biden Administration settled into an inept “Miller Lite” posture of utilizing modified and supposedly “humanized” versions of Trump’s illegal policies. As pointed out by Stuart, the Biden Administration also failed miserably to anticipate and establish a Federally-led and funded program for humane resettlement of asylum seekers.
This played right into the hands of White Nationalist GOP pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Ducey, Paxton, Cruz, Cassidy, Vance, Biggs, McCarthy, Jordan, et.al. At the same time, in one of the dumbest moves in recent political history, they left Democratic leaders in locations victimized by the GOP “bussing stunts” in the lurch and without support, thereby driving an entirely unnecessary “wedge” and “stress point” into the “Democratic coalition.”
There might be no “easy and perfect” solution for managing refugee situations. Refugees and other types of “forced migrants’ have been with us since the beginning of human history. They will continue to exist long after the current crop of nativist politicos and “deterrence-only-focused” bureaucrats are gone.
Yet, with all this historical knowledge, the so-called “Western Democracies” failed miserably in protecting refugees from Hitler’s planned genocide in the years leading up to and including WWII. The 1951 UN Convention and later Protocol were supposedly “never again” responses to that deadly failure.
Yet, today, politicians and leaders who should know better seem determined to ignore the lessons of history and recreate the moral and humanitarian failures of the past. One can only hope that the NDPA and the “new generations” can get by the failures of today and treat refugees fairly, humanely, and in recognition of the substantial benefits that most bring to those nations fortunate enough to be “receiving” countries. The future of our world may depend on it!
Johnathan Chair Political Columnist NY Magazine PHOTO: Facebook
Johnathan Chait @ The Intelligencer:
There is an enduring pattern in American conservatism in which the right first develops a paranoid interpretation of the liberal Establishment, and then reverse engineers its own version of the monster it has imagined. Conservatives convinced themselves that the mainstream media and universities were mere propaganda organs, then created institutions like the Heritage Foundation and Fox News, warped reflections of their own overheated critique. The January 6 insurrection was, of course, in the mind of its participants, a “response” to the imagined vote-fraud conspiracy and its antifa/BLM shock troops.
John Durham’s investigation is a classic episode in this tradition. The American right first convinced itself that Robert Mueller and the deep state, using the cover of dispassionate professionalism, had launched a partisan witch hunt to smear Donald Trump. In response, it created a right-wing mirror image, as fervently partisan and unhinged as they believed their enemies to be.
The New York Times has a deeply reported narrative showing how Durham’s counter-investigation of the Russia probe, cooked up by William Barr at Donald Trump’s urging, was just as abusive, partisan, and unhinged as Trump’s defenders made Mueller out to be.
The purpose of special counsel is to wall off a politically sensitive investigation from the attorney general. But Durham, reports the Times, was working closely with Barr behind closed doors all along. The two Republicans dined and drank together, and came to share Barr’s Fox News–brained beliefs that Trump had been the victim of a conspiracy.
Rather than preventing Barr from meddling in a politicized investigation, this arrangement inverted that purpose and laundered Barr’s involvement through Durham’s putative independence. “At some point, some particularly ill-informed critic of the administration may try to paint Durham as a right-wing hack or Republican loyalist,” wrote National Review’s Jim Geraghty in a fawning profile, singling out the NAACP’s Sherrilyn Ifill for having the temerity to suggest Durham might have been compromised by serving Trump’s ends.
Durham and Barr kept failing to prove the deep-state conspiracy they imagined, but continued to press forward anyway. At one point they seized upon hacked Russian memos that intelligence analysts deemed obviously fake, instead treating them as a valuable intelligence trove, and tried to prove it out, even harassing one of the targets to obtain his emails (which contained nothing incriminating). It weirdly reflected the Trumpist accusation that Robert Mueller had been tricked into pursuing Russian disinformation.
As Durham kept failing to find support for the conspiracy he was pursuing, and which Barr kept floating in public, his deputies chafed at his obsession. Eventually, one of them resigned in protest when he brought charges against Michael Sussmann, a target of the right. As his former lieutenants expected, Durham’s case was defeated in court.
. . . .
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
Immigration advocates didn’t need a NY Timesinvestigation to tell you that Barr was corrupt! Biased anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “AG precedents;” BIA “Appellate Judges” appointed for their unusually high asylum denial rates and known hostility to migrants and their attorneys; Immigration Judges appointed without expertise in immigration and human rights, overwhelmingly from the ranks of prosecutors; busting the IJ union (“NAIJ”) for speaking out against DOJ’s politicized mismanagement; issuing an EOIR “Fact Sheet” full of lies, misrepresentations, and myths; appointing politicized managers at EOIR without judicial or due process qualifications; taking ethically questionable litigating positions in Federal Court; the list of Barr’s abuses of authority on immigration and human rights goes on and on!
AG Merrick Garland has made a few ameliorative changes. Some of the worst precedents have been overruled; some unqualified political senior executives been removed or reassigned; over time, judicial selection has been shifted to a more balanced, merit-based system that has resulted in the appointment as Immigration Judges of some widely-recognized experts, with experience representing individuals, and a demonstrated commitment to due process for all; “numerical quotas” for IJs have been eliminated. (Curiously, however, Garland “honored” 17 “transition” Barr judicial selections made under badly flawed selection criteria!)
Yet, overall, EOIR remains largely the disaster zone that Barr left behind. Trump-era anti-asylum Appellate Judges continue to dominate the BIA; many Trump-era IJs still misapply basic immigration legal standards and operate “asylum free zones;” management is weak; training is inadequate; dockets are out of control; respondents and their attorneys are treated unprofessionally; quality control is largely nonexistent; wildly inconsistent “refugee roulette” asylum adjudication remains; an enforcement-skewed culture of “any reason to deny and deport” continues to infect EOIR at all levels; “numbers” are emphasized over quality and fairness; and the DOJ’s OIL often defends indefensible EOIR decisions in Federal Court on the apparent rationale that “it’s only migrants’ lives at stake, so who cares!”
Unhappily, the Biden Administration has barely “scratched the surface” of the badly needed and long overdue common sense reforms needed at EOIR and the DOJ to put the Sessions/Barr abuses behind us and move forward! Barr was a bad AG; but, his ghost continues to haunt the DOJ and those seeking equal justice for all!
On Jan. 5, the Biden administration announced that it planned to issue a regulation “to provide that individuals who circumvent available, established pathways to lawful migration, and also fail to seek protection in a country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, will be subject to a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility in the United States.”
These two reasons to bar people from seeking asylum — for transiting through other countries and for crossing the U.S. border without authorization — have different rationales and historical origins. But both have been marshaled against Central Americans since the late 1980s — severely undermining access to asylum. Doing so endangers people’s lives and breaks U.S. and international law. History reveals the purpose and perils of such bars.
No such bars stopped earlier waves of refugees seeking protection in the United States, especially those coming from Europe. When people who fled the Bolshevik Revolution applied to be considered “bona fide refugees” under a 1934 U.S. law, it did not matter that they had spent several years during the previous decade in Germany, France, China, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico or Canada and then crossed a land border without getting inspected by a U.S. official — as many did — beginning in the mid-1920s. They told immigration officials that conditions in those countries made it hard for them to live and it would be years before they could qualify for an immigration visa to the United States. So, they made their way to the United States on their own — and their mode of entry, and even their use of fraudulent travel documents, did not preclude them from adjusting to permanent status.
. . . .
The Biden administration insists its regulation will be different because it has opened up new legal pathways from transit countries and it will give asylum seekers a chance to prove why they didn’t use one of the legal pathways available to them. But migrants from Guatemala and Honduras lack parole programs that are newly available only to Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians who have passports and sponsors in the United States. Further, parole, discretionary temporary permission to enter and stay in the United States with no path to citizenship, is a far cry from permanent refugee status. Fifteen thousand refugee resettlement slots this year are for all of the Caribbean and Latin America, where over 7 million Venezuelans are displaced. It is hard not to see this rule as an effort to limit access to asylum in the United States specifically for people from northern Central America and to treat today’s forcibly displaced people from the Americas unlike people seeking refuge from elsewhere in the past.
******************
Read Yael’s complete article at the link.
Many of us had believed that the Biden Administration would get beyond the biases, manipulations of law, and implicit or explicit racism of the past to achieve the orderly, legal, timely admission of refugees, including those from Latin America, from abroad and at the border. Unfortunately and outrageously, they haven’t even tried!
Instead, they have turned human rights and border policies into an unholy, largely incomprehensible and arbitrary, mishmash of many of the worst, most ineffective, and invidiously biased policies of the past.
Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog.
As an initial matter, it’s important to acknowledge that the Immigration Court backlog is huge. There are currently more than 2 million pending cases, which is more than at any time in the history of the Immigration Court system. To address this situation, EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts) has been working with DHS (the prosecutor) to dismiss low-priority cases, where the non-citizen does not have criminal issues or pose a national security threat. Also, the U.S. government has been doing its best to turn away asylum seekers at the Southern border, which has perhaps slowed the growth of the backlog, but has also (probably) violated our obligations under U.S. and international law.
In addition, EOIR has been hiring new Immigration Judges (“IJs”) at a break neck pace. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of IJs nationwide, though some parts of the country have received more judges than others. In those localities with lots of new IJs, EOIR has been advancing thousands of cases. The goal is to complete cases and reduce the backlog. Why EOIR has failed to coordinate its new schedule with stakeholders, such as respondents and immigration attorneys, I do not know.
What I do know is that EOIR’s efforts have created great hardships for attorneys and respondents (respondents are the non-citizens in Immigration Court). Also, I expect that this whole rescheduling debacle will have long-term effects on the Immigration Courts, as well as on the immigration bar.
The most obvious effect is that lawyers and respondents simply do not have enough time to properly prepare their cases. When a hearing was set for 2025 and then suddenly advanced to a date a few months in the future, it may not be enough time to gather evidence and prepare the case. Also, this is not occurring in a vacuum. Lawyers (like me) are seeing dozens of cases advanced without warning, and so we have to manage all of those, plus our regular case load. So the most immediate consequence of EOIR’s policy is that asylum seekers and other respondents often do not have an opportunity to present their best case.
Perhaps less obviously, lawyers are being forced to turn work away. We can only competently handle so many matters, and when we are being assaulted day-by-day with newly rescheduled cases, we cannot predict our ability to take on a new case. In my office, we have been saying “no” more and more frequently to potential clients. Of course, this also affects existing clients who need additional work. Want to expedite your asylum case? Need a travel document to see a sick relative? I can’t give you a time frame for when we can complete the work, because I do not know what EOIR will throw at me tomorrow.
One option for lawyers is to raise prices. We have not yet done that in my office, but it is under consideration. What we have done is increase the amount of the down payment we require. Why? Because as soon as we enter our name as the lawyer, we take on certain obligations. And since cases now often move very quickly, we need to be sure we get paid. If not, we go out of business. The problem is that many people cannot afford a large down payment or cannot pay the total fee over a shortened (and unpredictable) period of time. The result is that fewer non-citizens will be able to hire lawyers.
Well, there is one caveat–crummy lawyers will continue to take more and more cases, rake in more and more money, and do very little to help their clients. Such lawyers are not concerned about the quality of their work or doing a good job for their clients. They simply want to make money. EOIR’s policy will certainly benefit them, as responsible attorneys will be forced to turn away business, those without scruples will be waiting to take up the slack.
Finally, since EOIR is increasing attorney stress and burnout to untenable levels, I expect we will see lawyers start to leave the profession. I have talked to many colleagues who are ready to go. Some are suffering physical and mental health difficulties due to the impossible work load. Most immigration lawyers are very committed to their clients and have a sense of mission, but it is extremely difficult to work in an environment where you cannot control your own schedule, you cannot do your best for your clients, you cannot fulfill your obligations to your family and friends, and where you are regularly abused and treated with contempt. Long before EOIR started re-arranging our schedules, burnout among immigration lawyers was a serious problem. Today, that problem is exponentially worse, thanks to EOIR’s utter disrespect for the immigration bar. I have little doubt that the long term effect will be to drive good attorneys away from the profession.
For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way. EOIR could have worked with attorneys to advance cases in an orderly manner and to ensure that respondents and their lawyers were protected. But that is not what happened. Instead, EOIR has betrayed its stated mission, “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.” Respondents, their attorneys, and the immigration system are all worse off because of it.
***********************
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
“For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way.” Amen, Jason! Me too! And, I think I speak for most, if not all, of my esteemed colleagues on the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members.”⚔️🛡
In addition to betraying its mission “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws,” EOIR has trashed its noble once-vision: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
The use of the word “uniformity” in EOIR’s “mission” is an absurdity given the “range” of asylum denials fostered and tolerated by Garland’s dysfunctional system: 0-100%! It’s also understandable, if unforgivable, that EOIR no longer features words like “due process,” “fundamental fairness,” “teamwork,” and “innovation” prominently on its website!
A Dem AG is attacking our American justice system and the legal profession at the “retail level” and causing real, perhaps “irreparable,” damage! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything! What are we going to do about it? Or, more appropriately, what are YOU going to do about it, as my time on the stage, and that of my contemporaries, is winding down?
All of these particularities matter, because once all available options have been exhausted, cases generally end up inside an immigration court before an immigration judge. The administrative snarls that predate a case before it arrives in immigration court are thus a result of policy from the top, for better or worse.
On paper, courts are supposed to be independent bodies. They are supposed to be immune from the political agendas of other government operatives or serve as independent mediators that can rectify previous errors.
But immigration courts are not. As a part of the Justice Department, at the end of the day, they work under the attorney general. While other courts function under a de jure practice of independence, immigration courts are held to the same standard despite not possessing the same protections that allow other judges to carry out their basic job functions. This creates an impossible work environment for immigration judges to fairly adjudicate every case with the attention it deserves. Instead, their measurements of success are based on accomplishing the president’s goals, which are translated into quotas for immigration courts. For example, Biden administration officials touted removing 1.3 million migrants last year.
As the Prospect has previously reported, immigration judges have long pointed out the tenuous environment they must work in.
But later this month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) will be hearing from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) over whether or not their union will be reinstated. The FLRA will now have a majority of Biden appointees.
A dysfunctional immigration system can only start to work with independent courts. But that change can only happen through congressional action. In the meantime, a never-ending crisis at the border can be exploited by one party, as the other expands the needlessly punitive immigration practices of the previous administration.
*******************
Many thanks to prodigious immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport for passing this along to me.
There is consensus among experts that an independent Article I Immigration Court is urgently needed and long overdue. There is also a consensus that the chance of achieving this critical legislative change with a GOP-controlled House is zero. At the same time, we must remember that Dems didn’t exactly give any priority to this essential and far-reaching reform when they had “unified control” over the political branches.
There is also consensus that in the absence of Article I there are things that Garland and the Biden Administration could and should have done administratively that would have drastically improved the due process, expertise, quality, efficiency, “customer service,” and professionalism of EOIR.
Gee whiz, a Harvard Law student figured it out! They haveconstructive suggestions for administrative reforms to change culture, improve training, place docket control in the hands of judges not politicos and bureaucrats, increase independence, improve quality, and insulate IJs from the political whims and enforcement agendas of each Administration. Seehttps://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hE?
But, a Harvard Law grad, long-time Federal Judge, and Supremes’ nominee, and his band of supposedly smart and high-powered political lieutenants couldn’t or wouldn’t get it done for a Dem Administration? Gimmie a break!
A Dem Administration that was supposed to get us beyond the cruelty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Administration falls flat on its face on a critical and achievable part of immigration reform and racial justice in America! Go figure!
Meanwhile, the cries of pain keep coming from those subjected to Garland’s dystopian “courts!”
Had an “interesting” IH today with this IJ. [IJ] denied my motion to continue the case by email the evening before the 8:30 am hearing, even though I had four IHs scheduled in the same time slot and had filed a motion to continue a month before the hearing. [IJ] refused to grant me a few minutes to speak with OPLA counsel before the hearing to narrow issues, saying that discussion should have already taken place. [IJ] spent an inordinate amount of time on housekeeping issues. [IJ] read a list of “rules.” [IJ] would insist that counsel stand when they spoke. [IJ] would routinely deny motions for webex hearings. [IJ] went through the biographical information excruciatingly slowly, including having the respondent spell the names of all the riders, provide their birth dates, etc.
It was a case where DHS had stipulated to 42b and the only issue would’ve been discretion but the IJ didn’t care. [IJ] told me to let everyone know that [IJ] reads each and every single document submitted in . . . court from back to front and . . . has a lot of questions . . . . [IJ] went on to conduct a full hearing, chastised DHS for stipulating, made a big deal of every little thing, asked irrelevant questions about medicaid forms that [client] may have filled for her children (not included as part of evidence), insinuated that she committed medicaid fraud, and made the ACC change position on each and every issue.
[The IJ] denied the asylum application of a young gay man from El Salvador. This is a first for me, in my 20+ years of asylum practice. We’ve never lost such a case that I can recall.
The facts are pretty typical – the kid lived a life of humiliation and abuse in El Salvador due to his sexual orientation; tried to commit suicide several times; and ultimately left the country when the Mara 18 tried to get him to deliver marijuana for them. Arguably, not a strong case for past persecution, but such cases typically prevail where a judge fairly evaluates a claim of well-founded fear of future persecution and considers the country condition reports and articles about the horrendous human rights abuses against the LGBT community in El Salvador. This didn’t fly with IJ. [IJ] simply said “there is no meaningful evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Respondent would experience harm amounting to persecution in El Salvador” and then went on to say that the client would likely experience more bullying and discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it would be persecution. [IJ] did not mention any country conditions report or article from the record to support his ruling.
[T]he DHS attorney called me directly after the hearing to empathize and tell me that it’s well-known even on their side that this judge is a piece of work and it’s always a good idea to take PD if offered.
[T]his judge is a menace. I don’t know what to do to protect my clients from [IJ] other than prepare strong BIA appeals.
This is the third email I have received to schedule MORE cases. No one will tell me what the goal is. I’ve put them on notice of the health issues this is/has been causing me.
Please tell the higher ups that this practice of overscheduling the private bar is taking a serious toll on practitioners’ health. Medical documentation is below and attached. I’m really not sure why the court has felt the need to overschedule practitioners to this level, but it is really taking a serious toll on everyone. Can someone please shed light on this urgent need to overwhelm the limited number of defense attorneys we have in the area?
Another outstanding Immigration Court practitioner told me that they had left courtroom practice and taken a “research and writing” position because the EOIR courtroom “experience” under Garland was so dehumanizing, demoralizing, stressful, and life consuming!
A different attorney called me with concerns that an IJ’s “over the top” abuse of pro bono counsel would discourage others from taking cases in Immigration Court.
IJ’s wasting time; discouraging negation and stipulation by parties; taking over hearings; abusing continuance discretion; failing to abide by Cardoza & Mogharrabi; showing bias; producing wildly inconsistent anti-immigrant results; showing thin knowledge of law; rudely treating counsel and clients; over-scheduling; abusing power; endangering the health of those appearing before them; driving practitioners to leave the EOIR courtrooms; discouraging pro bono!
Everything that is NOT what a fair, independent, court of law should be is present and allowed, perhaps even encouraged, in Garland’s broken EOIR! Why is this type of grotesque mismanagement, bad judging, unprofessional conduct, and disregard of fundamental due process “business as usual” under a Dem Administration?
This “star chamber” system needs new, expert, progressive, due-process-focused, free from political hackery and inane gimmicks, “kick-ass” management! Garland isn’t getting the job done!
These younger progressives are exactly the “core support” that Dems will need to win future elections! How does “dissing” them with inept leadership and ineffective nativist-derived immigration policies help the cause?
Honestly, what a mess! Garland’s dystopian EOIR is the Democratic Party’s shame!
This is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. The podcast critiques Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas’ recent NPR interview for what the interview omits in explaining 2023 asylum policies.
ACTION STEP
Imagine you are an asylum-seeker who has left your homeland. Listen to the interview with Secretary Mayorkas and consider its impact as you. Then write to the White House and Secretary Mayorkas and urge the Biden administration to follow the procedures and procedural protections of the Refugee Act of 1980: https://www.npr.org/people/4080709/steve-inskeep
We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com
This is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. The podcast critiques Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas’ recent NPR interview for what the interview omits in explaining 2023 asylum policies.
ACTION STEP
Imagine you are an asylum-seeker who has left your homeland. Listen to the interview with Secretary Mayorkas and consider its impact as you. Then write to the White House and Secretary Mayorkas and urge the Biden administration to follow the procedures and procedural protections of the Refugee Act of 1980: https://www.npr.org/people/4080709/steve-inskeep
We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com
Thanks for speaking out, Craig! Mayorkas’s interview was a shocking mix of intellectual dishonesty, insincerity, and misdirection worthy of a Trump Administration official. And, as Craig points out several times, the interviewer didn’t ask the right questions either.
Let’s understand what the Biden Administration’s arbitrary, ad hoc “parole program” that has been substituted for the Refugee Act of 1980 (“the law”), as amended, really does: 1) favors those who don’t necessarily meet the “refugee” definition (even if properly interpreted), but who have individual sponsors, over refugees; or 2) forces those who do meet the refugee definition into an inferior “parole status” that denies them the statutory path to a green card and eventual citizenship and other benefits that legal “refugee” or “asylum” status entails, or 3) a combination of 1) and 2).
Sound like a good idea? Of course not! It’s a prescription for a legal, humanitarian, and moral disaster!
Getting the USG to follow the law shouldn’t be this difficult. But, it is, because of the refusal of the Biden Administration to heed the advice of experts who not only know the law, but understand the border and the corrosive effect and real human consequences of unlawfully abandoning the statutory framework established by the Refugee Act of 1980.
Apparently, due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice for all persons in the U.S., even those who happen to be non-citizens, weren’t part of A.G. Merrick Garland’s Harvard Law education. PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The esteemed Harvard Law Review does not publish much immigration scholarship. A student note on the immigration court system may be of interest to blog readers. The system long has been criticized and, last year, a bill was introduced in Congress that would have brought reform.
Courts in Name Only: Repairing America’s Immigration Adjudication System
By the Harvard Law Review
Noncitizens in the United States face innumerable obstacles, many of which have now become well known. But even the supposedly neutral court system in which noncitizens’ cases are adjudicated currently functions as an executive tool for removal. This Note argues that the current structure of the immigration adjudication system — and the resulting executive control over it — subjects Immigration Judges to a variety of conditions that, taken together, bias the entire system towards removal. It then surveys existing proposals for structural reform and proposes numerous possible intermediate reforms.
KJ
**********************
Key recommendation from HLR article:
While waiting for Congress to act, however, the executive branch has the authority to implement several crucial reforms that would allow for noncitizens to have their cases heard in fairer proceedings overseen by IJs with true, independent adjudicatory power.
Good News for Harvard Law: Some bright, unidentified, Harvard Law students can cut through the BS and clearly state achievable reforms that could and should have been implemented by the Biden Administration without legislation.
Bad News for Harvard Law: Prominent graduate and Law Review “alum” AG Merrick Garland (‘77), once a step away from a seat on the Supremes, doesn’t “get” it and, in fact, his poor leadership and mis-management are key parts of the problems at EOIR that threaten the stability and credibility of the entire U.S. justice system.
Note to HLR: Follow your own advice to “cut through the noise” and reform yourself. Lose the “historical BS,” move into the 21st century, show some intellectual integrity, and set a better example by clearly identifying and crediting the authorship of this and other student articles, whether by individual(s) or a team. See, e,g., Authorship: Giving Credit Where It’s Due,https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/giving-credit
It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀 It’s just “Legal & Intellectual Ethics 101” (not to mention standard professional courtesy). As a former judge, albeit only one in the CINOs, I gave little weight to quotations and citations to anonymous or unidentified sources.
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Excerpts:
Now, those of you who read my blog immigrationcourtside.com or have heard me speak before, or both, know that I am an outspoken critic of the last four Administrations’ gross mismanagement and misdirection of our Immigration Courts. So, you might well ask why I am here recruiting YOU to become part of a court system that I have consistently lampooned and characterized as dysfunctional, FUBAR, and badly in need of long-overdue reforms.
A better question might be why AG Garland, VP Harris, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and Associate AG Vanita Gupta AREN’T here today actively recruiting you to apply to become Immigration Judges in their system. It’s a hugely important court, perhaps the largest in the Federal Government, that cries out for excellence, practical immigration scholarship, and badly needs a much more diverse, representative, and expert judiciary to achieve equal justice for all in America.
The short answer is because I CARE, and THEY DON’T! I have a vision of a model court system unswervingly dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, great practical scholarship, best judicial practices, fantastic public service, and equal justice for all! THEY DON’T!
After two largely fruitiness and frustrating years of the Biden Administration’s bungling immigration and social justice mis-steps, it’s painfully clear that the needed management, personnel, operational, and expertise reforms needed at EOIR AREN’T going to come from above.
But, if you have been in Immigration Court and thought “Hey, there is a better, more informed, more efficient, more just way to run this railroad, why isn’t it happening,” THIS is YOUR chance to get on board and change the direction of EOIR and the millions of lives and livelihoods that depend on it! See that the next generations of dedicated immigration lawyers won’t face some of the unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks and bad experiences that you have had to deal with in seeking justice for your clients before EOIR!
. . . .
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and country conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, as I noted earlier, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
. . . .
So, warriors of the NDPA, check out USA Jobs, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others, stand up for due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, and help save our democracy! Become better judges for a better America! If not YOU, then who?
You can watch my full webinar here:
AILA Webinars shared the following meeting recording with you.
Topic: How to become an EOIR judge
Date: Jan 11, 2023 11:42 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Eleanor Acer Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First. She called Biden’s latest border farce “a humanitarian disgrace.” Other experts agree!
From Eleanor Acer @ Human Rights First:
The president described the new approach as one intended to expand opportunities for migrants. But immigration advocates denounced the changes, saying that they included vast new restrictions on the right to claim asylum for people who need to escape their countries.
Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, called the new policies “a humanitarian disgrace” and said the president should not be adding restrictions on people who seek refuge in the United States.
“The Biden administration should be taking steps to restore asylum law at ports of entry,” she said, “not doubling down on cruel and counterproductive policies from the Trump playbook.”
Biden Announces Major Crackdown on Illegal Border Crossings
nytimes.com • 2 min read
*******
From Amy Fischer @ Amnesty International USA:
“Amnesty International USA condemns the Biden Administration’s attack on the human right to seek asylum. Today, the Biden Administration fully reversed course on its stated commitment to human rights and racial justice by once again expanding the use of Title 42, announcing rulemaking on an asylum transit ban, expanding the use of expedited removal, and implementing a new system to require appointments through a mobile app for those desperately seeking safety. While we welcome the expanded humanitarian parole program to provide a pathway for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans to apply for protection without having to make the dangerous journey to the border, that must not come at the expense of the human right to seek asylum. These new policies will undoubtedly have a disparate impact on Black, Brown, and Indigenous people seeking safety. In fact, Amnesty International previously found that the cruel treatment of Haitians under Title 42 subjected Haitian asylum seekers to arbitrary detention and discriminatory and humiliating ill-treatment that amounts to race-based torture. The United States has both a legal and moral obligation to uphold the right to seek asylum, and over the holidays, we once again saw communities mobilize to welcome asylum seekers with dignity. The Biden Administration must reverse course and stop these policies of exclusion, and instead uphold the right to seek asylum and invest in the communities that are stepping up to welcome.”
From Mary Miller Flowers @ Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights:
“President Biden’s announcement today is a far cry from the commitments he made on day one to fight for racial justice, immigrant rights, and family protection,” Mary Miller Flowers, the senior policy analyst at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, said in a statement.
“The right to asylum should not hinge on your manner of flight from danger or your financial means,” Flowers continued. “Seeking safety is treated as a privilege for a select few, and the Biden Administration’s cherry-picking of who can and cannot access protection proves this.”
From Kate Jastrom @ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law:
“Today President Biden proudly touted his commitment to providing legal pathways for asylum seekers and improving conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. These were empty words,” said Kate Jastram, CGRS Director of Policy & Advocacy. “By expanding its deadly Title 42 policy to Haitians, Cubans, and Nicaraguans, the Biden administration is going far beyond what any court has required it to do. This expansion will put vulnerable refugees in harm’s way and exacerbate violence and chaos in border communities.”
“People fleeing persecution have a legal right to seek asylum at our border under both U.S. and international law, no matter how they get here, no matter who they know, and no matter what documents they hold,” Jastram continued. “Many are forced to escape their homes under threat of death at a moment’s notice, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Their rights should never be supplanted by limited and discriminatory parole programs that offer relief only to a lucky few. We are also deeply disturbed that the administration has announced plans to revive and repackage the Trump-era asylum transit ban. President Biden cannot pledge to hold the ‘torch of liberty’ aloft, then turn around and embrace the most inhumane, anti-refugee policies of his predecessor.”
From Maria Daniella Prieshoff @ Tahirih Justice Center:
“This is truly a stain on the record of any administration seeking to uphold the U.S. asylum law and its responsibilities under international law. We must work together to ensure that for #JusticeForImmigrants is truly equal.”
**********
From Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.):
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who along with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed the Biden administration for months to end Title 42, criticized the administration’s plan, saying it goes too far in restricting migrants’ access to the border.
“The Biden Administration’s decision to expand Title 42, a disastrous and inhumane relic of the Trump Administration’s racist immigration agenda, is an affront to restoring rule of law at the border,” Menendez said in a statement. “Ultimately, this use of the parole authority is merely an attempt to replace our asylum laws, and thousands of asylum seekers waiting to present their cases will be hurt as a result.”
From Jonathan Blazer @ ACLU:
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has led the legal battle to stop the expulsions since the Trump administration, criticized Biden for continuing to rely on Title 42, saying expelling migrants will send them into dangerous border cities where some have been kidnapped or killed. “This knee-jerk expansion of Title 42 will put more lives in grave danger,” Jonathan Blazer, the ACLU’s director of border strategies, said in a statement.
From Margaret Cargioli @ Immigrant Defenders Law Center:
Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.
“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”
Alas, no surprise to “Courtside” readers! The question is what can and will human rights supporters, progressives, and racial justice advocates DO about the consistent betrayal of humanitarian values values and the rule of law by Dems; not to mention Dems trashing their own campaign promises!
Trump’s nativist racism and Biden’s incompetence have actually moved our nation’s approach to legal refugee and asylum status BACK more than four decades! In place of the international framework put in place by Congress in the Refugee Act of 1980, we now have a hodgepodge of arbitrary, ad hoc, actions by the Biden Administration, relying to an unacceptable (and prima facie illegal) extent on the use of “emergency parole” authority as a partial substitute for legal refugee and asylee admissions!
This favors some non-refugees with “sponsors” over those who meet the accepted international definition of “refugee.” It promotes Executive and political favoritism over the needs of legal refugees. It stands on its head the normal refugee definition requiring an individual to be OUTSIDE their country of nationality to apply.
Congress did give the President extraordinary authority to admit those who otherwise meet the “refugee” definition directly from their native countries in conflict. However, rather than using this legal authority, Biden has chosen to misuse parole to EVADE it.
Even for those Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans fortunate enough to be chosen for parole, the first three groups will be left in limbo with no clear way of obtaining permanent immigration status after the expiration of their two-year “parole.” This obviously converts them into “political footballs” — particularly if the GOP were to regain the Presidency in 2024!
Paroled Cubans, on the other hand, might qualify for green cards under the “Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966” after one year. This creates yet another arbitrary inconsistency among those similarly situated, based solely on nationality.
The Refugee Act of 1980 creates a screening and adjustment process for those admitted as refugees thereunder, similar to the Cuban Adjustment Act. It also creates a similar process for those refugees granted asylum at the border or in the interior.
But, Biden’s choice NOT to use the existing legal provisions established by the Refugee Act of 1980, recreates exactly the type of disorder, arbitrariness, and uncertainty that the Refugee Act of 1980 was intended to end! And, they did in fact more or less end for nearly four decades, prior to the Trump-initiated fiascos that began in 2017 and which Biden, despite pledges to the contrary, has lacked the competence, expertise, and will to end and restore the rule of law!
If properly staffed with human rights experts and dynamic, visionary “practical scholars” as leaders, our legal refugee and asylum systems could not only be restored, but could also be dramatically improved and made fairer! That’s basically what Biden promised during the 2020 campaign.
Outrageously, once in office those promises have been trashed and, predictably, chaos and incompetence reigns. That’s a deadly combination for asylum seekers patiently waiting for our nation to honor its laws and international obligations!
It shouldn’t be like “waiting for Godot!” But, it is!
“Border Message” By Steve Sack Reproduced under license
Biden’s new immigration plan would restrict illegal border crossings
The measures are likely to draw legal challenges. They would expand rapid expulsion for illegal border crossers but allow more migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela.
BY CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR., NICK MIROFF AND MARIA SACCHETTI report for WashPost, January 5, 2023 11:22 AM
President Biden on Thursday will announce new immigration restrictions, including the expansion of programs to remove people quickly without letting them seek asylum, in an attempt to address one of his administration’s most politically vulnerable issues at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on Republican disarray in the U.S. House.
The measures will expand Biden’s use of “parole” authority to allow 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to come to the United States each month, as long as a U.S. sponsor applies for them first. But those who attempt to migrate through the region without authorization will risk rapid expulsion to Mexico, as the administration plans to expand its use of the pandemic-era Title 42 public health policy. Mexico has agreed to take back 30,000 border-crossers from those nations each month, U.S. officials told reporters during a briefing Thursday morning.
The measures, which are likely to draw legal challenges from immigration advocacy groups,”will expand and expedite legal pathways for orderly migration and result in new consequences for those who fail to use those legal pathways,” the White House announced.
Biden, who has said he will seek reelection in 2024, is contending with the political and operational fallout of two consecutive years of record numbers of migrants taken into custody at the Mexican border, in part because of his more welcoming policies.
Before taking office, Biden said he wanted an orderly system, not “2 million people on our border.” The number of border apprehensions jumped to 1.7 million during his first year in the White House, however, and soared to nearly 2.4 million in his second year. Biden campaigned on the promise that his administration’s immigration system would be “safe, orderly and humane”; his pivot toward amped up enforcement suggests the White House sees immigration as a 2024 liability.
The administration’s solution is legally thorny and will likely anger immigration advocates and even some Democrats — and will probably do little to silence Biden’s Republican critics.
. . . .
************************
Read the complete story at the link:
Biden’s plan effectively imposes arbitrary geographic and ideological restrictions on those seeking protection — something that Congress specifically intended to eliminate when enactingthe Refugee Act of 1980;
Biden’s plan leaves out asylum seekers and refugees from the Northern Triangle, some of those most in need of protection;
It imposes arbitrary and illegal numerical limits on those who might otherwise seek asylum;
It continues the illegal and expanded use of Title 42 as a border enforcement mechanism having nothing whatsoever to do with public health — a position that the Administration itself has refuted in Federal Court all the way up to the Supremes;
It leaves those “paroled” in limbo with no clear path to legalization in the U.S., other than perhaps eventually applying for asylum in overloaded and often biased system with a backlog of many years;
Any future path to legal status for these parolees would require legislation agreed to by the GOP — not likely to happen — thus making these individuals “bargaining chips” for nativists seeking further restrictions on legal immigration and the right of asylum;
The “mass use” of parole at a rate of 30,000/month appears a direct violation of section 212(d)(5) of the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, which specifically intended to end the “mass use” of parole as a substitute for admitting refugees under the legal framework set up by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended.
Here’s a “spot on” comment by Margaret Cargioli from the Post article:
Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.
“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’ ” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”
CROTONE, Italy — On a continent that has spent years trying to cut off undocumented immigration — using fences, surveillance, financial incentives and sometimes even brute force — the close-the-door strategy is faltering
Migration across the Mediterranean has crested to the highest level in five years. New nationalities, most notably from Egypt, have joined the stream of people seeking escape to Europe. And hard-line border policies are merely driving smugglers to adapt: Soon after Greek authorities instituted a practice of harsh pushbacks, boats departing Turkey began charting a longer route — bypassing Greece and heading instead to Italy’s Calabrian coast, an area that used to see almost no arrivals.
“Here comes another,” a law enforcement official at the port of Crotone said one recent morning, watching a vessel with 80 people come into view, just four hours after the arrival of a boat with 81 others.
The European Union’s desire to obstruct migration on multiple fronts was reflected in a collection of deals cobbled together in the aftermath of a 2015 mass-scale wave from Africa and the Middle East. And, for a while, the strategy appeared to be working: Mediterranean crossings dipped dramatically. The issue lost political primacy, depriving nationalist parties of kindling.
But an increase in arrivals this year is showing the limits of a Fortress Europe strategy — and reviving the highly contentious issue of how to handle and divvy up those who make it to the E.U. and its borderless travel zone.
“Europe’s expectations were based on a wrong assumption — that mobility across the Mediterranean could be stopped or limited, so it would no longer be politically relevant,” said Roberto Cortinovis, a migration specialist at the Center for European Policy Studies. “And that is impossible.”
. . . .
**********************
Some of the same things are happening here. Nativist/restrictionists, largely, but not exclusively, from the GOP, keep pushing failed “deterrence only” enforcement policies. And, the USG keeps “investing” in them despite decades of proven failure and deadly human results.
Ironically, today should have been the end of the illegal and abominable Title 42 charade. But, as with past fictional “deadlines” for termination, it didn’t happen.
Just to put Lee’s outrageous abuse of the law and human rights in perspective, remember that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan recently concluded, on a voluminous record, that the use of Title 42 to deny migrants’ legal rights at the border was: 1) an illegal pretext from the beginning, and 2) causes “stomach churning” dire, irreparable harm, including rape, torture, and death, to legal asylum seekers. Essentially, nativist politicos like Lee are trying to force the Biden Administration to commit even more egregious human rights violations — on top of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, they have already committed by enforcing Title 42 over the past two years.
While Lee’s scurrilous and totally misguided amendment is likely to fail, another almost equally bad one, sponsored by Sen. Sinema (I-AZ) to extend Title 42 indefinitely (till a “better plan” is in effect, which will never happen, particularly if the GOP has anything to say about it), is also up for a vote. “Lost in the shuffle” is the simple fact that we have existing laws that could and should be used to timely grant refugee to those legally qualified while expeditiously and summarily removing those with no credible claim. That the Biden Administration has failed to develop a viable plan for re-implementing existing law (which had been in effect for decades before being illegally abrogated by Trump) over the past two years should not be confused with impossibility!
Far from it, as many experts have pointed out, illegally “closing” ports of entry to asylum seekers has made unauthorized entry the “sole and exclusive” way for asylum seekers to exercise their rights! Yet, nativist politicos, the media, and even the Biden Administration ignore or mister present this truth.
As the International Organization on Migration has said, ““Migration is inevitable, necessary and desirable.” https://www.iom.int/news/migration-inevitable-necessary-and-desirable-opening-exhibition-iom-hague. It can be controlled and channeled with wise, realistic, and humane decisions. But, it won’t be stopped by walls, prisons, deportations, racist nationalistic rhetoric, militarization of borders, or cruel and inhumane laws and restrictionist policies.
Or, as I have said before, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration.” Sure, the U.S. needs comprehensive, robust immigration reform that recognizes the inevitably and mutual benefits of human migration. But, particularly with a GOP House, it’s not on the horizon.
In the meantime, it is incumbent on the Biden Administration to make existing laws and policies work to timely, efficiently, and humanely screen refugees and asylum seekers at our borders. Those who qualify should be admitted in a reasonable period of time rather than aimlessly sent to wander the U.S. waiting for interviews from USCIS or hearings from EOIR that might never happen because of mismanagement and lack of vision in the current system. Those who don’t have credible claims should be subject to the summary removal procedures of the current law.
That the Biden Administration has, to date, lacked the competence, vision, and expertise to make the existing laws work in an acceptable manner is a shame. Ultimately, it’s one they won’t be able to “run away from” no matter how hard they try!
The Department of Homeland Security inadvertently tipped off the Cuban government this month that some of the immigrants the agency sought to deport to the island nation had asked the U.S. for protection from persecution or torture, officials said Monday.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are now scrambling to foreclose the possibility that the Cuban government could retaliate against individuals it knows sought protection here. The agency has paused its effort to deport the immigrants in question and is considering releasing them from U.S. custody.
The accidental disclosure to the Cuban government is an example of any asylum seeker’s “nightmare scenario,” said Robyn Barnard, associate director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First.
Many immigrants who seek safety in the U.S. fear that gangs, governments, or individuals back home will find out that they did so and retaliate against them or their families. To mitigate that risk, a federal regulation generally forbids the release of personal information of people seeking asylum and other protections without sign-off by top Homeland Security officials.
“The words egregious and illegal don’t go far enough,” Barnard said. “And this is not any foreign government, but a government we have irrefutable evidence routinely detains and tortures those they suspect of being in opposition to them.”
An even larger breach of confidentiality last month led directly to the surprising disclosure to the Cuban government. Less than three weeks ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials accidentally posted the names, birth dates, nationalities and detention locations of more than 6,000 immigrants who claimed to be fleeing torture and persecution to the agency’s website.
. . . .
Anwen Hughes, director of legal strategy at Human Rights First, has years of experience comforting asylum seekers who are worried that their home countries will find out about their applications.
“They come in nervous, shaking and afraid their relatives could get arrested,” Hughes said.
Hughes has long told her clients that they should feel secure that their information would be protected.
But the most recent disclosures have given her pause.
“I don’t want to say things that won’t be true,” she said. “It is important that these assurances be meaningful.”
ICE’s November disclosure of the 6,252 names had already triggered a massive effort by the agency toinvestigate the causes of the error andreduce the risk of retaliation against immigrants whose information was exposed.
. . . .
*****************
Read Hamed’s complete articleat the link.
Robyn Barnard Associate Director of Refugee Advocacy Human Rights First PHOTO: Linkedin
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully, Robyn! There is Fourth Circuit case law holding that breaches of confidentiality can give rise to entirely new asylum claims that require evaluation by adjudicators.
As cogently pointed out by Anwen, problems like this also diminish confidence in the system. That, in turn, undermines efforts by advocates to assure asylum applicants that they should use the legal system, rather than being afraid of it. This is also something that the Government should be doing, but isn’t!
For example, right now at the southern border, thousands of asylum applicants are waiting patiently in Mexico, many in dangerous and substandard conditions, for Title 42 to end so they can appear at legal ports of entry and present their claims in an orderly and legal manner. This right for “any individual, regardless of status” to apply for asylum, is guaranteed by law. Every stay or delay in the lifting of Title 42 undermines the credibility of the entire system.
As cogently found by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, asylum applicants have been illegally denied this “life or death right” to apply for asylum in an orderly manner at the border since 2020, first by the Trump Administration and now by the Biden Administration. Tellingly, the GOP nativist politicos (and, sadly, some Dems) promoting continuing abuse of Title 42 have abandoned the original Trump claim that it was a “public health measure.” They now openly present it as a “border management tool” something that it clearly was never intended to be!
Contrary to the nativist blather, the unlawful suspension of the legal asylum system at ports of entry has actually driven irregular entries, rather than discouraging them! Additionally, nativists and many member of the media fail to acknowledge that, even without Title 42, the existing law grants DHS extraordinarily authority to “summarily remove” asylum seekers if they can’t establish a “credible fear“ of asylum in an interview by a trained and well-qualified Asylum Officer.
This process was designed to take place within a relatively short period of time, at or near the border, after the individual has indicated a fear of return upon initial encounter with an Immigration Inspector at a port of entry or to a Border Patrol Agent. Those who “fail” the credible fear process can be summarily removed by DHS without formal removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge (although there is a right to request a brief review by an Immigraton Judge of the Asylum Officer’s negative decision).
Additionally, under recently enacted regulations, Asylum Officers can now grant asylum to those who pass credible fear if they find that the generous “well-found fear” standard has been met. This also has the potential of avoiding full Immigration Court hearings. Unfortunately, however, DHS to date has failed to “leverage” this ability to rapidly grant asylum, even though the potential volume of asylum seekers has been evident for many months, if not years!
It’s also notable, in contravention of many nativist politico claims, that individuals crossing the border to seek asylum often voluntarily turn themselves in to the Border Patrol so that they can get the legal screening that the Government has been improperly denying them under Title 42.
Life threatening mistakes, two years without a plan to restore the rule of law for asylum seekers, inaccurate data, bad legal rulings, many poorly qualified judges, inadequate training, failure to use and leverage refugee programs, screwed up priorities, regressive thinking, lack of expertise, no commitment to protection, unending backlogs, absence of inspiring dynamic leadership: The Biden Administration’s inept and morally vapid approach to human rights is a life-threatening mess!
