"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.
Ms. Gomez and Mr. Robles are co-executive directors of LUCHA, a grass-roots organization in Arizona.
PHOENIX — First there were seven. Then 50. Then thousands of people, mostly Latino and many undocumented, who held a vigil on the lawn outside of the Arizona State Capitol in the spring of 2010, praying that Gov. Jan Brewer would not sign an anti-immigrant bill, the most punitive in generations, which had sailed through the Republican-controlled Legislature.
A dozen undocumented women, the “vigil ladies,” set up tents and a four-foot-high statue of the Virgin Mary, borrowed from a church. Students walked out of their classrooms and marched for miles to the Capitol. Abuelas put out traditional Mexican food: pozole, tamales, frijoles. At night, around 50 people slept on the lawn. In the morning, they pulled grass out of their hair, clasped hands and prayed.
The two of us were part of these protests, and we had good reason to be angry — and afraid. One night, Ku Klux Klan hoods were placed near where people prayed. Anti-immigrant groups patrolled close by. Such menaces had long found a haven under Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who ordered his deputies to target Latinos in traffic stops, workplace raids and neighborhood sweeps. Some were later deported.
Opponents of Arizona’s new immigration law prayed outside the Capitol in Phoenix in 2010.
Credit…
John Moore/Getty Images
Despite the enormous opposition to the “show me your papers” bill, which essentially turned the state’s police officers into immigration agents, Governor Brewer signed it. Arizona Republicans no doubt hoped the law would chase out every immigrant, documented or undocumented. Some did leave. But many more stayed, determined to turn their fear and anger into political power.
In less than a decade, many organizers who first cut their teeth fighting that bill are now lawmakers, campaign managers and directors of civic engagement groups like Mi Familia Vota and the Arizona Dream Act Coalition. While it’s easy to dismiss mass protests as short-lived eruptions of anger, Arizona offers a model for how this energy can become real electoral power: It happens when people learn to work with one another, build deep connections and create something bigger than themselves.
In the wake of the vigil, we built an organization called LUCHA, short for Living United for Change in Arizona, that serves as a political home for people of color. We talk to working-class families about the issues important to them and how to get involved in politics. Civic groups and political parties used to do more of this work, but they have become disconnected from real people, too focused on donors and elite influence.
Image
One of the authors, Alejandra Gomez, at Alhambra High School.
Credit…
Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times
While the anti-immigrant bill was propelled into law by Republicans, Democrats were also to blame. They have long treated communities of color as instruments of someone else’s power rather than core progressives who should be instruments of their own power. This neglect created the space for the bill to pass so easily.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Contrary to the right-wing propaganda and the beliefs of many Dems, Trump’s cruel, racist, xenophobic, expensive, and counterproductive immigration policies are not popular with the American public outside Trump’s “base.” Democrats should make inclusive, tolerant, humane, and market-sensitive immigration reforms that will stop wasting money on misdirected immigration enforcement and help our now-sagging economy recover, a key and visible part of their program going forward.
Immigrants, of all kinds, also play an outsized role in health care, particularly for senior citizens. Maximizing the potential of all migrants and their tax paying ability will be keys to a healthy future and a robust economy for all Americans.
The needs and ambitions of “core progressives” like the Hispanic and African-American communities have much in common with the bulk of white working-class America that has been left behind by the Trump GOP’s obsession with making the rich richer, the poor poorer, working people less healthy, running up huge deficits, cutting the safety net, destroying valuable government services, letting our infrastructure crumble, undermining education and the environment, imposing harmful tariffs, and promoting hate and racial divisions among our population.
For the sake of America, we need all communities to work together for “regime change” this November!
For weeks, public health officials have warned that the coronavirus will spread rapidly in the United States but the infection rate could slow with social distancing and severe restrictions on mass gathering. The nation’s judiciary did not listen. Civil, criminal, and immigration courts continued to operate normally, with very few exceptions, until late last week. Even on Monday, after both the president and most governors had declared a state of emergency, a huge number of America’s courts continued to operate, forcing judges, attorneys, litigants, defendants, immigrants, and court staff into close quarters with potentially infected individuals. Conversations with more than two dozen lawyers and court staff (who requested anonymity to avoid professional blowback) across the country reveal a system that is disastrously unprepared for a pandemic—and facilitating the coronavirus’s spread.
Because the American judiciary is so decentralized, there is no single contingency plan that governs all courts in case of an emergency. Most state and federal courts are making up their own rules as they go. All 94 federal district courts and 13 federal appellate courts are scrambling independently to devise a strategy for COVID-19. In many states, individual trial and appeals courts are also struggling to meet their legal obligations without contributing to the spread of the virus. Immigration courts are under the control of the discombobulated and ineffectual Trump administration. So are agencies, like the Social Security Administration, that hold administrative hearings to adjudicate individuals’ access to public assistance. Meanwhile, thousands of jails, prisons, and immigrant detention facilities remain unwilling or unable to meaningfully address COVID-19, putting both detained people and staff at risk of infection. The legal system is actively jeopardizing millions of people’s health and lives.
The legal system is actively jeopardizing millions of people’s health and lives.
State judiciaries’ sluggish response to the crisis was on display Monday in courtrooms around the country. Slate spoke with defense attorneys in Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Washington state, and the District of Columbia who witnessed large groups of defendants congregating in courthouses after police arrested them for low-level offenses. Many people had been jailed for at least one night for crimes like driving without a permit and possession of drug paraphernalia. In northern New Jersey, according to an attorney who was present, a prosecutor argued on Monday that defendants are, in fact, safer from the virus behind bars. But a defense attorney in the region told Slate that her clients in jail have no access to soap or toilet paper.
. . . .
As of Monday, federal district courts around the country were still in operation, though many had suspended jury trials. Chief Justice John Roberts, the head of the federal judiciary, has not issued public guidance to these courts, leaving them to fend for themselves. The chief judge of each federal district court must decide when, and if, to shutter completely. Similarly, the chief judge of each federal appeals court must determine how, and if, to hold oral arguments, and how to keep deciding cases in spite of the interruption. The Supreme Court has canceled March’s oral arguments.
Many immigration courts, which are controlled by the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the U.S. Department of Justice, were still operating on Monday too. EOIR cancelled all master calendar hearings on Sunday—these are short hearings, scheduled months or years in advance, that typically begin the deportation process. But courts are still holding other kinds of hearings, except in Seattle, whose immigration court has shut down entirely. According to a DOJ official at the Los Angeles Immigration Court, the agency has failed to provide employees with any meaningful guidance. This official told Slate that last week, a court administrator told staff that COVID-19 is “like the flu” and “not a big deal.” All last week, she said, “people were coming into courtrooms sick.” EOIR was just beginning to develop a telework plan on Monday and was withholding all information about future operations from staff.
An employee at the New York City Immigration Court spoke of similar disarray. This individual told Slate that her supervisor ignored repeated pleas to mitigate the risk of infection to staff. Immigrants with symptoms of COVID-19 have repeatedly appeared in court. When judges canceled hearings for the day to limit exposure to these individuals, this supervisor reportedly expressed anger that they had not simply moved to a different courtroom.
On Sunday, the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors joined immigration judges and lawyers to call on the Department of Justice to shutter immigration courts entirely. This unprecedented alliance of frequent foes condemned the DOJ’s response as “insufficient” and “not premised on transparent scientific information.” (The agency has yet to answer this letter.)
There are currently more than 50,000 individuals in immigrant detention. There are already coronavirus outbreaks cropping up at these detention facilities. But the government has put forth no comprehensive plan to test and treat patients. The same is true for inmates in state and federal facilities. A defense attorney in King County, Washington—a COVID-19 hot spot—told Slate on Monday that “there is no plan to protect people in jail from coronavirus. People are still held on nonviolent charges, and people are still cycling through on all sorts of minor charges.” As long as police continue to arrest individuals for low-level offenses, these people will be put in jail and then sent to a courthouse. Even if prosecutors decline charges, these individuals may have already been exposed to the virus and could spread it.
. . . .
************************
Read the complete article at the link.
******************************
Laura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA
Here’s the latest from Laura Lynch over at AILA:
The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
James McHenry
Director
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Matthew T. Albence
Deputy Director and Senior Official
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Submitted via email
March 16, 2020
Dear Attorney General Barr, Director McHenry, and Deputy Director Albence,
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is writing to follow up on our March 12, 2020 letter requesting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immediately implement procedures for the prevention and management of COVID-19 and our March 15, 2020 statement calling for the emergency closure of the nation’s immigration courts, sent in conjunction with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 (the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Professionals Union).
We appreciate the important measures already taken by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the suspension of non-detained master calendar hearings. However, the evolving nature of this crisis demands more aggressive action. Since our initial letter to ICE, President Donald Trump proclaimed that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. States and localities across the country have suspended school, put in place restrictions on the size of gatherings, closed restaurants and bars, and shut down tourist activities.
DOJ and DHS must acknowledge the severity of this pandemic, and take the following steps to protect DOJ employees, DHS employees, respondents, representatives, interpreters, experts, and other immigration court stakeholders, as well as the general public:
• Immediately Close Immigration Courts: DOJ should immediately close immigration courts for a minimum of two to four weeks so that public health officials have an opportunity to test and gain valuable information about who can transmit the COVID-19 virus and to reassess how to ensure a safe environment for immigration court hearings.
AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)
• Hold Telephonic Bond Hearings and Stipulate to Bond in Writing: DOJ should proceed with fully telephonic bond hearings so that detained individuals who are eligible can be released from custody as soon as possible and allow supporting documents to be faxed and emailed to the appropriate clerk. When possible, ICE OPLA should stipulate to bond in written motions so it is not necessary to hold hearings.
• Cancel ICE Check-Ins: ICE should cancel and/or reschedule all OSUP and/or ISAP appointments that are scheduled for at least the next 60-90 days and extend the same for several months as conditions warrant.
• Immediately Release Anyone With Vulnerabilities from Custody: ICE should immediately release vulnerable populations from ICE custody, including people 60 and over, pregnant people, and people with chronic illnesses, compromised immune systems, or disabilities, and people whose housing placements restrict their access to medical care and limit the staff’s ability to observe them.
• Decrease the Number of People in Detention to Limit Exposure: ICE should liberally use its discretion to release individuals from custody and decrease the overall ICE population, including through the increased use of parole authority, stipulating to bond in written motions, and use of alternatives to detention (with no check-in requirements for thirty days or more).
• Take Proper Care to Prevent Transmission in Custody: ICE should immediately test detainees who exhibit any symptoms and/or present risk factors, as delayed confirmation of cases will necessarily be too late to prevent transmission. ICE should also provide proper hygienic supplies at all ICE detention and check-in facilities, allowing easy access to all detained persons, the population under ICE supervision, and ICE staff. ICE should halt transfers from facility-to-facility and to out-of-state locations in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus throughout individual states and the U.S.
• Allow Stays of Removal and Other Emergency Motions to Be Submitted Via Mail: ICE should allow requests for stays of removal, and other emergency motions, to be submitted by mail instead of requiring an in-person filing with the applicant present.
• Issue a Blanket Extraordinary Circumstances Exception for One-Year Filing Deadlines: DOJ should issue a blanket extraordinary circumstances exception for asylum one-year filing deadlines that fall from March 1, 2020 (the beginning of the National Emergency) through the reopening of immigration courts.
2
AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)
• Provide Flexibility on All Deadlines: ICE and DOJ should liberally agree to and/or grant requests to extend filing deadlines based on imposition of remote work, loss of staff, necessity for child, elder, and family care based on school and institutional closures.
• Commit to Flexibly and Favorably Addressing COVID—19-Caused “Age Outs” on a Case-By-Case Basis. In the context of cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b), the Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged its ability to review the particular facts in a case in addressing a respondent’s argument that the age of qualifying relative should be “frozen” prior to the final administrative decision. Matter of Isidro, 25 I&N Dec. 829, 832 (BIA 2012) (rejecting respondent’s contention that age should be locked where there was no “undue or unfair delay” in the course of proceedings); see also Martinez-Perez v. Barr, No. 18-9573 (10th Cir. 2020) (BIA has jurisdiction and authority to interpret cancellation statute in a way that fixes the age of respondent’s daughter in light of undue or unfair delay).
• Stipulate to Relief When Appropriate, Especially in Detained Cases: ICE should stipulate to relief in cases where individual hearings are already scheduled, but must be re-calendared based on COVID-19 disruptions, and where the record in itself demonstrates that the respondent has meaningfully met her burden of proof based on a well-developed record of proceedings and evidentiary submissions that compel a grant of relief from removal.
• Parole Respondents in the Remain in Mexico Program: DHS should parole all respondents in the Remain in Mexico program (also known as MPP) into the U.S. on the date of their scheduled immigration court hearing date and provide them with a new hearing date in a non-detained court. At a minimum, EOIR must work with CBP to issue a new EOIR hearing notice and CBP must provide the respondent with both the new EOIR hearing notice and an MPP tear sheet. If the respondent does not have an MPP tear sheet containing a future U.S. immigration court date, the respondent would be out of status in Mexico and Mexico’s migration institute (INM) will likely refuse to renew the individuals’ temporary status in Mexico.
We respectfully request a response as soon as possible given the emergent circumstances. Please feel free to contact Kate Voigt (kvoigt@aila.org) with questions.
Sincerely,
THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
CC: Barbara M. Gonzalez, Assistant Director, ICE Office of Partnership and Engagement; Richard A. Rocha, ICE Spokesperson; Lauren Alder Reid, Assistance Director, EOIR Office of Policy.
3
AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)
*********************
So, the spread of the coronavirus worldwide was months in the making. Why didn’t Roberts convene a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office, and the ABA to come up with an emergency plan?
Why didn’t EOIR, which has time for endless counterproductive “management” (actually “mismanagement”) nonsense (how about “judicial dashboards” for a mindless waste of time and money?), get together with the NAIJ, ICE, and AILAmonths ago to develop an emergency response plan for the Immigration Courts? No, the “powers that be” at EOIR were too busy trying to “decertify” the NAIJ with frivolous and unethical litigation.
Once this emergency is over, America also needs a top to bottom re-examination of the leadership and administration of our diverse judicial systems. As a whole, they are obviously “not quote ready for prime time” (“NQRFPT”) when it comes to protecting the public or using technology for the common good.
Obviously, at many levels, Federal, State, and Local, we have some of the wrong people serving as judges. First and foremost, the law is about humanity and protecting and saving lives to the greatest extent possible. That’s a fundamental human message that Roberts and many other right wing judicial zealots, out of touch with the needs of the public and wedded to stilted semi-absurdist and contrived interpretations of the law, simply don’t get. America needs better judges, with some empathy, humanity, and common sense! Again, it won’t happen overnight, but we have to start somewhere to get anywhere in the future!
Mon 16 Mar 2020 00.00 EDTLast modified on Mon 16 Mar 2020 09.20 EDT
Daira García wakes up at 5.50am. She takes out her dog, then tries to eat some breakfast before boarding the bus that gets her to school by 7.26 in the morning.
After class, she heads back home, where her parents, Silvia and Jorge, watch Noticiero and sip mate (she sometimes tries the drink as well but admits she’s never quite gotten used to it). They eat something, talk. When Daira goes off to finish her homework, she forgoes the desk in her room to curl up in her parents’ bed.
“It’s more comfy,” she quips.
Daira, 17, has a fairly standard routine for an American teenager: school, homework, family time. But unlike most kids, the schedule she’s come to rely on each day could easily be disrupted at any point.
Silvia and Jorge traveled from Argentina to the United States as 2001 became 2002, and with a new year came their new life in an unknown country. Daira’s big brother was just an infant then; now a college student, he doesn’t even really remember the place where he was born. And yet he’s only shielded from deportation because of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca), an Obama-era program the Trump administration has been trying to end for years. Silvia and Jorge, meanwhile, have no protection and could be picked up by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) at any time.
Daira begins to cry just thinking about it.
“We’ve never had a plan for it if it happened,” Silvia says in Spanish. “Maybe we don’t give much thought to that because we think it’s healthier.”
Daira García, an aspiring artist, depicts family separation. She is a US citizen, but both her parents are undocumented. Illustration: Daira García/The Guardian
An estimated 4.1 million US-citizen children lived with at least one undocumented parent in recent years, according to the Migration Policy Institute. They’re kids who anti-immigrant groups disparage as “anchor babies”, a derogatory term that insinuates these children are little more than pawns used by their immigrant parents to get a foothold in the US and eventually become citizens themselves.
It’s a narrative trope that completely misrepresents the harsh realities of America’s current immigration laws, as well as just the natural progression of life, experts suggest.
“People have this notion that you have a child in the United States, now you’re a citizen. It’s what people think because it’s the easy way to explain it. So it’s an easy way to make up a myth,” said David Leopold, an immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
It’s true that children born on US soil have been granted citizenship through the 14th amendment to the US constitution, and that a landmark supreme court decision set the precedent for that right to be extended to almost all children of foreigners. But Americans can’t just immediately safeguard their family members from deportation. In fact, a US citizen must be 21 years oldbefore they can sponsor their parents for a green card. They also must be able to financially support their parents.
Now the Trump administration’s new public charge rule targeting low-income immigrants is adding yet another burden.
Even if parents do get a green card, they have a five-year holding period before they can finally apply for naturalization.
In the end, the so-called “anchor baby” pathway to citizenship is at least a 26-year endeavor, even for those who entered the US legally.
“It’s ludicrous to think that that’s some sort of a tactic that people use to come here, get citizenship, ’cause it just isn’t true,” said Leopold. “It’s a myth, and it’s a specious talking point.”
A talking point that’s popular among anti-immigrant groups, pundits and the Republican party.
. . . .
***********************************
Read the rest of Alexandra’s article at the link.
This is what “Dred Scottification” preached by Trump, Miller, Sessions, “Cooch Cooch,” and their White Nationalist allies, and encouraged and enabled by the willfully “tone-deaf” Roberts Court, is all about. Ultimately, their aim is to consciously dump on our fellow citizens and human beings because of the color of their skin or their ethnic origin, or perhaps in some cases, their religion. Utterly disgusting!
The “Beauty of the 14th Amendment” is that it eventually automatically solves the issues that politicians of both parties, but primarily the GOP, have been avoiding for decades. Over time, a generation of so-called “undocumented” residents passes into history; the new generation are full U.S. citizens who will achieve their full potential in America and exercise the political power necessary to put the toxic views, actions, and rhetoric of the “nativist right” behind us as we move forward as a nation. Thus, we avoid creating generations of “perpetually disenfranchised” members of our society.
No, the 14th Amendment doesn’t take the place of a long overdue, sane legalization program and some reality and market-based reforms of our legal immigration system. But, it does provide a “fail safe” against the callous misrule of Trump, the GOP, and the enabling actions of the Roberts Court.
WASHINGTON — Seattle’s immigration court will close down as the nation continues to grapple with managing the coronavirus pandemic, and several other large immigration courts will postpone certain hearings for immigrants who are not detained that often involve large groups.
The court in Seattle was temporarily shut down earlier this week over a report of a second-hand exposure to the virus and will remain shut until April 10. Seattle is among the areas hardest hit so far, with a cluster of deaths and dozens sickened. The number of cases in the U.S. was put at around 1,700 Friday, with about 50 deaths. But by some estimates, at least 14,000 people might be infected.
According to a statement obtained by The Associated Press from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which manages the immigration court system, other courts will remain open where the virus has struck, including Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Newark, New Jersey, and Sacramento, California. But “master calendar” dates for those who are not detained will be postponed. Those hearings can include dozens of people in a single courtroom.
“The agency continues to evaluate the dynamic situation nationwide and will make decisions for each location as more information becomes available,” according to the statement from EOIR, which is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
There are 68 immigration courts nationwide; the others will operate as scheduled but officials with EOIR said they are evaluating and will adjust as needed.
There have been no confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the immigration system, but it’s not clear how frequently tests are being performed, if at all.
———
Associated Press Writer Cedar Attanasio contributed to this report from El Paso, Texas.
*******************
I suppose some action is better than none.
But, let’s take a more rational and practical look at this. The regime’s own expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other public health experts have been all over the media this weekend with a straightforward message: This is going to get worse before it gets better, so take advance precautions.
There is a “zero percent” chance that those appearing in Immigration Court have had access to coronavirus testing. Consequently, there is no way of knowing who or how many might be infected.
We also know that a significant number of those appearing in Immigration Court will be seniors or those with pre-existing conditions.
Therefore, closing down the non-detained dockets at all Immigration Courts right now shouldbe a “no brainer.” There are few, if any, genuine “emergencies” on an out of control “non-detained docket” of over one million cases with hearing dates stretching into 2024 and beyond in some locations.
By moving too slowly, EOIR virtually guarantees that by the time it finally gets around to the inevitable, many individuals and their families, fearing EOIR’s often mindless penchant for “in absentia hearings,” will not get the news in time. They will have already traveled and made arrangements to stay near Immigration Courts. Also, a disproportionate number of those appearing in Immigration Court must rely on public transportation, another health risk in addition to the disruption or curtailing of service in many localities.
Thus, EOIR’s inadequate response, notably released late on Friday when attention was focused elsewhere, combined with the regime’s total lack of credibility on all things immigration, is likely to make things worse.
There are all sorts of reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court with competent, professional management focused on the public good. This is just the latest example of of how politicized, dysfunctional “courts” (that aren’t courts at all, as they are controlled by the prosecutor) hurt America and endanger all of us.
I Speak To Professor Gabriela Leon-Perez’s Class @ VCU, Professor Perez on my left, Richmond Attorney Pablo Fantl on my right Feb. 20, 2020
From VCU News:
Immigration course provides VCU students with a better understanding of a national issue
The sociology course, taught by Gabriela León-Pérez, examines the history of immigration and how the current debate ties to the past.
Gabriela León-Pérez’s class, Immigration and American Society, provides students with a more nuanced understanding of the current immigration debate. (Getty Images)
Immigration has always been a controversial topic in the United States. In the late 19th century, over 2 million Irish immigrated to the U.S. Most were Catholic and that created conflict with the largely Protestant U.S. population. The first comprehensive immigration law, the U.S. Immigration Act of 1882, contained provisions specifically designed to discourage European immigrants.
“This is not the first time the country has had anti-immigration policies, but the scapegoat group has changed over time,” said Gabriela León-Pérez, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies immigration policy.
León-Pérez wanted to give her students an understanding of the current immigration debate so she developed a course called Immigration and American Society, which covers the history of immigration and immigration policy and examines where the current debate fits into the past.
“It presents students with a context on the state of immigration today,” León-Pérez said. “A lot of people have opinions about immigration but most of them are not based on facts.”
A class to cut through the noise
When designing the course, León-Pérez wanted to be able to address current events in the news. The course uses some textbooks, but it also incorporates podcasts and blogs. The goal is to have the discussion revolve around the current state of the immigration debate.
“It definitely evolves based on current events,” León-Pérez said. “The first time I taught it was 2018, and there have been a lot of changes since then.”
John Lees, a psychology major, believes the class has given him a better understanding of immigration history. The class specifically looks at the immigration policies of presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Lees believes he now has a well-rounded perspective on the subject.
Yessica Flores, who is majoring in psychology and sociology, signed up for the class because she hears a lot of information about the subject and knew a class would help her cut through the noise.
“We are living in a world where the media is everywhere; where false news is frequent news,” Flores said. “I enrolled in the course with hopes of becoming educated in this area to help educate, inform and encourage others to better understand the reality of immigration within American society.”
As part of the class, León-Pérez teaches students how to find accurate information about immigration. The students learn to access official government data and other reliable sources. (Kevin Morley, University Marketing)
At the start of the class, León-Pérez teaches students how to find accurate information about immigration. The students learn to access official government data and other reliable sources.
“I try to present both sides of the debate,” León-Pérez said. “I want the students to have a well-rounded understanding of immigration and the debate. I don’t want them to shut down a side of the debate.”
Many students, she has observed, only understand the immigration debate from a particular vantage point. The class is a “light bulb” moment for them, and they realize that immigration is a complicated and nuanced topic. In general, immigration often comes down to economics, León-Pérez said. People against immigration are worried that new residents will take jobs, but people who support immigration say immigrants will do the type of work that many residents will not. Immigrants are looking for opportunity.
“Immigrants tend to complement American workers,” León-Pérez said. “Immigrants tend to work at lower-skilled jobs.”
Protecting due process
León-Pérez brings in guest speakers to enhance the curriculum. In February, she invited retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt. In previous semesters, León-Pérez has invited an immigration attorney as a guest speaker. This time, she wanted students to get the perspective of the person on the other side of the bench.
Schmidt served as an immigration judge from 2003 until he retired in 2016. Before that, he served on the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals. Since retiring, he has been talking about the state of the immigration courts and the lack of due process given to asylum seekers.
“The immigration courts are going through an existential crisis,” Schmidt told the class.
He understands that people have different opinions about immigration, but the courts must follow a process that protects the due process rights of asylum seekers, he said. The court functions as a division of the Department of Justice and Schmidt believes it is not given the resources to function properly. Everyone within the justice system should share a common interest in seeing the courts functioning in a fair and equitable way, Schmidt said.
Retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt speaks to León-Pérez’s class. (Kevin Morley, University Marketing)
“The immigration court now is structured in such a way that it is nothing more than a whistle stop on the road to deportation,” he said.
Schmidt offered several suggestions to the students on ways to help people who are going through the immigration courts. Immigrants, unlike citizens, are not required to have an attorney. Many do not understand the immigration process. Schmidt said students could volunteer and help them navigate the complex immigration system in the United States.
“You can join the new due process army,” Schmidt said.
Flores said she has found the class to be informative, and has enjoyed the guest lecturers. The class has not necessarily changed her views about the subject but has motivated her to become more involved.
“I have always disliked the way the immigration cases have been handled, especially the ones involving immigrant children,” Flores said. “I must say that my feelings toward being more involved in promoting change and awareness have changed in the sense that I have developed a much greater interest in getting more involved in the form of a future career.”
Subscribe to VCU News
Subscribe to the VCU News newsletter at newsletter.vcu.edu and receive a selection of stories, videos, photos, news clips and event listings in your inbox every Monday and Thursday.
*****************************************
And, here’s some information about one of America’s most talented and innovative professors, Dr. Gabriela Leon-Perez, who brings her rich background and scholarly research combined with innovative “student-centered, real life” teaching methods to perhaps the most important and “undertaught” subject in undergraduate, secondary, elementary, and even adult education today! Her teaching incorporates fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, respect, and lots of self-direction by the students themselves.
Gabriela Leon-Perez Assistant Professor of Sociology Virginia Commonwealth University
2012 M.A. in Sociology, Texas A&M International University
Teaching Areas
Research Methods, Immigration, Health Disparities
Research Interests
International Migration, Internal Migration, Mexico-US Migration, Immigrant Health, Health Disparities
Biography
Gabriela León-Pérez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research focuses on Mexican internal and international migration, the experiences of immigrants in the United States, and health disparities.
The underlying goal of her research agenda is to clarify the role of social, structural, and contextual factors in creating health and social inequalities, as well as to identify resources that improve the outcomes of immigrants and other marginalized populations. In her most recent project, she investigated the health trajectories of return US migrants, internal migrants, and indigenous migrants from Mexico. Other on-going projects focus on Mexican skilled migration to the US and the effects of stress, legal status, and state immigrant policies on the health and well-being of immigrants. You can read more about her current work on her personal website.
Donato, Katharine M., Gabriela León-Pérez, Kenneth A. Wallston, and Sunil Kripalani. 2018. “Something Old, Something New: When Gender Matters in the Relationship Between Social Support and Health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 59(3):352-370.
Young, Maria-Elena, Gabriela León-Pérez, Christine R. Wells, and Steven P. Wallace. 2018. “More Inclusive States, Less Poverty Among Immigrants? An Examination of Poverty, Citizenship Stratification, and State Immigrant Policies.” Population Research and Policy Review 37(2):205-228.
************************
I’ll lay it on the line. If more Americans, and particularly more potential younger voters, had understood the true role of immigration and refugees in building America’s past and propelling us into an even greater future, and the dangers to them, their classmates, communities, friends, families, and colleagues posed by Trump’s race baiting “Build That Wall” and “Lock Her Up” chants – certainly pages out of the Third Reich and Jim Crow “playbooks,” – then the modest number of additional votes might well have been there to save lives (perhaps those of loved ones) and to preserve our democratic instiutions and justice system from the vicious and corrupt attacks being waged by the Trump regime, its allies, and its enablers.
We could be working together to build a better future for everyone in America, rather than engaged in a desperate struggle to save our nation and our world from authoritarianism, ignorance, wanton cruelty, and environmental and societal degradation. And, unfortunately, the “enablers” include those who don’t agree with Trump but failed to cast a vote for Clinton in the last election. Simple as that. Every vote counts. Elections have consequence. And, defeating Trump and his GOP in November could be our last clear chance to preserve America as a democratic republic!
Following the class, I did a Spanish language radio show with my good friend Pablo Fantl, Esquire, of Richmond, who was kind enough to translate for me.
Jessica Schulberg Politics & Extremist Groups Reporter HuffPost
Jessica Schulberg reports for HuffPost:
During his first address to the nation on the global coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump characterized COVID-19 as a “foreign virus” while touting his decision to institute travel restrictions with China and announcing plans to close the U.S. to visitors from most of Europe.
Meanwhile, he has been raked by critics — and the markets — for failing to thoroughly explain how the government plans to address the lack of tests and spiking number of cases across the U.S. His administration has for weeks downplayed the threat of the virus, even as experts warned it is on track to spread exponentially.
Trump clearly sees the novel coronavirus as just another foreign invader to keep out — a viewpoint reflected both in his policy proposals and the way he and his administration talk about the virus. This approach is in line with his overarching political strategy of exploiting Americans’ fears to justify racist, nativist policies.
“This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history,” Trump said Wednesday about his administration’s response while blaming the European Union for failing to take steps to prevent contagion. Several European countries have fewer cases of coronavirus per capita than the U.S.
It’s not just Trump. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar repeatedly referred to the disease as the “China coronavirus” during a briefing last month. Anti-immigration zealot Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) — who is in self-quarantineafter being exposed to coronavirus at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland — has gone out of his way to describe the virus as the “Wuhan virus,” a reference to the location of the first outbreak.
When Gosar’s critics argued that the congressman shouldn’t spread racist stereotypes, Rich Lowry, the editor of the right-wing National Review, wrote an entire column insisting the illness be called the “Wuhan virus.” “China deserves to be connected to the virus that it loosed on the world,” he argued.
**************
For those who don’t know the history, the “Reichstag Fire” in 1933 was a pivotal step in the Nazi’s rise to power in Germany. At the time, Hitler blamed Communists. The actual cause of the fire has since been debated by historians: some say the Nazis started it themselves, while others say that it was an accident, or the act of a single arsonist.
Regardless of cause, all agree on the result. Hitler used it as a pretext to eradicate the constitution, punish the opposition, and place draconian authoritarian measures in place using the fiction of “national security.” This eventually led to the Holocaust and a World War that killed approximately 75 million.
Fact is that the coronavirus isn’t “foreign.” Viruses don’t possess or recognize nationality. Nor was it spread in the U.S. primarily by “foreigners.” Most cases initially reached the U.S. through U.S. citizens who took cruises or traveled abroad after the start of the virus abroad had been publicized.
Mexico, a frequent target of the Trump regime’s racism, has reported fewer than ten confirmed cases of coronavirus, as opposed to over 1,000 in the U.S. The Northern Triangle of Central America also appears to have avoided major outbreaks to date. On the other hand, the illegal and inhumane anti-asylum policies of the regime, as enabled by the Supremes and complicit Article III Courts, appear to present a realistic danger of spreading the virus to all of those countries which are ill-equipped to handle it.
The market as well as all medical experts recognized and reacted negatively to the idiocy of Trump’s Oval Office speech. The U.S. preparation, public education, and actual response to coronavirus has been one of the poorest and most inept in the world to date. To the extent that the U.S. has mitigated the disease, it has been largely the result of decisive actions by State Governors and local officials of both parties, although primarily Democrats, along with universities and sports leagues.
Expect Trump and his White Nationalists to use the danger to our public health that he didn’t cause, yet unnecessarily aggravated, as an excuse for more irrational, cruel, xenophobic, racist attacks on migrants. And, you can expect the “Chief of Complicity,” John Roberts, and his accomplices to continue to help promote Trump’s attack on human decency, truth, and our democratic institutions. John Roberts has never seen a transparently false “emergency” from Trump that he didn’t love or racism or religious bigotry so obvious that he would actually call it what it is.
Incompetent governance by a corrupt, selfish kakistocracy that promotes myths and conspiracy theories over truth, scientific knowledge, and the common good does not cause epidemics. But, it does unnecessarily aggravate them, hinder effective control, and gravely endanger the public health. It simple terms, it kills! Yet another reason why “regime change” in November might be America’s last chance for survival.
The coronavirus has surfaced perhaps the only competent high level official in the entire Trump Administration — Dr. Anthony Fauci. In case you haven’t noticed, there is no resemblance whatsoever between the scientific truth spoken by Dr. Fauci, who paints a honest but grim picture of the Administration’s half-assed efforts to date, and the unadulterated BS and party line spouted by Trump and the second most unqualified individual in the U.S. to handle a pandemic Mike “Super Sycophant” Pence. Talk about a “Confederacy of Dunces!” I’m just surprised that Trump hasn’t fired Fauci yet, given the well-known Trumpian aversion to all things true.
I’ve watched the smirking nitwit Rich Lowry of the National Review (too) many times on the “talking heads” where he is a favorite because he is one of the few Trump apologists who can put two consecutive sentences together in the English Language. Most of what he says is BS, but at least it’s comprehensible and reasonably articulate BS. And, despite the endless smirk, he isn’t as overtly rude and aggressively crude as most Trumpists. Jessica’s article confirmed my already low opinion of Rich. As Rome burns, by all means, let’s pontificate on what we should call the fire.
Kevin Euceda, a 17-year-old Honduran boy, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border three years ago and was turned over to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until his request for asylum could be decided by immigration courts. During that period, he was required, as are all unaccompanied minors in custody, to meet with therapists to help him process what he had gone through.
In those sessions, Kevin was encouraged to speak freely and openly and was told that what he said would be kept confidential. So he poured out his story of a brutalized childhood, of how MS-13 gang members moved into the family shack after his grandmother died when he was 12, of how he was forced to run errands, sell drugs and, as he got older, take part in beating people up. When he was ordered to kill a stranger to cement his position in the gang, Kevin decided to run.
His therapists submitted pages of notes over several sessions to the file on him, as they were expected to do. But then, HHS officials — without the knowledge of the teen or the therapists — shared the notes with lawyers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who used them in immigration court to paint the young migrant as a dangerous gang member who should be denied asylum and sent back to Honduras. In sharing those therapy notes, the government did not break any laws. But it most assuredly broke its promise of confidentiality to Kevin, violated standard professional practices — the first therapist involved quit once she learned her notes had been shared — and offended a fundamental expectation that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in this country.
Kevin, whose story was detailed by the Washington Post, wasn’t the only unaccompanied minor to fall victim to such atrocious behavior, though how many have been affected is unknown. The government says it has changed that policy and no longer shares confidential therapy notes, but that’s not particularly reassuring coming from this administration. It adopted the policy once; it could easily do so again.
Last week, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Immigrants’ Mental Health Act of 2020 to ban the practice, which is a necessary preventive measure. The bill would also create a new training regimen to help border agents address mental health issues among migrants and require at least one mental health expert at each Customs and Border Patrol facility. Both of those steps are worth considering too.
That the government would so callously use statements elicited from unaccompanied minors in therapy sessions to undercut their asylum applications is part of the Trump administration’s broad and inhumane efforts to effectively shut off the U.S. as a destination for people seeking to exercise their right to ask for sanctuary. Jeff Sessions and his successor as attorney general, William Barr, have injected themselves into cases at an unprecedented rate to unilaterally change long-established practices and immigration court precedent.
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases. Advocates argue persuasively that the efforts have undermined due process rights and made the immigration courts more a tool of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies than a system for measuring migrant’s claims against the standards Congress wrote into federal law.
Of course, trampling legal rights and concepts of basic human decency have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement — witness, for example, its separation of more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents. Beyond the heartlessness of the separations, the Health and Human Services’ inspector general last week blasted the department for botching the process. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded detention — about 50,000 migrants are in federal custody on any given day, up from about 30,000 a decade ago — and forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to await processing in dangerous squalor on Mexico’s side of the border.
There are legitimate policy discussions to be had over how this government should handle immigration, asylum requests and broad comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.
****************
The LA Times is ”on top” of the grotesque perversion of the Immigration “Courts” under nativist zealot Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Trump toady Billy Barr to carry out a White Nationalist political agenda:
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases.
Who’a NOT “on top” of what’s happening: The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate, Chief Justice Roberts, a number of his Supremely Complicit colleagues, and a host of Court of Appeals Judges who allow this unconstitutional travesty to continue to mock the Fifth Amendment and the rule of Law, while abusing and threatening the lives of legal asylum seekers every day!
With 2.5 Branches of our Government led by anti-democracy zealots and cowards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our only remaining bulwark against tyranny! Capable as she is, she can’t do it all by herself!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!
Lynn S. Adelman, a U.S. district judge in Milwaukee, has riled conservatives by publishing a blistering critique of the Supreme Court’s record under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., focusing on a string of decisions that he argues have fostered “economic inequality,” “undermined democracy” and “increased the political power of corporations and wealthy individuals” at the expense of ordinary Americans.
Adelman also criticized President Trump, who he wrote ran as a populist but failed to deliver “policies beneficial to the general public. … While Trump’s temperament is that of an autocrat,” Adelman wrote, “he is disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”
The article by Adelman was all the more unusual because it went after the chief justice directly. Roberts, he said, was “misleading” in his 2005 confirmation hearing testimony when he pledged to be a passive “umpire” calling balls and strikes.
Adelman called that metaphor a “masterpiece of disingenuousness,” saying the court under Roberts “has been anything but passive” as its “hard right majority” has actively participated in “undermining American democracy.”
As president, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused federal judges of being political and beholden to the presidents who appointed them. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
The article, entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy,” is scheduled for publication in an unspecified forthcoming issue of the Harvard Law & Policy Review, which describes itself as the official publication of the liberal American Constitution Society. It was published in full at SSRN this month.
Adelman, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997, is a former Democratic state senator in Wisconsin and Legal Aid Society trial lawyer. Perhaps his best-known decision nationally was a 2014 ruling striking down Wisconsin’s voter ID law.
His broad critique of the Roberts court, with particular reference to its decisions on voting rights and campaign finance by corporate interests, is not an uncommon one — coming, that is, from liberal scholars or political leaders, including former president Barack Obama.
But coming from a sitting federal judge in a journal article accompanied by such a blunt attack on Roberts, not to mention Trump, it has attracted uncommon attention.
. . . .
**********
Read the complete article at the link.
So I’m not the only one to note the Chiefie’s “Taneyesque” performance, particularly on issues involving the rights of migrants, refugees, Muslims, and other persons of color. He has joined the regime in “Dred Scottifying” those with brown skins who are entitled to the protection of our Constitution and our laws, which Trump has eliminated without legislation, relying largely on transparently fraudulent “national security rationales.”
But, Roberts hasn’t been much good for African Americans or other minorities either, joining his right winger activist colleagues in disingenuously dismantling key parts of civil rights and voting rights protections and turning an intentionally blind eye to partisan gerrymandering carried out by the GOP to disenfranchise minorities. Election results get skewed and folks actually die as a result of these intentional miscarriages of justice to further a toxic right wing agenda aimed at destroying America’s democratic institutions, promoting inequality, and institutionalizing privilege. As Judge Adelman said “the transformation of the Supreme Court from what he described as a defender of ordinary people and ‘subordinated groups’ to an enabler of an ‘anti-democratic’ Republican agenda.” Right on, Judge A!
I also found this comment telling:
Adelman was unapologetic. “I think it’s totally appropriate to criticize the court when there’s a basis for it,” he said. “Judges are encouraged to comment on the law because we have a particular interest, knowledge and familiarity.”
Compare that with the “muzzling” of the Immigration Judiciary by the Executive reported recently on Courtside. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/03/🤡🤡clown-court-report-as-due-process-goes-into-death-spiral-regime-muzzles-immigration-judges/
And, as I constantly point out, the Immigration Courts aren’t “courts” at all. They are blatantly unconstitutional “star chambers” run by the Executive Branch with the complicity of the Article III Judiciary who see their work daily and know full well that they are often “rubber stamping” final orders sending folks into potentially life-threatening exile with only a transparently thin veneer of “due process.” But, according to Roberts and his gang, brown-skinned refugees aren’t entitled to even access this process in a reasonable manner, let alone receive the fair hearings to which they are entitled before being “orbited” to potential death in foreign lands. What if it were his wife and kids? I’ll bet their lives would get more consideration.
I also appreciate Judge Adelman’s “spotlighting” the disingenuous testimony of Roberts and other right wingers under oath before the Senate when they “feigned impartiality” to disguise their anti-democracy agenda (without, of course, losing the support of the rightest Republicans who were “licking their chops” at finally getting their long-awaited “judicial wrecking crew” in place).
As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said recently:“In the words of Balzac, ‘to distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society.’”
Unhappily, thanks to Roberts and other complicit Article IIIs, we’re there. Which is exactly how Trump and his supporters want it!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
So much for the bogus ”passive “umpire” calling balls and strikes.”
The immigration policies executed by the Trump administration have been, to be succinct, f***ed up. That’s not even just me saying that. The people who have to execute his policies are saying it too.
The New York Times reports that a union of federal asylum workers has filed an amicus brief stating that a policy from the Trump Administration that diverts migrants to Guatemala is unlawful. The union, National CIS Council 119, represents 700 asylum and refugee officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The brief states that international treaty obligations are being violated as a result of having to deport migrants to a country where they will likely face prosecution. The Trump administration made a deal with Guatemala that allows the United States to deport migrants seeking asylum in the States to Guatemala. The union believes that these new rules are forcing them to violate the laws they were trained to uphold.
. . . .
********************************
Read the complete report at the link.
HEROES & ENABLERS — Judges Who Aid The Trump Regime’s Deadly Oppression Of The Most Vulnerable Among Us Will Eventually Hear The Voices Of Those They Abandoned & Dehumanized — Even From The Graves Of The Oppressed, History Will Pass Judgement On The Smugly Powerful Who Abuse The Weak!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
March 9, 2020
USCIS Asylum Officers are the “NDPA Heroes of the Week!”
So, one group of courageous civil servants is willing to put their careers on the line to defend the Constitution and the rights of the vulnerable. But, others in more protected positions, like, for example, Supreme Court Justices and some Court of Appeals Judges, are afraid to stand up to Trump and defend the rule of law and the humanity of those whose only “crime” is to trust in our legal protection system. The courage of one group contrasts with the willful ignorance and cowardly complicity of the other. What’s wrong with this picture?
At some point, there will be “regime change” in the Executive as well as the Senate. When that happens, our system needs a complete re-examination of the immigration scholarship, commitment to human rights, and the moral leadership of those we are giving lifetime appointments to the Federal Bench, particularly the Supremes.
Obviously, the system has failed when two current justices choose to use their power and privileged positions disingenuously to rail about the “bogus horrors” of nationwide injunctions, and thereby spur the regime on to even grater abuses, while papering over the real issue of the actual grotesque legal, constitutional, and human rights violations inflicted on migrants and others by a White Nationalist would-be authoritarian regime that would eventually do away with almost all of our legal rights.
In the future, perhaps we should consider elevating more Asylum Officers with law degrees and a record of fair adjudication and speaking truth to power to the Article III Judiciary, including the Supremes. There are younger members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who were forced by the regime into “early retirement” who could bring scholarship, fairness, practicality, and justice back to the Article IIIs. How about some pro bono lawyers, clinical professors, and NGO leaders who combine scholarship with real life experience and whose proven creativity and problem solving skills far exceed the pedestrian and wooden approaches we see all too often from today’s failing Article III Judiciary. Although their efforts are mocked, disrespected, and undermined by complicit Article III Judges, like the “J.R. Five,” these courageous “defenders of democracy and the rights of the weak” are the ones who are in fact keeping our legal system afloat in the face of Article III willful ignorance and complicity in tyranny.
And, we definitely need fewer corporate lawyers (except those who have extensive pro bono immigration/human rights experience), prosecutors, and right wing “think tankers” occupying the Federal bench.We have an oversupply of those folks on the bench right now, and our rights are suffering for it. It will take years, perhaps decades, to repair the damage they are causing and to bring the Federal Judicial system back into a proper balance.
These aren’t “liberal/conservative philosophical questions.” They are black and white questions of moral courage and the willingness to enforce Due Process and protect those whose lives are endangered by the Trump regime’s cruel and lawless programs and constant racially-inspired lies, naked bias, and misrepresentations. Sending folks back to dangerous countries without functioning asylum systems is wrong as a matter of law. Period. Making them “Remain in Mexico” is wrong. Period. A so-called “court system” run by a transparently biased, disingenuous, “uber enforcement” official like Billy Barr does not provide the “fair and impartial adjudications” required by Due Process. Period. Separating families and putting kids in cages and “kiddie gulags” is wrong. Period. Those initiating and carrying out those policies should be chastised and held accountable, not enabled. Period.
Actually, many courageous and scholarly U.S. District Judges have gotten these straightforward legal questions exactly right and promptly entered life-saving injunctions. A number of U.S. Immigration Judges have also courageously adhered to the rule of law in the face of excruciating and unethical pressure from DOJ politicos and their toadies to cut corners and railroad individuals out of the country without due process.
It’s the Supremes and too many Circuit Court Judges who who have “rolled over” for the regime’s cruel and inhuman nonsense. By doing so, they essentially “pull the rug” out from under those judges who have the encourage and integrity to “just say no” to the regime’s constant overreach. In doing so, the Federal Appellate Courts and the Supremes are actually engaging in undermining the system they serve and encouraging “worst practices” and even worse results. What truly reprehensible “role models” for upcoming lawyers. Fortunately, many newer lawyers are members of the New Due Process Army and are ignoring the poor and immoral examples of judicial spinelessness set by their supposed “elders.”
Life tenure protects the jobs and paychecks of Article III Judges. But, it won’t protect them from justified criticism and the ultimate judgement of history. Bashing the oppressed in behalf of those in power might seem like a good short-term strategy. After all, the deported, the abused, and the dead don’t normally get to “write history.”
But others are watching this travesty unfold and are pledged to “give a voice” to those silenced by the gross dereliction of legal duties and ignoring simple human decency and values by many with power who could have put an end to these obscene human rights abuses. Chief Justice Roger Taney might have been hailed by the White Supremacists of his age for his opinion in Dred Scott. But, he hasn’t “weathered the test of time” too well! Nor will Chief Justice Roberts and others who have been “going along to get along” with cruel and illegal abuses wantonly inflicted by the White Nationalist regime on the most needy and vulnerable among us.
Congrats and much appreciation from all of us in the New Due Process Army to USCIS Asylum Officers for your courage and integrity in the face of tyranny!
Due Process Forever; Complicity & Enabling Cruelty Never!
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): The panel previously ordered that argument for the above-captioned cases would proceed with Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, No. 18-72833 being argued first. The panel supplements its previous order for argument in this first case, as follows: Petitioner will argue, reserving time for rebuttal if desired, then Amicus Curiae The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies will argue, then Respondent will have an opportunity to respond to both Petitioner and the Amicus, and finally Petitioner may use any time reserved for rebuttal. Additionally, Respondent should be prepared to address the arguments raised by Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. [11616996] [18-72833, 18-72735, 18-73434, 19-70489] (AF)
*******************
Great to know that at least some Article IIIs are paying attention. We can only hope that they will act on our expert views and save some very deserving and highly vulnerable lives. Of course, we couldn’t have gotten this far without the amazing pro bono team over at Gibson Dunn!
ABA President Judy Perry Martinez joined leaders from Kids in Need of Defense on Wednesday in condemning a new pilot program at the Houston Immigration Court that requires all cases involving unaccompanied immigrant children to be heard via video teleconference.
Under the program, the Trump administration calls for the testimony of unaccompanied children to be streamed from Houston to Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Sirce Owen, who will hear cases in Atlanta. The program will begin March 9 and last for about two months.
“What is about to happen in Houston is wrong,” Martinez said during a briefing on the program. “It will hurt children and is contrary to the American pursuit of justice. The American Bar Association opposes the policy, and we need action against it now.”
Martinez explained that the ABA Commission on Immigration has extensive experience with children in immigrant courts and created standards of care and conduct based on its experience. She said that among those standards is a strong opposition to video teleconferencing in immigration proceedings involving children.
She recalled visiting a children’s shelter during one of her trips to volunteer with the ABA’s South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project. She thought then about what runs through the mind of an unaccompanied child who just entered the United States and must go to court.
“For a child, it must be truly troubling, if not terrifying—especially for a child who doesn’t speak English, who doesn’t know what to expect in a U.S. courtroom and who may not have a lawyer or other trusted adult to guide him or her,” she said. “Imagine how much more bewildering that experience must be for a child in a courtroom with no judge in person, live there with them. Only a small TV screen.”
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the above link.
Ah, picking on children, rather than trying to insure Due Process. There’s a name for those who pick on the most vulnerable.
On February 26, the Attorney General (or more likely, someone authorized to speak on his behalf) issued a precedent decision in Matter of R-A-F-. My take on the import of this decision seems to be different than most. Let me first provide some background.
Most people seeking asylum in this country also apply for a lesser form of protection called withholding of removal under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (“CAT” for short). Whereas asylum provides a path to U.S. permanent residence, CAT only prevents someone with a deportation order from being sent to a country in which they are likely to suffer torture.CAT generally only comes into play where the applicant isn’t found eligible for asylum, something which is happening more frequently as the present administration churns out new bars and obstacles to eligibility.
To provide an example, someone who establishes they will likely be murdered or raped if returned to their country may be barred from even applying for asylum if they didn’t file their application within one year of their arrival in this country, or if they did not apply for asylum in a third country they passed through en route to the southern border. Even if allowed to apply, they may still be denied asylum if the immigration judge does not determine that their persecution would be for the proper motive.But while our asylum laws as written allow some leeway as to whom the government will afford permanent status in the U.S., the same government is bound by international treaty not to send an individual to a place where they would suffer persecution. It is often CAT that fills the gap between those who are not permitted to remain permanently but should nevertheless not be repatriated.
The U.S. was one of 154 countries to sign the U.N. Convention Against Torture. However, it was the only country to add a “specific intent” requirement to its internal regulations implementing the convention, requiring a finding that the torture “be specifically intended to inflict severe…pain and suffering,” and specifically excluding acts that result “in unanticipated or unintended severity of pain or suffering.”1 The specific intent requirement seriously undermines the purpose of the law, as many are forced to rely on CAT specifically because they couldn’t prove the proper intent of their persecutor that is required for asylum. It is thus necessary for the specific intent provision to be interpreted in the least restrictive manner for CAT to function in its intended way.
In 2002, the BIA had its first chance to interpret how the specific intent requirement should be applied in a case called Matter of J-E-. At the time, the BIA was comprised of judges holding diverse views of the law. As a result, the Board was sharply split on the issue.The more restrictive reading won out, but 6 judges dissented.2 Five of them were no longer on the BIA a year later following then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s infamous purge of Board judges whom he viewed as too liberal.
An important point that was glossed over in the majority opinion in Matter of J-E- and its progeny is that where governments do intentionally maintain horrific conditions in its prisons or mental institutions that are intended to punish those institution’s populations, they tend to be smart enough not to admit to it. To illustrate this point, I refer to a November 12, 2019 report of the Washington Post finding that although the Trump Administration characterized its outrageous treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children as an unintended consequence of the volume of immigrants seeking asylum at the border, such outcome “also was a result of policy decisions that officials knew would ensnare unaccompanied minors in bureaucratic tangles and leave them in squalid conditions.”
Cognisant of this fact, in his dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, Hon. Paul W. Schmidt found the specific intent requirement to be satisfied by a “clearly documented acceptance of extreme mistreatment amounting to torture as a routine aspect of detention in Haiti.” Concluding that the Haitian government “cannot claim it does not know what happens to detainees in its prisons,” Judge Schmidt found the specific intent requirement to have been met.Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg began her companion dissenting opinion in the case by quoting from the Second Circuit that “Among the rights universally proclaimed by all nations . . . is the right to be free of physical torture.”3
In late 2018, the BIA again rejected such arguments and reiterated the majority view of J-E- in another precedent decision, Matter of J-G-R-P-. This time, the BIA did so in a three-judge panel decision in which there were no dissents. As this decision was published less than 16 months prior to the A.G.’s decision in R-A-F-, there was really no need at the time the A.G. issued R-A-F- for another decision on the topic.
I thus believe the real motive behind issuing the decision was not to give guidance, but rather to serve warning. While published precedential decisions have always received broad attention, individual BIA appellate judges have felt safe affording relief in sympathetic cases in unpublished decisions where the outcome is generally known only to the parties involved.
A colleague recently made me aware of a job posting within EOIR for an attorney to work not for the Immigration Courts or the BIA, but rather within the office of EOIR’s director, James McHenry, who has imposed the administration’s political will on the agency’s judges with a heavy hand. The job description included “review(ing) court cases including appeals cases for adherence to procedural requirements, proper interpretation and application of statutes, regulations and precedents,” and “recommend(ing) action on precedent-setting issues to senior officials.” In other words, McHenry was looking to hire what is commonly referred to as a “snitch” to sort through decisions that might not pass muster with the likes of Stephen Miller, and flag them for corrective action.One such shameless staffer apparently flagged R-A-F- in this manner, and through the resulting A.G. certification, the case will serve as a cautionary tale for a group of BIA judges that certainly hasn’t forgotten the fate of the Matter of J-E- dissenters.
The decision in question was issued in September by Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland, whose retirement party was held this past week. Judge Wendtland is by no means a liberal, and worked the majority of her career for the Department of Justice; prior to her appointment to the BIA, she had been an assistant director with the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation. But Judge Wendtland is highly knowledgeable of the law, and is reasonable and fair (all endangered qualities on the present BIA).
Looking to Judge Wendtland’s decision below, it would be difficult to find a more sympathetic applicant than R-A-F-. The respondent seeking CAT protection is in his 70s, and suffers from Parkinson’s disease, dementia, Major Depressive Disorder, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, and chronic kidney disease. The evidence of record established that if returned to his native Mexico, R-A-F- faced a significant risk of being institutionalized in a facility in which he could be subject to physical and sexual abuse, physical and chemical restraints, and containment in cages and isolation rooms, all without access to justice. Judge Wendtland agreed with the Immigration Judge that such treatment rose to the definition of torture.
Based on her reputation and body of work, Judge Wendtland is undoubtedly someone who had earned the right to have her decision in R-A-F- accorded deference. However, these are different times.And instead of deference, the A.G. (who, of course, knows next to nothing about immigration law or the specific matter in question) chose to unceremoniously refer to himself and then slam the BIA’s decision. The legacy of such action will be fully felt the next time a single judge at the BIA has the opportunity to affirm a similarly sympathetic grant of relief, but will instead choose not to do so out of fear and self-preservation.This is not how justice should be afforded to our country’s most vulnerable population.
Notes:
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5).
I am proud to note that the authors of the two dissenting opinions, Paul W. Schmidt and Lory D. Rosenberg, and former BIA judge Cecelia Espenoza, who joined in both dissents, are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 890 (2d Cir. 1980).
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
********************************
Thanks, Jeffrey my friend,for the “shout out” for the dissents of Lory, Cecelia, and me in Matter of J-E-!
I have said before that I always respected Judge Wendtland. She was a scholarly, industrious, fair-minded, “center right” jurist. While I had been exiled from the BIA before she was appointed, she seemed like a judge with whom I would have enjoyed having a continuing dialogue, much like my more conservative, yet thoughtful and scholarly, friend the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu. And, we probably would have ended up on the same side of a number of issues coming before the BIA.
It’s both disheartening and enraging to see that even “conscientious conservative” jurists like Judge Wendtland get no real respect and deference from the likes of Billy Barr and his toady colleagues. And, the function of having Director McHenry “ride heard” on the BIA is both unethical and stupid, since he is not an Immigraton Judge himself. Indeed, the gross incompetence with which todays’ EOIR is managed suggests that the Director’s sole role should be to attend to the failing administrative and support structure of the Immigration Courts in a nonpartisan, apolitical manner under the direction of, not overseeing, the BIA Chair and the Chief Immigration Judge.
This system is broken! Every time an Article III Circuit Court signs off on an order of removal resulting from this unconstitutional, unethical, and grossly mismanaged morass, those Article III Judges enable the regime’s continuing fraud, waste, and abuse, and shirk their sworn constitutional duties.
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 9th Cir., 02-28-20, published
PANEL:Ferdinand F. Fernandez, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY:Judge William A. Fletcher
DISSENTING OPINION:Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
In addition to likelihood of success on the merits, a court must consider the likelihood that the requesting party will
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 49
suffer irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest in determining whether a preliminary injunction is justified. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “When the government is a party, these last two factors merge.” Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)).
There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined. Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.
The balance of equities favors plaintiffs. On one side is the interest of the Government in continuing to follow the directives of the MPP. However, the strength of that interest is diminished by the likelihood, established above, that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1231(b). On the other side is the interest of the plaintiffs. The individual plaintiffs risk substantial harm, even death, so long as the directives of the MPP are followed, and the organizational plaintiffs are hindered in their ability to carry out their missions.
The public interest similarly favors the plaintiffs. We agree with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant:
On the one hand, the public has a “weighty” interest “in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982). But the public also has an interest in ensuring that “statutes enacted by [their] representatives”
50 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
are not imperiled by executive fiat. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1301 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers).
932 F.3d at 779 (alteration in original).
VII. Scope of the Injunction
The district court issued a preliminary injunction setting aside the MPP—that is, enjoining the Government “from continuing to implement or expand the ‘Migrant Protection Protocols’ as announced in the January 25, 2018 DHS policy memorandum and as explicated in further agency memoranda.” Innovation Law Lab, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 1130. Accepting for purposes of argument that some injunction should issue, the Government objects to its scope.
We recognize that nationwide injunctions have become increasingly controversial, but we begin by noting that it is something of a misnomer to call the district court’s order in this case a “nationwide injunction.” The MPP operates only at our southern border and directs the actions of government officials only in the four States along that border. Two of those states (California and Arizona) are in the Ninth Circuit. One of those states (New Mexico) is in the Tenth Circuit. One of those states (Texas) is in the Fifth Circuit. In practical effect, the district court’s injunction, while setting aside the MPP in its entirety, does not operate nationwide.
For two mutually reinforcing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the MPP.
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 51
First, plaintiffs have challenged the MPP under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Section 706(2)(A) of the APA provides that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . not in accordance with law.” We held, above, that the MPP is “not in accordance with” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Section 706(2)(A) directs that in a case where, as here, a reviewing court has found the agency action “unlawful,” the court “shall . . . set aside [the] agency action.” That is, in a case where § 706(2)(A) applies, there is a statutory directive—above and beyond the underlying statutory obligation asserted in the litigation—telling a reviewing court that its obligation is to “set aside” any unlawful agency action.
There is a presumption (often unstated) in APA cases that the offending agency action should be set aside in its entirety rather than only in limited geographical areas. “[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When a court determines that an agency’s action failed to follow Congress’s clear mandate the appropriate remedy is to vacate that action.” Cal. Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The ordinary practice is to vacate unlawful agency action.”); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. United States, 817 F.2d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“The APA requires us to vacate the agency’s decision if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .”).
52 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
Second, cases implicating immigration policy have a particularly strong claim for uniform relief. Federal law contemplates a “comprehensive and unified” immigration policy. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012). “In immigration matters, we have consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 932 F.3d at 779. We wrote in Regents of the University of California, 908 F.3d at 511, “A final principle is also relevant: the need for uniformity in immigration policy. . . . Allowing uneven application of nationwide immigration policy flies in the face of these requirements.” We wrote to the same effect in Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev’d on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018): “Because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give Plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.” The Fifth Circuit, one of only two other federal circuits with states along our southern border, has held that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in immigration cases. In sustaining a nationwide injunction in an immigration case, the Fifth Circuit wrote, “[T]he Constitution requires ‘an uniform Rule of Naturalization’; Congress has instructed that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly’; and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as ‘a comprehensive and unified system.’” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). In Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), we relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Texas to sustain the nationwide scope of a temporary restraining order in an immigration case. We wrote, “[W]e decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 53 constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform
immigration law and policy.” Id. at 1166–67. Conclusion
We conclude that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that it is inconsistent in part with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b). Because the MPP is invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with § 1225(b), it should be enjoined in its entirety. Because plaintiffs have successfully challenged the MPP under § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and because the MPP directly affects immigration into this country along our southern border, the issuance of a temporary injunction setting aside the MPP was not an abuse of discretion.
We lift the emergency stay imposed by the motions panel, and we firm the decision of the district court.
****************************
At last, a breath of justice in halting, at least temporarily, an outrageously illegal program that is also a grotesque violation of our national values and humanity. Unfortunately, it has already resulted in thousands of injustices and damaged many lives beyond repair. That’s something that a clueless shill for authoritarianism, wanton cruelty, and abrogation of the rule of law like dissenting Judge Fernandez might want to think about.
But, hold the “victory dance.” The regime will likely seek “rehearing en banc,” appealing to other enablers of human rights atrocities like Fernandez. And, if the regime fails there, they always can “short circuit” the legal system applicable to everyone else by having Solicitor General Francisco ask his GOP buddies on the Supremes, “The JR Five,” to give the regime a free pass. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, that type of “tilt” has already become more or less “business as usual” as the regime carries out its nativist, White Nationalist immigration agenda. Indeed, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have already announced their eagerness to carry the regime’s water for them by doing away with nationwide injunctions, even though they are the sole way for doing justice in immigration cases like this.
But, at least for today, we can all celebrate a battle won by the New Due Process Army in the ongoing war to restore our Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity.
Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 3rd Cir., 02-26-20, published
PANEL: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge ROTH
KEY QUOTE:
It is our interpretation of Pereira that it establishes a bright-line rule:
A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under section 1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.”14
The language is clear. Pereira holds that an NTA shall contain all the information set out in section 1229(a)(1). An NTA which omits the time and date of the hearing is defective. To file an effective NTA, the government cannot, in maybe four days or maybe four months, file a second – and possibly third – Notice with the missing information. And it makes sense to have such a bright-line rule: The ability of the noncitizen to receive and to keep track of the date and place of the hearing, along with the legal basis and cited acts to be addressed at the hearing, is infinitely easier if all that information is contained in a single document – as described in
blanks for time and place” but holding that this deficiency was not of jurisdictional significance); Perez-Sanchez v. United States Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1154 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Ortiz-Santiago, 924 F.3d at 962) (“Under Pereira, . . . a notice of hearing sent later might be relevant to a harmlessness inquiry, but it does not render the original NTA non- deficient.”).
14 Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113-14.
7
Case: 19-2239
Document: 67 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/26/2020
15
Moreover, it seems to us to be no great imposition on the government to require it to communicate all that information to the noncitizen in one document. If a notice is sent to the noncitizen with only a portion of the statutorily required information, a valid NTA can easily be sent later which contains all the required information in one document – at such time as the government has gathered all that information together. The complete NTA would then trigger the stop-time rule.
The government argues, however, that the BIA’s
decision in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez should be given
Chevron16 deference as a reasonable reading of an ambiguous
statute. There, the BIA relied on Pereira’s position that “the
fundamental purpose of notice is to convey essential
information to the alien, such that the notice creates a
reasonable expectation of the alien’s appearance at the removal
proceeding.” 17 The BIA determined that this purpose can be
served just as well by two or more documents as it could by
18
We conclude, however, that Chevron deference is
15 We do note that in Pereira the Court left “for another day whether a putative notice to appear that omits any of the other categories of information enumerated in § 1229(a)(1) triggers the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113 n. 5.
16 Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
17 Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 531.
18 Id.
the statute.
one.
8
Case: 19-2239 Document: 67 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/26/2020
inapplicable here because we are not merely interpreting the
19
whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira forecloses
stop-time rule.
our interpretation of the statute in Orozco-Velasquez.
***********************
What does it mean:
In the 3rd Circuit, undocumented individuals who have been continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years prior to receiving a “Pereira-compliant” Notice to Appear” (“NTA”) are exempt from the “stop time” rule for non-lawful-permanent resident cancellation of removal.
An “after the fact” Notice of Hearing from EOIR does NOT remedy the “Pereira-defect” in the NTA for purposes of the stop-time rule.
Those whose cancellation of removal applications were improperly denied, or who were not given a chance to apply, because of the stop-time rule should be able to reopen their cases. This should add to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and jack up the backlog some more, at least within the 3rd Cir.
The 3rd Circuit covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
This mess was largely self-inflicted by DHS & EOIR. They had many chances to remedy the “Pereira problem’ over the years, but chose not to do so.
I would expect the DOJ to find a petition for rehearing in this case, as they did in the Ninth Circuit. That could result in the Third Circuit’s decision being put “on hold.”
This split will eventually have to be resolved by the Supremes. But, that’s unlikely to happen until next year.
Congratulations and much appreciation to the six BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, led by former Judge John Guendelsberger, who courageously dissented from the en banc decision in Mendoza-Hernandez:
Judge John Guendelsberger, author
Judge Charles Adkins-Blanch, Vice Chair
Judge Patricia Cole
Judge Edward Grant
Judge Michael J. Creppy
Judge Molly Kendall Clark
Perhaps not surprisingly, Judges Guendelsberger, Cole, & Kendall Clark have since retired from the BIA.
Dissent remains important, if exceedingly rare at today’s BIA, where DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats actively encourage “go along to get along,” pro-regime jurisprudence. Also, en banc decisions are disfavored at today’s BIA.
Court says Trump administration can withhold money from NYC, 7 states in ‘sanctuary cities’ fight
Updated 1:07 PM EST February 26, 2020
The Trump administration can withhold federal money from seven states, as well as New York City, over their cooperation on immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The decision by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that blocked the Justice Department from withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.
The federal appeals court ruling comes amid an ongoing feud between the Trump administration and so-called “sanctuary cities,” which limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Over recent weeks, the administration has stepped up its fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and taken measures like barring New York residents from enrolling in certain Trusted Traveler programs, such as Global Entry.
Judge Reena Raggi, writing on behalf of the unanimous 3-judge panel, acknowledged the divisive nature of the issue at hand, writing: “The case implicates several of the most divisive issues confronting our country and, consequently, filling daily news headlines: national immigration policy, the enforcement of immigration laws, the status of illegal aliens in this country, and the ability of States and localities to adopt policies on such matters contrary to, or at odds with, those of the federal government.”
The city of New York is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.
In July 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that applicants for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants would have to comply with federal immigration enforcement. States pushed back and sued over the move.
. . . .
***********************
Read the complete article at the above link. Thanks for keeping us up to date, Priscilla! Love your timely and accessible reporting!
My “Quick Takes:”
This one is headed to the Supremes, as there is now a “Circuit split.”
Don’t expect this to have much effect on actual immigration enforcement.
Coercing states and localities is unlikely to foster much meaningful cooperation.
It’s more likely to simply channel resistance to the regime elsewhere.
The affected jurisdictions always have the option of just taking a “pass” on “Byrne Grants.”
In any event, interior apprehensions are a minuscule part of the DHS civil enforcement program.
They accounted for fewer than 100,000 removals during the last fiscal year.
At that rate, it would take more than a century for DHS to remove the estimated 10+ million undocumented U.S residents.
On the other hand, this is a major “propaganda victory” for the regime. And, make no mistake, this was always about anti-immigrant propaganda not legitimate law enforcement.
The Administration will be able to tout that Second Circuit Judge Reena Raggi bought their disingenuous “enforcement policy” argument “hook line and sinker.” (The DHS “Community Terrorism” program has actually been shown to inhibit legitimate law enforcement by making it much less likely that victims of domestic violence and gang crimes will report them to local law enforcement.)
However, more thoughtful judges in the 7th Circuit and elsewhere have exposed the weaknesses of Judge Raggi’s reasoning.
It’s unlikely that the Supremes will resolve this before the November election.
If Trump wins, the “Roberts Five” have already demonstrated their obsequiousness in the face of Trump’s war on immigrants.
On the other hand, a Democratic Administration would be likely to withdraw this “punishment initiative” completely and try to reach a more harmonious working relationship with state and local law enforcement on immigration issues, thus “mooting” this litigation.
