THE GIBSON REPORT — 03-02-20 — Compiled by Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

TOP UPDATES

Federal judge rules Cuccinelli appointment unlawful

Politico: The order strikes down directives from Cuccinelli that sped up asylum-seekers’ initial screenings limited extensions of those hearings, on the grounds that Cuccinelli lacked authority to issue them.

New Rule Seems Designed to Halt Valid Immigration Court Petitions By Drastically Hiking Fees

AILA expressed serious concerns about a new proposed rule that would detrimentally impact individuals seeking a fair day in immigration court by drastically increasing fees required for forms submitted to EOIR. [Fee to appeal an immigration judge decision would go from $110 to $975.] AILA Doc. No. 20022800

Appeals court pauses its ruling that dealt major blow to administration’s immigration agenda

CNN: A federal appeals court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to continue sending migrants to Mexico to wait for their immigration hearings in the US, hours after issuing a ruling that ended the policy.

Sanctuary States, City Lose Appeal on Federal Grant Cuts

Courthouse News: Reversing a sweeping injunction, the Second Circuit gave the Justice Department a green light Wednesday to withhold funding from New York City and seven states in retaliation for their sanctuary policies on immigration. See also TRAC Reports That ICE Sent Detainers to 3,671 Law Enforcement Agencies in FY2019.

An Anti-Immigrant Law That Goes Too Far, Even for the Supreme Court

Slate: Remarkably, a majority of the justices seemed prepared to invalidate the statute, or at least dramatically narrow its scope. As hostile as this court is to immigrants, it may draw the line at a law that literally criminalizes immigration advocacy.

White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney caught on tape saying US is “desperate” for more immigrants

Salon: He further undermined the administration’s claims of its economic prowess, admitting that immigration is necessary for sustained economic growth. See also U.S. population will decline faster without steady immigration, Census report says.

The Department of Justice Creates Section Dedicated to Denaturalization Cases

DOJ: The Denaturalization Section will join the existing sections within the Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation—the District Court Section and the Appellate Section. This move underscores the Department’s commitment to bring justice to terrorists, war criminals, sex offenders, and other fraudsters who illegally obtained naturalization.

The Trump Administration Is Gagging America’s Immigration Judges

Atlantic: For more than two years, immigration judges have been subject to a policy that more or less prevents them from performing an essential part of their civic duties: speaking publicly about their work.

The Absurdity and Danger of Trump’s Deal to Send Asylum Seekers to Guatemala

MJ: Since the first flight in November, the Trump administration has sent more than 700 Hondurans and Salvadorans to Guatemala, about 75 percent of whom are women and children.

An early look at the 2020 electorate

Pew: Taken together, this strong growth among minority populations means that a third of eligible voters will be nonwhite in 2020, up from about a quarter in 2000. This increase is at least partially linked to immigration and naturalization patterns: One-in-ten eligible voters in the 2020 election will have been born outside the U.S., the highest share since at least 1970.

TRAC Reports on Application of Public Charge Laws in Immigration Removal and Enforcement

Analyzing government records, TRAC found that, in the recent past, public charge laws have rarely been used to remove individuals from the U.S. and that there is “little data to suggest that America’s immigration enforcement institutions are awash in immigrants who are unable to be self-sufficient.” AILA Doc. No. 20022836

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

I-765 and N/A N/A N/A None N/A

The I-765 instructions state that all questions must be answered or state “N/A” or (where the question asks for a numerical response, such as number of children) “none.” See also Updated Advisory: Blank Spaces on Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Page Limits and Laptops at EOIR

EOIR practice manual updates include a 25-page briefing limit and an electronic devices policy that permits the use of laptops. Reports indicate people have been able to use laptops at MCHs and Individuals in NYC. The index of updates starts on page 263 of the practice manual.

Attorney General Refers Case to Himself and Then Vacates Board’s Decision on Definition of “Torture”

The AG vacated the BIA’s decision granting deferral of removal under CAT and remanded for review, noting that the BIA should consider de novo respondent’s claim that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon return to Mexico. Matter of R-A-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 778 (A.G. 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20022701. See also The Real Message of Matter of R-A-F-.

BIA Affirms Ruling That Sexual Offense in Violation of a Maryland Statute Enacted to Protect Minors Is a CIMT

Reaffirming Matter of Jimenez-Cedillo, 27 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2017), the BIA ruled that sexual solicitation of a minor in violation of section 3-324(b) of the Maryland Criminal Law is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Jimenez-Cedillo, 27 I&N Dec. 782 (BIA 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20022735

Herrera-Reyes v. Barr

CA3: This case presents the question whether and under what circumstances threats of violence may contribute to a cumulative pattern of past persecution when not coupled with physical harm to the asylum-seeker or her family. We conclude the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in holding that Petitioner Jeydi Herrera-Reyes— a Nicaraguan national who received death threats from members of the governing Sandinista Party after her home was burned down, a convoy in which she was traveling came under gunfire, and a political meeting she was organizing was robbed at gunpoint—had not suffered past persecution within the meaning of the asylum statute. We will therefore grant the petition for review and vacate and remand to the BIA.

Ali v. Barr

CA5: Nadeem Ali lost his status as a legal permanent resident (“LPR”) when he was convicted of certain drug offenses. He challenges that result by arguing that—at the time of his drug convictions—he was both an LPR and an asylee. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board” or “BIA”) disagreed. So do we.

Supreme Court Says Bivens’ Holding Does Not Extend to Claim Based on Cross-Border Shooting by CBP Agent of Mexican Teen

The Supreme Court refused to extend a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents into the new context of cross-border shootings, finding that the family of a Mexican teen could not pursue a damages suit against the CBP agent who shot him. (Hernandez v. Mesa, 2/25/20) AILA Doc. No. 20022601

Argument preview: What process is due in streamlined administrative procedures?

SCOTUSblog: Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which will be argued on March 2, raises important questions about whether asylum-seekers may challenge mistakes made during the expedited removal process.

DHS employee told to report to work in Newark after China travel, in violation of coronavirus quarantine, complaints say

WaPo: A Department of Homeland Security employee who returned from travel to China was told by her supervisor to report to her workplace in early February in apparent violation of a mandatory 14-day coronavirus quarantine period, according to complaints filed Friday by the union that represents the woman’s co-workers.

Safe Horizon and ASISTA File FOIA Request Seeking Immigration Policy Data Related to U-Visa Adjudications

Safe Horizon and ASISTA filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with USCIS for immigration policy data on the adjudication of U visa petitions and adjustment of status applications for those granted U visa status. AILA Doc. No. 20022832

USCIS Issues Alert on Rescheduling Appointments Due to Coronavirus (COVID-19)

USCIS issued an alert advising individuals to follow instructions on the appointment notice and to reschedule appointments or interviews with USCIS if they were in China within 14 days of their appointment; believe they may have been exposed to COVID-19; or are experiencing flu-like symptoms. AILA Doc. No. 20022736

Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Certain Additional Persons Who Pose a Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus

President Trump issued a proclamation that, with some exceptions, suspends and limits entry into the U.S., as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of persons who were physically present in Iran during the 14-day period preceding their entry/attempted entry. This proclamation also amends Proclamation 9984. AILA Doc. No. 20030235

USCIS Issues Policy Guidance on the Effect of Breaks in Continuity of Residence on Eligibility for Naturalization

USCIS issued policy guidance clarifying that naturalization applicants absent from the U.S. during the statutory period for more than six months but less than a year must overcome the presumption that the continuity of residence has been broken in order to remain eligible for naturalization. AILA Doc. No. 20022634

USCIS Announces Re-Registration Period Now Open for Current TPS Beneficiaries Under Yemen’s Designation

USCIS announced that current beneficiaries of TPS under Yemen’s designation who want to maintain their status through 9/3/21 must re-register between 3/2/20 and 5/1/20. USCIS will issue new EADs with a 9/3/21 expiration date to eligible beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for an EAD. AILA Doc. No. 20030231

RESOURCES

Updated Advisory: Blank Spaces on Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Gangs and Modern-Day Slavery in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala: A Non-Traditional Model of Human Trafficking

Preparing Your Practice for Public Charge Cases

‘How do I convince the Home Office I’m a lesbian?’

Practice Pointer: Requesting to Interfile or Transfer the Preference Category of a Pending I-485 Application

USCIS Issues Policy Alert on Implementation of Guidance on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds

Six Personal and Office Management Questions to Ask When Feeling Overwhelmed

AIC fact sheet on sanctuary policies

Public Charge Update: Review of DOS Implementation

Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018

No Safe Harbor: The Landscape of Immigration Legal Services in New York

EVENTS

3/3/20 Promoting Due Process for Immigrants in New York: RSVP to Renuka Sawhney rsawhney@Vera.org by COB today

3/4/20 Incarceration and Detention: Examining the Mass Incarceration and Detention Privatization Movement and Implications for the Public’s Health

3/5/20 Homeland Security Investigations And Human Trafficking

3/10/20 Webinar: Does ICE have access to your driver’s license data?

3/11/2020 New York’s Promise Package Lobby Day

3/16/20 BIA Appeals

3/18/20 Victory for Liberians in the U.S.: Deferred Enforced Departure, A Pathway to Citizenship, and An Immigration Success Story

3/19/20 2020 Updates and Hot Topics in Family-Based Adjustment of Status Cases

3/22-24/20 NITA Advocacy in Immigration Matters

3/23-27/20 Defenders’ Academy

3/26/20 How to Build a Better Affidavit- Literary Techniques for Legal Writing.

3/30/20 Analyzing Criminal Records for Immigration Cases

3/30/20 40-Hour Overview of Immigration Law

4/30/20 2020 Federal Court Litigation Conference

7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020

10/1/20 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2020: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, March 2, 2020

Immigration Article of the Day: Revisiting Economic Assimilation of Mexican and Central American Immigrants in the United States by Giovanni Peri and Zachariah Rutledge

Asian American lawmakers are calling on their colleagues to halt the spread of rumors regarding coronavirus, in an effort to curb the rising xenophobia and discrimination tied to the illness

The Michigan Compact on Immigration: Business leaders release ‘Michigan Compact’ in support of immigration

Sunday, March 1, 2020

Judge rules Cucinelli unlawfully appointed to run DHS

Your Playlist: Meklit

Trump calls coronavirus criticism Democrats’ ‘new hoax’ and links it to immigration

Saturday, February 29, 2020

The Trump Administration Is Gagging America’s Immigration Judges

Undocumented, Black, and Unseen

Trump Immigration Measures Suffer Setbacks in the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Refuses to Vacate Sheriff Joe’s Contempt Conviction

Urban Institute: Date on the Children of Immigrants

Scholarship Opportunity for Immigrant Students

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Proving Sexuality

CU Colloquium Features Research on Citizenship: Mapping Citizenship by Carolina Nunez and Rejecting Citizenship by Rose Cuison-Villazor

Growing influence of newly-naturalized voters

Newsweek: Democrats Must Hold Immigration Debate on How They Plan to Stop ‘White Supremacists’ Shaping Policy, Advocates Say

Second Circuit Rules for Trump Administration in Sanctuary Cities Case

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Berkeley Law: 2020 Riesenfeld Symposium — Borderline: Problems and Perspectives in Global Migration

Teaching Padilla

Immigration Article of the Day: Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018 by Robert Warren

The Department of Justice Creates Section Dedicated to Denaturalization Cases

Amy Klobuchar’s record as a DA: Anti-immigrant, anti-people of color?

Justices Seem Inclined to Find Immigration Criminal Statute to Violate the First Amendment

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court argument preview: What process is due in expedited removal?

Conference: NYU School of Law — Immigration, Equal Protection, and the Promise of Racial Justice The Legacy of Jean v. Nelson

Legal migration to decline by one-third due to Trump policies

Breaking News: Supreme Court decides cross border shooting case

DHS Implements Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule

Legal immigration will decline by 30 percent next year due to Trump policies, report projects

Supreme Court argument preview: Do federal courts have jurisdiction to review a challenge to an administrative denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture?

Monday, February 24, 2020

White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney caught on tape saying US is “desperate” for more immigrants

Refugee Docents Help Bring A Museum’s Global Collection To Life

Rothgerber Conference Women’s Enfranchisement: Beyond the 19th Amendment at CU Boulder

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in First Amendment/Immigration Case

Federal Court Stops DHS From Arresting US Citizens’ Foreign Spouses During Marriage Interviews

Visa Indefinitely Delayed for German visiting professor, unable to enter U.S.

From the Bookshelves: The Readmission of Asylum Seekers under International Law by Mariagiulia Giuffré

*********

Thanks, Elizabeth, for keeping us abreast of all the regime’s assaults on humanity, and then many successful counterattacks being led by the New Due Process Army!

PWS

03-04-20

🤡🤡CLOWN COURT REPORT: As Due Process Goes Into “Death Spiral,” Regime Muzzles Immigration Judges!

Cristian Farias reports in The Atlantic:

For more than two years, immigration judges have been subject to a policy that more or less prevents them from performing an essential part of their civic duties: speaking publicly about their work.

Since September 2017, immigration judges and all other employees at the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review have been required to adhere to an onerous pre-approval process whenever they desire or are invited to speak publicly on any issue, immigration-related or not. I learned of the policy through a Freedom of Information Act request my colleagues made to the department, as part of an investigation I’ve been conducting on the intersection of free speech and U.S. border enforcement.

Read: The thousands of children who go to immigration court alone

It is not uncommon for government agencies to set rules on employee conduct and outside activities. But the perspective of immigration judges is particularly valuable to the public, especially one grappling with complicated questions about America’s immigration laws. In his 2019 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts commended American judges who, “without fanfare or acclaim,” take time to reach out to their communities in all sorts of public-education initiatives. As Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told Congress in 2018, immigration judges “help the community better understand our immigration courts and their function in the community, helping to demystify the system and bring transparency about our operations to the public.”

Although immigration judges are employees of the executive branch, they’re judges in the truest sense of the term, presiding over cases that have enormous consequences for asylum seekers or people facing removal from the U.S. The Trump administration appears determined to remove from the public’s view the very people the chief justice and Tabaddor believe play an essential role in promoting public confidence in the administration of justice. The Justice Department should heed their call—rescind its misguided policy and let judges speak.

In the 2017 memo, the official overseeing the work of immigration judges, James McHenry III, did acknowledge that “the public has become increasingly interested in hearing about, and understanding, what the agency does and specifically how Immigration Courts operate.” But the policy went on to severely restrict judges’ freedom to speak even in a personal capacity about these matters, requiring them to seek permission through the chain of command. “Supervisors will determine the capacity in which an employee is speaking,” McHenry’s memo stated, thus effectively eliminating a judge’s discretion to speak about immigration in public settings, even with a disclaimer that he or she was doing so in a personal capacity. Supervising judges and other senior employees have it even worse—they are simply forbidden from speaking at public events in a personal capacity at all.

Lawyers at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, where I’ve been conducting my investigation, believe that the policy violates the First Amendment, and in early January issued a letter asking the Justice Department to suspend it. Their reasoning was grounded in well-settled Supreme Court precedent. In the 1968 case Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees’ “right to speak on issues of public importance” doesn’t vanish the moment they take a government job. For the government to restrain public employees’ ability to speak, the Supreme Court has said, the Constitution requires officials to show that their interest in restraining speech outweighs employees’ interest in speaking and the public’s interest in hearing what they have to say. “The Government must show,” Justice John Paul Stevens explained in a 1995 case, “that the interests of both potential audiences and a vast group of present and future employees in a broad range of present and future expression are outweighed by that expression’s ‘necessary impact on the actual operation’ of the Government.” That’s a heavy lift.

The Justice Department hasn’t officially responded to the lawyers’ letter. But in mid-January, McHenry’s office did reply in a way: It purported to reissue the 2017 memorandum, calling it “established policy,” and unveiled an online portal through which immigration judges may submit their speaking-engagement requests for approval. According to the department, the new portal was necessary “to provide for more certainty and clarity” for judges, an implicit acknowledgment that the earlier guidance was causing confusion among immigration judges. (The reissued policy hasn’t been made public, but a person familiar with it showed it to me.)

. . . .

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

Read Cristian’s complete article at the above link.

”The truth will set you free.” But, at EOIR, the truth will get you fired!

Given the due process and management disasters going on at EOIR, it’s not surprising that they want to silence the witnesses. What is surprising is that they have been getting away with it so far.

NOTE: Even prior to becoming the home of EOIR Headquarters, Bailey’s Crossroads had long reputation of being associated with the circus. However, more recent scholarship has cast doubt on those claims. According to this Washington Post article, Bailey’s Crossroads’ claimed association with the Ringling Bro’s Barnum & Bailey Circus might be as attenuated as EOIR’s claimed association with due process and fundamental fairness! https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/19/history-at-the-crossroads/5da541c9-5aa4-49cc-83f9-7ecb49a1b12b/

However, what the article does correctly point out, and EOIR under the influence of the White Nationalist regime appears to have forgotten, is that Bailey’s Crossroads has a long history of being a vibrant community of industrious immigrants who made Northern Virginia into what it is today!

Due Process Forever; Clown Courts Never!

PWS

03-03-20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: The Message From Barr’s Improper Intervention in Matter of R-A-F-: Forget The Law, You Are My Stooges! — Only An Independent Article I Immigration Court Will End This Mockery of Due Process & Fundamental Fairness!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/3/1/the-real-message-of-matter-of-r-a-f-

The Real Message of Matter of R-A-F-

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 recently reached the same conclusion as Jeffrey about R-A-F-, although in less scholarly, measured, and elegant terms: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/28/barr-to-his-wholly-owned-immigration-judges-just-deny-cat-protection-any-ol-ground-will-do-matter-of-r-a-f-27-in-dec-778-a-g-2020/.

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.

PWS

03-02-20

WHAT DOESN’T HE UNDERSTAND ABOUT “ILLEGAL?” —“Cooch Cooch” Found To Have “Illegally Entered” USCIS Position! — Some Illegal White Nationalist, Anti-Asylum Directives Cancelled!

Judge Randy Moss — Hon. Randy Moss
U.S. District Judge
Washington, DC

Randy Moss
NFL Hall of Fame Wide Receiver (Todd Buchanan / Pioneer Press)

"Cooch Cooch" — “Cooch Cooch” Rewrites America’s Welcoming Message for White Nationalist Nation

L.L.-M. V. Cuccinelli, D. D.C. (Judge Moss), 03-01-20

U.S. District Judge Randy Moss (not to be confused with the NFL hall of fame receiver, one-time “bad boy,” and now commentator of the same name) ruled that Cooch Cooch was illegally appointed to his position of Acting Director of USCIS, thereby invalidating some of his written anti-asylum directives aimed at denying fair processing during the credible fear process and perhaps killing brown-skinned asylum seekers.

KEY QUOTE FROM JUDGE MOSS’S OPINION:

The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ challenges to the reduced-time-to-consult and prohibition-on- extensions directives and that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ challenge relating to the in- person-orientation directive. The Court also concludes that Cuccinelli was not lawfully appointed to serve as the acting Director of USCIS and that, accordingly, the reduced-time-to- consult and prohibition-on-extensions directives must be set aside as ultra vires under both the FVRA, 5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)(1), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). Finally, the Court sets aside the individual Plaintiffs’ negative credible-fear determinations and expedited removal orders and remands to USCIS for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

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

Although only tangental to the actual result reached by Judge Moss, his detailed description of how the regime has unconstitutionally and immorally skewed the credible fear process to screw asylum seekers, largely based on their race, as opposed to acting in good faith to insure that needed protection is granted under U.S. law without regard to political pandering or racial bias, should outrage every American. It also points out how, even though this has been going on since June 2019, and thousands of individuals’ lives have been endangered by this illegal and immoral action, Federal Courts are only now beginning to “scratch the surface” of the regime’s invidious assault on asylum seekers from south of our border.

Indeed, in a move likely to warm the hearts (if, in fact, they have such organs) of Trumpist Judges like Gorsuch and Thomas, Judge Moss limited his order to the five individual named plaintiffs rather than entering the highly controversial, yet totally justified in cases like this, “nationwide injunction.” That means that thousands of similarly situated individuals who were screwed by Cooch Cooch’s scofflaw behavior will have to sue individually to get the law properly applied to them. That assumes that they are still alive and able to sue.

While the decision correctly points to numerous serious defects in the regime’s operation of USCIS, the practical effects might remain small. The regime can always seek to have it undone by the D.C. Circuit or the compliant “J.R. Five” on the Supremes. They also should be able to find some Senate-confirmed politico who was on duty on June 1, 2019 and simply have Trump appoint him or her “acting” and order them to re-issue Cooch’s “Miller-approved” White Nationalist directives on pain of dismissal. Surely, there is never a shortage of toadies among Trump’s gang of sycophants.

Clearly, the only real way to save our democracy and save the lives we should be saving is to vote for regime change, at all levels, this November. Otherwise, we might all find ourselves “Cooched” at some point in the future!

For now, maybe “Cooch Cooch” should be required to join his fellow “illegals” fighting for their existence in squalor and cruel and inhumane conditions under bridges and on street corners on the Mexican side of the border! Or, perhaps he should be “orbited” to Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras to pursue his claims from there! One truly scary thing: “Cooch Cooch” was actually once the top “legal” officer of the Commonwealth of Virginia, serving a purely awful term as Attorney General. Thankfully, we Virginia voters had the good sense to send him packing when he ran for Governor!

PWS

03-01-20

WELL, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG: After Enjoining the Regime’s “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” Program On Friday, 9th Cir. Appeals Panel Later “Suspends” Its Order Pending Further Responses From The Parties — Gov’s Illegal Abuse of Asylum Seekers Allowed to Continue for Now!

https://apple.news/AdZkiR13zQPmHAlPE8ZIKXw

Elliott Spagat reports for AP:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously Friday to suspend an order it issued earlier in the day to block a central pillar of the Trump administration’s policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. courts.

The three-judge panel told the government to file written arguments by the end of Monday and for the plaintiffs to respond by the end of Tuesday.

The Justice Department said at least 25,000 asylum seekers subject to the policy are currently waiting in Mexico and expressed “massive and irreparable national-security of public-safety concerns.”

Government attorneys said immigration lawyers had begun demanding that asylum seekers be allowed in the United States, with one insisting that 1,000 people be allowed to enter at one location.

“The Court’s reinstatement of the injunction causes the United States public and the government significant and irreparable harms — to border security, public safety, public health, and diplomatic relations,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

Customs and Border Protection had already begun to stop processing people under the policy.

ACLU attorney Judy Rabinovitz called the suspension of Friday’s order “a temporary step.”

“We will continue working to permanently end this unspeakably cruel policy,” she said.

. . . .

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

Read the full report at the link.

Remember what I said in my post yesterday: “But, hold the ‘victory dance.’” It’s not over till it’s over. And this one might not be over until the regime sends the last asylum seeker to death or into harm’s way, thereby achieving their “ultimate deterrent” at the expense of human lives and the rule of law.

Of course, the Government’s health, national security, and public safety concerns are phony as a three-dollar bill. But, that might or might not make any difference.

Stay tuned.

PWS

02-29-20

BARR TO HIS WHOLLY OWNED IMMIGRATION JUDGES: Just Deny CAT Protection – Any Ol’ Ground Will Do – Matter of R-A-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 778 (A.G. 2020)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1252416/download

Matter of R-A-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 778 (A.G. 2020)

EOIR HEADNOTES:

(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals should consider de novo the application of law to the facts of this case, including whether the deprivations that the respondent would be likely to encounter upon removal to Mexico would constitute “torture” within the meaning of the Department of Justice regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United States Nov. 20, 1994).

(2) To constitute “torture” under these regulations, an act must, among other things, “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5). “‘[T]orture’ does not cover ‘negligent acts’ or harm stemming from a lack of resources.” Matter of J-R-G-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 482, 484 (BIA 2018) (citing Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 299, 301 (BIA 2002)).

(3) To constitute “torture,” an act must also be motivated by “such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

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

Actually, contrary to Billy Barr’s unethical “precedent,” the BIA “panel” in this case consisting of (now retired) Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland got this one completely right, as did the Immigration Judge.

Admittedly, this respondent isn’t a particularly sympathetic character. But, that’s totally irrelevant in a CAT deferral of removal case, where protection is mandatory if the respondent faces torture with Government acquiescence.

Let’s just take a cursory look at the publicly available information on what happens to mentally ill individuals in Mexico.

The Nightmare That Is Mexico’s Mental Health System

Published by Ariel Jacoby on Friday, April 15, 2016 | Features

Though there are an estimated 10 million people with mental, visual, hearing or motor disabilities living in Mexico, the country’s mental health system is so dysfunctional that the unlucky patients under its care are colloquially referred to as “abandanodos” – abandoned ones.

It’s an accurate description for these lost souls. A 93-page report from Disability Rights International revealed the horrific living conditions at Mexican mental health facilities, which are a breeding ground for human rights violations and abuse of the handicapped patients that these institutions are meant to help. Many patients never received a clinical diagnosis of their condition and don’t have families to give them private care – these patients remain locked inside the hospitals indefinitely and become completely anonymous to the world.

Patients rock back and forth in urine soaked clothes or walk about soiled, feces-smeared floors without shoes. Bedsheets are an uncommon luxury; hygiene is an abstract concept in a Mexican mental hospital where some “patients and their caretakers could not fully explain how or why they were institutionalized” (New York Times). Without proper oversight and the absence of any sort of registry system, it is not uncommon for mentally ill children to literally disappear from Mexican mental health facilities with no record of their name, age, or families.

In this dismal hole of human despair, atrocities are ubiquitous and plentiful. Many of the patients in these institutions have been detained against their will for years and will likely languish inside the walls of these torture chambers until their death. Psychotropic drugs are excessively relied upon to treat patients and the more aggressive patients who don’t respond to medication can be subject to forced lobotomies, which need only the approval of the facility director. Eric Rosenthal, the director of Disability Rights International, found that 1/4 of the mental health facilities were keeping patients in restraints for extended periods of time – an act that violates Article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture.

The concept of human rights has no real meaning or significance in these unregulated, inhumane environments. The investigation conducted by DRI revealed the severity and frequency of human rights violations within the walls of such state-run facilities. In one institution, a terrified blind patient admitted to being raped by one of the staff members – a claim that was quickly dismissed by Mexican officials. In another facility, investigators discovered two young women who had been institutionalized at a young age, grew up in the hospital, and had been working as unpaid laborers for years. There exists no record of how or why these women were institutionalized and Mexican law requires no legal review to detain them indefinitely as modern-day slave laborers.

The director of Samuel Ramirez Hospital, one of the 31 state-run mental health facilities in Mexico, calls his own hospital “hell” and has voiced his belief that the mental health of every patient at his facility have been made worse by their institutionalization. He blames the lack of proper funding and a deficiency of properly trained personnel – at a different mental institution nearby, there are only two psychologists and one doctor to treat the 365 patients who have been institutionalized there.

The sad state of Mexico’s mental health system can be traced back to its government’s complex and deep-rooted political issues. Mexico’s budget for mental health makes up about 2.5% of its overall health spending. This is an improvement from the paltry 1.6% allocated to mental health a decade ago, but still significantly lower than the WHO’s recommendation of 10%. Without a significant electorate of mental health advocates, mental health lacks any real political sway in Mexico. Back in 2006, Mexico was among 96 countries who ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it is clear that not much has changed within the system itself.

https://www.medelita.com/blog/the-nightmare-that-is-mexicos-mental-health-system/

Mexico isn’t Haiti or some other “poor country.” It’s the 15^th largest economy in the world. The allocation of a paltry 2-3% of spending on mental health is an intentional embrace of torture by the Mexican Government that relates directly to the dehumanized place of the mentally ill in Mexican society. A Mexican national being deported from the U.S. with a criminal record would very likely receive the “worst of the worst” – not “negligently” but very intentionally. Clearly,. the torture and punishment of the mentally ill just because they are mentally ill is “any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” I give this respondent 90 days max until he’s tortured to death if returned to Mexico. The conditions requiring mandatory deferral of removal under CAT have clearly been met.

Judge Wendtland was right. Barr is “dead” wrong. But, Billy’s message to his subordinates is clear: Forget the law: deny, deny, deny!

The system is broken. Removal of the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and the end of the ability of unqualified immoral politicos like Billy Barr to interfere in the judicial system in derogation of Constitutional Due Process is essential to the survival of our democracy.

Due Process Forever; Billy Barr Never!

PWS

02-29-20

FINALLY: SPLIT 9TH CIR PANEL ENTERS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION AGAINST “LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO” A/K/A “MIGRANT ‘PROTECTION’ PROTOCOLS” — Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf

9thMPPInjunction

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.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-29-20

EOIR’S LATEST RIPOFF: As “Justice” In Immigration Court Becomes A “Clown Show,” The Price Of A Ticket to “The Big Top” Will Rise By Nearly 1000%!🤡🤡

https://www.axios.com/trump-immigrant-fee-fight-deportation-02cfcff7-147b-479f-88e8-6eaa4dbc29ba.html

Steph W. Kight — Steff W. Kight
Politics Reporter
AXIOS

Stef W. Kight reports for AXIOS:

The Justice Department wants to dramatically increase fees for immigrants trying to fight deportation— including nearly $1,000 to appeal an immigration judge decision, according to a proposed Executive Office for Immigration Review rule.

Between the lines: It currently costs around $100 for immigrants to begin to legally fight deportation orders. If implemented, the new rule would raise fees to at least $305 and as much as $975, depending on the appeal.

By the numbers: In the rule, the administration argues that the discrepancy between fees collected and the processing costs “has become more of a burden on the immigration adjudication system as aliens overall have begun filing more of these fee-based forms and motions.”

They estimate that immigrants appealing deportation orders given by an immigration judge cost taxpayers $27.6 million in FY 2018. The rule proposes that fees be raised so that immigrants cover the total cost, which is how the $975 fee came about.

What they’re saying: When hearings are set two or three years in advance, immigrants have time to save for the fees. But with many new immigration judges and a rise in fast-track cases, that may no longer possible, immigration lawyer Jeffrey Chase, a former judge and senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, told Axios

Former immigration judge Paul Schmidt, who retired in 2016, told Axios in an email the proposed rule is “outrageous.”
He said correcting errors through the appeals process is one of the most important government functions. “That’s particularly true when the public segment ‘served’ is generally limited income individuals and getting results correct could be ‘life determining.’”

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

Here’s my complete commentary on EOIR’s latest shady maneuver:

In a single word, “outrageous.”

As set forth in the notice, EOIR is an “appropriated agency.” It was never supposed to recoup its costs, nor does it need to.

Correcting errors on appeal is probably one of the most important functions the Government performs. That’s particularly true when the public segment “served” is generally limited income individuals and the getting results correct could be “life determining.”

Applications, as opposed to “appeals,” also serve a critical public function in insuring that those who qualify under our laws to remain in the U.S. are permitted to do so. That’s a “winner” for everyone.

The astronomical proposed fee increase is particularly absurd in the current context. EOIR is actually cutting corners and has reduced the quality and accuracy of its work product. Why should the public pay nearly 10X more for a rapidly deteriorating product?

Moreover, given the “captive” nature of the courts and the illegal and unethical interference in their operations by the Attorney General and other political operatives at the DOJ, the only chance at fair and impartial “justice” for many individuals is to petition the Article III Courts. That requires going through EOIR, even when EOIR’s biased and unfair adjudication procedures make the results inevitable. It’s called “required exhaustion of administrative remedies.”

Sure, folks can continue to seek “fee waivers.” But, I’ll bet that the procedures for those will become more bureaucratic and unduly restrictive, and that many will be improperly denied. How does someone with no money appeal a wrongful denial of a fee waiver? He or she can’t. They are denied justice!

That gets us to the real point here. In an era and an area of the law where “access to justice” is everything, this is another blatant attempt by the White Nationalist regime to restrict access to justice. In real world terms, the claimed cost savings (and we should never accept the regime’s often flawed and manipulated calculations) here are peanuts compared with the human interests at stake. The regime wastes more than this every week on unneeded and unauthorized walls that blow down in the wind and overpriced golf security for Trump.

As I said at the beginning, it’s outrageous.

PWS

02-28-20

3RD CIR. TO BIA ON PEREIRA: Tough Noogies, No Chevron Deference For You, Because Your En Banc Precedent Decision In Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019) Is Dead Wrong! — Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen. — Dissenting BIA Judges Get Some Vindication!

3cirStopTimeopinion

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.
- Meanwhile, we have a Circuit conflict. The 9th Circuit previously had rejected Mendoza-Hernandez in Lopez v. Barr, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/05/28/courts-as-bia-continues-to-squeeze-the-life-out-of-pereira-9th-circuit-finally-pushes-back-why-the-lost-art-of-bia-en-banc-review-dissent-is-so-essential-to-due-process/. However, that case was vacated and rehearing en banc was granted. As noted by the Third Circuit, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the BIA. So, wrong as it is, Mendoza-Hernandez will remain in effect except in the Third Circuit, unless and until other Circuits reject it.
- 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.

PWS

02-28-20

2D CIR. TO NY & SIX OTHER SO-CALLED “SANCTUARY STATES:” Tough Noogies, Trump Rules!

https://apple.news/A3IAKzyGETMeEwekcWLIIkA

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

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.

PWS

02-28-20

NDPA NEWS: Even In Times Of Systemic Dysfunction, Fairness, Scholarship, Timeliness, Respect, & Teamwork Among Conscientious Immigration Judges, Fair-Minded ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, & Caring, Well-Prepared Advocates From the NDPA Continue to Save Lives of the Most Vulnerable Among Us! — “I don’t know how much longer I’ll be alive, but my children will always thank you,” Says Critically Ill Respondent to Arlington Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg, Who Had Just Granted Her Asylum!

NDPA NEWS: Even In Times Of Systemic Dysfunction, Fairness, Scholarship, Timeliness, Respect, & Teamwork Among Conscientious Immigration Judges, Fair-Minded ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, & Caring, Well-Prepared Advocates From the NDPA Continue to Save Lives of the Most Vulnerable Among Us! — “I don’t know how much longer I’ll be alive, but my children will always thank you,” Says Critically Ill Respondent to Arlington Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg, Who Had Just Granted Her Asylum!

NDPA stalwart (and former Arlington Immigration Court Intern) Professor Paulina Vera reports:

Good afternoon,

The above is what our client said to Immigration Judge Cynthia S. Torg after she granted her asylum claim this afternoon. A-A-‘s husband was politically involved in their home country of Venezuela, actively protesting against Nicolas Maduro. Because of his political involvement, both A-A- and their 11-year-old son were targeted by security forces and threatened with their lives should the political opposition continue. Additionally, A-A- has been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer and feared that she would not be able to get medical treatments in her home country due to a shortage of medical supplies there.

After a 15 minute hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) agreed to grant relief, which the trial attorney did not oppose. Both the IJ and trial attorney commended student-attorney, Halima Nur, JD ‘20, for her preparation. The IJ commented that because of the amount of documentation and the legal arguments presented, she was able to issue a decision quickly. In addition to their 11-year-old son, the couple has a 1.5 year old son, who was born in the United States. With this grant, the family will remain together in the U.S.

Please join me in congratulating Halima Nur, JD ‘20, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ‘20, for all their hard work on the case.

Best,

—-
Paulina Vera, Esq.
Acting Director, GW Law Immigration Clinic (Academic Year 2019-2020)
Legal Associate, Immigration Clinic
Professorial Lecturer in Law

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

These are the moments that everyone, judges, lawyers, interpreters, respondents, families, “live for” in Immigration Court. It’s what “kept me going” for 13 years on the trial bench. “Building America, one case at a time,” I used to say!

Thanks for all that you and your students do for Due Process and our system of Justice, Paulina! Also, this isn’t the first time that Judge Torg’s name has come up in connection with saving lives in Immigration Court. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/11/28/heres-what-the-dishonest-scofflaw-officials-in-the-trump-administration-dont-want-you-to-know-many-who-escape-from-the-northern-triangle-are-in-fact-refugees-when-they-are-give/

This report also raises a point that I made in one of yesterday’s posts, echoed by my good friend retired Judge Gus Villageliu in his comments: Encouraging parties to work together to “pre-try” and bring well-documented “grant cases” forward on crowded dockets for short hearings is a great “judicial efficiency measure” that actually advances rather than inhibits, systemic Due Process and efficiency.https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/24/killer-on-the-road-emboldened-by-the-complicity-of-the-roberts-court-gop-abdication-of-legislative-oversight-breakdown-of-democratic-institut/

It’s the “polar opposite” of the “haste makes waste gimmicks” that unqualified politicos and administrators who don’t handle regular dockets have forced on judges and parties in a system where “docket control” has effectively been disconnected from its proper objectives of achieving due process and fundamental fairness.

Unfortunately, as Miller and the restrictionists seek to farther skew the regulations to screw asylum seekers, just results like this are likely to be even harder to achieve. That means that more and more asylum applicants will have to appeal to the Article III Courts, flawed as they have become, for any chance whatsoever of achieving a fair and unbiased outcome. I also discussed this unhappy likely future development in my post at the preceding link.

Thanks again to Judge Torg, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, Paulina, and GW Clinic Student Attorneys Halima Nur, JD ‘20, and Madeleine Delurey, JD ‘20, for being inspiring examples of how the Immigration Court system could work to achieve “due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency” under “different management” and an “independent structure” in the future.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-27-20

GREAT KATE: Morrissey’s Moving Journalism Shows Human Side Of Why We Have Asylum Laws & How Trump Regime’s White Nationalist Abuses Are Diminishing All of Us!

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sandiegouniontribune.com%2Fnews%2Fimmigration%2Fstory%2F2020-02-24%2Fprotecting-the-worlds-most-vulnerable-what-it-takes-to-make-a-case-under-us-asylum-system&data=02%7C01%7Ckate.morrissey%40sduniontribune.com%7C14739620142c413da57508d7b98c07dd%7Ca42080b34dd948b4bf44d70d3bbaf5d2%7C0%7C0%7C637181883385100274&sdata=IXPR1Yk3ojZwhVRaUvfE%2BjWfBIpJ1pf2If9RNril0Ao%3D&reserved=0

Kate Morrissey writes in the first of a multi-part series in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Nicaraguan government attacks on pro-democracy protests left hundreds dead and tens of thousands living in exile. Bárbara is one of them.

By KATE MORRISSEY

FEB. 24, 2020 5:01 AM

Managua, NICARAGUA —

Bárbara never thought she would leave Nicaragua.

But early one morning, she kissed her sleeping son goodbye. She had spent the night watching him in his bed. It was almost his 10th birthday.

“Fue el peor momento de mi vida,” Bárbara said. It was the worst moment of my life.

It had been nearly a year since Bárbara had been left for dead outside her clothing store, a victim of the Nicaraguan government’s bloody campaign to silence pro-democracy protests that rose up in 2018.

She knew she had to flee, but she didn’t think she could protect her son on the notorious migrant trail. She wasn’t willing to risk him.

So the 29-year-old entrepreneur escaped north alone, putting herself at the mercy of the U.S. asylum system — a system meant to protect the world’s most vulnerable.

RETURNED: PART I

The first in an occasional series in which the Union-Tribune explores the asylum system through the eyes of people who experience it firsthand, with drastically different outcomes.

Para leer este reportaje en español, haga click aquí.

The San Diego Union-Tribune is not fully identifying Bárbara or many of the witnesses interviewed in Nicaragua because of the danger that the government might retaliate against them or their families.

Bárbara is in Tijuana, one of tens of thousands of people waiting for a chance to argue for protection in the United States, part of a changing wave of migration that the Trump administration has labeled a crisis.

She exists in a constant state of uncertainty, and she realizes now just how much she underestimated the challenges that still lie ahead.

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

For Kate’s full article including the “original formatting” and all of the great pictures and graphics accompanying it, click on the above link that will take you to the original article on the San Diego Union-Tribune website!

Thanks, Kate, for so beautifully capturing the “heart and soul” of the refugee experience and why the Trump regime’s intentionally cruel, illegal, immoral, and dehumanizing policies are undermining our humanity as a nation and everything we should stand for. These are human lives at stake, not “numbers,” “beds,” or “apprehensions.” Success is measured in lives saved, and fair treatment of all, not “numbers turned back” or how we can “discourage” or “deter” others from seeking refuge. Our legal system should be fair and impartial, not a “weaponized tool” for nativist immigration enforcement policies. Indeed, it supposedly is there too protect all of us against such political overreach and abuses.

Interestingly, there was a time in the past when the GOP and the Reagan Administration went out of its way to help and give refuge to those Nicaraguans fleeing the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), one of the best, most effective, and most efficient pieces of immigration legislation ever passed, was a result of bipartisan support for providing permanent relief to Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans fleeing the mess in Central American that our Government played a significant role in creating. Some off those fleeing Cuba and Eastern Europe also were covered. Now, under the influence of Trump, neo-fascist Stephen Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist gang, this GOP-led regime simply turns its back on vulnerable refugees like Barbara, the human carnage resulting from Ortega’s misrule of Nicaragua.

Perhaps in the future, Kate will put it all together in a book. Hope so!

PWS

02-27-20

SUPREMES’ RIGHT WING DELIVERS STARK MESSAGE: BROWN LIVES DON’T MATTER, AS IT SHRUGS OFF CBP AGENT’S UNJUSTIFIED KILLING OF MEXICAN TEEN – Other Four Justices Dissent From Grant of Impunity For Deadly Immigration Enforcement – Hernandez v. Mesa

Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 17-1678, 02-26-20

Hernandez v. Mesa17-1678_m6io

Syllabus [By Court Staff]

HERNANDEZ ET AL. v. MESA
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17–1678. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020

Respondent, United States Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., shot and killed Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, in a tragic and disputed cross-border incident. Mesa was standing on U. S. soil when he fired the bullets that struck and killed Hernández, who was on Mexican soil, after having just run back across the border following entry onto U. S. territory. Agent Mesa contends that Hernández was part of an illegal border crossing attempt, while petitioners, Hernández’s parents, claim he was playing a game with his friends that involved running back and forth across the culvert sep- arating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The shooting drew international attention, and the Department of Justice investi- gated, concluded that Agent Mesa had not violated Customs and Bor- der Patrol policy or training, and declined to bring charges against him. The United States also denied Mexico’s request for Agent Mesa to be extradited to face criminal charges in Mexico.

Petitioners sued for damages in U. S. District Court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, alleging that Mesa violated Hernández’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court dismissed their claims, and the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. After this Court vacated that de- cision and remanded for further consideration in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed, refusing to rec- ognize a Bivens claim for a cross-border shooting.

Held: Bivens’ holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting. Pp. 4–20.

(a) In Bivens, the Court implied a Fourth Amendment claim for damages even though no federal statute authorized such a claim. The Court later extended Bivens’ reach to cover claims under the Fifth and

2

HERNANDEZ v. MESA Syllabus

Eighth Amendments. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228; Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14. But Bivens’ expansion has since become “a ‘disfa- vored’ judicial activity,” Abbasi, supra, at ___, and the Court has gen- erally expressed doubt about its authority to recognize causes of action not expressly created by Congress, see, e.g., Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___. When considering whether to extend Bivens, the Court uses a two-step inquiry that first asks whether the request in- volves a claim that arises in a “new context” or involves a “new cate- gory of defendants.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 68. If so, the Court then asks whether there are any “special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation” about granting the extension. Abbasi, supra, at ___. Pp. 4–8.

(b) Petitioners’ Bivens claims arise in a new context. Their claims are based on the same constitutional provisions as claims in cases in which damages remedies were previously recognized, but the con- text—a cross-border shooting—is significantly “different . . . from pre- vious Bivens cases.” Abbasi, supra, ___. It involves a “risk of disrup- tive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches.” Abbasi, supra, ___. Pp. 8–9.

(c) Multiple, related factors counsel hesitation before extending Bivens remedies into this new context. Pp. 9–19.

(1) The expansion of a Bivens remedy that impinges on foreign re- lations—an arena “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches . . . as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry,” Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 292—risks interfering with the Executive Branch’s “lead role in foreign policy,” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 524. A cross- border shooting affects the interests of two countries and, as happened here, may lead to disagreement. It is not for this Court to arbitrate between the United States and Mexico, which both have legitimate and important interests at stake and have sought to reconcile those inter- ests through diplomacy. Pp. 9–12.

(2) Another factor is the risk of undermining border security. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for pre- venting the illegal entry of dangerous persons and goods into the United States, and the conduct of their agents positioned at the border has a clear and strong connection to national security. This Court has not extended Bivens where doing so would interfere with the system of military discipline created by statute and regulation, see, e.g., Chap- pell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, and a similar consideration is applicable to the framework established by the political branches for addressing cases in which it is alleged that lethal force at the border was unlaw- fully employed by a border agent. Pp. 12–14.

(3) Moreover, Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages against federal officials for injury inflicted outside

Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is avail- able only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). And the Tor- ture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, cannot be used by an alien to sue a United States officer. When Con- gress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch of- ficials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. §2734. Congress’s decision not to allow suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not create a cause of action that extends across U. S. borders either. Pp. 14–18.

(4) These factors can all be condensed to the concern for respecting the separation of powers. The most important question is whether Congress or the courts should create a damages remedy. Here the an- swer is Congress. Congress’s failure to act does not compel the Court to step into its shoes. Pp. 19–20.

885 F. 3d 811, affirmed.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., andTHOMAS,GORSUCH,andKAVANAUGH,JJ.,joined. THOMAS,J.,fileda concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Key Quote From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court held that injured plaintiffs could pursue claims for damages against U. S. officers for conduct disregarding constitutional constraints. The in- stant suit, invoking Bivens, arose in tragic circumstances. In 2010, the complaint alleges, a Mexican teenager was playing with friends in a culvert along the United States- Mexico border. A U. S. Border Patrol agent, in violation of instructions controlling his office and situated on the U. S. side of the border, shot and killed the youth on the Mexican side. The boy’s parents sued the officer for damages in fed- eral court, alleging that a rogue federal law enforcement of- ficer’s unreasonable use of excessive force violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. At the time of the incident, it is uncontested, the officer did not know whether the boy he shot was a U. S. national or a citizen of another land. See Hernández v. Mesa, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5–6).

When the case first reached this Court, the Court re- manded it, instructing the Court of Appeals to resolve a threshold question: Is a Bivens remedy available to noncit- izens (here, the victim’s parents) when the U. S. officer acted stateside, but the impact of his alleged wrongdoing

2 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting

was suffered abroad? To that question, the sole issue now before this Court, I would answer “yes.” Rogue U. S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plain- tiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. for- eign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the applica- tion of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders. I would therefore hold that the plaintiffs’ complaint crosses the Bivens threshold.

* * **

Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated in- cident. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged that border agent fired 14 to 30 bullets across the border, killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing various incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by border and immigration officers); Brief for Border Network for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing indi- viduals killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800 complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97% of the complaints resulting in formal deci- sions, no action was taken. D. Martínez, G. Cantor, & W. Ewing, No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Re- sponding to Complaints of Abuse, American Immigration Council 1–8 (2014), americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/

14 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting

default/files/research/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf. Ac- cording to amici former Customs and Border Protection of- ficials, “the United States has not extradited a Border Pa- trol agent to stand trial in Mexico, and to [amici’s] knowledge has itself prosecuted only one agent in a cross- border shooting.” Brief for Former Officials of U. S. Cus- toms and Border Protection Agency as Amici Curiae 4. These amici warn that, “[w]ithout the possibility of civil li- ability, the unlikely prospect of discipline or criminal pros- ecution will not provide a meaningful deterrent to abuse at the border.” Ibid. In short, it is all too apparent that to redress injuries like the one suffered here, it is Bivens or nothing.

***

I resist the conclusion that “nothing” is the answer re- quired in this case. I would reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judg- ment and hold that plaintiffs can sue Mesa in federal court for violating their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

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

This case is straightforward. Mesa a CBP Agent standing in the United States shot Hernandez, an unarmed 15-year-old Mexican standing in Mexico without justification. This violated Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Had the lower Federal Courts and the Supremes applied the law on “Constitutional torts” correctly, Mesa would have been found liable. The Government probably would have settled with the Hernandez family.

Instead, nearly of decade of unnecessary litigation ensued during which all three levels of the U.S. Court System failed the Hernandez family and distorted our system of justice. Dissenting Fifth Circuit Judge (now Ambassador) Ed Prado summed up this legal farce in a single powerful phrase: “[the majority has been] led astray from the familiar circumstances of this case by empty labels of national security, foreign affairs, and extra- territoriality.” For the record, Ambassador Prado is a lifelong Republican. I worked with him on immigration litigation during the Reagan Administration.

Hey, just “business as usual” for a GOP Supremes’ majority that has checked the Constitution and their humanity at the door in their haste to “deconstruct America” and reconstitute it as the White Nationalist authoritarian state that the Trump regime embodies. Heck, corporations and guns have more rights that dead Mexican kids and their families under the majority‘s view. “Not their kids” as I’ve noted before. I do suspect that if members of their own families were being shot and killed by CBP, we would have a different result in cases like this. But, out of sight, out of mind. Wow, think of the potential foreign relations nightmare of CBP Agents stopped killing unarmed Mexican kids from our side of the border!

Not to be outdone by the majority’s legal gibberish cloaking moral abdication, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas wrote separately to signal Trump that they would like to do away with Bivens entirely while in the process of rewriting the laws in Trump’s image. Apparently recognizing that the GOP has effectively stymied Congress and that Trump intends to inflict many more legal and Constitutional abuses on the unfortunate non-white population, they would like to eliminate all restraints on the regime’s constant violations of law and abuses of individual rights. Obviously, from their exalted and privileged positions above the Constitutional, legal, and societal chaos affecting less fortunate individuals under the Trump regime, they haven‘t fully thought through want happens when Trump or the next White Nationalist demagogue comes for them and there is neither a rule or law nor anyone left to enforce it in a fair an impartial manner.

I’m not the only one who understands the ugly truth about the future of all of our individual rights and the lives of nonwhite individuals (citizens or not) that the Trump majority on the Supremes are attempting to hide with their opaque, yet lethal, legal gobbledygook. Ian Millhiser over at Vox News also sees though the smokescreen at what’s really happening here: “The Supreme Court just held that a border guard who shot a child will face no consequences” https://apple.news/AWWSBpk_aR6uAlmxmQIvZkw

As we’re finding out anew every day, the law and fair, impartial, and courageous judging is for suckers!

Due Process Forever; The “Roberts Five” Never!

PWS

02-26-20

AMERICA’S HOMEGROWN TORTURERS: Physicians For Human Rights Confirms What Many of Us Have Been Saying For Years: Trump Regime Tortures Families With Children With Impunity!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/25/trump-family-separations-children-torture-psychology?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Amanda Holpuch reports for The Guardian:

The trauma Donald Trump’s administration caused to young children and parents separated at the US-Mexico border constitutes torture, according to evaluations of 26 children and adults by the group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).

The not-for-profit group’s report provides the first in-depth look at the psychological impact of family separation, which the US government continued despite warnings from the nation’s top medical bodies.

“As a clinician, nobody was prepared for this to happen on our soil,” the report co-author Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at PHR, told the Guardian. “It is beyond shocking that this could happen in the United States, by Americans, at the instruction and direct intention of US government officials.”

Advertisement

Hide

Legal experts have argued family separation constituted torture, but this is the first time a medical group has reached the determination.

PHR volunteer psychiatrists evaluated 17 adults and nine children who had been separated between 30 to 90 days. Most met the criteria for at least one mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder “consistent with, and likely linked to, the trauma of family separation”, according to the report.

Not only did the brutal family separation policy create trauma, it was intensified by the families’ previous exposure to violence on their journey to the US and in their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

All but two of the adults evaluated by PHR said they had received death threats in their home countries and 14 out of the 17 adults said they were targeted by drug cartels. All were fearful their child would be harmed or killed if they remained at home.

Almost all the children had been drugged, kidnapped, poisoned or threatened by gangs before they left. One mother told investigators she moved her daughter to different schools in El Salvador several times so gang members couldn’t find her and kill her.

In the face of these threats, parents tried to move within the country, change their phone numbers, meet extortion demands and go silent on social media. Ultimately, however, the report said: “Parents were confident that the journey to the United States would result in protection for their children.”

This is not what happened at the border.

The Trump administration instituted a policy in April 2018 that formally enabled the mass separation of children and parents at the US-Mexico border. Trump ended the policy in June 2018, but it has since been revealed that the administration separated thousands of families before and after the policy was in place.

There was also no system to reunite the families, according to an internal government watchdog. The Trump administration also ignored warnings from the nation’s leading medical organizations that family separation would traumatize children and adults.

How Trump’s immigration policies hurt people’s lives – in pictures

People who experience trauma, especially as children, have higher rates of medical conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. They also have an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and detrimental coping behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse.

“Something like that does not just resolve once you’re reunified with your parents, it’s something you carry with you possibly forever,” Mishori said.

One Honduran father described how badly his son reacted the four times a psychologist came to their apartment for treatment in the report: “Each time the son would refuse to cooperate and would throw things at the therapist … It appears his son was afraid of strangers, afraid they will take him away from his father.”

Kathryn Hampton, a senior officer in PHR’s asylum program, said the group PHR had assessed was small but represented separated families from different detention centers and foster homes across the country over a two-year period.

“This is a really disparate group of people and yet their stories are practically identical,” said Hampton. “So that’s very disturbing, to see that level of consistency.”

Amid the despair, PHR has seen an outpouring of support in money and volunteers. Hampton said since the beginning of 2018, its Asylum Network had more than doubled to 1,700 clinicians who provide free medical and psychological evaluations to asylum seekers. There were also three times as many medical school clinics partnering with the organization in that period.

Dr Stuart Lustig, a California-based psychiatrist and longtime volunteer, evaluated a seven-year-old girl from Guatemala. He said when he and the girl did a common evaluation tool called the Squiggle Test, she had one of the more inhibited reactions he had seen in 20 years.

“These kinds of separations were filled with uncertainty, there was no information about where people are going, so it is not surprising at all that these separations ended up being extremely traumatizing for kids and parents,” Lustig said.

In November, a federal court ordered the US to compensate for the trauma separated families faced at the hands of the government. Lustig said there were many treatment options for children who experienced this deep level of trauma in the US, but he and PHR were concerned about how these families would have access to them.

Lustig said: “Part of the work is simply building trust in humanity again.”

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

We are diminishing ourselves as a nation; but, in the end, it won’t stop human migration. While the purpose of torture is dehumanization and degradation of the “other,” torture actually increases the humanity of its victims while dehumanizing the torturers and their enablers.

It’s also worthy remembering the next time “Big Mac With Lies,” Nielsen, Kelly, ”Gonzo” Sessions and other noted torturers want to “clean up their images” and capitalize on their misdeeds by speaking to an organization to which you belong or attend. Remember who they REALLY are beneath their facades: unpunished perpetrators of “Crimes Against Humanity.”

PWS

02-26-20

“BABY JAILS” — Georgetown Law Professor Phil Schrag Releases New Book Taking You Inside America’s “Kiddie Gulags” & The Continuing Fight To End The U.S. Government’s Official Policies of Inflicting Child Abuse On The Most Vulnerable Among Us!

Professor Philip G. Schrag
Georgetown Law
Co-Director, CALS Asylum Clinic

Here’s a great “mini review” of Phil’s new book from Professor Kit Johnson on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Thoughts on Baby Jails by Philip G. Schrag

By Immigration Prof

Kevin has already posted about Baby Jails, the new book from immprof Philip G. Schrag (Georgetown) that explores the detention of migrant children.

I write today as someone who recently devoured this book. Let me start by telling you two things about myself: I hate flying and I am not much of a fan of nonfiction books. Combining these two things, I tend to read a riveting YA novel while flying in an effort to distract myself from how many feet I am unnaturally suspended above the earth’s surface. Yet I recently read Schrag’s book over the course of 3 flights. It was utterly engrossing.

The book is jam-packed with law and yet manages to read like a narrative. You get a feel for characters (Jenny Flores, certain attorneys and judges) and find yourself rooting from the sidelines even as you know victories will frequently fail to live up to their promise.

The book included numerous vignettes and insights that were entirely new to me. For example, did you know Ed Asner was responsible for Flores’ legal representation? Yes, the grumpy old man from Pixar’s Up set out to help his housekeeper’s daughter who was housed with Flores and connected the young women with Peter Schey, founder of the National Center for Immigrants’ Rights (now the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law).

Here’s another one: Leon Fresco represented the government in a 2015 lawsuit brought by Schey to enforce the Flores settlement — arguing that the settlement didn’t apply to children traveling with parents and that the agreement was “no longer equitable.” Leon Fresco! I wrote about him a few years back — he was a key player in the failed 2013 comprehensive immigration reform led by the Gang of Eight.

I’m also impressed by how comprehensive the book is. I recently spoke to a friend who is on the cusp of publishing a book and we talked about how, at some point in the writing process, the publisher will charge by the word for additions of any kind. Yet Schrag’s book must have been edited and added upon right up until the last moment of publication. There is nothing of current import that is left behind (remain in Mexico, asylum cooperation agreements, third country transit).

This book is marvelous. A tour de force. I recommend it to everyone — even terrified flyers. Instead of gasping at every bump in the jet stream you’ll be scribbling away in the margins, furious at what our nation has done to children in the name of immigration enforcement.

-KitJ

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

Thanks, Phil & KitJ, my friends and colleagues. Both of you are amazing inspirations to all of us in the “New Due Process Army.”

The Trump regime seeks to take child abuse many steps further to effectively “repeal by administrative fiat” all asylum protection laws, to insure that as many families and children as possible suffer, die. or are forced to remain in life-threatening conditions outside the U.S., and to abandon any effective cooperative efforts to improve conditions in “refugee sending” countries.

Meanwhile, many complicit Article III Judges (U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee being a notable exception) simply “look the other way” — not THIER kids and families being tortured and killed, so who cares what happens to them — and a depressing segment of the U.S. public just doesn’t care that the Trump regime is putting America among the most notable international human rights abusers. After all, THEY have jobs, THEIR kids aren’t the Trump regime’s targets (yet), and the stock market is going up. So, who cares what dehumanization, intentional human rights abuses, and violations of legal norms are taking place in their name?

Still, I think that Phil, Kit, the Round Table, and many other members of our “New Due Process Army” are clearly “on the right side of history” here. It’s just tragic that so many innocent folks, many of them children, will have to die or be irreparably harmed before America finally comes to its senses and restores morality and human values to our government.

We’ve got a chance to “right the ship” this November. Don’t blow it!

Due Process Forever; Government Child Abusers & Their Enablers Never!

PWS

02-25 -20

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Clown Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The Nightmare That Is Mexico’s Mental Health System

Due Process Forever; Billy Barr Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; The “Roberts Five” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Government Child Abusers & Their Enablers Never!

Related posts: