CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: DHS KAKISTOCRACY WANTS TO TARGET FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN FOR SEPARATION AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF PARENTS AS PART OF WAR ON HUMANITY AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER – Every American Will Bear The Stain Of Our Government’s Actions!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/top-homeland-security-officials-urge-criminal-prosecution-of-parents-who-cross-border-with-children/2018/04/26/a0bdcee0-4964-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

Maria Sacchetti reports for WashPost:

The nation’s top immigration and border officials are urging Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to detain and prosecute all parents caught crossing the Mexican border illegally with their children, a stark change in policy that would result in the separation of families that until now have mostly been kept together.

If approved, the zero-tolerance measure could split up thousands of families, although officials say they would not prosecute those who turn themselves in at legal ports of entry and claim asylum. More than 20,000 of the 30,000 migrants who sought asylum during the first quarter — the period from October-December — of the current fiscal year crossed the border illegally.

In a memorandum that outlines the proposal and was obtained by The Washington Post, officials say that threatening adults with criminal charges and prison time would be the “most effective” way to reverse the steadily rising number of attempted crossings. Most parents now caught crossing the border illegally with their children are quickly released to await civil deportation hearings.

The memo sent to Nielsen on Monday — and signed by acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services L. Francis Cissna and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan — said attempted crossings by parents with children increased to nearly 700 a day last week, the highest level since 2016. The officials predicted that the number will continue to rise if Nielsen does not act.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has filed a federal lawsuit in California over earlier instances of family separations at the border, said the proposal would make “children as young as 2 and 3 years old pawns in a cruel public policy experiment.”

. . . .

Philip G. Schrag, a Georgetown law professor and asylum expert, said that expanding the forced separation of parents and children could cause severe psychological harm to families that ultimately might have legal grounds under federal asylum law to remain in the United States permanently.

“I think it’s absolutely wrenching psychologically and terrible for both the children and the parents,” he said. “What are we doing to those children psychologically that will haunt us years down the road if they become Americans?”

Federal officials say asylum applications have skyrocketed in recent years, raising concerns about fraud. Advocates for immigrants say those seeking asylum have legitimate claims under federal law and are fleeing some of the world’s most dangerous countries.

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

Read Maria’s complete article at the link.

I associate myself completely with the remarks of my good friend and Georgetown Law colleague Professor Phil Schrag. Cruelty to children is stupid, counterproductive — children are our future — and morally wrong. It will definitely haunt us as a country for generations to come. It’s largely what I said before about the misguided policies of the Obama Administration. But, as with many things, the Trump Administration takes every dumb and wrong immigration policy of the past and multiplies it.

PWS

04-27-18

JUSTICE ON ICE – SESSIONS DOJ’S “AMNESTY FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS” — BEATING UP UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANTS IN CRIMINAL COURT WHILE DOING A LOUSY JOB ON REAL CRIME – “NUMBERS GAME” CONCEALS WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS @ DOJ — “If you’re working on a misdemeanor illegal entry case, as a matter of fact, you are not working on something more serious,” Purdon, who left office in 2015, told HuffPost. “It is a net drain on the scarce resources of U.S. attorneys. Full stop.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-wants-to-make-the-justice-department-more-like-ice_us_5ae0f3d3e4b02baed1b60aff

Roque Planas reports for HuffPost:

When Tim Purdon became U.S. attorney for North Da kota in 2010, he had a priority: improving public safety on the state’s four Indian reservations. Prosecuting violent crimes on Indian reservations falls to the Justice Department, and Purdon himself had worked similar cases as a public defender before taking on the U.S. attorney job.

But when Purdon took office, he found that more than a third of his criminal caseload consisted of immigration prosecutions, even though North Dakota lies more than 1,000 miles from the border with Mexico. Despite the state’s proximity to Canada, the defendants were by and large Latin Americans who’d been caught in the U.S. after getting deported. The cases were easy to win. All prosecutors needed was to present paperwork proving the prior deportation. But the cases sapped time away from Purdon’s prosecutors, whom he’d have rather tasked with crimes on the reservations or white-collar cases.

That all happened under the Obama administration. But President Donald Trump has doubled down on immigration prosecutions, seeing it as a way to draft the Justice Department into his immigration crackdown. Earlier this month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced what he called a “zero tolerance” policy on immigration crime, directing all U.S. attorneys in the four Southwestern border states to prosecute every misdemeanor illegal border-crossing case “to the extent practicable.”

Purdon was livid.

“If you’re working on a misdemeanor illegal entry case, as a matter of fact, you are not working on something more serious,” Purdon, who left office in 2015, told HuffPost. “It is a net drain on the scarce resources of U.S. attorneys. Full stop.”

Despite Trump’s insistence that the border is in “crisis,” illegal entries from Mexico have hit their lowest level since 1971. But illegal entry prosecutions are still taking up half of the federal criminal courts’ workload. If Sessions gets his way, that percentage will continue to increase: Every U.S. attorney in the country will be doing more of the same work that Purdon complained about, and the five U.S. attorneys whose districts touch the southwest border will take on increasingly petty cases to keep the numbers up.

“We want to achieve this zero tolerance across the border and we are redirecting resources,” Sessions told a House Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday.

. . . .

“Isn’t the reality of the situation that the Justice Department is ICE?” Erendira Castillo, an attorney who has represented defendants facing immigration prosecutions for two decades in Tucson, told HuffPost. “Let’s call a spade a spade.”

. . . .

Doubling down on such small potatoes cases might make sense if the Justice Department did an effective job confronting more serious crimes. But its track record on more complex investigations doesn’t always inspire confidence.

Some 9 million Americans lost their homes in the aftermath of the 2007 housing and financial crisis. Despite widespread allegations that fraudulent and predatory behavior on the part of banks and peddlers of predatory mortgages drove that crisis, the Justice Department secured a conviction in only one major case against an investment banker.

That institutional failure wasn’t a fluke — it’s also a reflection of the Justice Department’s priorities. As the number of immigration prosecutions grew by a factor of 11 over the last two decades, the number of prosecutions for white-collar crime in federal court plummeted by 41 percent, according to data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The steady decline continued in 2017, Sessions’ first year as attorney general.

“DOJ’s real amnesty policy,” said Matt Stoller, a fellow with anti-monopolization nonprofit Open Markets Institute, “was for white-collar executives.”

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Yes, DOJ under Sessions very clearly has become ICE, or more accurately DHS. That makes it a totally inappropriate place for the supposedly impartial U.S. Immigration Courts.

As the article points out, this trend stretches back over a number of Administrations of both parties. Certainly, the Obama DOJ misused EOIR as part of its futile “Border Surge Enforcement Strategy” setting off a flurry of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that if not the immediate cause of the unmanageable backlogs certainly was a primary contributor and aggravator of the problem. DOJ simply doesn’t belong in the Immigration Court business — in all honesty, it probably never has.

Assuming America survives the disastrous Trump Kakistocracy — by no means a gimme — I trust that some investigative reporter will write the definitive “inside story” of “Sessions’s Justice.” I think this is just the “tip of the iceberg” of the abuses of our Constitution, laws, and taxpayer dollars — fraud, in plain terms — being orchestrated by our unqualified Attorney General in the name of advancing his immoral, and in many cases illegal, White Nationalist Agenda.

No, Sessions doesn’t appear to be “corrupt” in the classic grifter “Scott Pruitt/Donald Trump” sense — no limos, accepting favors from lobbyists, or soundproof offices that I know about. But, government corruption takes many forms, and subverting the law and public resources to implement an extra-legal, unconstitutional White Nationalist Agenda that subverts both Due Process and Equal Protection, all at taxpayer expense (after all, Hispanics, Blacks, migrants, gays, etc. are taxpayers too) is one of the most insidious forms of corruption.

I just hope to live long enough to read it!

PWS

04-27-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY: Bogus Focus On Harmless Migrants Exercising Legal Rights To Apply For Asylum While Defunding State & Local Response Programs & Ignoring Real Security Threats!

Lawmakers question Trump’s Homeland Security chief over focus on immigrant caravan, border wall

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The secretary of homeland security faced sharp questioning about agency priorities from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing Thursday, with many expressing deep concerns about whether the Trump administration is properly promoting Americans’ safety.

Democrats in particular questioned Kirstjen Nielsen about the administration’s prioritization of immigration enforcement and the building of a border wall while also seeking to cut funding for state and local governments to prepare for and respond to security threats.

“Tell us how cutting this kind of funding helps America be safer,” demanded Rep. Bill Keating, D-Massachusetts.

The top Democrat on the committee, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, had sharp words for Nielsen in his opening remarks, accusing the department of intentionally attacking non-dangerous immigrants as a distraction.

“Based on your press releases this week, you would think the most important homeland security problem facing the nation is a handful of Central Americans moving through Mexico,” Thompson said, referring to a caravan of mostly women and children asylum seekers that takes place every year to call attention to the plight of Central Americans. “That does not make it so. … Better to distract the American people from the very real issues facing the department and perhaps from the President’s own problems too.”

In one particularly sharp exchange, Florida Democratic Rep. Val Demings, a former chief of police in Orlando, pressed Nielsen on whether she prioritized the wall and immigration over helping local communities.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/caravan-border-wall-kirstjen-nielsen-hearing/index.html

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/caravan-border-wall-kirstjen-nielsen-hearing/index.html

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

As I’ve said before, Nielsen is an intellectual lightweight, sycophant, and White Nationalist enabler. She proves it almost every time she opens her mouth in public. Her disingenuousness and toadyism make her a threat to our security every day she is in office.

Fortunately, there appear to still be enough professional civil servants in the ranks of DHS somewhere to have averted a national security disaster to date. But, if we survive this Administration, and it’s toxic focus on immigration to the exclusion of real law enforcement and national security problems, it certainly will be in spite of, not because of, folks like Nielsen.

PWS

04-27-18

THE HILL: NOLAN ON EOIR’S BROKEN JUDICIAL SELECTION SYSTEM

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/384987-when-immigration-judges-get-political-justice-suffers

Nolan writes in The Hill:

. . . .

How serious is this problem?

A TRAC Immigration study concluded that the outcome at asylum hearings over a recent six-year period depended largely on where the hearing was held and which immigration judge was assigned to the case.

. . . .

Examples of improper hiring practices.

Political considerations. A July 28, 2018 report from the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice reveals that the office of former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales let political considerations guide the selection of immigration judges.

His chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, claimed that he thought immigration judge positions were “political” and therefore that it was appropriate to consider political factors in assessing candidates.

He solicited candidates for immigration judge positions from the White House’s Office of Political Affairs, its Office of Presidential Personnel, and its Office of the Counsel to the President.

Potential immigration judge candidates were screened at these offices to establish their “political qualifications.” This included searching databases to determine whether the candidates had made monetary political contributions.

Sampson also accepted recommendations from Republican Members of Congress and from colleagues within the Justice Department who were political appointees.

Affirmative action. On October 5, 2004, the Department of Justice, without admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against white male applicants for immigration judge positions.

I was a decision-writer at the Board when the discrimination allegedly was occurring.

A close friend who had received EOIR’s Director’s Award twice for being the most outstanding attorney of the year couldn’t even get an interview for a position as an immigration judge, but women and minority applicants with much less impressive credentials were being hired, some of whom had no immigration experience at all.

Acknowledging the problem. In response to rising criticism of the disparities in the decisions in asylum cases, EOIR has begun to track decisions to identify immigration judges who have unusually high or low rates of granting asylum, but that just highlights the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

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

I encourage everyone to go on over to The Hill at the above link for Nolan’s complete article.

Nolan is right: the EOIR hiring system is broken and has been for many years.
The problem of “Refugee Roulette” was first documented by a group of three scholar-practitioners at Georgetown Law in 2007.
- Although the situation abated somewhat for a few years after that study’s publication, large disparities seem to have persisted.
Perhaps because of space limitations (I believe Nolan told me he had an “800 word limit” — something that doesn’t happen at “Courtside”) Nolan wasn’t able to cover two of the most egregious examples of a broken system:
- The “Ashcroft Purge” of 2001-2003 that reduced the BIA from approximately 20 Members to 12 by expelling those of us on the BIA duly appointed by prior AG Janet Reno whose views were considered “too liberal” for Ashcroft;
  - The BIA is now seeking to “reconstitute itself” as a 20 judge body, confirming the “political motivations” behind the original purge;
- The 2017 GAO Study that documented the incredible two-year average hiring cycle for filling Immigration Judge vacancies that evolved under the Obama Administration;
  - That process produced highly skewed results favoring candidates from DHS, DOJ, and other governmental backgrounds by an astoundingly inexplicable ratio of nearly 9 to 1 over qualified attorneys from private practice, academia, and NGOs.
  - At present, judges who have actual experience representing asylum applicants in Immigration Court are grotesquely “underrepresented” in relation to those from prosecutorial or other governmental backgrounds.
- Jeff Sessions will likely make things even worse.
  - Not surprisingly, Sessions has already drawn credible allegations from Democratic Representatives of political and ideological interference in judicial hiring. See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2rz
- As Nolan demonstrates, the Immigration Courts need a true merit based hiring system.
  - Systems such as that used for selecting U.S. Bankruptcy Judges and U.S. Magistrate Judges are useful models that have earned praise for being efficient, inclusive, involving the practicing bar, and producing unbiased, merit-based judiciaries.
  - A merit-based system is impossible while the Immigration Courts and the BIA are in the Executive Branch at the DOJ.
  - The only solution is an Article I U.S. Immigration Court or some other type of structure independent of the Executive.

PWS

04-27-18

FORMER EOIR ATTORNEY EM PUHL SPEAKS OUT IN HUFFPOST: SESSIONS MAKING U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS INTO 🤡 “CLOWN COURTS” 🤡 WHERE “JUSTICE IS A BAD JOKE,” BUT THE POTENTIALLY FATAL RESULTS ARE NO LAUGHING MATTER!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-puhl-legal-orientation-program_us_5adde3a4e4b075b631e82e2e

This will soon be the reality for the tens of thousands of individuals who are arrested and held in detention facilities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice effectively decided to suspend the Legal Orientation Program, citing concerns about cost-effectiveness.

The Department of Justice established the LOP in 2003 to improve the efficiency of the immigration courts by helping unrepresented detained immigrants work with an attorney to prepare their cases. The program operates through 18 nonprofit organizations across the country and has a budget of just under $8 million. At least once a month, these organizations bring both paid attorneys and volunteers from the community to over 38 detention centers to educate detained immigrants about their rights through group orientations, individual consultations and self-help workshops.

These interactions with attorneys, along with the legal resources that the program makes available, help detained immigrants make informed decisions about their cases and prepare for their court hearings. LOP organizations also refer detained individuals to pro bono attorneys when they are unable to represent themselves or would benefit from direct legal representation.

JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES

A father and daughter from Honduras wait for assistance at the Immigrant Respite Center after they were released from U.S. immigration officials on Feb. 23 in McAllen, Texas.

The men, women and children who LOP assists cannot search for help from attorneys on their own — many are confined in detention centers located hours from a major city — and the government does not provide them an attorney. Without LOP staff and volunteers physically visiting detention centers, detained immigrants must resort to calling attorneys through a phone system that either requires purchasing a phone card (something that is difficult when you have no access to money, because you are detained) or hoping law offices will answer collect calls. As a result, 84 percent of detained individuals do not have legal representation in deportation proceedings.

For over 50,000 detained immigrants every year, LOP organizations have provided the only guaranteed source of legal information and assistance in making informed decisions about their deportation proceedings. Because LOP organizations can also communicate with pro bono attorneys on the outside, this program also plays a crucial role in connecting detained individuals to legal representation. Represented individuals are more than twice as likely to avoid deportation, meaning LOP providers are directly responsible for helping detained immigrants avoid being deported, being torn away from their families and suffering the collateral consequences of being forced out of the country, which can include death.

In my visits to immigration courts across the country as a volunteer attorney, I have witnessed firsthand how the LOP volunteers serve as a rare lifeline for immigrants in detention. Each visit, I play my part in the same heartbreaking scene: I arrive with other volunteer attorneys to find an empty room with a TV screen. We are connected to a feed at one of the country’s many detention facilities, located in remote towns that would take hours to physically reach.

There are a number of immigrants waiting patiently to speak with us, sometimes a handful, sometimes over a dozen, almost all without a lawyer to represent them. Many of them do not understand why they have been in immigration custody or what was going to happen during the hearing that day. We have just a short time before they appear in court, giving us on average less than 10 minutes to attempt to answer the dozens of questions they have about their immigration cases.

At the end of the conversation with every individual, we always inform them that they should speak more in-depth with a volunteer through the Legal Orientation Program’s monthly visit. During the hearing, the immigration judge parrots the same advice: that they should to speak with LOP volunteers for more help with their questions, to help them find an attorney and to prepare them for the next hearing.

The DOJ would effectively eliminate the only guaranteed way that detained immigrants can access guidance in a high-stakes legal setting.

Opponents of the Legal Orientation Program argue that the program is “duplicative” because immigration judges are supposed to advise immigrants of their rights during their hearings. First, we should give up the pretense that someone without a law degree can understand one of the most complex areas of law after hearing it for the first time in the middle of a courtroom proceeding.

This argument also ignores the most important function of the Legal Orientation Program for immigrants and for defenders of the larger justice system in the U.S.: This program helps people find an attorney. An immigration judge, as opposed to an LOP volunteer, cannot, by definition, provide advice to the immigrant, cannot represent them in their hearings, and cannot facilitate communication with other attorneys who may provide them representation. The Legal Orientation Program fulfills these needs, which are pivotal to the functioning of a just legal system.

By cutting off individuals’ access to legal information through the Legal Orientation Program, and forcing those who are locked up during their deportation proceedings to get all information about their rights from an ostensibly neutral arbiter, the DOJ would effectively eliminate the only guaranteed way that detained immigrants can access crucial, reputable guidance in a high-stakes legal setting. This will affect the lives of everyone whom the current administration wants to detain, including those fleeing persecution, children, pregnant women, parents who are long-term residents of this country, people with medical conditions and even U.S. citizens.

In effect, without access to an LOP volunteer and attorney, almost anyone who is detained by ICE is virtually guaranteed to be deported, with no effective defense against a government attorney or an immigration judge, who has been mandated by this administration to close deportation cases as quickly as possible, fair day in court be damned.

If the Department of Justice moves to end the Legal Orientation Program for good, it will strip away the last shred of evidence that immigrants have a right to due process and will eliminate any semblance of justice left in the immigration system. The immigration courts will effectively become a sham, in utter betrayal of our country’s rich immigrant heritage.

Em Puhl is a San Joaquin Valley Law Fellow at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and a former attorney adviser at the Executive Office for Immigration Review in the Department of Justice.

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

Shortly after Em’s article came out, Sessions yielded to bipartisan pressure from Congress and “temporarily reinstated” the LOP. But, his so-far aborted attempt to destroy the LOP remains the most bone-headed, dishonest, and downright despicable attack yet on what little remains of the pretense of justice in our U.S.Immigration Courts by Sessions.

As a former U.S. Immigration Judge, I can testify, as can almost all of my former colleagues, DHS Assistant Chief Counsel, and anyone else actually familiar with and working in the Immigration Court system that the LOP probably provides the best “value for the dollar spent” of any program in EOIR.

PWS

04-25-18

PUBLIC INVITED TO ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION PANEL ON US IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM: FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2018 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM

final_may_4_program_flyer.authcheckdam

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

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

This event is FREE & OPEN TO ALL. I believe there will be a “public comment” opportunity. So, this is your chance to weigh in on the US Immigration Court “Train Wreck” and the Attorney General’s recent actions!🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂

Seating might be limited, and I would expect interest to be high. So, I strongly recommend arriving early!

PWS

04-25-18

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: ICE IS GETTING DOWN IN THE GUTTER WITH TRUMP – Why Would We Tolerate Either A President Or A USG Agency Who Glories In & Gloats About “Mean & Nasty” Treatment Of Other Human Beings? — By Accepting Trump’s & ICE’s Inappropriate Conduct, We Diminish Ourselves As A Nation & As Human Beings!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ice-has-become-trumps-personal-bullying-squad/2018/04/23/5197541e-472d-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?utm_term=.692cc352c144

Gerson writes:

The attitude of President Trump toward federal law enforcement is, to put it mildly, mixed. The FBI refused to bend to his will. So the special counsel team is composed of “hardened Democrats” engaged in a “WITCH HUNT.” The FBI was, according to Trump, too preoccupied with the Russia investigation to prevent the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. The agency’s reputation “is in Tatters — worst in History!”

But Immigration and Customs Enforcement has passed the loyalty test. ICE’s enforcement surge “is merely the keeping of my campaign promise,” the president tweeted. Referring to ICE acting director Thomas Homan, Trump said, “Somebody said the other day, they saw him on television. . . . ‘He looks very nasty, he looks very mean.’ I said, ‘That’s what I’m looking for!’ ”

This is territory more familiar in political systems of personal rule. The agency that defies the ruler must be discredited. The agency that does his bidding is viewed as a kind of Praetorian Guard.

Most of the professionals working in ICE would surely deny this characterization, pointing to an important legal role independent from any individual president. But they need to understand that their work is now being conflated with Trump’s nativism.

ICE’s 40 percent increase in arrests within the United States after Trump took office is now closely associated with the president’s political priorities. His sweeping executive orders on immigration broadened the focus of enforcement beyond serious threats to public order. Arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions have spiked. Routine “check-ins” with ICE officials can end with handcuffs and deportation. “Sanctuary cities” — a recurring presidential political obsession — are being targeted with additional personnel. Hundreds of children have been removed from parents seeking asylum and detained separately — compounding their terrible ordeal of persecution and flight. ICE recently announced a new policy that makes it easier to detain pregnant women. Asylum seekers have often been denied “humanitarian parole” while their cases are decided, effectively jailing them without due process.

Officials of the agency insist that their nonpolitical mandate hasn’t changed. But Homan has praised the Trump administration for taking “the handcuffs off law enforcement.” Whatever their intention, ICE agents are being used by the president to send a message of callousness. And they are tying themselves to Trump’s political fortunes in the process.

The job performed by ICE is essential to American security, and not easy. Agents must prevent some truly dangerous people from entering and staying in the country — gang members, drug dealers and terrorists. But it is also their job to deal with asylum seekers — men, women and children fleeing from gangs, targeted for death by drug cartels and oppressed by terrorist states. Some of the worst people in the world, and some of the most sympathetic people in the world, are processed by immigration officials. It takes care and discernment to make this distinction.

ICE is not an agency famous for its care and discernment. In releasing an immigration activist detained by ICE early this year, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest said, “It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust. . . . We are not that country.”

Accusations of abuse in ICE custody are numerous and serious, and they preexisted the Trump era. An investigation by ProPublica and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported cases of racial profiling, fabricated evidence and warrantless searches — all given little scrutiny by overwhelmed immigration courts. During the past few years, there have been hundreds of accusations of sexual abuse, racial slurs, abusive strip searches and verbal harassment in ICE jails, prisons and detention centers. For an institution that claims “zero tolerance” for such practices, it seems to get a lot of serious complaints. One asylum seeker, Gretta Soto Moreno, has called the facilities worse than normal prisons because ICE “feels like it can treat immigrants any kind of way.”

This is the bitter fruit of dehumanization — in a facility, in a system, in a country. It is unclear whether Trump would even regard such a reputation as undesirable. He has effectively given permission for bullying.

This is an issue ripe for more rigorous congressional oversight — even an independent commission to investigate charges of physical and sexual abuse in the ICE system. But this would require a critical mass of elected Republicans to give a damn about the rights and dignity of migrants. It is a distant dream.

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

Dehumanization of migrants, who are among the most human of all among us, is certainly one of the most insidious aspects of the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen,/Homan regime. When we allow individuals like these who have both forgotten their proper roles in a democratic republic and arrogantly checked their humanity at the door, we essentially dehumanize ourselves.

Not surprisingly, migrants grow in moral stature as we shrink, individually and collectively. And the restrictionist (occasionally, as in the case of folks like Rep Steve King (R-IA) “neo-Nazi”) wing of the GOP is certainly a prime enabler of this reprehensible conduct. As even some GOP commentators have noted, there is a disturbing “empathy and humanity gap” evident when GOP politicos speak in dismissive and derogatory terms about migrants.

Only time will tell how soon we will be able to remove these unworthy public officials from the positions they now hold and replace them with responsible public servants who treat others with dignity, respect, humanity, and reasonableness. But, the speed and decisiveness with which we act will say much about America’s future prospects as a nation.

PWS

04-25-18

DACA: SCOFFLAWS TRUMP & SESSIONS OUTED AGAIN — USD Judge John Bates (DC) Finds Administration’s Rationale For Terminating DACA Was Bogus – But, Gives Trumpsters 90 Days To Explain Before Restarting Program! – NAACP v. Trump!

NAACP v. Trump, U.S.D.C., D.D.C., 04-24-18 (Judge John D. Bates)

Read Judge Bates’s 60 page decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s decision to “rescind” DACA and ordering the restart of the program, but delaying the order for 90 days to give the Administration a chance to come up with a legal rationale for recision:

JugeBatesDACA

Key Quote From Judge Bates:

Executive Branch officials possess relatively unconstrained authority to enforce the law against certain violators but not others. Ordinarily, the exercise of that authority is subject to review not in a court of law, but rather in the court of public opinion: members of the public know how their elected officials have used their enforcement powers, and they can hold those officials accountable by speaking out, by petitioning their representatives, or ultimately at the ballot box. When an official claims that the law requires her to exercise her enforcement authority in a certain way, however, she excuses herself from this accountability. Moreover, if her view of the law is incorrect, she may needlessly forego the opportunity to implement appropriate enforcement priorities and also to demonstrate those priorities to the public.

Fortunately, neither Supreme Court nor D.C. Circuit precedent compels such a result. Rather, the cases are clear that courts have the authority to review an agency’s interpretation of the law if it is relied on to justify an enforcement policy, even when that interpretation concerns the lawful scope of the agency’s enforcement discretion. See Chaney, 470 U.S. at 832–33; OSG, 132 F.3d at 812; Crowley, 37 F.3d at 676–77. Under this rule, an official cannot claim that the law ties her hands while at the same time denying the courts’ power to unbind her. She may escape political accountability or judicial review, but not both.

Here, the Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision. And although the government suggests that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability analysis. It was also arbitrary and capricious in its own right, and thus likewise cannot support the agency’s action. For these reasons, DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.

For the reasons given above, then, the Court will vacate the Department’s September 5, 2017 decision to rescind the DACA program. The Court will stay its order of vacatur for 90 days, however, to afford DHS an opportunity to better explain its view that DACA is unlawful. The Court will also deny the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ APA claims on reviewability grounds, and its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ substantive APA claim; grant the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ procedural APA claim, the NAACP plaintiffs’ RFA claim, and plaintiffs’ information-sharing claim; and defer ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims.

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

So, who “won” under Judge Bate’s order? The plaintiffs won a smashing victory on all the significant legal issues. And, Judge Bates appears prepared to not only halt the termination of DACA for those already approved under the program, as other courts have done, but also to order the DHS to resume accepting new applications for those who meet the DACA criteria.

On the flip side, nothing happens for the next 90 days while the DHS searches for a rationale for terminating DACA. I think that’s going to be hard to develop. But, you never know.

This case follows a disturbingly familiar pattern. Trump, Sessions, & Co. institute actions against immigrants based on bias, racism, xenophobia, and campaign promises. They are promptly rejected by the courts as illegal.

Then, the Administration goes “to the drawing board” (they never seriously considered the law in the first place) in an attempt to come up with a legal rationale (usually a fairly obvious pretext) for their original actions.

That’s why it’s so infuriating to hear an intellectually dishonest scofflaw like Jeff Sessions constantly pontificating about a “rule of law” that actually represents only his own distorted and biased view of the law — likely drawn up for him by one of the restrictionist or White Nationalist groups he likes to hang around with.

Of course, even if Judge Bates eventually rules against the Administration, there no doubt will be an appeal to the DC Circuit. But, without a further stay pending appeal (which seems unlikely given the Supreme Court’s declination to give one in other DACA litigation) DACA would be restarted while the case is working its way through the lower courts, perhaps to the Supremes.

The Administration could easily have avoided this mess by agreeing to a “clean” DACA bill. They likely could even have gotten some “Wall” funding and other enforcement enhancements (short of more unneeded agents or more inhumane and unnecessary detention) thrown in with the deal. But, Trump blew the chance.

So now the fate of DACA is likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for the indefinite future.

PWS

04-24-18

ROBERT BARNES @ WASHPOST: “Trump v. State of Hawaii” Is Actually “Trump v. Trump” — The President’s Constant Barrage Of Un-Presidential Behavior Has Always Been The Real Issue — Will Court Impose Limits Or Wash Its Hands & Let Voters Deal With A President Who Undermines Our Republic? — Most Observers Expect Supremes’ Majority To Punt On Trump’s Biased Agenda!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-travel-ban-case-supreme-court-considers-the-president-vs-this-president/2018/04/22/f33f1edc-44cb-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.223d08cb0950

Robert Barnes reports for WashPost:

The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry.

But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.”

The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. It is the first time the court has considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start, and raises deep questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches.

The first version of the ban was issued just a week after Trump took office, and lower courts have found that it and each reformulated version since exceeded the authority granted by Congress and was motivated by Trump’s prejudice — animus, as courts like to say — toward Muslims.

The state of Hawaii, which is leading the challenge of the ban, told the Supreme Court:

“For over a year, the president campaigned on the pledge, never retracted, that he would ban Muslims from entering the United States.

“And upon taking office, the president issued and reissued, and reissued again, a sweeping and unilateral order that purports to bar over 150 million aliens — the vast majority of them Muslim — from entering the United States.”

Hawaii’s brief, by Washington lawyer Neal K. Katyal, cites not only Trump’s campaign comments, but also his actions as president, including the time he retweeted “three anti-Muslim propaganda videos” from a widely condemned far-right British organization.

This led to a response by the solicitor general of the United States to the justices of the Supreme Court that could have been written only in this era, about this chief executive:

“The president’s retweets do not address the meaning of the proclamation at all.”

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco urged the court not to get distracted by the president’s bluster — he has said nice things about Muslims, too, the brief states — and to keep its examination on the law.

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

Read Barnes’s full article at the link.

Trump has never shown any actual justification for the “bogus ban.” But, the standard of “facially bona fide and legitimate” is very permissive. As usual, from a legal standpoint, Trump would have done better to have kept his big mouth shut!

PWS

04-24-18

TAL @ CNN: DENYING DUE PROCESS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS — Sessions’s Plans & Actions Contravene Many Key Recommendations Of Recent Independent Internal Evaluation – Feuding With Judges, Suspending Legal Orientation Program, Establishing Evaluations Based On “Quotas,” Detailing Judges To Border Detention Centers, Restricting Administrative Closing, Increasing Use Of Televideo Hearings, Emphasis On Increasing Removals Over Due Process All Run Counter To Recent Recommendations!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/immigration-courts-justice-department-report/index.html

Justice report’s findings clash with Sessions’ actions

By Tal Kopan

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made overhauling the chronically backlogged immigration courts a top priority — but some of his moves seem to run counter to recommendations in a Justice Department-commissioned report made public on Monday.

While some of the recommendations, such as increasing staffing, have been part of his efforts, other steps — such as requiring judges to process a target amount of cases — run contrary to the study’s suggestions.

The report was written by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton last April after a yearlong analysis commissioned by the Justice Department’s immigration courts division. A redacted version was made public Monday as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and American Immigration Council.

The report looks at the chronic inability of the immigration courts to keep up with the number of cases before them. Cases related to immigration status are handled in a court system separate from the typical criminal and civil courts in the US — a system that is run entirely by the Justice Department and in which the attorney general effectively functions as a one-man Supreme Court.

Because cases can take years to finish, undocumented immigrants can end up living and building lives in the US as they await a final decision on whether they are legally allowed to stay in the US — something the Trump administration has cited as a driver of illegal immigration.

The Booz Allen Hamilton analysis identifies a number of issues that contribute to the backlog, including staffing shortages, technological difficulties and external factors like an increasing number of cases.

Sessions has worked to hire more immigration judges and has ordered other upgrades like the use of an electronic filing system, as the report recommends.

But the American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed concern about a number of other recommendations that seemed ignored or on which opposite action was taken.

Responding to the report, a Justice Department official who requested not to be named said that the efforts of the department are “common-sense.”

“After years of mismanagement and neglect, the Justice Department has implemented a number of common-sense reforms in the immigration court system, a number of them address these issues and we believe that focusing our efforts on these reforms has been an effective place to start,” the official said.

The report’s recommendations include a performance review system for judges, who are hired and managed by the Justice Department, that “emphasizes process over outcomes and places high priority on judicial integrity and independence,” including in dialogue with the union that represents immigration judges. The Justice Department recently rolled out a performance metrics system, though, that requires judges to complete a certain number of cases per year and sets time goals for other procedural steps along the way, which immigration judges have strongly opposed as jeopardizing the ability of judges to make fair, independent decisions.

In a call with reporters, AILA representatives and a retired immigration judge argued that while the report doesn’t explicitly reject a quota system, it’s clear that putting one in place is contrary to the recommendation. They say that judges who are fearful of their job security and opportunity for advancement may be pressured to speed up hearing cases at the expense of due process for the immigrants, which could skew the outcome of the case.

A Justice Department official said the agency rejects the notion of a “false dichotomy” that improving efficiency sacrifices due process and said the agency has also put in place court-based metrics that lend itself to the recommendation of the report.

In another example, the report recommends that the Justice Department consider expanding legal orientation programs for immigrants and increasing their access to attorneys, so they can better navigate the system. The Justice Department recently put on hold a legal advice program for immigrants in the courts, saying it needed to be reviewed, though audits in the past had consistently shown it was productive and had saved the government money long-term. Officials say they may reinstitute the program if the audit shows it is effective.

The report also recommends limited use of video hearings, saying judges are stymied by technical difficulties and also are less able to read the subtle cues and nonverbal communications of witnesses and people involved in the hearings. Sessions’ immigration courts plan includes expanding the use of video hearings.

In another example, one of Sessions’ first moves in taking office was to send a number of judges to the border on a temporary assignment to handle cases there. The report says temporary assignments should be avoided, as they create more delays when judges have to catch up on their workloads back home.

The report also recommends administratively closing cases if they are being adjudicated in some other venue, like a visa petition or another court case. The Trump administration has sought to curtail the administrative closing of cases.

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

DOJ’s ridiculous claim that Sessions’s actions are “common sense” is refuted by virtually everyone with expertise or true understanding of the Immigration Court system including those working in it, those stuck in it, and even ICE!

There can be no effective, Due Process oriented, “actual common sense” Immigration Court reforms so long as Jeff Sessions controls those courts.

PWS

04-23-18

PRO PUBLICA: HOW OUR GOVERNMENT HAS CYNICALLY TURNED WHAT SHOULD BE A GENEROUSLY ADMINISTERED, LIFE-SAVING, PROTECTION-GRANTING ASYLUM SYSTEM INTO A “GAME OF CHANCE” WITH POTENTIALLY FATAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HAPLESS & VULNERABLE “PLAYERS!” –Play The “Interactive Version” Of “The Game” Here – See If You Would Survive or Perish Playing “Refugee Roulette!”

https://projects.propublica.org/asylum/#how-asylum-works

Years-long wait lists, bewildering legal arguments, an extended stay in detention — you can experience it all in the Waiting Game, a newsgame that simulates the experience of trying to seek asylum in the United States. The game was created by ProPublica, Playmatics and WNYC. Based on the true stories of real asylum-seekers, this interactive portal allows users to follow in the footsteps of five people fleeing persecution and trying to take refuge in America.

The process can be exhausting and feel arbitrary – and as you’ll find in the game, it involves a lot of waiting. Once asylum-seekers reach America, they must condense complex and often traumatic stories into short, digestible narratives they will tell again and again. Their lives often depend on their ability to convince a judge that they are in danger. Judicial decisions are so inconsistent across the country, success in complicated cases can come down to geography and luck — in New York City only 17 percent of asylum cases are denied in immigration court; in Atlanta, 94 percent are. Increasingly, many asylum-seekers are held in detention for months or even years while going through the system. The immigration detention system costs more than $2 billion per year to maintain.

The Trump administration has tried to reframe the asylum system as a national security threat and a magnet for illegal immigration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterizes the American asylum process as “subject to rampant abuse” and “overloaded with fake claims.” He has aimed recent reforms at expediting asylum adjudications to speed up deportations and at making it more difficult for certain groups to qualify for protection, such as Central Americans who claim to fear gender-based violence or gang persecution.

The narrative that the system is overrun with fraud has long been pushed by groups that favor limiting immigration overall. They point to some 37 percent of asylum-seekers who annually miss their immigration hearings as evidence that people without legitimate fears of persecution game the system. They argue that allowing asylum-seekers to obtain work permits while they wait for a decision on their cases — which sometimes takes years — incentivizes baseless claims.

But another picture emerged when ProPublica spoke with more than 20 experts and stakeholders who study and work in the asylum system, including lawyers, immigration judges, historians, policy experts, an asylum officer, a former border patrol agent and a former ICE prosecutor.

When asked about changes to the system they’d like to see, many suggested providing asylum-seekers with better access to lawyers to support due process, expanding the definition of a refugee to cover modern-day conflicts,providing more resources to help the system process claims in a timely manner, and improving judicial independence by moving immigration courts out of the Department of Justice.

Most acknowledged some level of asylum-claim abuse exists. “In any system, of course, there are going to be some bad actors and some weaknesses people seek to exploit,” said Doris Meissner, the former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000.

But they also argued for the importance of protecting and improving a national program that has provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of people. “If you are going to make a mistake in the immigration area, make this mistake,” said Bill Hing, director of the University of San Francisco’s Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic. “Protect people that may not need protecting, but don’t make the mistake of not protecting people who need it.”

Victor Manjarrez, a former border patrol agent from the 1980s until 2011, said he had seen human smuggling networks exploit the border over the years, but also many people who genuinely needed help.

“We have a system that’s not perfect, but is designed to take refugees. That is the beauty of it,” he said. “It has a lot of issues, but we have something in place that is designed to be compassionate. And that’s why we have such a big political debate about this.”

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

Read the narrative and play the interactive “Waiting Game” at the above link!

Getting refuge often depends on getting the right:

Border Patrol Agent an Asylum Officer to even get into the system;
Lawyer;
Local Immigration Court;
Immigration Judge;
DHS Assistant Chief Counsel;
BIA Panel;
U.S. Court of Appeals jurisdiction;
U.S. Court of Appeals Panel;
Luck.

If something goes wrong anywhere along this line, your case could “go South,” even if it’s very meritorious.

I also agree with Professor Hing that given the UNHCR guidance that asylum applicants ought to be given “the benefit of the doubt,” the generous standard for asylum established by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and implemented by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the often irreversible nature of wrongful removals to persecution, the system should be designed to “error on the side of the applicant.”

Indeed, one of the things that DHS in my experience does well is detecting and prosecuting systemic asylum fraud. While a few individuals probably do get away with tricking the system, most “professional fraudsters” and their clients eventually are caught and brought to justice, most often in criminal court. Most of these are discovered not by “tough laws” or what happens in Immigration Court, but by more normal criminal investigative techniques: undercover agents, tips from informants, and “disgruntled employees or clients” who “blow the whistle” in return for more lenient treatment for themselves.

Hope YOU get protected, not rejected!

PWS

04-23-18

MORE GOOD NEWS FROM PROFESSOR ALBERTO BENITEZ @ GW LAW: Two More Northern Triangle Lives Saved By Asylum Grants in Arlington – Giving Lie To the Trump Administration/Restrictionist Claim That Northern Triangle Refugees Are “Economic Migrants” — No, The Vast Majority Are “Legitimate Refugees” Being Screwed Over By Our Government’s Skewed, Dishonest, Immoral, & Often Illegal Policies

Friends,

Please join me in congratulating GW Immigration Clinic alum Shira Zeman, ’12, who won an asylum grant for a Central American Mom and her 5 year-old son earlier this week. Please see the attached picture, which I use with permission. Gang members threatened to kill Mom if she did not allow them to use her son in gang activities. These same gang members murdered one of Mom’s neighbors, a police officer, after he refused to allow a family member to join the gang. Mom testified for over an hour, after which the ICE trial attorney told the Immigration Judge she did not oppose asylum. Shira said: “He’s 5 now, but he had just turned 3 when they tried to ‘recruit’ him so he could be used as a drug mule.”

Intense. This installation is a must-see. Being in the ‘hielera,’ and in the ‘desert’ witnessing nighttime arrests by the Border Patrol, was beyond belief. Visitors were in tears and one fell to her knees. I read this Washington Post article prior to my visit but I was unprepared for the experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/alejandro-g-inarritus-virtual-reality-voyage-is-dcs-most-intriguing-experience-right-now/2018/04/11/d2714380-3c04-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.8f8162e02386

**************************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
650 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202) 994-7463
(202) 994-4946 fax
abenitez@law.gwu.edu
THE WORLD IS YOURS…
**************************************************

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

Congratulations to Shira Zeman, Esq., of Zeman & Petterson PLLC, Falls Church, VA. I’m awed by the legal accomplishments and lives saved by Shira and her law partner Rachel Petterson! Hard to believe that she’s only six years out of law school!

We hear it all the time from Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, CIS, FAIR, GOP White Nationalist right wingers, right-wing media, and perhaps most disturbingly sometimes officials at EOIR and Immigration Judges. These aren’t “real refugees,” just folks coming here to work.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Make no mistake about it, these are “real refugees” intentionally being given the shaft by our biased and unfair Government and in far too many cases being denied the life-saving protection to which they are entitled under both U.S. and international law!

In my experience, few individuals, particularly women and children, undertake the long, dangerous, and uncertain journey from the Northern Triangle to our Southern Border unless they are forced migrants. Indeed, I found that many of the individuals coming from the Northern Triangle were doing fine economically and would have vastly preferred to stay in their homes, rather than being relegated to sometimes menial “entry-level” jobs even when they are able to be released in the U.S. Successful students sometimes lose credit in U.S. school systems and must “start over again” in lower grades or special programs.

Indeed, perhaps ironically, their success helped make them very visible, distinct, and attractive targets for both persecution by the gangs and sometimes also for extortion and mistreatment by corrupt police and government officials in the Northern Triangle. Others were perceived by the gangs to be actual or potential political leaders in the “anti-gang movement.” Moreover, as gangs increasingly become involved in the political process in the Northern Triangle, opposition to gangs takes on heavy political implications.

No, this case is not an “aberration or an exception.” There are lots of similar or identical “moms and kids” out there from the Northern Triangle fighting every day for their very lives in a system already rigged against them and which Jeff Sessions has pledged to make even more unfair and more “user unfriendly.”

The things that allowed this “mom and child’ to succeed are:

Representation by a great lawyer like Shira;
Freedom from detention;
Adequate time to prepare and document the case;
A fair, knowledgeable Immigration Judge not biased against or dismissive of Northern Triangle asylum seekers;
An experienced DHS Assistant Chief Counsel committed to a fair application of asylum law and unafraid to recognize when further litigation or appeal would be counterproductive for both the individual and the court system.

An Attorney General truly interested in upholding the rule of law and our Constitution would be working to replicate what happened in this case elsewhere and to look for ways in which refugees like this could be recognized without having to go to a final merits hearing before an Immigration Judge. He or she would also be encouraging others in the Administration to focus on addressing the problems in the Northern Triangle causing this humanitarian migration, instead of focusing solely on fruitless attempts to discourage and deter the vulnerable migrants themselves.

But, that would an Attorney General “OTJS” — “Other Than Jeff Sessions.”

PWS

04-23-18

IT TOOK MANY YEARS AND LOTS OF EFFORT, BUT RESPONDENTS FINALLY WON ONE @ THE BIA — ON STALKING — Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

Sanchez3924

Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

BIA HEADNOTE:

The offense of stalking in violation of section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is not “a crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2012). Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 71 (BIA 2012), overruled.

PANEL: BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES PAULEY, GUENDELSBERGER, MALPHRUS

OPINION BY: JUGE JOHN GUENDELSBERGER

DISSENTING OPINION: JUDGE GARRY D. MALPHRUS

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Although the DHS appears to concede that stalking under section 646.9 is “overbroad” relative to the definition we outlined in Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, it asserts that we should broaden the definition of a “crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act to meet contemporary standards. Specifically, it argues that we should redefine the term “stalking” in the Act based on its commonly understood meaning, either in 2012 when we decided Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, or based on the common elements of State and Federal stalking statutes in 2017.

We recognize that the common elements of stalking have evolved since section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) was added to the Act in 1996, in that a number of States have broadened the term “stalking” to cover threats of nonphysical harm in an effort to afford greater protections to their citizens against stalkers. However, we are constrained to define offenses “based on the ‘generic, contemporary meaning’ of the statutory words at the time the

statute was enacted.” Matter of Cardiel, 25 I&N Dec. 12, 17 (BIA 2009) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598 (1990)); see also Matter of Alvarado, 26 I&N Dec. 895, 897 (BIA 2016). The DHS relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272, 2281 (2016), which declined “to wind the clock back” to consider the common law in discerning whether the provision at issue reached reckless acts. But that case also looked to the legislative history and the “state-law backdrop” that existed at the time the statute was enacted. Id. at 2280–82. We are therefore unpersuaded to broaden the definition of the term “stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E) of the Act to encompass the most contemporary understanding of that offense.

Upon reconsideration, we conclude that the offense of stalking in violation of section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is not “a crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. We will therefore overrule our decision in Matter of Sanchez-Lopez and vacate all prior orders in this case to the extent they hold to the contrary. Accordingly, because the respondent is not removable, his appeal will be sustained and the removal proceedings will be terminated.

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

The legal landscape has changed since we published our decision inMatter of Sanchez-Lopez. This case illustrates the limitations of applying the categorical approach imposed by the Supreme Court in Descamps andMathis to provisions of the immigration laws enacted by Congress for the purpose of removing aliens convicted of serious criminal conduct. See Matter of Chairez, 27 I&N Dec. 21, 25–26 (BIA 2017) (Malphrus, concurring). Under this approach, only if section 646.9 is divisible can we look to the respondent’s conviction records to determine if his conduct involved an intent to cause the victim to fear death or bodily injury, as many such stalking cases do. Because of this strict categorical approach, many statutes that have since broadened the scope of protection for stalking victims may not qualify as a categorical match to section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. As a result, in California and many other States, an alien who was criminally convicted of stalking an innocent victim will not be removable under the Act, even though the record makes clear that he or she committed “a crime of stalking.” It is highly unlikely that Congress intended this result.

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

I liked the comment from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community: “It only took about 6 years and several trips up and down the administrative and judicial food chain.”

My point (that I make over and over) is that there is NO WAY that an unrepresented respondent (particularly in DHS detention where most respondents convicted of crimes end up) could have achieved this result. That means that unrepresented individuals are wrongfully deported by DHS every day.

The Immigration Court system already is failing in its duty to guarantee fairness and due process to all respondents. Outrageously, instead of doing what he should do — working to insure maximum representation and raising the quality of Immigration Judge and BIA decisions to insure Due Process — Jeff Sessions is doing just the opposite!

He’s putting “haste makes waste quotas” on Immigration Judges; encouraging judges to deny continuances needed to obtain counsel and adequately prepare defenses; locating Immigration Courts in detention centers which intentionally lack both public access and ready availability of pro bono counsel; using coercive, substandard detention and family separation to deter individuals from pursuing potentially successful claims and defenses; further skewing the law against asylum seekers; and suspending the essential “Legal Orientation Program” which helps unrepresented individuals in detention understand their rights and what will happen in Immigration Court before their first appearance before a judge.

PWS

04-20-18

MULTI-TALENTED TAL @ CNN TAKES US TO THE S. BORDER IN PICTURES & WORDS!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/secretary-nielsen-dhs-border-fence-wall-immigration/index.html

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 6:55 PM ET, Thu April 19, 2018

Here are Tal’s pictures. For whatever technical reason, you’ll have to go to the original article at the link to get the captions that go with them!

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

Wow! As those of you who read “Courtside” on a regular basis know, I’m a HUGE FAN of Tal’s timely, incisive, concise, and highly accessible reporting. I feature it on a regular basis. I’ve also seen her do a great job on TV and video. But, until now, I didn’t know about her skills as a photojournalist. Tal can do it all!

Also, as my colleague Judge and Super-Blogger Jeffrey Chase pointed out in one of his recent comments on this blog, pictures play an essential role in understanding the immigration saga in America.

Been there, done that in my career. Takes me back to the long past days of riding three wheelers, helicopters, Patrol Cars, looking through infrared night scopes, and even accompanying foot patrol during my days in the “Legacy INS General Counsel’s Office.” (Most often on the border south of San Diego.) We actually took the Trial Attorneys and some of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting our cases with us to show them what it was really like at the “ground level.”

Actually doesn’t look all that much different decades later. What is painfully clear is that walls, fences, helicopters, detectors, unrealistically harsh and restrictive laws, and more detention centers (the “New American Gulag”) will never, ever “seal” our borders as some immigration hard-liners insist is possible.

At best, we can control, channel, and regulate the flow of migrants, but not halt it entirely. Human migration was taking place long before the U.S. became a nation, and I daresay that it will continue as long as there are humans left on earth. To think that walls, troops, concentration camps, harsh laws, and prisons are going to halt it completely is a mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

So, rather than pouring more money down the drain on the same “strategies” that have been failing for decades, a “smart” border control policy would involve:

More realistic and generous interpretations of our refugee and asylum laws that should include most of those fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle;
A much larger and more “market based” legal immigration system for permanent and temporary migrants that would meet the legitimate needs of U.S. employers and our economy while making it attractive for most prospective workers and employers to use the legal visa system rather than the “black market” of undocumented entry;
A larger and more robust refugee processing program for Northern Triangle refugees so most would be screened and documented outside the U.S.;
Cooperation with the UNHCR and other stable countries in the Western Hemisphere to distribute the flow of long-term and temporary refugees in an equitable manner that will help both the refugees and the receiving countries;
Working with and investing in Mexico and Northern Triangle countries to address and correct the conditions that create migration flows to the Southern Border.
Providing lawyers for asylum applicants who present themselves at the Southern Border so that their claims for protection (which actually go beyond asylum and include protection under the Convention Against Torture) can be fairly, correctly, and efficiently determined in an orderly manner in accordance with Due Process.

No, it’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. But, I hope that future generations, including the members of the “New Due Process Army,” will find themselves in a position to abandon past mistakes, and develop the smart, wise, generous, humane, realistic, and effective immigration and refugee policies that we need to keep our “nation of immigrants” viable and vitalized for centuries to come. Until then, we’re probably going to have to watch folks repeat variations of the same painful mistakes over and over.

PWS

04-19-18

HERE’S THE FUTURE AS SESSIONS DUMBS DOWN, SPEEDS UP, SKEWS THE LAW, AND DE-PROFESSIONALIZES IMMIGRATION COURTS – 4th Circuit Slams BIA’s Sloppy Analytical Work, Refuses Deference, Reverses, & Remands — Ramirez v. Sessions

RAMIREZVSESSIONS,4THSLOPPY

Ramirez v. Sessions, 4th Cir., 04-17-18, Published

PANEL: GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: CHIEF JUDGE GREGORY

SUMMARY (From Chief Judge Gregory’s opinion):

Jose Ramirez seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding him ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). Specifically, the question is whether Ramirez’s convictions for obstruction of justice pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2- 460(A) qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). We hold that obstruction of justice under § 18.2-460(A) is not a CIMT because it may be committed without fraud, deception, or any other aggravating element that shocks the public conscience. We therefore grant Ramirez’s petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order of removal, and remand with directions for the Government to facilitate Ramirez’s return to the United States to participate in further proceedings.

KEY QUOTE:

In relation to those cases, the BIA’s one-member decision in this case attempts to significantly expand the definition of a CIMT by removing deceit, a critical indicator of moral turpitude, from the equation. Since this non-precedential decision departs from, rather than relies on, precedential BIA decisions, it is not eligible for Chevron review.

In the absence of Chevron deference, the weight given to a BIA decision “hinges on ‘the thoroughness evident in [the BIA’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade.’” Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 246 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Martinez, 740 F.3d at 909–10); see Mead, 533 U.S. at 221. Here, the BIA provides only three sentences of analysis that are conclusory in nature and disregards the agency’s prior emphasis on fraud or deceit as a critical determinant without identifying an alternative aggravator. Consequently, the BIA decision is also undeserving of so-calledSkidmore respect because it lacks the power to persuade. See Mead, 533 U.S. at 221.

In sum, under Chevron, BIA decisions defining morally turpitudinous conduct are controlling if they are precedential and reasonable. However, the BIA’s interpretations of laws that it does not administer, such as the Virginia obstruction of justice statute, and its non-precedential decisions are only given weight to the extent that this Court finds the reasoning persuasive. Here, because we do not find persuasive the BIA’s abbreviated and non-precedential opinion, we do not accord it any deference.

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

As we saw during the Bush Administration, “haste makes waste” procedures imposed by the DOJ at the Immigration Courts and the BIA are likely to cause a rebellion in the Article III Courts as they are presented with sloppy work including inadequate factual analyses, incorrect fact-findings, and abbreviated, deficient legal analyses. Factors such as pressure to render more “contemporaneous oral decisions” at the end of the hearing without reviewing the full record and testimony as well as single-judge BIA decisions or “summary affirmances” without opinion aggravate the problem.

As the quantity increases and quality decreases, the Article III Courts will lose confidence in the ImmigratIon Courts and begin returning large numbers of cases for “quality control redos” — something that adds to delay and increases backlogs as well as demoralizing Immigration Judges and frustrating respondents and counsel on both sides.

At some point, I foresee that attorneys for respondents should succeed in convincing the Article III Courts that the BIA no longer qualifies as an “expert tribunal” and that its decisions therefore should not receive so-called “Chevron deference.” Session’s use of his certification power to interfere in judicial decisions is also highly problematic.

Jeff Sessions is neither a judge nor by any stretch of the imagination an unbiased quasi-judicial decision maker. Indeed any Article III or Administrative Judge who made some of the untrue and pejorative statements about migrants, asylum seekers, private attorneys, and the law that Sessions has publicly made since becoming the Attorney General would certainly be required to disqualify himself or herself from a quasi-judicial role in any immigration adjudication.

There is no possibility of a fair, unbiased, due process oriented Immigration Court system under Jeff Sessions and the DOJ.

We have “seen this show before” under Ashcroft and the Bush Administration. Congress seriously disregards its responsibilities by standing by and watching disaster unfold again with hundreds of thousands of lives, and perhaps the stability of our entire Federal Judicial System, at stake.

PWS

04-19-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Featured Panelists:

(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law

Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges

Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

Related posts:

Related posts: