Stephen Miller – Page 68 – immigrationcourtside.com

NATION’S SHAME: ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY OF CRUELTY TOWARD CHILDREN WILL HAUNT US FOR MANY YEARS: “What the Trump administration does is force Americans to fight for things that should be uncontroversial, common-sense humanitarian principles; we now spend so much time reacting to a new set of atrocities that there is no energy left for anything else.”

https://apple.news/A9OIp3x0DQLqC27X2vxP05A

Jay Willis writes in GQ:

This fall, after national outrage over the Trump White House’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy forced it to begrudgingly wind down the practice of separating families at the border, administration officials began looking for a new method of implementing xenophobia as official government policy. They found it, apparently, by recruiting volunteers to serve as temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors—and then, if volunteers’ background checks indicated that they were undocumented, detaining those people and preparing them for deportation.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 170 individuals who offered to open up their homes—again, to children, many of whom were in federal custody because of the aforementioned separation policy, and who were otherwise forced to live in tent camps and converted warehouses until their immigration status could be resolved—have been arrested over the past few months for their displays of kindness. Of that group, 109 had no criminal record whatsoever.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported the death of a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl who, along with her father and a larger group of immigrants, turned herself in to Border Patrol agents in a remote area of New Mexico last week. More than eight hours later, she began having seizures; first responders found that she had a fever of 105.7 degrees and hadn’t had food or water in days. She went into cardiac arrest and died of shock and dehydration shortly thereafter.

The agency’s response, which is laden with all the meaningless corporate bromides typically deployed to convey the appearance of sincerity, is more or less “tough shit”:

I suppose the events of this year should have dispelled the notion that when it comes to immigration, anyone associated with this regime would be inclined to momentarily suspend their prejudices to do a kind and decent thing. Yet somehow, the disgracefulness of DHS’s sting operation is still astonishing. The purpose of releasing kids to “qualified adults” is to make life better for innocent children, victims of a broken system in which they have no voice; literally the only relevant question is Will this person provide a safe place for them to live? But the administration cannot stop itself, this time preying on the basic human instinct to care for children, all in the service of rounding up a few more brown people.

The Chronicle notes that the number of children in custody has increased over the past few months—a trend observers blame on the spike in these background-check arrests. This means that despite the official end of the family-separation policy, more kids are being held in overcrowded jails, because their captors have cut off the power of otherwise willing caretakers to do anything about it. If you are lucky and don’t die in Border Patrol custody, a different set of government policies ensures that you’re still going to languish there for the foreseeable future.

There are bills on Capitol Hill that would bar DHS from doing this sort of thing. In the Senate, nine Democrats have signed on to the Families Not Facilities Act, first introduced in November, while in the House, 39 Democrats and two Republicans—both of whom just lost their re-election bids—are co-sponsors of an analogue. “Right now, unaccompanied children are being held in detention facilities or living in tent cities due in part to potential sponsors’ fear of retribution from ICE,” said California senator Kamala Harris in November. “This is an unacceptable obstacle to getting these children into a safe home, and we must fix it.”

The power of bigotry lies in the persistence of those who implement it—in their willingness to commit to it at all times, no matter the circumstances, no matter how dangerous or unconscionable, so as to never invite uncomfortable questions about why bigotry is acceptable in the first place. Death becomes just a risk that prisoners choose to assume, and volunteer caregivers open themselves up to the possibility of becoming prisoners as well.

What the Trump administration does is force Americans to fight for things that should be uncontroversial, common-sense humanitarian principles; we now spend so much time reacting to a new set of atrocities that there is no energy left for anything else. It is a policymaking war of attrition, and its goal is less to change people’s minds than it is to wear them out.

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

Yup. Well said!

There is only one “right side of history” on this one. Sure it’s exhausting and frustrating to spend energy that should be spent on improving the system for everyone instead resisting gross violations of legal, Constitutional, and human rights engineered by a White Nationalist regime. But, that’s what the New Due Process Army, “Our Gang,” and many others on the right side of history are all about!

PWS

12-16-18

TAL @ SFCHRON: N. Cal. Immigration Arrests Lag National Stats – No Obvious Explanation – Increases Come Almost Exclusively From Non-Criminals – No Obvious Benefit To Anyone Except Restrictionist Pols!

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Are-sanctuary-laws-driving-down-immigration-13467855.php

Are sanctuary laws driving down immigration arrests in Northern California?

Tal Kopan Dec. 14, 2018

WASHINGTON —Immigration arrests fell in Northern California in the past year even as arrests nationally rose 11 percent, a trend that may be linked to tightening sanctuary laws that limit local cooperation with U.S. deportation agents.

But while fewer people in the region were arrested overall, arrests of noncriminal immigrants went up, according to data released Friday, reflecting Trump administration policies that anyone in the country without documentation is a target for enforcement.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement office that oversees Northern California was one of only a handful nationally to see fewer arrests in the 2018 fiscal year — which ended Sept. 30 — than in 2017. The 14 percent drop in arrests was the steepest decline in the country.

The office, based in San Francisco, was also the only one in the country to post fewer arrests in 2018 than fiscal 2016, the last under President Barack Obama.

Under President Trump, arrests of undocumented immigrants, especially noncriminal ones, have been steadily climbing, as he has made immigration enforcement and border security his central pitches to voters.

Overall, ICE arrested nearly 160,000 immigrants last fiscal year, 34 percent of whom had no criminal convictions. That was an 11 percent increase in arrests overall, but was almost entirely driven by the surge in arrests of noncriminal immigrants. Arrests of those with a criminal conviction slightly trailed the year before.

The story was similar for deportations, which were up overall nationally but dipped slightly in Northern California.

Trump and his deputies have declared that no undocumented immigrant is exempt from the government’s grasp, a change from a policy adopted late in President Obama’s administration that focused ICE’s efforts and finite resources primarily on criminals.

The administration has focused particular ire toward sanctuary cities and has clashed repeatedly with Bay Area and California officials over their policies. The administration sued unsuccessfully to try to block California’s sanctuary law from going into effect after Gov. Jerry Brown signed it in late 2017, and engaged in a heated back-and-forth with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf this year after she issued a preemptive public warning about a planned immigration sweep in the region.

It’s difficult to know why San Francisco lagged behind the rest of the country in arrests, but sanctuary laws could be a factor, especially those that limit cooperation between local jails and ICE officers who want to pick up undocumented inmates. ICE officials did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment.

The data varied substantially by region. The San Diego sector saw among the biggest increases in arrests in the past year, up 32 percent overall with noncriminals representing more than half of those arrested, a jump that could be related to surges of migrants arriving at the border there.

The Los Angeles office, however, was more in line with San Francisco. There, ICE made 7 percent fewer arrests in fiscal 2018, though the agency also arrested a slightly higher number of noncriminal immigrants.

Former Obama administration ICE Director John Sandweg said regions rarely see varying numbers due to conscious decisions.

“It certainly isn’t, and almost never is a, ‘Hey guys, let’s do more or less in this area of responsibility.’ That’s just not the way it works,” Sandweg said.

His best guess to explain the discrepancy in Northern California was the limitation on ICE’s access to jails. Having to arrest more immigrants in the community takes more time and resources than the “efficient” handover of an immigrant in a jail, he said.

That could also explain why more noncriminal immigrants got caught up in the crosshairs, he added.

“This is an unintended consequence of sanctuary policies that I’m not sure is always thought through,” Sandweg said. “If you say no to picking up people in jail, there are going to be some dangerous people we feel compelled to get, so when you do that, you’re not just exposing those dangerous people to ICE but their family, their friends, their neighbors.”

Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan

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

Other possible explanations for the pattern of non-criminal arrests in Northern California:

Retaliation for “Sanctuary Cities” laws and for suits finding Sessions’s “Anti-Sanctuary Crusade” illegal;
Need to meet “arrest quotas” for annual bonuses (just like U.S. Immigration Judges, except they are ineligible for bonuses — but the Director and other “Managers” in Falls Church can pocket some extra cash by revving up removals to please the DOJ politicos).

I also wouldn’t put too much store on the so-called “criminal arrest” numbers put out by DHS either. DHS tends to jack up numbers by concentrating on relatively minor offenders rather than hunting down the real “bad guys” which tends to produce lower numbers.

Indeed, in the Federal bureaucracy the “quantity” that produces budget increases is almost always in tension with “quality” which is harder to quantify and certainly harder for Congressional staff to comprehend and “sell” and for individual legislators to take credit. For example, Session’s wasteful program of prosecuting first time border jumpers for misdemeanors probably produced lots of bogus “criminal removals” and perhaps some “criminal arrests” without actually accomplishing anything useful. Indeed most evidence suggests that while wasting time on Sessions’s “racist follies,” Federal prosecutors actually reduced investigation and prosecution of real crimes (e.g. serious felonies) in Federal Courts. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/08/as-zero-tolerance-cases-skyrocket-other-prosecutions-slow/

Indeed, I surmise that an objective study of DHS’s civil, non-criminal enforcement activities would actually show little if any net benefit from leaving U.S. families without one or both parents, taking productive workers out of their jobs, and spreading fear and distrust of local police in ethnic communities. Just how that benefits anyone in the U.S. except Trump and his White Nationalist cronies isn’t apparent to me.

We also should throw in all of the legal time and court time wasted by the DOJ and other Federal prosecutors in tying up the Federal Courts with semi-frivolous litigation to advance their often illegal White Nationalist agenda. If those resources were instead dedicated to getting individuals in Immigration Court represented and improving the quality of Due Process and independence in Immigration Court, we’d be on the way to solving at least one phase of the immigration mess created largely by Congress and the last three Administrations.

For the last two years, DHS Enforcement has been operating largely without any rational enforcement objectives or professional supervision in a Department where management failure, fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic. Some meaningful oversight by the House and some requirement for rational planning, prudent use of taxpayers’ money, and accountability would be most welcome.

PWS

12-15-18

CATHERINE RAMPELL @ WASHPOST: Trump’s Immigration Restrictionism Is Destroying America, One Dumb White Nationalist Scheme At A Time! – How Racist Stupidity Is Sending “The Best & Brightest” Students Elsewhere, To Our National Detriment! — A WINNER OF THIS WEEK’S “FIVE CLOWNS” AWARD!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/one-of-americas-most-successful-exports-is-in-trouble/2018/12/13/f7234e8c-ff1b-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?utm_term=.9b66721395b9

Catherine writes:

One of America’s most successful exports is in trouble.

For decades, the U.S. higher-education system has been the envy of the world. We “sell” much more education to other countries than we “buy” from them; nearly three times as many foreign students are currently studying here as we have abroad.

In trade terms, this means we run a massive surplus in education — about $34 billion in 2017, according to Commerce Department data. Our educational exports are about as big as our total exports of soybeans, coal and natural gas combined.

But all that may be at risk.

A recent report from the from the Institute of International Education and the State Department found that new international student enrollments fell by 6.6 percent in the 2017-2018 school year, the second consecutive year of declines. A separate, more limited IIE survey of schools suggests that the declines continued this fall, too.

To be sure, some of the forces behind these decreases are beyond our (or President Trump’s) control. Some foreign governments, such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia, have reduced the scholarships that previously sent significant numbers of students to the United States, according to Peggy Blumenthal, senior counselor to the president at IIE.

China, whose students represent about a third of U.S. international student enrollment, has been investing in improving its own domestic university system, too.

But according to the schools that are now watching the trend, the biggest forces deterring international students are U.S. policy and U.S. culture.

“They see the headlines and they think that they’re no longer wanted in the United States,” said Lawrence Schovanec, president of Texas Tech University, whose foreign student enrollment declined by 2 percent this year. Sixty percent of schools with declining international enrollment, in fact, said that the U.S. social and political environment was a contributing factor, according to the IIE survey.

The most frequently cited issue, however, was “visa application process or visa issues/delays.” In the fall 2018 survey, 83 percent of schools named this as an issue, compared with 34 percent in fall 2016.

Problems began — but didn’t end — with Trump’s Muslim ban. Schools have seen students trapped abroad and have since advised some students not to go home before graduation lest they get stuck trying to come back. Said Bennington College President Mariko Silver, “We’ve seen individual students who have contacted us with the desire to come and have pulled out of the process.”

Boo-hoo, Trump supporters might say. What’s the big deal if some foreigners stay home?

Forget the feel-good explanations about how international students enrich the campus environment (which I don’t dispute). The students who come here also spend cold, hard cash: on tuition, travel, books, food, housing.

A lot of jobs depend on those students. American colleges and universities alone employed 3 million people in 2017. For context, that dwarfs the entire agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector.

And contrary to perceptions that foreign students take spots that belong to Americans, at many schools they’re enabling more American students to get a degree.

In the years after the financial crisis, as states slashed budgets for higher education, schools helped make up the shortfall by enrolling more out-of-state and international students. These students generally pay full tuition, and their higher fees are used to cross-subsidize lower, in-state tuition rates (and scholarships) of American classmates.

No wonder that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recently paid $424,000 to insure itself against a significant drop in tuition revenue from Chinese students.

More significantly, a continued drop-off in international students could cause serious pain beyond academia.

Foreign students come here in part because they’re interested in staying after graduation and working here. They disproportionately study fields that U.S. employers demand, and that U.S. students avoid. Foreign students now represent a majority of computer science and engineering graduate programs at U.S. universities, for instance.

That talent pipeline may be drying up.

Foreigners are experiencing more visa issues not only when they apply to study but also when they apply to stay and work. That might be one reason more than half of the decline in total enrollment last year was due to fewer students from India in computer science and engineering grad programs.

Our loss has become other countries’ gain. We’re still the top destination for foreign students, but Australia and Canada have each seen their international enrollments rise by double-digit percentages in the past year. They’re enticing students in word and in deed, with messages of welcome and expedited visas.

Trump likes to say that our allies are taking advantage of us on trade. In this case, would you really blame them?

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

Yup. “Bad things happen” when countries allow themselves to be ruled by bad leaders whose policies are driven by irrational fear, racism, and nationalist jingoism. They lose out to countries whose policies are governed by “enlightened self-interest” and a sense of belonging to a larger community.

Great job by Catherine of picking up on a “below the radar” way in which Trump is destroying America.

For its toxic mix of stupidity, xenophobia, racism, and incompetence in its policies toward nonimmigrant students, the Trump Administration earns this week’s coveted “Five Clowns Award!”

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

12-14-18

LITTLE SUPPORT AMONG AMERICANS FOR TRUMP’S WHITE NATIONALIST SCHEME OF SLASHING LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

https://apple.news/A0qG8LufUToKIgRLhjfQEIw

Mariana Alfaro reports in Business Insider:

Americans are more open to increased immigration than most Europeans, though far more people around the world would like to see a decrease in immigration overall, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center.

Pew surveyed 27 countries this spring on their views on immigration. Together, Pew reported, these 27 countries house more than half of the world’s international migrants. Of those surveyed, 45% said fewer or no immigrants should be allowed into their country while 36% said they want just about the same number of immigrants – including the U.S.

Among European countries, 82% of Greeks said they would like fewer immigrants to be allowed into the country, which has, since 2015, struggled with a surge of migrants and refugees escaping civil war in Syria. Nearly three-quarters of Hungarians, 71% of Italians, and 58% of Germans also believe fewer immigrants should be allowed to move to their countries, which have also been heavily affected by the refugee crisis.

In the U.S., only 29% of Americans want a decrease in immigration while 44% think about the same amount of immigrants should be allowed in. Nearly a quarter of Americans want immigration to increase. In Mexico, currently facing a surge in Central American migrants, 44% of those surveyed said they wanted immigration to decrease in the country, while 42% said they wanted it to stay the same.

Read more: Jeff Sessions said immigrants should ‘wait their turn’ to come to the US – here’s how complicated that process can be

Spain and Japan are among the most open to the idea of increased immigration, with 28% and 23% of their respective populations opting for more open borders. Japan, known for its isolationist policies and historically low immigration numbers, is currently facing a dire economic threat – its population is getting older.

The Pew report also found that outmigration is widely seen as a problem among the nations surveyed. Greeks (89%) and Spaniards (88%) are the most worried about the number of people leaving their countries, which Pew reported have seen an increase in people moving abroad in recent years. Eight out of 10 Mexicans also see outmigration as a problem. Mexico, according to the United Nations, has one of the largest numbers of people living outside their country, second only to India. But only 64% of those surveyed by Pew in India think outmigration is a problem.

Published on December 10, the report came out the same day global representatives gathered in Morocco to sign the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The non-legally binding agreement, backed by Angela Merkel, was created to manage migration for both origin and destination countries but was rejected by several nations, including the U.S., Chile, and Australia.

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

While there was little appetite (likely almost none outside of Trump’s base) for the restrictionist scheme to slash legal immigration, there also is a cautionary note for immigrants’ advocates who believe in increases in legal immigration levels; a significant plurality of Americans want to maintain legal immigration at current levels.

Consequently, even though more legal immigration channels appear to me to be 1) in our best economic interests; 2) a way of reducing “extralegal immigration;” 3) helpful in focusing the resources we spend on immigration enforcement; and 4) our destiny as a “nation of immigrants” if we wish to maintain a position of leadership among nations, there is some persuasion to be done before that’s likely to become a political reality.

PWS

12-14-18

EOIR CLIMBS ON TRUMP’S WHITE NATIONALIST DEPORTATION EXPRESS BY UNFAIRLY TARGETING REFUGEE FAMILIES — Read The Latest Analysis From Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/13/eoirs-creates-more-obstacles-for-families

Dec 13 EOIR’s Creates More Obstacles for Families

In a November 16 memo to immigration judges, EOIR’s Director, James McHenry, announced that after a nearly two-year reprieve, “Family Unit” cases are again being prioritized, under conditions designed to speed them through the immigration court system, ready or not, with or without representation, due process be damned.

“Family Unit” is a term created by the Department of Homeland Security as an “apprehension classification” which consists of an adult noncitizen parent or legal guardian, accompanied by his or her own juvenile noncitizen child. Of course, many of the highly-publicized cases of children separated from their parents at the border fall within this category.

Under the new procedures, all Family Unit (or in EOIR parlance, “FAMU”) cases must be completed within 365 days of the commencement of removal proceedings. Just as a point of comparison, many immigration judges in New York are presently setting non FAMU cases for hearings in late 2021. So EOIR wants FAMU cases to be completed in a third of the time of other cases.

In order to accomplish this, such cases (at least in the New York court) are to be scheduled for their first Master Calendar hearing before an immigration judge within 30 days of the court’s receipt of the charging document that commences proceedings. The parent and child are then to be given only one continuance of 40 to 45 days in order to try to obtain counsel. After that, the cases are to be set for a final merits hearing another five to six months out. That only adds up to about 8 months, I imagine to allow another four month “safety zone” just in case. Immigration judges are further directed to make sure they complete the cases in 365 days, and to get them done as soon as possible.

To further increase the odds of success, the FAMU cases are being assigned to brand new immigration judges, for the following reasons. First, the new judges are mostly former ICE prosecutors. Secondly, the new judges are on probation for two years, making them more likely to obey rules in a desire to keep their jobs. The new judges have also just been through training at which they were instructed by the Attorney General that sympathy has no place in their work, that those fleeing domestic violence and gang violence are undeserving of asylum, and that it is more important for them to be efficient than fair.

Judges are expected to bump non-FAMU cases if necessary to meet the completion goals. In other words, those who have patiently waited three years or longer for their day in court, and who have their evidence and witnesses lined up in the hopes of finally obtaining legal status in this country, now run the risk of having their hearings bumped for who knows how much longer in order to speed through the case of a parent and child who likely need more time to obtain counsel and prepare their claims.

I have checked with legal service providers in New York City, and have been told that the 40 to 45 days being provided by EOIR is generally not a sufficient amount of time for the respondents in such cases to retain counsel. Outside of large cities like New York, this time frame is even less realistic, due to the fewer number of NGOs receiving funding to do this type of work.

The new policy therefore lessens the likelihood that families will be able to be represented in their removal proceedings. Unfortunately, recent changes in the law achieved through the certification of cases by the Attorney General (which has continued even under interim AG Whitaker) has made the need for legal representation far more important. It is a daunting task for an unrepresented victim of domestic violence to clearly state a detailed particular social group, defined by an immutable characteristic (but not by the feared harm), and establishing the group’s particularity and social distinction in society; to then establish that the persecutor was motivated by her membership in such group; and then demonstrate both that the government was unwilling or unable to protect her and that she could not reasonably relocate within her country

As I noted in an earlier blog post, https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/1/26/0sg8ru1tl0gz4becqimcrtt4ns8yjz the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states at paragraph 28 that “a person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfills the criteria contained in the definition…Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognized because he is a refugee.” So the above requirements for particular social group claims are essentially an obstacle course that someone who is already a refugee must negotiate in order to have our government grant them the legal status to which they are entitled. The recent AG decisions have increased the difficulty of the course, and the new FAMU directive will mean that these most vulnerable refugees will have to negotiate the course at breakneck speed, and likely without the assistance of counsel. It bears noting that whatever particular social group definition the asylum-seeker offers the judge is crucial; if it contains one word too many or too few, pursuant to a recent BIA precedent decision, it cannot be corrected on appeal, even if by that stage the applicant has managed to procure representation.

Through these methods, the present administration is playing a game which will result in fewer grants of asylum. The lower grant rate will then allow the administration to claim that those seeking refuge at our southern border are not really refugees, which in turn will allow them to create even greater obstacles, which will in turn lead to even fewer asylum grants.

Tragically, the stakes in this game are high. A recent Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/asylum-deported-ms-13-honduras/?fbclid=IwAR1vLkNYocAUDPMpfHYgCGKq9jgudMgoTZE5_akRomir-Xk-u4US3crFX88&utm_term=.b7a523fb913e reported on an asylum-applicant who, after being deported to Honduras, was killed by MS-13, just as he had predicted during his hearing in immigration court. The same article stated that Columbia University’s Global Migration Project has tracked more than 60 deportees who were harmed or killed upon return to their countries. As the process is sped up, the number of mistakes leading to wrongful deportations will only increase.

As a former immigration judge, I can say with authority that it takes time and effort to reach the correct result in these cases; furthermore, the accuracy of asylum decisions greatly increases with the involvement of those with knowledge of the legal requirements. In its speed over accuracy approach, and its gaming of the system to deny more asylum claims for its own political motives, the present administration is telling refugee families that only the first and last letters of “FAMU” apply to them.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

Dec 8 Interpreting Pereira: A Hint of Things to Come?

GONZOISM LIVES: Whitaker Delivers “Gonzo Apocalypto Like” Racially Tinged Xenophobic Rant On Immigration Enforcement, Including Bogus Stats and False Narratives — Targets U.S. Courts For Upholding Constitution & Rule Of Law Against White Nationalist Assault!

https://apple.news/ALcj5KtVpQ-6BYe6egb-ipw

R.G. Ratcliffe reports for Texas Monthly:

The word had come down from the U.S. Department of Justice last summer: people who enter the country without authorization are to be referred to as “illegal aliens,” not “undocumented immigrants.” So when Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker was in Austin Tuesday to give a pep talk to the U.S. attorneys there, and he referred to these immigrants ten times as “illegal aliens,” and once resorted to a slang term that is sometimes considered racist as he described Austin as a Top 20 city, with “over 100,000 illegals” living in the area.

Immigrant advocates for years have tried to dissuade people from using terms like “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” because a person cannot of themselves be illegal. A person can commit an illegal act, such as entering the country without authorization or in violation of the law. Terms such as these, advocates say, dehumanize immigrants. The Associated Press in 2013 removed the term “illegal alien” from proper usage for journalists for this very reason.

But the Department of Justice memo says that since the word “undocumented” does not appear in the U.S. Code, attorneys and public information officers should refer to people who enter the country illegally as “illegal aliens.” In the most literal sense, this may be true, but it also advances the Trump Administration’s efforts to portray all immigrants who enter the country illegally as part of a force of darkness.

“More important than the financial cost we pay is the cost we pay in American lives. Massive illegal immigration makes all of us less safe,” Whitaker told the attorneys.

“We know that the vast majority of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl that are killing record numbers of Americans was not made in this country. It came over the Southern border. We also know that vicious gangs like MS-13 recruit new members from the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who cross our border illegally every year. The result is that Americans die every year because we do not have a secure Southern border.” He did not mention that MS-13 got its start on the streets of Los Angeles.

Whitaker pointed to the case of Juan Lopez in Austin. Lopez last month was sentenced to 49 years in prison for raping a family friend as the woman’s child watched. Lopez had been deported after serving a sentence for homicide and then re-entered the country illegally. “It is a crushing failure to secure our border and just one example of where we can do better.”

Without giving exact details, Whitaker said the U.S. Border Patrol had apprehended more than 50,000 people in the past two months who have crossed the U.S. border illegally from Mexico, including 23,000 people in family units. “That’s the size of a small city every single month.” He said the estimated 11 million people living in the United States illegally is equal to the population of Georgia.

Whitaker repeatedly emphasized the prosecution of people who enter the country illegally, but he never mentioned President Trump’s push for a border wall. He did, however, criticize federal courts that have blocked Trump’s efforts to block immigration.

Whitaker took no questions from the news media gathered for the event. It was one-way messaging. Journalists did not have a chance to ask about the wall or whether Whitaker thought the millions of people already living in the country illegally should be deported. We didn’t get a chance to ask whether immigration reform laws would ameliorate the situation. There were no questions about reports that he is under consideration to serve as the president’s chief of staff, or the status of a Department of Justice investigation into whether Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke used his office for personal gain.

Whitaker’s time in office is short. Former Attorney General William Barr has been nominated by Trump to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But while he holds the office, Whitaker should know a news conference without questions is just a dog and pony show that depends on media complicity.

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

Here’s the “full text” of Whitaker’s Speech: https://t.co/KeNU8OQXJd

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

Whitaker continues to spread the false narratives attempting to connect migrants with increased crime and drug trafficking; there is no such documented connection;
Whitaker also tries to connect migrants with gang activities; but, it’s much more likely that an asylum applicant from the Northern Triangle will be fleeing from gangs than a member of one;
Whitaker ignores the U.S.’s own role in both creating the gang problem in the Northern Triangle (it actually was “deported” from Los Angeles, as noted by Ratcliffe) and following questionable strategies to combat gangs in both the U.S. and the Northern Triangle;
The vast, vast majority of the 11 million or so undocumented individuals in the U.S. are not criminals; at worst, they are just seeking safety and a better life for themselves and their families, very understandable human tendencies; even assuming that they ultimately don’t belong here, why intentionally demean and dehumanize them by using the racially tinged term “illegal alien” and “illegals,” rather than treating them with the respect and humanity due all human beings;
The comparison between the “State of Georgia” and the number of undocumented individuals is directly out of one of Sessions’s inflammatory speeches to EOIR; the real point is that undocumented individuals are like our “51st state” — they contribute much to our economy and society (just ask those who worked for Trump) and ask for relatively little — Trump and the GOP have routinely and disgracefully exploited their labor and contributions while denying their fundamental humanity;
Well over one million of the undocumented population are actually here with legal permission: mainly through DACA and TPS; while the Administration would like to terminate those programs, they have not yet been able to do so; consequently, the individuals are not here “illegally” — they can’t be removed until their current status is terminated.
Whitaker mis-states the asylum approval rate: it’s actually 35% for 2018, not “a five-year average of 20%” as Whitaker falsely claims (since the 35% was a “recent low” the real five-year average per TRAC is much higher, well in excess of 40% — indeed up until FY 2016, asylum approvals actually exceeded denials, until the Trump Administration started interfering with the system); for the Northern Triangle it’s 23%, 20%, and 18% for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras respectively, multiples of Whitaker’s false claim of 9%; and the “allowed to remain in the U.S.” for asylum applicants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras whose cases were decided by Immigration Judges during FY 2018 were 31%, 25%, and 24% respectively);
More important, except for the restrictionist right, nobody familiar with our asylum system doubts that the approval rate for the Northern Triangle would be much higher, perhaps twice as high or more, if individuals were 1) given reasonable access to lawyers; 2) time to gather evidence and prepare their cases; and 3) had their claims adjudicated by a fair, impartial, apolitical, independent judges, well-trained in asylum law, and committed to the generous principles established by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca (not today’s politicized and captive EOIR);
Many of those denied asylum, whether properly or not, clearly face harm or death upon return — but, Whitaker doesn’t admit that we’re really knowingly returning individuals to possible death;
Actually the Federal Courts are the ones upholding the “rule of law” against the efforts of biased, unqualified, political hacks like Whitaker who are committed to carrying out a racist, White Nationalist agenda that mocks our Constitution and our national values.
As noted by Ratcliffe, Whitaker lacked the guts to take questions; not really surprising for someone so committed to various false and misleading narratives.

The appointment of Whitaker as Acting AG is every bit as much of a national disgrace as the tenure of White Nationalist Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions. That Trump’s next AG Bill Barr called Sessions “outstanding” does not bode well for the rule of law, or the legal rights and human dignity of people of color and other vulnerable groups who are the most in need of those protections.

Fortunately, the New Due Process Army is in the field and “ready for action” against the further abuses planned by Whitaker and Barr.

PWS

12-12-18

UPI ANALYSIS OF LATEST EOIR ASYLUM STATS ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT MANY FROM NORTHERN TRIANGLE (PARTICULARLY EL SALVADOR) HAVE VALID CLAIMS FOR PROTECTION, BUT SESSIONS’S POLITICAL ACTIONS AND CONTROL OVER U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES ARTIFICIALLY FORCED THE GRANT RATE DOWN! – It’s Time For An Independent “Article I” U.S. Immigration Court & A Level, Apolitical Playing Field For Asylum Applicants!

https://apple.news/AHg-L3Cy-SEG6Gi9SR1rk_w

Patrick Timmons reports for UPI:

Asylum denials jump; immigration judges’ discretion attacked

MEXICO CITY, Dec. 10 (UPI) — New data about the number of asylum applications granted by the United States this year show how the Trump administration has dramatically narrowed asylum granted to people fleeing persecution in their home countries — though significantly more Central Americans have been admitted over the past decade.

“Asylum acceptance rates are at a 20-year low, and the recent TRAC data confirms that,” said Sarah Pierce, policy analyst for the non-partisan and independent Migration Policy Institute, referring to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

For fiscal 2018, TRAC’s statistics show immigration judges denied 65 percent of asylum claims — up from 42 percent in 2017. There were 42,224 asylum cases decided in 2018, an 89 percent increase over the total number of cases decided in 2016.

Due to a backlog in the immigration system, some asylum seekers have been able to live in the United States for three years to five years while their claims are adjudicated, a situation the administration has tried to address by changing some rules and practices.

“This administration is trying to address people who are trying to take advantage of the system. But unfortunately this administration’s approach tends to punish asylum seekers rather than just specifically looking at those individuals who are taking advantage of the system,” Pierce said.

The administration’s broad approach to all asylum seekers has had the effect of narrowing asylum by increasing immigration judges’ workloads by setting quotas, ending discretionary decision making and rewriting immigration rules to deny relief to asylum seekers fleeing domestic and gang violence.

Immigration experts told UPI the administration’s changes to how immigration judges work has spiked a general increase in asylum denials.

Northern Triangle

There has been an increased flow of asylum seekers from Central American countries, particularly those from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

And the fact that more of them are getting approved shows they are “sincere humanitarian migrants,” Pierce said.

A new TRAC tool shows Central Americans now fare better than in previous years. Salvadorans receive asylum in rates higher than Guatemalans or Hondurans. In 2004, Salvadorans’ asylum approval rate was 6 percent. In 2018, it rose to 23 percent. Guatemala’s grant rate in 2018 was 18 percent, the lowest of three countries, with Honduras at 20 percent.

Pierce said that changes in immigration law under the Obama administration help account for significant changes in asylum approval rates for people fleeing the Northern Triangle. Immigration judges over the past decade were more accepting of domestic and gang violence as grounds for asylum, with successes helping to develop case law.

The rise in asylum for Salvadorans has to do with direct violent threats, rather than domestic violence, which is a common claim among Guatemalan asylum seekers, or gang violence, common among Hondurans.

“The circumstantial evidence suggests El Salvador tends to have the most direct violent threats,” said Everard Meade said, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.

Data comparing the Northern Triangle countries’ asylum seekers’ claims is hard to come by. However, Meade said in 2014 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued its report, “Children on the Run,” about unaccompanied Central American minors highlighting direct violence in El Salvador as a reason for flight. UNHCR interviewed almost 400 children with 66 percent of El Salvadorans reporting flight for threat of direct violence Guatemalans reported 20 percent, Hondurans at 44 percent.

But Central Americans’ asylum approvals might be a blip. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions this year removed domestic violence and gang violence as grounds for asylum in immigration court proceedings.

“These private acts of violence claims are typically the ones we are seeing from the Northern Triangle,” Pierce said, “including El Salvador.”

Discretionary decision-making

The general picture, however, is that more people are failing to win asylum than ever before because the Trump administration has changed how judges work.

“The asylum decisions and denial data for fiscal year 2018 is really about discretionary relief that used to be available under [President Barack] Obama but is not available under [President Donald] Trump anymore,” Meade said.

Prior to Trump-Sessions, immigration judges used to employ a form of discretionary relief called administrative closure. This was a form of temporary protection against deportation that did not grant any permanent immigration status, unlike asylum, which is a pathway to citizenship.

“Immigration judges had people coming before them who had really compelling stories but those stories did not necessarily cleave close enough to the asylum standard to grant them asylum. But the judges really felt they did not want to return them to dangerous situations, either. They also felt they were people who were credible, who had told the truth, and so they were administratively closing their cases,” Meade said.

The practice of administrative closure ended this year with a Sessions memorandum.

“Administrative closure was a widespread practice and that is exactly what explains how the denial rate can go up so dramatically without the grant rate going down. Actually, the grant rate has gone up. In defense of the institutions, the modest increase in the grant rates suggest people have some really good asylum claims,” Meade said.

The situation in El Paso

Carlos Spector, a veteran El Paso immigration lawyer, said that although the asylum rate has increased nationwide, there is little evidence of successful asylum claims in El Paso’s immigration court.

“This year, I have lost some asylum cases that had really compelling claims,” Spector said, adding that 98 percent of his clients are Mexican.

Mexicans generally do not fare well in immigration court. In 2018, 14.5 percent of Mexican asylum seekers received asylum. Part of the reason is that immigration judges were administratively closing cases, protecting from deportation but stopping short of permanent relief.

For 2018, the latest TRAC data reveal El Paso’s immigration judges reviewed 297 cases, granting asylum 47 times. In 2017, they reviewed 148 cases and granted asylum 12 times. These low asylum rates, some of the lowest in the nation, mean El Paso’s immigration judges have a reputation for enforcing law and order, Spector said.

“I’ve been tracking asylum cases of Mexican nationals for the past few years and it is more or less the same rate along the border from San Diego to Brownsville,” Spector said.

“Because we are on the border and these judges are political appointees and these judges do understand the government’s mandate of holding or guarding the border and they take that law enforcement approach,” Spector said, “the denials are much, much higher on the U.S.-Mexico border, and they always have been.”

TRAC compiled asylum approval and denial statistics for fiscal year 2018, the first full year of Trump’s presidency, based on Freedom Of Information Act requests to the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, the agency charged with adjudicating defensive asylum claims in immigration court.

Photoby Ariana Drehsler/UPI : Jose Hernández, 17, styles his hair at El Barretal shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, on Dec. 9, 2018.

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

Just as I have been saying all along! The Trump Administration’s claim that low asylum approval rates indicate the system is being “gamed” by applicants is a bogus cover up. Even taken at “face value,” a 20-25% chance of being granted asylum hardly shows a system being “gamed.” At most, it shows that Immigration Judges are applying a much more restrictive standard than Asylum Officers considering “credible fear” claims at the border. Far from being “gaming,” that would be consistent with (although not necessarily required by) an intentionally much more generous standard for getting a fair adjudication in a removal hearing (“passing credible fear”) than for actually achieving relief (“a favorable order from an Immigration Judge after a full merits hearing”).

But, what really appears to be going on here are artificially restrictive, politically inspired “tweaks” to asylum law and procedures specifically intended to disadvantage those in danger from the Northern Triangle. Additionally, inappropriate detention policies are intended to force many more applicants to proceed without lawyers or to abandon appeals — making it like “shooting fish in a barrel” for those Immigration Judges with a predilection to deny relief who are under great pressure to “produce” more final orders of removal. It also appears that a disturbing number of Immigration Judges along the Southern Border view themselves as agents of DHS and Administration enforcement policies, rather than as fair and impartial decision makers committed to giving asylum seekers the “benefit of the doubt” under the law.

This all adds up to what appears to me to be a significant “cover up” of politicized wrong-doing and a mass denial of Due Process orchestrated by the Administration through the Department of Justice.

Why are the Administration, DHS, and DOJ so afraid of giving asylum applicants fair access to lawyers, time to prepare and document their cases, and timely fair hearings before impartial quasi-judicial adjudicators whose sole focus is getting the right substantive result, rather than achieving some type of assembly line enforcement-related “production quotas?”

Why waste time on “gimmicks” — most of which eventually prove to be illegal, ineffective, or both — rather than concentrating on getting to the merits of these cases in a timely manner and “letting the chips fall where they may.”

Surely, among a largely artificially created 1.1 million case “backlog” there are hundreds of thousands of cases that could be “administratively closed” as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to allow more recently arrived cases to be timely heard without increasing backlogs or creating further wasteful “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”

Eventually, the “mask will be ripped off” what’s really happening in our U.S. Immigration Court system. When that happens, the results could be ugly and damaging to the reputations of those orchestrating and enabling what certainly appears to be a disgraceful and intentional miscarriage of justice!

PWS

12011-18

MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE ON WHY JUDGE BYBEE’S 65-PAGE EVISCERATION OF TRUMP’S LAWLESS ASYLUM ORDER IS SO IMPORTANT: “The next time Trump floats a flagrantly lawless idea, then, it’s worth remembering that nativist bluster cannot transmogrify an illegitimate command into a permissible executive order. Just because the president considers ending citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants, for instance, does not mean he can actually get away with it. Like the INA, the Constitution grants certain rights that the president cannot unilaterally rescind—including birthright citizenship. Bybee felt no compunction to pretend that Trump’s illicit scheme has any legitimacy. Neither should the rest of us.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

Stern writes:

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9^thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.

Friday’s ruling involves a proclamation that Trump signed on Nov. 9, ostensibly to address the “continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border.” The order alluded darkly to the caravan of asylum-seekers then approaching the border, which Trump tried and failed to exploit as a campaign issue. To remedy this “crisis” and protect “the integrity of our borders,” he directed the federal government to deny asylum to any immigrant who enters the United States unlawfully.

Ten days later, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar halted the new rule, holding that it likely exceeded the president’s authority. Trump responded by dismissing Tigar, a Barack Obama appointee, as an “Obama judge.” The comment led to a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who told the AP: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

As Trump escalated his feud with Roberts, his Department of Justice appealed Tigar’s ruling to the 9^thCircuit. It faced a seemingly propitious panel: Bybee, Judge Edward Leavy, and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz. Bybee is a very conservative jurist who authored the original “torture memo,” justifying the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation of detainees. Leavy is a staunchly conservative Reagan appointee; only Hurwitz, an Obama appointee, leans to the left. Under Trump’s partisan vision of the judiciary, the DOJ would seem to have a good shot at reviving the asylum rule.

But Bybee didn’t bite. In a crisp and rigorous opinion for the court, he wrote that Tigar was correct to conclude that the policy almost certainly violates the law. The problem, Bybee explained, is that Congress expressly provided asylum-seekers with the right that Trump now seeks to revoke: an ability to apply for asylum regardless of how they came into the country. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival …), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.” This provision implements the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which the United States has ratified. It directs signatories not to “impose penalties [on refugees] on account of their illegal entry or presence.”

The plain text of the law couldn’t be clearer: Immigrants in the U.S. are eligible for asylum whether they arrived legally (through a “designated port of arrival”) or illegally. If the president wants to change that fact, he’ll have to convince Congress to break its treaty obligations and alter the law.

Obviously, the Trump administration has not persuaded Congress to overhaul asylum law. So it tried to work around the existing statute by allowing unauthorized immigrants to request asylum—then directing the government to deny their application. Bybee easily disposed of this semantical workaround. “It is the hollowest of rights,” he wrote, “that an alien must be allowed to apply for asylum regardless of whether she arrived through a port of entry if another rule makes her categorically ineligible for asylum based on precisely that fact. … The technical differences between applying for and eligibility for asylum are of no consequence to a refugee when the bottom line—no possibility of asylum—is the same.”

In light of the proclamation’s fundamental illegality, Bybee, joined by Hurwitz, affirmed Tigar’s nationwide restraining order. Leavy dissented in a curious five-page opinion insisting that the INA grants the executive branch power “to bring safety and fairness to the conditions at the southern border.” His anemic analysis is no match for Bybee’s thorough demolition of the DOJ’s illogical position. It seems quite likely that a lopsided majority of the Supreme Court will eventually agree with Bybee’s majority opinion.

It is satisfying to see a “Bush judge” (in Trumpian parlance) hand the president such a stinging legal defeat. Roberts overstated the case in totally dismissing the role of partisanship in the judiciary; of course some judges are political. But for now, a majority of the federal judiciary remains willing to stand up to the president, at least when he issues blatantly illegal orders. Judges like Roberts and Bybee may let Trump manipulate ambiguous laws to do some very bad things to immigrants. But they are not willing to let the president ignore a clear and constitutional directive from Congress.

The next time Trump floats a flagrantly lawless idea, then, it’s worth remembering that nativist bluster cannot transmogrify an illegitimate command into a permissible executive order. Just because the president considers ending citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants, for instance, does not mean he can actually get away with it. Like the INA, the Constitution grants certain rights that the president cannot unilaterally rescind—including birthright citizenship. Bybee felt no compunction to pretend that Trump’s illicit scheme has any legitimacy. Neither should the rest of us.

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

Stern points out that contrary to Trump’s belief that he can bully, co-opt, and control the judicial system, in the way that other authoritarian fascists have done in the past, even so-called “conservative” judges have lines beyond which they won’t be pushed. And, lifetime tenure protects them from retaliation by Trump and his corrupt White Nationalist cronies.

Few things can be more important than having judges across the board, regardless of judicial philosophy, stand up to Trump and his lawless abuses of Executive Power as well as “pushing back” on a Department of Justice that has, with a few exceptions, lost its professionalism, moral compass, and courage, along with any semblance of independence.

PWS

12-10-18

TAL @ SFCHRON: HOW LOW CAN THEY GO? – ICE Using Kids As “Bait” To Catch Non-Criminal Migrants, As “Kiddie Gulag” Reaches New Heights!

ICE arrested undocumented adults who sought to take in immigrant children

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has arrested 170 undocumented immigrants who came forward to try to take migrant children out of government custody, including more than 100 with no criminal record, federal officials said Monday.

The new totals were released as the number of undocumented immigrant children in government custody has reached record highs, with no signs of slowing down.

According to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, the agency arrested 170 immigrants from July through November on the basis of information the government learned about them when they applied to take an immigrant child out of custody. Of that group, nearly two-thirds, or 109, had no criminal record.

ICE had confirmed 41 such arrests in September, prompting Democrats to propose legislation to block the practice. California Sen. Kamala Harris has joined onto a bill in the Senate, which has a bipartisan House counterpart, that would bar ICE from arresting an adult seeking to take in a child on the basis of information uncovered in a background check.

More: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ICE-arrested-undocumented-adults-who-sought-to-13455142.php

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

Golly gee, and some folks wonder why the “Abolish ICE” Movement continues to gather steam! Yes, ICE performs important law enforcement functions. But, lots of their “mission” isn’t really essential to good law enforcement, and some is actually quite counterproductive and wasteful.

Clearly, there is a case for Congress at least re-examining the amount of funding, priority, and effectiveness of some of which ICE is doing on the “civil side” these days. And, what would be the purpose of jamming more folks into a court system already crumbling under a largely artificially created 1.1 million case backlog? Not much that I can see, unless these folks being “lured” are really “bad actors,” which the majority of them don’t seem to be.

PWS

12-10-18

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: DHS’S ARROGANT “IN YOUR FACE” APPROACH TO “PEREIRA NOTICE” CASES APPEARS TO BE BACKFIRING WITH ARTICLE IIIs — US District Judge in Nevada Latest To Find That “Pereira Defective NTAs” Gave Immigration Judge No Jurisdiction Over Removal Case!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/8/interpreting-pereira-a-hint-of-things-to-come

I haven’t posted for a while. I’ve been extremely busy, but there was something else: my response to so many recent events has been just pure anger. Although I’ve written the occasional “cry from the heart,” I don’t want this blog to turn into the rantings of an angry old man.

So I resume posting with a case that provides a glimmer of hope (and, hopefully, a hint of things to come?). Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a court generally known for its conservatism, issued an order granting an emergency stay of removal in the case of Manuel Leonidas Duran-Ortega v. U.S. Attorney General. As is common in such types of grants, the three-judge panel issued a decision consisting of two sentences, granting the stay, and further granting the request of interested organizations to allow them to file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief.

What made this decision noteworthy is that one of the judges on the panel felt the need to write a rather detailed concurring opinion. Among the issues discussed in that opinion is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions (which I wrote about here: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/9/1/the-bia-vs-the-supreme-court) on Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case. As in Pereira, the document filed by DHS with the immigration court in order to commence removal proceedings lacked a time and date of hearing. In her concurring opinion, Judge Beverly B. Martin observed that under federal regulations, jurisdiction vests, and immigration proceedings commence, only when a proper charging document is filed. The document filed in Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case purported to be a legal document called a Notice to Appear. But as Judge Martin noted, “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira appears to suggest, as Duran-Ortega argues, that self-described “notice to appears” issued without a time or place are not, in fact, notice to appears” within the meaning of the statute.

Judge Martin (a former U.S. Attorney and Georgia state Assistant Attorney General) continued that the Pereira decision “emphasized” that the statute does not say that a Notice to Appear is “complete” when it contains a time and date of the hearing; rather, he quotes the Pereira decision as holding that the law defines that a document called a “Notice to Appear” must specify “at a minimum the time and date of the removal proceeding.” The judge follows that quote with the highlight of her decision: “In other words, just as a block of wood is not a pencil if it lacks some kind of pigmented core to write with, a piece of paper is not a notice to appear absent notification of the time and place of a petitioner’s removal proceeding.”

As this Reuters article reported (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-terminations/u-s-courts-abruptly-tossed-9000-deportation-cases-heres-why-idUSKCN1MR1HK) enough immigration judges had a similar reading of Pereira to terminate 9,000 removal cases in the two months between the Supreme Court’s decision and the issuance of a contrary ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, in which the BIA’s judges, out of fear of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, chose appeasement of their boss over their duty to reach fair and independent decisions.

Judge Martin referenced that BIA decision, Matter of Bermudez-Cota, but stated: “This court need not defer to Bermudez-Cota if the agency’s holding is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the statutes and regulations involved, or if its holding is unambiguously foreclosed by the law…In light of Pereira and the various regulations and statutes at issue here, it may well be the case that deference is unwarranted.”

For those readers who are not immigration practitioners, attorneys with ICE (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) (which is part of the Department of Justice, along with the BIA) have been filing briefs opposing motions to terminate under Pereira using language best described as snarky. A recent brief fled by OIL called the argument that proceedings commenced with a document lacking a time and date must be terminated under Pereira “an unnatural, distorted interpretation of the Supreme Court’s opinion,” and a “labored interpretation of Pereira.” A brief recently filed by ICE called the same argument an “overbroad and unsupported expansion of Pereira [which] is unwarranted and ignores the Court’s clear and unmistakable language.”

There is an old adage among lawyers that when the facts don’t favor your client, pound the law; when the law doesn’t favor your client, pound the facts; and when neither the law nor the facts favor your client, pound the table. I find the tone of the government’s briefs as sampled above to be the equivalent of pounding the table. The government is claiming that to interpret the Supreme Court’s language that “a notice that lacks a time and date is not a Notice to Appear” as meaning exactly what it says is an unnatural, distorted interpretation that is labored and ignores the clear language of the Court. The government then counters by claiming that the natural, obvious, clear interpretation is the exact opposite of what Pereira actually says.

So although it is just the view of one judge in one circuit in the context of a concurring opinion, it nevertheless feels very good to see a circuit court judge calling out the BIA, OIL, and DHS on their coordinated nonsense. Three U.S. district courts have already agreed with the private bar’s reading of Pereira, in U.S. v. Virgen Ponce (Eastern District of Washington); in U.S. v. Pedroza-Rocha (Western District of Texas); and just yesterday, in U.S. v. Soto-Mejia (D. Nev.). At this point, this is only cause for cautious optimism. But as an immigration lawyer named Aaron Chenault was articulately quoted as saying in the above Reuters article, for now, Pereira (and its proper interpretation by some judges) has provided “a brief glimmer of hope, like when you are almost drowning and you get one gasp.” Well said.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

JEFF CHASE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL SOTO-MEJIA, Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00150-RFB-NJK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

December 6, 2018

ORDER

        Before the Court is Mr. Soto-Mejia’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 21] the Indictment in this case, for the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.

        I. Factual Findings

        Based upon the record, including the joint stipulation of fact submitted by the parties [ECF No. 41], the Court makes the following factual findings. Mr. Soto-Mejia was encountered by immigration officials on February 7, 2018 in California. On that same day, February 7, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear for Removal Proceedings (NTA) against Soto-Mejia. The Notice to Appear stated that Soto-Mejia was to appear before an immigration judge on a date and time “[t]o be set” and at a place “[t]o be determined.” Soto-Mejia was personally served with the Notice to Appear at 10400 Rancho Road in Adelanto, California, 92401. The Notice to Appear contained allegations and provided a potential legal basis for Soto-Mejia’s removal from the United States. The Notice to Appear was filed with the Immigration Court in Adelanto, California on February 12, 2018.

        On February 27, 2018 an order advancing the removal hearing was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. On February 27, 2018, a letter entitled “Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings” addressed to Soto-Mejia at the Adelanto Detention Facility on 10250 Rancho Road

Page 2

in Adelanto, California, 92301 was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. The letter indicated that a hearing before Immigration Court was scheduled for March 7, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. The Notice of Hearing did not reference the nature or basis of the legal issues or charges for the removal proceedings. The Notice of Hearing also did not reference any particular Notice to Appear.

        On March 7, 2018, the “Order of the Immigration Judge” indicates that Soto-Mejia appeared at the Immigration Court hearing and that he was ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Soto-Mejia was deported on March 8, 2018. Subsequently, Soto-Mejia was encountered in the United States again and was ordered removed on March 19, 2018. The March 19 Order, as a reinstate of the prior order, derived its authority to order removal from the March 7 Order. The Indictment in this case explicitly references and relies upon the March 7 and March 19 removal orders as a basis for establishing a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by Soto-Mejia.

        II. Legal Standard

        Since a prior order of removal is a predicate element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a defendant may collaterally attack the underlying removal order.United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a collateral challenge to a deportation order, the individual must demonstrate that (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies he could have used to challenge the order (or is excused from such exhaustion); (2) the deportation proceedings deprived the individual of judicial review (or is excused from seeking judicial review); (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. 1326(d); Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680.

        A removal order is “fundamentally unfair” if (1) an individual’s due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying proceeding, and (2) the individual suffered prejudice as a result. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1048.

        III. Discussion

        The Defendant argues that this case must be dismissed because his criminal prosecution derives from a defective immigration proceeding in which the immigration court did not have

Page 3

jurisdiction to commence removal proceedings against him because the Notice to Appear initiating the proceeding was defective. He argues that the March 7 Order is thus void as the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue an order. He further argues that, as the initial March 7, 2018 deportation order is void, the subsequent reinstatement removal order of March 19, 2018 is also void as it derived its authority from the March 7 Order. Specifically, Soto-Mejia argues that the initial Notice to Appear that issued in his case did not include a time and location for the proceeding. Relying upon the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018), Soto-Mejia argues that a notice to appear must contain a location and time for a removal hearing in order to create jurisdiction for the immigration court. Id. at 2110. As the Notice to Appear in this case did not contain such information, the immigration court, according to Soto-Mejia, did not have jurisdiction to issue a removal or deportation order.

        The government responds with several arguments. First, the government argues that Soto-Mejia waived his argument regarding jurisdiction—claiming that it is personal rather subject matter jurisdiction which is at issue—by not raising a jurisdictional objection in the immigration proceeding and conceding to the immigration court’s jurisdiction by appearing. Second, the government avers that the immigration court’s jurisdiction is determined by the federal regulations and that the Notice to Appear in this case contained the information it must pursuant to those regulations to vest the immigration court with jurisdiction. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1003.15(b) and (c). Third, the government argues that the holding in Pereia is limited to the cases in which a court must determine the validity of a particular notice to appear as it relates to the triggering of the “stop-time rule.” Id. at 2116. Fourth, the government argues that there is no prejudice to Soto-Mejia as any defect was cured by the Notice of Hearing and Soto-Mejia’s participation in the removal proceedings. The Court rejects all of the government’s arguments.

        A. The Removal Orders of March 7 and March 19 Violated Due Process As the Immigration Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction

        The Court finds that Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira to be applicable and controlling in this case. First, the Court finds pursuant to the plain language of the regulations that the jurisdiction of the immigration court “vests” only “when a charging document is filed with the

Page 4

Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.14. A “Notice to Appear” is such a “charging document.” Id. at § 1003.13. Relying upon the reasoning of Pereira, this Court finds that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” is controlled by statute and not regulation, as the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Pereira the regulation-based interpretation by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (2011). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-14. And, pursuant to Pereira, a Notice to Appear must include the time and location for the hearing. Id. at 2114-17. As the Notice to Appear in this case failed to include the time and location for the hearing, the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue its March 7 deportation order.

        The Court rejects the government’s argument that Soto-Mejia waived his jurisdictional argument by not raising it earlier and by participating in the underlying immigration proceeding. The government’s argument conflates personal jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction. Soto-Mejia’s argument is founded upon his assertion that the immigration court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and not personal jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a limitation on “federal power” that “cannot be waived” so “a party does not waive the requirement [of subject matter jurisdiction] by failing to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 702-03 (1982). Moreover, the plain language of the regulation establishing the immigration court’s jurisdiction explicitly notes that an immigration court’s authority only “vests” with the filing of a “charging document” and the regulation makes no reference to a waiver exception to this requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a).

        The Court also rejects the government’s argument that the holding in Pereira is limited to cases determining the applicability of the stop-time rule. As noted, the Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira was based upon the plain language of the text of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 and 1003.14 and 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-13. Section 1003.13 specifies which documents can constitute a “charging document” for immigration proceedings after April 1, 1997. The parties all concede in this case that the only document in this record that is a “charging document” is the Notice to Appear. Id. The Court in Pereira explained that the text of Section 1229(a) lays out the statutory definition of and requirements for a “Notice to Appear” which includes the time and

Page 5

location for the hearing. 138 S. Ct. at 2114. The Supreme Court unambiguously proclaimed: “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).“‘” Id. at 2113-14 (emphasis added). While the Supreme Court applied this definition to the determination of the applicability of the stop-time rule, the express language of this holding does not suggest any limitation on the Court’s definition of what is and is not a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) with respect to the requirement for the notice to contain a time and location.

        There is no basis to assume or conclude that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) would be different without reference to the stop-time rule. That is because the fundamental question that the Supreme Court was answering in Pereira is whether a notice must contain the time and location of the hearing to be a “notice to appear” under Section 1229(a). 138 S. Ct. at 2113-17. In answering this foundational question, the Court did not rely upon the stop-time rule to determine the definition of a notice to appear under Section 1229(a). To the contrary, the Court spent considerable time explaining why consideration of the stop-time rule’s “broad reference” to all of the paragraphs of Section 1229(a) did not alter the fact that the essential definition of and requirements for the notice arise in the first paragraph. 138 S. Ct. at 2114 (noting that the “broad reference to §1229(a) is of no consequence, because as even the Government concedes, only paragraph (1) bears on the meaning of a ‘notice to appear'”). This first paragraph requires that the notice contain the time and location for the removal proceeding.

        The Court is also unpersuaded that a defect in a “Notice to Appear” can be ‘cured’ as the government suggests by the filing and/or serving of the Notice of Hearing on Soto-Mejia. That is because such an argument is contrary to the plain text of the regulation, Section 1003.14(a), which unequivocally states that an immigration court’s jurisdiction only “vests” or arises with the filing of a “charging document.” A Notice of Hearing is not one of the “charging documents” referenced in Section 1003.13. A Notice of Hearing cannot therefore commence an immigration proceeding by subsequently providing a time and location for a removal hearing. Consequently, if the immigration court’s jurisdiction never arose because the Notice to Appear was invalid, then there is no proceeding in which a Notice of Hearing could properly be filed. There is nothing to cure.

Page 6

        Moreover, the Court also finds that the Notice of Hearing in this case did not reference a specific Notice to Appear. Indeed, the government conceded and the Court finds that the Notice of Hearing form does not generally, or in this case, reference a prior specific Notice to Appear and it does not contain information about the legal issues or charges which serve as a basis for the removal proceedings. The two documents only common identifying information is the A-file number of the particular person—Soto-Mejia in this case. This means that if an individual had multiple potential charges or legal issues related to his immigration status, the Notice of Hearing could not inform him about which charges were at issue in the upcoming hearing and the Notice of Hearing could be filed months or years after the Notice to Appear. Indeed, this is the very reason that the Supreme Court in Pereira rejected the argument that the “Notice to Appear” did not have to include the time and location of the removal proceeding, because that would defeat the ultimate objective of requiring notice—allowing the person to prepare for the hearing and potentially consult with counsel. 138 S. Ct. at 2114-15. As the Court noted, if there was no requirement for this information “the [g]overnment could serve a document labeled ‘notice to appear’ without listing the time and location of the hearing and then, years down the line, provide that information a day before the removal hearing when it becomes available.” Id. at 2115. Under such an interpretation “a noncitizen theoretically would have had the ‘opportunity to secure counsel,’ but that opportunity will not be meaningful” as the person would not truly have the opportunity to consult with counsel and prepare for the proceeding.” Id. As a Notice of Hearing, like the one here, is not explicitly connected to a particular Notice to Appear and the associated charges, the Court finds that it cannot serve to ‘cure’ a defective Notice to Appear such as in this case.

        B. The Defendant Suffered Prejudice¹

        The Court further finds that the Soto-Mejia suffered prejudice as a result of the defect in the underlying proceeding. Specifically, he was subjected to removal twice based upon the initial

Page 7

March 7 Order which the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue. The government’s argument that Soto-Mejia was not prejudiced because he “participated” in the removal proceedings misses the point. It is immaterial if he participated in the proceedings. He suffered prejudice by the issuance of the deportation orders because the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to order his removal on March 7, 2018.

        IV. Conclusion

        For the reasons stated, the Court finds that the March 7 and March 19 deportation orders are void due to the immigration court’s lack of jurisdiction. As these orders are void, the Court finds that the government cannot establish a predicate element—the prior removal or deportation of Soto-Mejia—of the sole offense in the Indictment. The Indictment in this case must therefore be dismissed.

        Accordingly,

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Indictment in this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as this Court has no authority to detain Defendant Soto-Mejia pursuant to this case, he is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED.

        DATED this 6th day of December, 2018.

        /s/_________

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

——–

Footnotes:

        ^1. The Court finds that Soto-Mejia is not required to have exhausted any possible administrative remedies, because (a) the Supreme Court decision in Pereira issued after his March 7, 2018 proceeding and (b) defects as to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. at 702-03.

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

Unlike the BIA’s convoluted reasoning in Matter of Bemudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), Judge Boulware’s analysis is very straightforward and complies with both the statutory language and the Supreme Court decision. What’s not to like about that?

As I’ve pointed out before, Sessions was so busy artificially “jacking up” the backlog and intimidating the Immigration Judges working for him that he never bothered to address the many solvable legal and administrative problems facing the Immigration Courts. That could mean not only more failed criminal prosecutions, but perhaps more significantly, could invalidate the vast majority of the 1.1 million case backlog that Sessions artificially increased with his short-sighted, racially motivated “gonzo” polices and interpretations.

And Whitaker is following in his footsteps by taking issues off the “restrictionist checklist” for screwing asylum seekers and migrants, rather than addressing the real legal and administrative deficiencies that make the Immigration Court a parody of justice in America.

Sadly, I wouldn’t expect any improvement under Barr, whose recent totally revolting “paean to Jeff Sessions” (co-authored with former GOP AGs Meese & Mukasey) projects that until we get “regime change,” justice in America will continue to be reserved for well-to-do straight evangelical White men. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-can-look-back-on-a-job-well-done/2018/11/07/527e5830-e2cf-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.aaad2f8e6250

People of color and other vulnerable minorities should continue to beware of the “Department of Injustice.”

Here’s a very compelling article by ACLU Legal Director David Cole on why Bill Barr is likely to be a “Button Down Corporate Version of Jeff Sessions.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/no-relief-william-barr-bad-jeff-sessions-if-not-worse

Darn, perhaps carried away with all the tributes to Bush I, I had hoped for a conservative, law enforcement oriented, but non-racist, non-White-Nationalist approach to immigration. Something like firm, but fair, unbiased, professional, and rationally managed. Guess that just isn’t going to happen under a GOP that has made racist appeals, xenophobia, false narratives, and anti-democracy part of its official agenda. I have a tendency to give everyone the “benefit of the doubt” at least until proven otherwise. I guess I have to alter that when dealing with anyone associated with today’s GOP.

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

PWS

12-10-18

“CLOWN COURT:” NOT SO FUNNY WHEN THE SENTENCE IS DEATH — Administration’s Policies Aim At Making Already Broken System More Unfair, Arbitrary, Deadly!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/asylum-deported-ms-13-honduras/?utm_term=.28c1c97d4da9&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

Maria Sacchetti reports for the Washington Post:

On the day he pleaded for his life in federal immigration court, Santos Chirino lifted his shirt and showed his scars.

Judge Thomas Snow watched the middle-aged construction worker on a big-screen television in Arlington, Va., 170 miles away from the immigration jail where Chirino was being held.

In a shaky voice, Chirino described the MS-13 gang attack that had nearly killed him, his decision to testify against the assailants in a Northern Virginia courtroom and the threats that came next. His brother’s windshield, smashed. Strangers snapping their photos at a restaurant. A gang member who said they were waiting for him in Honduras.

“I’m sure they are going to kill me,” Chirino, a married father of two teenagers, told the judge.

It was 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, and Chirino was seeking special permission to remain in the United States. His fate lay with Snow, one of hundreds of administrative judges working for the U.S. Justice Department’s clogged immigration courts.

Their task has become more urgent, and more difficult, under President Trump as the number of asylum requests has soared and the administration tries to clear the backlog and close what the president calls legal loopholes.

In the process, the White House is narrowing the path to safety for migrants in an asylum system where it’s never been easy to win.

Snow believed Chirino was afraid to return to Honduras. But the judge ruled that he could not stay in the United States.

Nearly a year after he was deported, his 18-year-old daughter and 19-year-old son arrived in the Arlington immigration court for their own asylum hearing. They were accompanied by their father’s lawyer, Benjamin Osorio.

“Your honor, this is a difficult case,” Osorio told Judge John Bryant, asking to speed the process. “I represented their father, Santos Chirino Cruz. . . . I lost the case in this courtroom . . . . He was murdered in April.”

When Osorio paused, the judge blanched and stammered.

“You said their father’s case — did I understand I heard [it]?” Bryant asked, eyes wide.

“No,” Osorio said. “In this court. Not before your honor.”

“Well good, because — all right, my blood pressure can go down now,” Bryant said. “Yeah. I mean. Okay.”

The immigration courts declined a request for comment from Snow. But in an essay published in USA Today — after Chirino was deported but before he was killed — the judge said deportation cases could be heartbreaking.

“Sometimes, there is not much to go on other than the person’s own testimony,” he wrote. “Yet this is not a decision we want to get wrong. I’ve probably been fooled and granted asylum to some who didn’t deserve it. I hope and pray I have not denied asylum to some who did.”

Santos Chirino was killed in April 2017 after he was denied asylum and deported.

Sitting in judgment

Chirino’s daughter and son, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern for their safety, are among 750,000 immigrants facing deportation in the U.S. immigration courts. A growing number, like Chirino and his family, say they would be in grave danger back home.

A decade ago, 1 in 100 border crossers was seeking asylum or humanitarian relief, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. Now it’s 1 in 3. The intensifying caseload — nearly 120,000 asylum cases filed last year alone, four times the number in 2014 — has upped the pressure on one of America’s most secret and controversial court systems.

Judges say they must handle “death-penalty” cases in a traffic court setting, with inadequate budgets and grueling caseloads. Most records aren’t public, most defendants don’t speak English and many don’t have lawyers to represent them. Cases often involve complex tales of rape, torture and murder. Approval rates can vary widely.

The Trump administration has imposed production quotas and ordered judges to close cases more quickly. They also must enforce a stricter view on who deserves protection in the United States.

Under federal immigration law, fear isn’t enough to keep someone from being deported. Asylum applicants must prove they are a target based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, which for years has included being a victim of gang or domestic violence.

Before he was forced to resign Nov. 7 , Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that victims of gangs or domestic abuse generally would not qualify for asylum. He told a crop of new immigration judges that “the vast majority” of claims are invalid, and warned them not to rule based on a sense of “sympathy.”

“Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,” Sessions said.

Immigration Judge Lawrence Burman, the secretary-treasurer of the National Association of Immigration Judges , said “there’s a lot of unfairness” that could result from Trump’s crackdown. “We sometimes send people back to situations where they’re going to be killed,” said Burman, who serves at the Arlington immigration court. “Who wants to do that?”

The government doesn’t track what happens after asylum seekers and other immigrants are ordered deported. But Columbia University’s Global Migration Project recently tracked more than 60 people killed or harmed after being deported.

Judges’ powers are limited, immigration lawyers say, by outdated asylum laws that were designed to protect people from repressive governments rather than gangs or other threats. In Central America, many migrants flee towns where gangs and drug cartels are in control, not the government. If migrants don’t meet the strict definition of an asylee, judges must send them back to dangerous situations.

“It can be depressing. We’ve had judges quit because of that . . . or they just couldn’t stand it anymore,” Burman said. “You have to fit into a strict category, and if you don’t fit into a category, then you can’t get asylum, even if your life is in danger.”

Grafitti with a scratched-out MS-13 gang tag, near the home of Santos Chirino’s family in Virginia. Translated, the graffiti says, “If you are not of the [MS], don’t speak to me.”

‘Best of luck to you and your family’

At Chirino’s asylum hearing, Snow gently urged him to slow down as he testified from Farmville Detention Center in Virginia over the immigration court’s often glitchy version of Skype.

Osorio laid out evidence that his client’s life was in danger, according to an audio recording of the hearing. He explained how MS-13 gang members had stabbed Chirino with a screwdriver at a soccer game in Northern Virginia in 2002, and his testimony had helped send them to jail. At least one man was deported to Honduras. Now the U.S. government was trying to expel Chirino for his role in a 2015 bar fight, which he said started when gang members there snapped his photo.

Chirino told Snow he believed the police could protect him if he stayed in the United States. Osorio said gang members could easily “finish the job that they started” in Honduras, where gang violence is rampant and most serious crimes are never solved. Chirino’s friends and relatives echoed that belief in letters to the court. “Death is waiting for him,” wrote his uncle, Felipe Chirino, in Honduras.

“He can never go back,” wrote his brother, Jose Chirino, in Virginia.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor Elizabeth Dewar expressed skepticism that Chirino was really in danger after so many years away from Honduras. Noting that Chirino never reported the threats against him to the police, she told Snow: “Those aren’t the actions of someone that is in fear for their life.”

Santos Chirino explains why he’s afraid to go back to Honduras

6:21

After more than two hours in court, Snow was unsure. Immigration judges often dictate their decisions immediately after a hearing. But Snow, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said cases increasingly were too complex for that, and he didn’t want to “rush this one through.”

“I’ll do it as quickly as I can,” he told the lawyers.

“Sir?” He turned to Chirino on the television screen. “There are some complicated issues and I feel to be fair to you I need to do a written decision. . . .

“Either way, no matter how the case goes, it’s unlikely I’ll see you again. So best of luck to you and your family in the future.”

Snow’s options were limited by a technicality. Chirino could not qualify for full asylum because he failed to apply for the protection within a year of arriving in the United States or soon after the gang attack.

But the judge could still halt Chirino’s deportation temporarily, under either the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Convention Against Torture, because of the danger he would face in Honduras.

Unlike asylum, those protections do not lead to U.S. citizenship. They also are much harder to grant. Applicants must prove that there’s a “clear probability” of harm — at least 51 percent. To win asylum, in contrast, they must prove there is a 10 percent chance they’ll be harmed if they are deported.

In a ruling three months later, Snow wrote that Chirino fell short of the high standard the law required: He hadn’t proved that MS-13 would find him in Honduras, or that they were even looking for him.

“The Court is sympathetic to the risks facing the respondent,” Snow wrote. But the evidence, he said, was “insufficient to support a clear probability” that he’d be killed.

‘Should I have pitched it a different way?’: Lawyer reflects on Santos Chirino’s asylum case

A different prison

Osorio urged Chirino to appeal. The construction worker told Osorio that he couldn’t stand being locked up. Chirino paced the closet-like meeting room where they met and sobbed through the glass when his family visited. Some detainees — especially hardened criminals — can withstand the months or years of detention it takes to win their cases, immigration attorneys say. Others unravel. Their hair falls out, they lose weight. Some have committed suicide.

When Chirino gave up, Osorio felt so disheartened he offered to represent his children free.

Chirino was deported Aug. 26, 2016. His brother Belarmino, also convicted in the bar fight, had been sent back a month earlier.

Their parents’ home became a different kind of jail.

“I fear for my life on a daily basis,” Chirino wrote in an affidavit to support his children’s cases, explaining that he rarely went outside. He said MS-13 would probably kill his children if they returned to Honduras “because they are part of my family.”

On April 9, 2017 — Chirino’s 38th birthday — he decided to venture out, relatives said. He loved soccer, and in Virginia he used to play on a team named after his hometown.

He and Belarmino went to the city of Nacaome to watch a game. After they arrived, family members said, the air filled with popping sounds and screams.

Chirino was found in a red Toyota pickup, shot in the throat. His brother was on the ground, near a rock allegedly used to bash him in the head. Police recovered five bullet casings.

Relatives called Chirino’s wife and children with news of the deaths. Then his daughter phoned Osorio’s office, screaming.

The lawyer instructed her to gather the death certificates, police documents and gruesome photos that had been posted to a Honduran news website. He said he would use them as evidence for the teens’ asylum cases. And he wrote a letter to Snow, with the gory documents attached.

“Santos was murdered by purported gang members,” Osorio wrote. “Santos was telling the truth.”

The official record on the brothers’ murders remains unclear. Relatives said the brothers were attacked by gang members. But an initial police report provided by the family said people had been drinking and a fight ensued.

Honduran officials did not respond to multiple requests for information about the case.

Santos Chirino’s daughter, above, and son were brought to the United States in 2014 as threats against the family began to escalate. They are seeking asylum and are waiting for their case to be heard in Arlington immigration court.

An uncertain future

Four months after the killings, Chirino’s children arrived for a scheduling hearing in Bryant’s courtroom in Arlington. Unlike their father, they appeared in person beside Osorio, sinking uneasily into the cushioned chairs.

The siblings were raised by their grandparents in Honduras. In 2014, as threats against his family continued to escalate, Chirino and his wife brought the children to the United States.

Chirino wouldn’t let his daughter take an after-school job, telling her to study hard so she could one day become a nurse.

Now she and her brother were facing deportation too.

“I want to extend my deepest sympathy upon the death of your father,” Bryant told the siblings, after Osorio explained what had happened. “My father died many, many years ago . . . I understand how painful that is.”

“It is even more painful because of the manner in which your father died,” he added, as Chirino’s daughter wiped her eyes.

Bryant scheduled a full deportation hearing for March 2018. A snowstorm postponed it. The judge’s next available date was in 2020.

Immigration lawyer explains Santos Chirino’s death in court

1:41

Osorio says it is unclear how the Trump administration’s recent changes in asylum policy will affect the siblings’ cases. But the answer could come sooner than expected.

On Nov. 24, Chirino’s son, who had recently turned 21, was charged in Loudoun County with public intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Police had stopped the car he was riding in and arrested the driver for speeding and other charges.

After posting bail on the misdemeanor charges, Chirino’s son was transferred to Farmville, where his father had been held. ICE released him on bond, his sister said. Osorio is waiting to hear whether a new immigration hearing will be scheduled for him.

The attorney says he will do everything possible to ensure that the young man and his sister can remain in the United States. Their mother, Chirino’s widow, has kidney disease and is on dialysis, hoping for a transplant. Her condition is one of the factors Osorio plans to raise in court.

He has won other asylum cases since Chirino’s death, victories he describes as bittersweet.

“And this is what haunts me,” he emailed late one night. “Did I leave something laying on the table? Or is that just the dumb luck of our system, that in a different court, with a different judge and a different prosecutor, you get an entirely different outcome based on supposedly the same law?”

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

Go to the link for pictures by Carolyn Van Houten, recordings from the actual hearing, and an interview with Attorney Benjamin Osorio.

This happened during the last Administration at Arlington. Arlington is rightfully considered to be one of the best U.S. Immigration Courts with fair, scholarly, courageous judges who generally have been able to resist political pressure from above to cut corners and “send enforcement messages.” I saw nothing in this article to change that impression.

The decency, humanity, courage, and competency under pressure of judges like Judge John M. Bryant and Judge Lawrence O. Burman also comes through. That’s what the system should be promoting and attracting (but isn’t). Maria also movingly portrays the anguish and self-examination of a smart, caring, competent, hard-working immigration attorney like Benjamin Osorio.

But, even in Arlington, we all recognized that we were operating under less than ideal conditions that increased the likelihood of life-threatening mistakes and miscarriages of justice. And, even before Trump and Sessions, we were constrained by unduly restrictive interpretations of asylum law and intentional docket manipulation by DOJ politicos intended to reduce the number of asylum grants, prevent “the floodgates from opening,” and “send enforcement messages.” All of these are highly improper roles for what is supposed to be a Due Process focused, fair, and impartial court system.

Sadly, situations like Maria describes can’t always be prevented. I know Judge Snow to be a fair, scholarly, and conscientious jurist who always is aware of and considers the human implications of his decisions, as all of us did at Arlington. This comes through in the quote from his article in USA Today highlighted by Maria above.

If things like this happened in Arlington before Trump and Sessions, it certainly raises the question of what’s happening elsewhere right now. In some other Immigration Courts some judges are well-known for their enforcement bias, thin knowledge, and lack of professionalism.

Rather than instituting necessary reforms to restore Due Process, recognize migrants’ rights, require professionalism, and make judges showing anti-asylum, anti-female, and anti-migrant biases accountable, under Trump the Department of Justice has gone in exactly the opposite direction. “Worst practices” have been instituted, precedents and rules promoting fairness for asylum applicants reversed, judges encouraged to misapply asylum law to produce more denials and removals, the BIA turned into a rubber stamp for enforcement, and judges showing pro-DHS and anti-migrant bias insulated from accountability and empowered to crank out more decisions that deny Due Process.

One of the most despicable of the many despicable and dishonest things that Jeff Sessions did was to minimize and mock the stresses put on the respondents, their conscientious lawyers, the judges, the court staff, and the DHS litigation staff by the system he was maladministering. While a decent human being and a competent Attorney General could and should have dealt with these honestly with an eye toward working cooperatively with all concerned to build a better, fairer, less stressful system, Sessions intentionally did the opposite. He insulted lawyers, made biased, unethical statements to Immigration Judges, hurled racially inspired false narratives at asylum applicants and migrants, manipulated and stacked the law against asylum applicants, artificially “jacked up” backlogs, and ratcheted up the stress levels on the judges by demeaning them with “production quotas.” (Other than that, he was a great guy.)

Contrary to what Jeff Sessions said, being a U.S. Immigration Judge is one of the toughest judicial jobs out there, requiring a very healthy dose of sympathy, empathy, and compassion, in addition to critical examination of claims under a legal framework and our Constitution.

I had to remove some individuals I found to be in danger because I couldn’t fit them into any of the protections available under law. But, it certainly made me uncomfortable. I did it only reluctantly after exploring all possible options including, in some cases, “pushing” ICE to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in some humanitarian situations. That’s what “real judging” is about, not the simplistic, de-humanized, mechanized assembly line enforcement function falsely promoted by Sessions.

We should be concerned about laws and interpretations that fail to protect lives. We should be working hard to insure, to the maximum extent possible, that we save lives rather than returning folks to death. We must insure that no biased, unethical, and unprincipled person like Jeff Sessions ever gets personal control of this important court system in the future.

Instead, the Trump Administration is working overtime to guarantee more miscarriages of justice, violate international laws, and achieve more preventable deaths of innocent folks. We should all be deeply ashamed of what America has become under Trump.

PWS

12-06-18

THE GIBSON REPORT – 12-03-18 – Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group – Learn About Trump’s Self-Created “Bogus Border Crisis!”

THE GIBSON REPORT – 12-03-18 – Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group – Learn About Trump’s Self-Created “Bogus Border Crisis!”

TOP UPDATES

Trump designates Dec. 5 as National Day of Mourning for President George H.W. Bush, federal offices to close

It’s unclear what this means for EOIR and USCIS at this time with mixed reports.

The US has made migrants at the border wait months to apply for asylum. Now the dam is breaking.

Vox: Before 2016, and in some cases as recently as six months ago, they would have had no problem and no delay. But for the last several months, the Trump administration has made a practice of limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the US each day — a policy it calls “metering.”

Incoming Mexican president faces immediate border test

Politico: The new Mexican government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador will press the United States to invest least $20 billion in Central America and, reportedly, faster asylum processing in exchange for allowing migrants to remain in Mexico while they seek refugee status in the U.S.

Caravan women launch hunger strike, putting pressure on U.S. and Mexico

Politico: A group of migrant women in the caravan announced Thursday that it would begin a hunger strike to protest the slow pace at which the women are being allowed to apply for asylum, as officials from the United States and Mexico are set to meet this weekend to negotiate a plan to process their claims.

U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade

Pew: The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. fell to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on 2016 government data. The decline is due almost entirely to a sharp decrease in the number of Mexicans entering the country without authorization.

The key reason why Central Americans don’t want asylum in Mexico

Quartz: Mexican immigration authorities are even less prepared than the US to process them. The Mexican agency charged with helping refugees, COMAR by its Spanish acronym, only has four offices, and none near the border. Earlier this year, Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission warned of the “possible collapse” of the country’s refugee protection system as COMAR’s backlog grew to 60% of applications. It also identified “situations of risk of torture and abuse” in immigrant detention centers, which it found had no adequate living conditions or access to medical attention.

ICE Threatens ‘Likely Increase’ of Immigration Raids in New Jersey

NBC: The federal agency’s threat came a day after the New Jersey attorney general announced new restrictions on local law enforcement cooperation with ICE.

Successes at One Year and Expanding the Movement for Universal Representation

Vera: The Vera Institute of Justice is excited to announce that we are expanding our Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Network – currently a diverse group of a dozen cities and counties across America dedicated to providing publicly funded universal representation for people facing deportation.

Senate panel delays vote on Trump pick to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement

WaPo: A key Senate committee postponed a vote Wednesday on President Trump’s pick to lead the main agency handling immigration enforcement as a coalition of unions raised “serious concern” about Ronald D. Vitiello’s ability to effectively oversee the agency.

Immigrant rights groups find Trump is their best fundraiser

CBS: The American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed more than 50 immigrants’ rights lawsuits against the Trump administration, recorded its most successful #GivingTuesday in years. That wasn’t just the case just for the ACLU. This year’s day for charitable giving was the biggest ever, raking in nearly $400 million in donations online in the U.S. alone, according to the 92nd Street Y.

Campaign is under way to close Alabama facility routinely identified by advocates and detainees as one of the worst in US

Guardian: Housed in the Gadsden county jail since the late 1990s, the gray slab of concrete that is the Etowah Detention Center, is routinely identified by lawyers, advocates and detainees as one of the worst Ice facilities in the United States. It has one of the longest detention times of all Ice facilities.

USCIS FY 2019 budget

In what appears to be a new development, Page 71 of the USCIS FY 2019 budget indicates that USCIS wants to transfer “$207.6 million in Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) fees to ICE to support immigration investigation and enforcement.”

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Deportation may be worse than jail, a court just ruled. Why that’s a big deal.

WaPo: New York’s highest court boldly ruled Tuesday that deportation may be a more severe consequence than even a few months behind bars. The divided decision created a situation in which two individuals charged with the same low-level offense have vastly different trial rights — a noncitizen is entitled to a jury trial, while a U.S. citizen is not. [Note: This is obviously being appealed.]

Baltimore sues Trump administration over legal immigrants’ access to public benefits

WaPo: The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration’s expanded definition of “public charges” has had a chilling effect on the city’s immigrant community, which Baltimore officials see as key to its revival. Legal immigrants have stopped using school programs, food subsidies, housing vouchers and health clinics for which they are eligible, the lawsuit says, hurting the city’s mission to welcome immigrants and creating long-term expenses as Baltimore deals with a sicker and less-educated community.

US sued for $60 million after infant in detention later died

AP: Juarez’s lawyers said Mariee developed a respiratory illness while she and her mother were detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. They accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of releasing the pair while Mariee was still sick.

The National Vetting Center Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Working Group Releases Its Charter

Approved National Vetting Center Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Working Group Charter, established pursuant to National Security Presidential Memorandum-9, “Optimizing the Use of Federal Government Information in Support of the National Vetting Enterprise,” dated February 6, 2018. AILA Doc. No. 18112870

CBP Commissioner Issues Statement on Closing of San Ysidro Port Due to Caravan

CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan conducted a call with media and released his opening remarks, “We will continue to monitor the situation closely. And while we seek to maintain lawful trade and travel to the maximum extent, we will be prepared to close San Ysidro again if….”AILA Doc. No. 18112762

DHS Issues Statement on San Ysidro Port of Entry Closure

DHS Secretary Nielsen issued a statement after CBP closed the San Ysidro port of entry on 11/25/18, stating “As I have continually stated, DHS will not tolerate this type of lawlessness and will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons.” AILA Doc. No. 18112734

Deaths at Adult Detention Centers

Continually updated list of press releases issued by ICE announcing deaths in adult immigration detention. AILA Doc. No. 16050900

CBP Describes Logistics of Operation Secure Line

CBP released information on the role that the American military troops plays with CBP along the United States/Mexico border. AILA Doc. No. 18112831

USCIS Provides Q&As from Teleconference on Continued Expansion of NTA Policy Guidance

USCIS provided Q&As from a 11/15/18 teleconference on the continued expansion of the implementation process of the 6/28/18 NTA memorandum. AILA Doc. No. 18110836

RESOURCES

ILRC: Public Charge and Naturalization

U.N. Report: 50,000 Women A Year Are Killed By Intimate Partners, Family Members

Life Under Gang Rule in El Salvador

FOIA for Immigration Lawyers

Dealing with Back Taxes: Offer and Compromise Tool

EVENTS

12/03/18Case Rounds: U and VAWA Q&A

12/4/18Asylum for Victims of Persecution by Private Actors After Matter of A-B-

12/5-6/1851st Annual Immigration and Naturalization Institute

12/11/18 Accidental Adjustments: How to Handle Wrongly Issued Status

12/17/18 20th Annual AILA New York Chapter Immigration Law Symposium

12/19/18Full Frontal’s Holiday Special “Christmas on I.C.E.”

12/20/18 Mental Incapacity: Merging Treatment and Enforcement

1/12/192019 Crimes & Immigration In New York City

2/7/19 Basic Immigration Law 2019: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas

2/8/19 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Immigration Relief 2019

03/12/19 AILA Spring Federal Court Litigation Conference

ImmProf

Sunday, December 2, 2018

Immigration Article of the Day: Special International Zones in Practice and Theory by Tom W. Bell

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Immigration Article of the Day: A Legal Sanctuary: How the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Could Protect Sanctuary Churches by Thomas Scott-Railton

At the Movies: The Long Ride, A Documentary

Friday, November 30, 2018

Legomsky’s Immigration Law Textbook Appears in Ariana Grande Video

From The Bookshelves: Asymmetry

Steve King’s ‘racist’ immigration talk prompts calls for congressional censure

Asylum Decisions and Denials Jump in 2018

Statement of Bob Carlson, American Bar Association President on Improving the U.S. immigration system

Immigration Article of the Day: Big Immigration Law by Stephen Manning and Juliet P. Stumpf

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Craig Mousin: Debating Immigration Law in the Midst of Exile

Domestic Workers Legislation Introduced by Senator Harris and Representative Jayapal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Nails It

5 facts about “illegal immigration” in the U.S.

A 6 year old Appears in Immigration Court by Himself

Immigration Article of the Day: Beauty and the Beast: Disney’s Use of the Q and H-1B Visas by Kit Johnson

ICE Nominee Vitiello Compared Trump with Dennis the Menace

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

$60 Million Lawsuit over Death of Toddler following ICE Detention

Race is Politics: Castas Mexicanas and Mexican Views on the Migrant Caravan

Habitual Punishment: Family Detention and the Status Quo

U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Immigration Article of the Day: Beyond Severity: A New View Of Crimmigration by Rachel E. Rosenbloom

The chaos behind Donald Trump’s policy of family separation at the border: A 60 Minutes investigation has found the separations that dominated headlines this summer began earlier and were greater in number than the Trump administration admits

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Dutch Church Holds Worship Service for 27+ Days to Protect Immigrant Family from Deportation

Vera Institute Expanding SAFE Network of Local Jurisdictions Supporting Universal Representation

Deporter-in-Chief: Obama v. Trump, aka American Presidents, Deportation, and Human Rights Violations

Matter of E-R-M-: No Basic Criminal Procedure Protections for ICE Detainees

Race is Politics: Plan Pueblo Panama and Increased Violence in Honduras

Hasan Minhaj: Immigration Enforcement/PATRIOT Act

Good Law | Bad Law #108 – Trump, Anti-Muslim Rhetoric and the Supreme Court W/ Sahar Aziz

#GivingTuesday

Teaching Justice in the Context of Immigrants’ Rights Webinar

Monday, November 26, 2018

Challenge Coin Craziness

Holding On: A Virtual Experience of Internal Displacement

US/Mexico Border Tensions Escalate, Major Border Crossing Closed

AILA NEWS UPDATE

http://www.aila.org/advo-media/news/clips

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

I draw your attention to Elizabeth’s “Item 2” which is a lengthy, outstanding article by Dara Lind of Vox News on the fake, self-created “Trump Border Crisis.”

The only quibble I have with Dara’s article is the suggestion that there might be a need for more detention space. I say BS! Unquestionably, by working together with the UNHCR, the Mexican Government, and NGOs such as the ACLU, KIND, and the ABA, the DHS could find suitable placements for individuals waiting for credible fear interviews once they had passed a basic screening and background check.

Indeed, one of the key findings of a recent TRAC Report on Immigration Court Asylum Decisions is that 98.6% of asylum seekers appear in court for their decisions, win or lose! http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/ This stands in sharp contrast to the false claims by the Administration and its “bureaucratic mouthpieces” that asylum seekers “bolt” once they get into the country.

When given access to competent legal assistance and a chance to understand both the system and their obligations, almost all appear. Clearly, the Administration should be working with the private sector to get asylum seekers represented rather than undertaking cruel and overall futile and wasteful efforts to detain, deter, and punish them.

And how about some truthful narratives, rather than the bogus ones taken right out of the right-wing restrictionist playbook? Again, it’s past time for some Congressional oversight and accountability for the many falsehoods about immigration purveyed not only by the Trump politicos (like Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, et al.) but also by career officials who should know better. Indeed, in many cases, such as TPS and the Travel Ban, the Administration’s bogus narratives directly and demonstrably contradict the Government’s own information and recommendations by career officials with expertise in the areas. This shameful abuse of our civil service system and its expertise by biased, prejudiced, and unqualified politicos must stop.

And, as always, thanks Elizabeth for all you do for the New Due Process Army!

PWS

12-03-18

GONZO’S WORLD: STILL A BIG LOSER! – He’s Gone, But His Scofflaw Positions Continue To Be Hammered By The Real (“Article III”) Courts! – Federal Judges Smoke Illegal “Sanctuary Cities” & “Transgender Troops” Abuses By Administration!

https://apple.news/Aw1vvPVvPTMGBMle4Z4fXow

Sophie Tatum reports for CNN:

US judge rules against Trump administration in suit over policing grants to ‘sanctuary cities’

Updated 5:21 PM EST November 30, 2018
Washington

A federal judge ruled against the Justice Department on Friday in a lawsuit over withholding federal money from so-called sanctuary cities, the latest blow to the Trump administration’s hardline immigration tactics.

The lawsuit challenged the Justice Department’s efforts to punish sanctuary cities by withholding a key law enforcement grant the department said was available only to cities that complied with specific immigration enforcement measures.

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 in ways that were unlike years past, like allowing federal law enforcement agents to have access to detainees in jails for questioning about their immigration status.

According to the ruling, the seven states involved in the lawsuit, as well as New York City, had been receiving the grant money since Congress created the fund for the “modern version of the program in 2006,” and the funds “collectively totaled over $25 million.”

“In 2017, for the first time in the history of the program, the U.S. Department of Justice (‘DOJ’) and Attorney General (collectively, ‘Defendants’) imposed three immigration-related conditions that grantees must comply with in order to receive funding,” wrote Judge Edgardo Ramos, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, in his ruling.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood led the suit and was joined by New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington state and Virginia.

Underwood said in a statement on Friday that the ruling was “a major win for New Yorkers’ public safety.” CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

This isn’t the first ruling of its kind — in April, a panel of three judges from the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in favor of the city of Chicago that blocked the Justice Department from adding new requirements for the policing grants.

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

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/419170-judge-refuses-to-hold-or-limit-ruling-on-transgender-military-ban

Lydia Wheeler reports in The Hill:

A federal district court judge on Friday denied the Trump administration’s request to block or limit the scope of a ruling that temporarily prohibits the government from enforcing its ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the court is not convinced the government will suffer irreparable harm without a stay of the court’s October 2017 preliminary injunction.

The government had asked for a stay pending any potential, future proceedings in the Supreme Court. Bypassing normal judicial order, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court last week to review the case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Arguments before the appeals court are scheduled for Dec. 10.

At the very least, the government asked the district court to limit the nationwide scope of the injunction while the court weighs in, but Kollar-Kotelly refused. She said the government had not convinced the court that a more limited injunction is appropriate.

“Without supporting evidence, defendants’ bare assertion that the Court’s injunction poses a threat to military readiness is insufficient to overcome the public interest in ensuring that the government does not engage in unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct,” she said.

“After all, ‘it must be remembered that all Plaintiffs seek during this litigation is to serve their nation with honor and dignity, volunteering to face extreme hardships, to endure lengthy deployments and separation from family and friends, and to willingly make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives if necessary to protect the Nation, the people of the United States, and the Constitution against all who would attack them,’ ” she said.

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

Not surprisingly, policies stemming from racism and homophobia being advanced for crass political reasons aren’t doing very well in Federal Courts. There, the judges tend to prefer cogent legal arguments. The latter is something for which Gonzo was never known. Indeed, a number of the biased based positions he advanced in support of the Administration were so outlandish that the judges actually gave the Government additional time to develop a legal rationale. But, that also proved to be time wasted, because there never was any legal rationale for these policies and legal positions. Just hate and bias, and an ignorance of the real meaning of our Constitution.

There’s lots of irony, indeed total absurdity, in Sessions’s audaciously bogus claim that he “stood for the rule of law.” Safe to say that no Attorney General since “John the Con” Mitchell has done so much to undermine our Constitutional system and the real “rule of law.”

PWS

12-03-18

ICE DETENTION ABUSES INDIVIDUALS – IS THERE A COVER UP? – “The problem with these places is that they dehumanize you so much. They hinder everything. They screw your life.” – Time For Some Oversight & Accountability!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/02/etowah-the-ice-detention-center-with-the-goal-to-make-your-life-miserable?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Etowah: the Ice detention center with the goal to ‘make your life miserable’

Campaign is under way to close Alabama facility routinely identified by advocates and detainees as one of the worst in US

Khushbu Shah in Gadsden, Alabama for The Guardian:

The Etowah Detention Center, an all-male facility housing about 300 detainees. Photograph: Adelante Alabama

During his detention in Gadsden, Alabama, Alex Matheus started losing his hair.

It wasn’t just that he was getting older, his hair was falling out in clumps from the stress and frustration of long-term detention in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice).

“That’s very common in Etowah,” the 44-year-old Venezuelan said by telephone from his new, temporary home in Italy, where he is living as he seeks to return to the US.

Housed in the Gadsden county jail since the late 1990s, the gray slab of concrete that is the Etowah Detention Center, is routinely identified by lawyers, advocates and detainees as one of the worst Ice facilities in the United States. It has one of the longest detention times of all Ice facilities.

The all-male facility, housing on average 300 detainees according to Ice data, ranks sixth in the highest number of calls made to the Ice Detention Reporting and Information Line related to sexual and/or physical abuse incidents, according to a study from Freedom for Immigrants. Human Rights Watch documented the “spotty access to healthcare” at Etowah. There is a campaign run by civil, immigrant, and human rights organizations to shut down Etowah.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Alex Matheus the day he left Etowah. Photograph: The Guardian

Sitting next to the sheriff’s office in Gadsden, the detention facility stands out because of the barbed wire wrapped around the wall. There’s not much else around. The average income in town is just under $19,000 and more than a quarter of the community lives in poverty. This decade alone, the population has decreased 4%. So it makes sense the county would like to keep a multimillion dollar endeavor going.

Matheus spent 17 months in Etowah enduring the bare bones facilities. “They don’t have a yard. They don’t have recreational facilities. They don’t have libraries. They don’t have big common areas to hold people.” He wasn’t allowed outside its concrete walls, even for a short walk, for more than 500 days – until his deportation.

A Venezuelan asylum seeker, who had lived in the United States since 2000, Matheus broke commercial laws by shipping gas masks to the government opposition in his home country. He spent time in federal prison and on the day of his release, was taken straight to Ice custody, first at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, and then to Etowah.

Kenyan asylum seeker Sylvester Owino arrived at Etowah in 2013, after being in Ice custody for more than seven years in California and Arizona. As a “prolonged detainee”, little should have surprised the Kenyan asylum seeker about his latest detention center.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Protesters at Etowah. There is a campaign run by civil, immigrant, and human rights organizations to shut down the facility. Photograph: Adelante Alabama

But things were done differently in rural Alabama.

In his first weeks, he noticed officers manning the detention facility were selling contraband to detainees. Vodka in plastic water bottles for $50. Weed in letter-sized white envelopes for $400. Cell phones went for $300. Officers sold a pack of cigarettes for $100.

Then there were the bribes.

One day, an officer approached Owino, telling him he didn’t have lunch and asking Owino to make him something to eat. So the detainee used the ramen noodles he had bought through the commissary, and mixed it with tuna for the officer.

“You share the food so they gave you privileges. So instead of being locked down, they let you out. You give him honey buns, you make him coffee,” he said.

Read more

With his budget noodle offering, Owino said he was able to watch a soccer game.

The Guardian spoke with a number of detainees – and reviewed a number of lawsuits – who had spent recent months and years in the facility. All complained about the standard of nutrition. In March, Alabama’s al.com reported now-outgoing sheriff Todd Entrekin legally – through a loophole in state law – pocketed nearly $750,000 allocated for food provisions in the jail.

Months later, after national coverage and backlash, Governor Kay Ivey sent a memorandum to the state comptroller rescinding the validity of the law, no longer allowing food services allowances to be made to sheriff’s accounts directly.

A 2016 report from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Detention Oversight Compliance Inspection logged similar instances they called “deficiencies” in food and medical standards.

Ice said Etowah operates in accordance with its standards. “As far as facility conditions, all Ice facilities are subject to regular inspections, both announced and unannounced, and those inspections have repeatedly found the Etowah County Detention Center to operate in compliance with Ice’s rigorous national detention standards. The facility was most-recently inspected in July,” Ice spokesman Bryan Cox told the Guardian in an email.

The almost two years Owino spent in Etowah were the worst years of his detention, Owino said.

Matheus agreed. “When you are anyone in the US, you start to fight your case hard and they send you to Alabama to wear you out,” he said. “I spoke to one [officer] and the guy said, my job is basically to make your life miserable. He told me that straight to my face”

The Etowah County Sheriff’s Office would probably like to change that perception. On a recent Guardian visit to the facility, Captain Mike O’Bryant introduced Jose Alfredo Reyes, 40, who has been in the facility for more than 18 months and had already agreed to an interview.

Reyes had nothing bad to say about the facility, except the lack of sunlight and mediocre food. “I told the captain, don’t worry, I won’t say nothing bad about you!” he said.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest
According to Christina Mansfield, the co-executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, ‘Etowah is one of the worst immigrant jails in the country.’ Photograph: Adelante Alabama

According to Christina Mansfield, the co-executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, “Etowah County Detention Center is one of the worst immigrant jails in the country. For years we have been documenting and drawing attention to abuses – such as physical assault and medical neglect – at the hands of the sheriff’s office and Ice. Several detained individuals and our volunteers have even been retaliated against for speaking out against these intolerable conditions. It’s time for Etowah to be shut down.”

Cox, in response to the allegations outlined in this story, said: “The allegations you’ve received are contradicted by the inspection findings of numerous entities that include independent third-party inspectors.”

Etowah sheriff’s office did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comments on the allegations put forth by former detainees and activists.

Matheus never had his wife visit from Florida because he said it didn’t make sense for her to visit for 20 minutes and still only talk through a video link.

He was deported in May 2017, back to Venezuela, where he was immediately detained. “They knew everything about me. They had a full folder against me. The US government provided everything to them. I had to pay [a bribe of] thousands of dollars to be released.”

Owino had the same experience as Kenyan authorities have also received his asylum application and related documents. He is out on bond in California, with a hearing coming up in the coming months for his asylum case.

Matheus left Venezuela in early October to seek citizenship in Italy, the home of his grandparents. Now he lives alone, holding onto receding hope he may be able to return to the United States as his case is fought in court. He lives alone, in a small apartment in Calabria, away from his wife in Florida – whom he hasn’t seen in nearly a year. The impact of his time in Etowah remains with him.

“People forget you were a real person, a family guy, a regular person. Basically, you are going back to society and you are supposed to function as a normal person again. The problem with these places is that they dehumanize you so much. They hinder everything. They screw your life,” he said.

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

These are the kinds of abuses that happen when we enable the DHS/ICE “New American Gulag.” It’s time for some oversight and a major reduction in the funds allocated for unnecessary and inhumane immigration detention. It’s also past time for Congress to repeal so-called “mandatory indefinite detention” (before it is held to be unconstitutional).

PWS

12-02-18

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION “POLICIES” ARE BASED ON RACISM, CRUELTY, LIES, & KNOWINGLY FALSE NARRATIVES — THE GOP HAS SOMETIMES ENCOURAGED, & OTHER TIMES ENABLED, THESE OUTRAGES AGAINST HUMANITY & THE RULE OF LAW — Now Some Accountability For These Despicable Actions Are On the Horizon!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/28/the-true-depths-of-trumps-cruelty-are-about-to-be-exposed/

Greg Sargent writes for the WashPost:

The House GOP’s near-total abdication of any oversight role has done more than just shield President Trump on matters involving his finances and Russian collusion. It has also resulted in almost no serious scrutiny of the true depths of cruelty, inhumanity and bad-faith rationalization driving important aspects of Trump’s policyagenda — in particular, on his signature issue of immigration.

That’s about to change.

In an interview with me, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee vowed that when Democrats take over in January, they will undertake thorough and wide-ranging scrutiny of the justifications behind — and executions of — the top items in Trump’s immigration agenda, from the family separations, to the thinly veiled Muslim ban, to the handling of the current turmoil involving migrants at the border.

“We will visit the border,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who is expected to chair the committee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, told me. “We will hold hearings in committee on any and all aspects of DHS. … We will not back off of this issue.”

This oversight — which could result in calling for testimony from Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigration agenda — will include scrutiny of the administration’s justifications for its policies. Importantly, Thompson tells me Democrats will seek to grill officials on what went into Trump’s public statements on various aspects of the issue, many of which are falsehoods.

On asylum seekers, for instance, Trump’s public rationale for his various efforts to restrict their ability to apply (which is their legal right), is based on lies about the criminal threat they supposedly pose and absurd exaggerations about the rates at which they don’t show up for hearings.

Migrant caravan crisis escalates with tear gas at border fence

U.S. authorities fired tear gas at members of a Central American migrant caravan who had rushed the fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico on Nov. 25. (Video: Drea Cornejo , Blair Guild/Photo: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters/The Washington Post)

To be clear, Trump has used these rationales to justify actual policies with real-world impact, such as the effort to cruelly restrict asylum-applications to only official points of entry. Trump has also threatened a total border shutdown. Hearings could reveal that the justifications are nonsense, and spotlight their true arbitrary and cruel nature (putting aside for now that their real motive is ethno-nationalism).

“All this innuendo we hear about criminals coming in the caravan, we just want to know, how did you validate this?” Thompson told me, adding that DHS officials would be called on in hearings to account for Trump’s claims. “Policy has to be backed up with evidence. So we will do rigorous oversight.”

This will also include a look at the recent tear-gassing of migrants, and the administration’s public statements about it and justifications, Thompson said. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has defended the fact that tear gas appears to have impacted children by claiming they were used as “human shields.”

The use of the military as a prop

Thompson said such scrutiny could dovetail with an examination of Trump’s use of the military at the border as campaign propaganda, though that might involve the House Armed Services Committee. “We have to get full disclosure in a public setting or a classified setting,” Thompson said. “Under no circumstances will we not get information.”

By the way: Even if you take some of Trump’s complaints about asylum seeking seriously — there are serious issues with backlogs that have real consequences — you should want this oversight. If done well, it could shed light on actual problems, such as the role of the administration’s deliberate delays in processing asylum seekers in creating the current border mess, to the real need to reorganize the bureaucracy to relieve backlogs and to pursue regional solutions to the root causes of migration surges.

The overall goal, Thompson said, will be this: “As a nation of immigrants ourselves, we want to make sure that our process of immigration that includes asylum-seekers is constitutional and represents American values.”

Family separations and the travel ban

Thompson told me the committee would also look at the process leading up to the travel ban, which proceeded despite the fact that two internal Homeland Security analyses undercut its national security rationale.

Democrats can demand that DHS officials justify that policy. “What did you use to come up with this travel ban? How did you select these countries?” Thompson said, previewing the inquiry and vowing subpoenas if necessary. “We will ask for any written documentation that went towards putting the ban in place, what individuals were consulted, and what the process consisted of.”

Thompson also said the run-up to the implementation of the family separation policy and its rationale would receive similar scrutiny, as well as at the conditions under which children have been held, such as the reported Texas “tent city.” “Somebody is going to have to come in and tell us, ‘Is this the most efficient way to manage the situation?’” Thompson said. But also: “How did we get here in the first place?”

What can Democrats do?

One big question: What will House Democrats do legislatively against such policies? Thompson told me the goal is to secure cooperation with DHS, but in cases where the agency continues policies that Democrats deem terribly misguided or serious abuses, they can try to legislate against them. That would run headlong into Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate, at which point one could see discussion of targeted defunding of certain policies, though whether that will happen or what that might look like remains to be seen.

“As far as I’m concerned, no option is off the table,” Thompson said. Some more moderate House Democrats who won tougher districts might balk at such a stance, but Thompson said: “Every committee has responsibilities, and we have to carry them out.”

The big story here is that Trump has relied on the outright dismissal of his own administration’s factual determinations to justify many policies, not just on immigration, but also with his drive to weaken efforts to combat global warming despite the big report warning of the dire threats it poses.

The administration will strenuously resist Democratic oversight, and I don’t want to overstate what it can accomplish. But House Democrats must at least try to get into the fight against Trump’s war on facts and empiricism wherever possible. And when it comes to the humanitarian crises Trump has wrought on immigration, this is particularly urgent.

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

Finally, some much-needed, long-overdue accountability, fact-finding, and truth about Trump’s intentionally cruel and usually lawless immigration policies and those sycophants and toadies who implement them and egg him on. No, it won’t necessarily change things overnight. But, having some “pushback” and setting the factual record straight for further action is an important first step. And, I hope that the absolutely avoidable politically created mess in the U.S. Immigration Courts, and their disgraceful abandonment of Due Process as their sole focus, is high on the oversight list!

PWS

12-02-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Dec 13 EOIR’s Creates More Obstacles for Families

Dec 8 Interpreting Pereira: A Hint of Things to Come?

Related posts:

Fortunately, the New Due Process Army is in the field and “ready for action” against the further abuses planned by Whitaker and Barr.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

Related posts:

Sitting in judgment

‘Best of luck to you and your family’

An uncertain future

Related posts:

And, as always, thanks Elizabeth for all you do for the New Due Process Army!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: