"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
*********************************
Thanks, Roberto!
Just think how much better this system would work if Immigration Judges were getting guidance from the BIA to get these correct in the first place.
Also raises additional questions of why: 1) cases like this aren’t precedents; and 2) so-called “Temporary” Appellate Immigration Judges like Judge Gabe Gonzalez are “outperforming” most “permanent” BIA Judges?
PWS
05-16-22
|
|
*************************************
Get the full Levin Report here:
If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.
If you would like to share tonight’s newsletter, links to these stories can be found here and here. Thanks for supporting the LR!
Of course there is no causal connection between the U.S. nationwide formula shortage and providing the necessities of life to those in the DHS “New American Gulag.”
Nor are these asylum applicants illegally present in the U.S. Most were allowed in to pursue their legal right to asylum, after having been found to have a “credible fear.” Indeed, the “illegality” here is the DHS’s failure to recognize and carry out our legal and moral obligations to give all asylum seekers a fair opportunity to present their claims before impartial expert adjudicators.
Additionally, starving asylum seekers’ children would not in any way address the national shortage of formula. No, it would just be another gratuitous act of cruelty motivated by hate and racism. In other words, standard GOP policies.
PWS
05-15-22
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201828.P.pdf
Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their
removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.
However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to
1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.
3
satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
A better quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:
While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still
comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.
********************************
Well, at least one judge got it right!
The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.
Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!
PWS
05-15-22
. . . .
No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.
That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.
But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.
To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.
But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.
So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”
At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.
That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.
Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.
And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.
Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.
**************************
Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.
He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.
Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.
PWS
05-09-22
Critics were stunned Saturday after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas scolded Americans for not accepting controversial rulings — after his own wife battled against the results of a legitimate presidential election.
Thomas chided a distraught public in comments Friday at a judicial conference in Atlanta following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would gut Roe v. Wade and a half-century of the right to an abortion.
He complained that Americans are “addicted” to results they want — while “not living with” rulings they oppose. He warned that the court will not be “bullied” in the face of protest. Declining respect for the law and institutions, Thomas warned, “bodes ill for a free society.”
Thomas detractors were agog. Not only has his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, refused to “live with” the presidential election, he was the sole Supreme Court justice to vote that former President Donald Trump should not have to release his White House documents to the House committee investigating last year’s insurrection.
Thomas has also repeatedly attempted to rip up legal precedence set by the court.
“The irony is so thick you wonder if it’s maybe a Clarence Thomas impersonator,” former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said on MSNBC Saturday.
“Among other things, this is a guy who has spent a lifetime trying to take a battering ram to all the Supreme Court major precedents” of law, Litman added. “He’s now saying people don’t respect the law enough. That’s even leaving aside all the controversies he has engendered, as has his wife. It’s just … remarkable.”
. . . .
***************************
Read the full article at the link.
There is no end to the hypocrisy and subversiveness of the Thomas Clan and the far-right.
PWS
05-09-22
An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php
When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.
Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.
The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.
That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.
“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.
Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.
“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.
. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.
*******************************
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf
. . . .
The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ
10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.
– 30 –
regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11
Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she
11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.
– 31 –
witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.
. . . .
*******************************
These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.
By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!
If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!
One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?
I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!
⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!
PWS
05-08-22
https://www.asylumist.com/2022/04/27/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah/
Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.
We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.
For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.
“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”
The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.
Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.
Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.
After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.
For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!
I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.
The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.
I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.
As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.
What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.
While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.
So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.
*******************
Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!
Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.
This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.
Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.
Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”
EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.
As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!
At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️
PWS
05-04-22
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201856.U.pdf
“This case arises out of an in absentia order against two Petitioners who allege to have arrived one hour and five minutes late to their individual hearing scheduled for several hours. Neither the immigration judge (“IJ”) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) addressed this argument. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BIA abused its discretion when it made no mention of the alleged late arrival in its decision to dismiss the motion to reopen proceedings on appeal. Thus, we reverse and vacate the BIA’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In doing so, the BIA should determine whether Petitioners arrived late, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances show that this late arrival constitutes a failure to appear for the purposes of the statute’s preclusive effect.”
[Hats off to Helen Parsonage!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323
@dkbib on Twitter
Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com
**************************
Congrats, Helen!
Anybody have a guess as to how many of these “bogus in absentias” are out there right now? Haste makes waste!
PWS
05-03-22
How race and religion have always played a role in who gets refuge in the US
Laura E. Alexander Published: April 28, 2022 8.21am EDT
Ukrainian refugees wait near the U.S. border in Tijuana, Mexico. AP Photo/Gregory Bull
In the weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians have fled the country as refugees. Hundreds of those refugees have now arrived at the southern border of the United States seeking asylum, after flying to Mexico on tourist visas.
At the border, Ukrainians, alongside thousands of other asylum seekers, must navigate two policies meant to keep people out. The first is the “Migrant Protection Protocols,” a U.S. government action initiated by the Trump administration in December 2018 and known informally as “Remain in Mexico.” The second is Title 42, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention directive crafted in 2020, ostensibly to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The directive expels all irregular immigrants (those without permanent residency or a visa in hand) and asylum seekers who try to enter the U.S. by land.
On March 11, 2022, however, the Biden administration provided guidance allowing Customs and Border Protection officers to exempt Ukrainians from Title 42 on a case-by-case basis, which has allowed many families to enter. However, this exception has not been granted to other asylum seekers, no matter what danger they are in. It is possible that the administration may lift Title 42 at the end of May 2022, but that plan has encountered fierce debates.
The different treatment of Ukrainian versus Central American, African, Haitian and other asylum seekers has prompted criticism that the administration is enforcing immigration policies in racist ways, favoring white, European, mostly Christian refugees over other groups.
This issue is not new. As scholars of religion, race, immigration, and racial and religious politics in the United States, we study both historical and current immigration policy. We argue that U.S. refugee and asylum policy has long been racially and religiously discriminatory in practice.
Chinese asylum seekers
Race played a major role in who counted as a refugee during the early years of the Cold War. The displacement of millions fleeing communist regimes in Eastern Europe and East Asia created humanitarian crises in both places.
Under significant international pressure, Congress passed the 1953 Refugee Relief Act. According to historian Carl Bon Tempo, in the minds of President Dwight Eisenhower and most lawmakers, “refugee” meant “anticommunist European.” The text and implementation of the act reflected this. Of the 214,000 visas set aside for refugees, the law designated a quota of only 5,000 spots for Asians (2,000 for Chinese and 3,000 for “Far Eastern” refugees). Ultimately, approximately 9,000 Chinese (including 6,862 Chinese wives of U.S. citizens who came as nonquota migrants) were admitted under the 1953 refugee law, compared with nearly 200,000 southern and eastern Europeans, over the next three years.
Racial prejudice impacted the international response to refugees as well. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, United Nations officials had declared the displaced population in Europe a humanitarian crisis and appealed to the international community to relieve these pressures by accepting refugees. Over the next decade, Western nations including the U.S., France and Great Britain received millions of displaced Europeans as part of a larger Cold War public relations strategy to contain the Soviet Union and demonstrate the superiority of Western capitalist societies to life behind the Iron Curtain.
Millions of ethnic Chinese displaced by the 1949 Communist Revolution were not greeted so kindly. In the early 1950s, Hong Kong’s population tripled due to mainland Chinese fleeing civil war and communist rule, triggering a crisis. Most Western countries, however, continued to exclude Chinese and other Asians from immigrating and made few exceptions for refugees.
In the United States, exclusionary provisions that barred Asians from immigrating as “aliens ineligible to citizenship” would not be removed from immigration law until the 1965 Immigration Act.
Haitian asylum seekers
The first Haitian asylum seekers, who are overwhelmingly Black, attempted to reach the U.S. in boats in 1963 during the dictatorship of Francois Duvalier. It was a period of great economic inequality and severe violent repression of political opposition in Haiti.
Haitian refugees who were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard returning to Port-au-Prince after being repatriated in 1992. AP Photo/Daniel Morel
Between 1973 and 1991, more than 80,000 Haitians tried to seek asylum in the U.S. The U.S., however, consistently attempted to intercept and turn back boats carrying Haitian asylum seekers to avoid having to hear their cases.
In the 1980s and 1990s, nearly every single Haitian who tried to request asylum was either denied or turned away. Some disparities between asylum rates could be explained by political factors, particularly the U.S. government’s interest in prioritizing refugees from communist countries.
However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court both found, in Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti and Jean v. Nelson respectively, that racial discrimination could be the only reason for such strikingly different outcomes for Haitians. In Jean v. Nelson, the 11th Circuit heard evidence from plaintiffs that there was a less than two-in-1 billion chance that Haitians would be denied parole so consistently if immigration policies were applied in racially neutral ways. Both courts also noted the differences in outcomes of asylum claims between Cuban refugees, who were predominantly white, and Haitian refugees.
In the same time period, even while Black Haitian asylum seekers were being turned away, European immigrants, who were primarily white, received preference in the Diversity Visa system created by the Immigration Act of 1990. Northern Ireland, for example, was designated as a separate country from the United Kingdom, and 40% of “diversity transition” visas allocated during 1992 to 1994 were earmarked for Irish immigrants.
Similar accusations of racism and discriminatory treatment have surfaced over the last several months as Haitian asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border have been forced onto flights to Haiti and have faced degrading treatment.
Syrian refugees and the Muslim ban
Beginning in January 2017, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders described by many refugee advocates as the “Muslim Ban.” The ban suspended the entry of people from majority-Muslim countries, including Syrians, and limited the number of refugee admissions of several majority-Muslim countries.
Few Syrian refugees were allowed into the U.S. In this photo, Syrian refugees wait to be approved to get into Jordan. AP Photo/Raad Adayleh, File
Syrian refugees, most of whom fled the Syrian civil war that began in 2011 and violence by the Islamic State, were specifically targeted in the Muslim Ban.
A February 2017 version of the Muslim Ban claimed that Syrian refugees were “detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend[ed]” from admission, with few exceptions. This contributed to a significant decrease in the number of Syrian refugees – from 12,587 to 76 between financial year 2016 to 2018.
Research shows that religion, particularly Islam, is used to create symbolic boundaries of racial distinction in order to promote immigration enforcement goals. Specifically, the government attempted to justify an exclusionary refugee policy based on race and religion by implicating Muslims and refugees in terrorism, as Trump did in speeches, even calling Syrians the “trojan horse” for terrorism.
International agreements for refugees and asylum seekers clearly state that admissions should be based on need. In principle, U.S. law says this as well. But these key moments in United States history show how race, religion and other factors play a role in determining who is in, and who is out.
While refugees from the war in Ukraine deserve support from the United States and other countries, the contrast between the treatment of different groups of refugees shows that the process of gaining refuge in the United States is still far from equitable.
[Explore the intersection of faith, politics, arts and culture. Sign up for This Week in Religion.]
******************
Yup!
And, the ongoing grotesque abuses of Title 42 to target refugees of color is Exhibit A! So, why are some “tone deaf” Democrats advocating this racist action?
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
05-02-22
Unfortunately, you have to get “down to the fine print” (page 13 of 20) find the paragraph that should be the “centerpiece of restoring the rule of law” — a functional legal asylum processing at ports of entry that would encourage refugees to present themselves there for fair and humane processing rather than seeking irregular entry with the help of smugglers.
Port of Entry Processing
The imposition of the Title 42 public health Order severely restricted the ability of undocumented noncitizens to present at POEs for inspection and processing under Title 8. The closure of this immigration pathway for much of the time Title 42 has been in effect has driven people between POEs at the hands of the cartels. Returning to robust POE processing is an essential part of DHS border security efforts. Beginning in the summer of 2021, DHS restarted processing vulnerable individuals through POEs under Title 8, on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, pursuant to the exception criteria laid out in CDC’s Title 42 Order. These efforts, which we have recently expanded, offer individuals in vulnerable situations a safe and orderly method to submit their information in advance and present at POEs for inspection and subsequent immigration processing under Title 8. We also have enhanced Title 8 POE processing through the development of the CBP One mobile application, which powers advanced information submission and appointment scheduling prior to an individual presenting at a POE. We will make this tool publicly available and continue to expand its use to facilitate orderly immigration processing at POEs.
13 of 20
**************************************
The failure of Garland to appoint a new, expert BIA committed to due process and providing fair, practical positive guidance on the generous application of asylum law foreshadowed by INS v. Cardoza Fonseca a quarter of a century ago, but never realized in practice, is likely to become a millstone around the Administration’s neck. There is no substitute for due process and fundamental fairness. The current dysfunctional, mismanaged, and inappropriately staffed EOIR is not capable of providing the necessary leadership, consistency, and accountability.
Also, in light of U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays’s “off the wall” decision in Arizona v. CDC, it’s not clear that Title 42 will ever be lifted.
PWS
04-29-22
Arizona v. CDC, W.D. LA
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.188754/gov.uscourts.lawd.188754.37.0_3.pdf
*********************
So, the DHS can’t make advance preparation for orderly resumption of legal processing for asylum seekers? Clearly fabricated “harm” over human lives and human rights? Ignoring the well-documented record of deadly harm inflicted on those seeking asylum by lawless Title 42 enforcement? Racist actions by a U.S. District Judge specifically directed against Hispanic migrants from the Northern Triangle? No realistic connection whatsoever to “public health?” Obviously this is a scheme by an unqualified Federal Judge and White Nationalist GOP state AGs to end asylum law at the border!
The problem: They are getting away with it!
PWS
04-28-22
Hi all: A new volume of the AILA Law Journal was released yesterday. It contained an article by Stacy Caplow, co-director of Brooklyn Law School’s Safe Harbor Project, called The Sinking Immigration Court: Change Course, Save the Ship. I’m not sure if all can access it, but the link is:
https://www.aila.org/File/Related/19110103g.pdf#page=40. It is a very much worth reading generally, but I wanted to highlight the following mention of our group at pp. 49-50:
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, “a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system,” bears witness to the degrading of the court and, speaking with the voice of years of experience, has been an increasingly active and vocal critic of recent developments at the court both before Congress and as amicus curiae.
There are also citations to a couple of our group’s statements (including one to Congress) and an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the footnotes.
********************
How come the Biden Administration, and particularly AG Garland, don’t “get it?”
PWS
04-28-22
https://thehill.com/latino/3462471-two-border-mayors-come-out-in-support-of-ending-title-42/
. . . .
But Romero and Mendez criticized Democrats who embrace a rhetoric of border security versus immigrant rights.
Biden administration lays out post-Title 42 border plan
Title 42 looms over Biden meeting with Hispanic Democrats
“Instead of caving into the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Republicans, Congress should work on real immigration reform that doesn’t exploit an arcane public health authority to deny people their basic, human right to seek asylum,” they wrote.
And the two mayors painted an optimistic picture of border management where security is not at odds with proper asylum management.
“Our offices are working closely with the Biden Administration and with various community organizations on the ground to ensure that there are resources in place to execute a comprehensive plan to process asylum seekers, crack down on cartels, and establish appropriate COVID-19 protocols. We must remain steadfast in our work to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries, just as our European allies are doing with Ukrainian refugees,” Romero and Mendez wrote.
**************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Hats off to Mayor Romero (Tucson) and Mayor Mendez (Brownsville) for standing up for the rule of law and human decency and pushing back against false xenophobic rhetoric from both the GOP nativists and their “values challenged” Dem “fellow travelers.”
Remarkably, Moldova, a small, poor country living in the shadow of Russia has stepped up in ways that should embarrass cowardly Repubs and their Dem enablers. Moldova has taken the largest per capita number of Ukrainian refugees. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/refugees-flee-moldova-russias-shadow-looms-large-rcna25529
PWS
04-27-22
The attached article from the Washington Post reads like the affidavits we prepare and file in support of our clients’ asylum applications. Please read to the end. All respect to Sra. Alvarado, Sr. Osorio, and all the survivors, may the victims rest in peace, and thanks to Ms. Schneider and Mr. Langille.
**************************************************
Alberto Manuel Benitez
Professor of Clinical Law
Director, Immigration Clinic
The George Washington University Law School
Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer – 2022-04-25T093400.796
***********************************
*********************************
Obviously, what’s described elsewhere in the article is really “top notch” law enforcement work from DHS. It also illustrates one of my “continuing themes” of “effective interdisciplinary cooperation in immigration cases.”
The irony is that DHS now spends too much of its law enforcement time trying to “chase down the victims of persecution” and deny them their rights to apply for asylum and their opportunity have their cases fairly evaluated and adjudicated.
What if, if rather than yielding to disgusting political grandstanding by GOP nativists and, sadly, some misguided Dems, who want to misuse Title 42 to end asylum law, the Administration stood up for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers for fair and orderly processing and determination of their claims for protection? What if refugees were encouraged to apply at legal ports of entry and at points outside the U.S. Wouldn’t that leave more time for “real” law enforcement at DHS — at the border and everywhere else?
Interestingly, during the Trump regime, some ICE Special Agents came to the same conclusion. They unsuccessfully “lobbied” then DHS Secretary Nielsen for separation from the “gonzo civil enforcement” that ICE then was carrying out — concentrating on “terrorizing” local ethnic communities. Not surprisingly, this made local enforcement in many areas reluctant to cooperate with ICE on real law enforcement priorities — like that described in this case.
As this article suggests, there has been a real “mixed message” in DHS and DOJ in handling of asylum claims from the Northern Triangle. One arm acknowledges and prosecutes massive acts of persecution that are actually war crimes. Another arm, aided by bad judging at EOIR and poor leadership at DOJ, disingenuously denies that such persecutions took place — sometimes mischaracterizing it as “random violence” — and that violence amounting to persecution on account of a “protected ground,” particularly violence directed at women and children, remains widespread in Latin America today.
PWS
04-25-22
http://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/04/20/JAAPL.210075-21
Immigration Judges’ Perceptions of Telephonic and In-Person Forensic Mental Health Evaluations
Aliza S. Green, Samuel G. Ruchman, Beselot Birhanu, Stephanie Wu, Craig L. Katz, Elizabeth K. Singer and Kim A. Baranowski
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online April 2022, JAAPL.210075-21; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.210075-21
Abstract
Clinicians affiliated with medical human rights programs throughout the United States perform forensic evaluations of asylum seekers. Much of the best practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who incorporate forensic reports into their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the affidavits resulting from mental health evaluations and explored their attitudes toward telehealth evaluations. We conducted semistructured interviews in April and May 2020 with nine former judges and systematically analyzed them using consensual qualitative research methodology. Our findings were grouped in five domains: general preferences for affidavits; roles of affidavits in current legal climate; appraisal and comparison of sample affidavits; attitudes toward telephonic evaluations; and recommendations for telephonic evaluations. Forensic evaluators should consider the practice recommendations of judges, both for telephonic and in-person evaluations, which can bolster the usefulness of their evaluations in the adjudication process. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to incorporate immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations, and the first to assess judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations.
Across the United States, clinicians working in collaboration with medical asylum clinics and torture treatment programs conduct forensic evaluations of asylum seekers.1,–,5 In such evaluations, clinicians investigate the physical and psychiatric sequelae of human rights abuses and document their findings in medico-legal affidavits that are submitted to the immigration judge as part of an individual’s application for immigration relief.1,6,7 The affidavits provide the evaluators’ written testimony explaining to a judge the relevance of their findings (e.g., the impact of trauma on memory). Medical providers experienced in conducting forensic evaluations have worked in consultation with attorneys to establish and disseminate best-practice guidelines for evaluations.6,–,10 Much of the best-practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who apply forensic reports in their decision-making. (One notable exception was a presentation of suggestions for writing medico-legal affidavits based on a qualitative study of a sample that included immigration judges, clinicians, and attorneys.11) As a result, forensic medical evaluators have limited insight into how immigration judges view the content of affidavits or how the documentation of forensic evaluations affects asylum cases.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical human rights programs have transitioned to conducting forensic evaluations by telephone or video.12,13 Forensic clinicians have also been using telehealth modalities to evaluate asylum seekers who have poor access to forensic services because they live in geographically remote areas of the United States, immigration detention centers, or Mexico border cities.14 Mental health practitioners have reported both comfort with and concerns about the limitations of telehealth forensic evaluations.15 Most literature on telehealth forensic evaluations has focused on evaluators’ perceptions of video-teleconference, applied across multiple dimensions of forensic mental health.16,–,20 Assessing the acceptability of remote evaluations to adjudicators of immigration claims and incorporating their perspectives into broader practice recommendations is particularly critical at this time, given that telehealth visits and telephonic interviews of asylum seekers have become standard as a result of both the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased number of asylum seekers in immigration detention facilities.
This study was to explore former immigration judges’ perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the medico-legal documents resulting from mental health evaluations. We also specifically identified participants’ attitudes and perceptions toward telehealth evaluations. This study adds to existing literature by incorporating immigration judges’ perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations and by assessing judges’ attitudes toward telephonic evaluations. We specifically investigated telephonic rather than video-based evaluations because asylum seekers may have limited access to the internet, and immigration detention centers often restrict access to video conferencing platforms.14 This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board.
************************
Full article at the above link.
This should be great information for practitioners, judges, ICE counsel, and administrators seeking a fairer, better functioning Immigration Court system.
This illustrates one of many “under-appreciated” aspects of modern immigration and human rights “practical scholarship:” Its virtually unmatched interdisciplinary usefulness and its “right off the shelf” ability to advance knowledge, fairness, 21st century efficiency, and best practices!
While EOIR might actually be “worse than your father’s and mother’s Immigration Courts,” not so the private bar, NGOs, and the academic (particularly the clinical) sectors! It’s where the action, upcoming talent, and quality is right now!
It’s a shame that more of those in charge of the Immigration Courts, the stumbling immigration bureaucracy, and the often behind the times “improperly above the fray” Article IIIs aren’t paying attention to both the types of individuals they should be hiring and the methods they should be using to improve the delivery of justice.
If change has to come from below, so be it! But, change and progress will eventually come to the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the bumbling bureaucracy surrounding and enabling this disgraceful systemic failure that is dragging down both our legal system and our democracy!
PWS
04-25-22
