"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.
Category: 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees
As many as 1,000 parents separated from their children are getting a second chance to stay in the US
In a huge reversal, the Trump administration is giving families another chance to claim asylum — and even some parents who’ve already been deported might be eligible.
A Honduran father and his 6-year-old son worship during Sunday mass on September 9, 2018, in Oakland, California. They fled their country seeking asylum in the US.Mario Tama/Getty Images
The Trump administration has just agreed to give parents who were separated from their children at the US-Mexico border earlier this year a second chance to make asylum claims in the US.
The Department of Justice has negotiated an agreement that covers three lawsuits filed against the government over the family-separation policy. Parents in the US who’d been ordered deported would get another chance to pass an interview demonstrating a “credible fear” of persecution — the first step in the asylum process.
If either the parent or the child passes the screening interview, families will be allowed to apply for asylum together. Some parents who don’t pass will be allowed to remain with their children in the US while the children’s cases are adjudicated.
And in some cases, the government is even willing to consider reopening cases for parents who were already deported from the US.
The agreement covers three lawsuits: Ms. L v. ICE, which forced the government to reunite separated families this summer; M- M- M- v. ICE, brought on behalf of children separated from parents; and Dora v. Sessions, a lawsuit from parents who had failed their initial asylum screenings because they were distraught after weeks of separation from their children.
If the agreement is approved by the federal judges overseeing the three lawsuits, it will result in a second chance for hundreds of parents. Muslim Advocates and the Legal Aid Justice Center, who represented the plaintiffs in Dora v. Sessions, believe it could give “well over 1,000” parents another chance at an asylum claim. And for many families, it will eliminate (or at least defer) the impossible choice between giving up a child’s legal case, and separating the family again by keeping the child in the US while the parent is deported.
Separating families made it much harder for parents to seek asylum
Under the Trump administration’s family separation policy, a parent who wanted to seek asylum in the US had one chance: to pass a “credible fear” screening interview with an asylum office.
If a parent passed the credible fear screening, he or she was given a chance to seek asylum before an immigration judge; if the parent failed, he or she could appeal the decision to an immigration judge, with much worse odds. Losing the appeal, or agreeing to drop the case, led to an order of deportation.
Generally, most asylum seekers pass their credible fear screenings. But evidence suggests that parents who were separated from their children often failed their interviews. Parents were often so consumed by grief over their separation from their children that they weren’t able to answer asylum officers’ questions fully and effectively, according to the lawsuit filed in Dora v. Sessions.
“Explaining the basis for an asylum claim is very difficult under the best of circumstances,” said one source familiar with the interview process but not professionally authorized to speak on the record. “When someone is a) detained, b) almost certainly unrepresented, and c) beside herself with fear and desperation because of having had her child taken from her,” the source continued, “it is almost impossible.”
By the time nearly 2,000 parents and children were reunited in July (thanks to Judge Dana Sabraw’s rulings in the Ms. L case ordering family reunification), the overwhelming majority of parents had already lost their cases and been ordered deported. But their children — who’d been placed on a separate legal track as “unaccompanied alien children” after being separated from their parents — often still had ongoing cases and a real chance of winning some form of legal status in the US.
So upon being reunited, hundreds of families were faced with the choice between returning to their home country together (and facing possible peril or persecution), and keeping the child in the US in hopes of winning asylum or another form of legal status — and separating the family anew. (Some parents alleged they weren’t even given this chance, and were coerced into withdrawing their children’s legal claims — and forcibly reseparated without warning if they refused to comply.)
None of this would have happened if families hadn’t been separated to begin with. Under normal circumstances, if either a parent or a child passed an asylum interview, the government would allow them both to file asylum claims. And obviously, parents who weren’t traumatized by family separation might have had a better chance with their interviews. But simply reuniting the family didn’t solve the problem.
The government is agreeing to give reunited families the same chance they’d had if they’d never been separated
Here is what the agreement proposed by the government would actually do, if approved:
Parents who passed their initial “credible fear” interviews for asylum will be allowed to continue; this agreement doesn’t change those cases.
Parents who had lost their cases and been ordered deported will be given a full review to reassess whether or not they have a credible fear of persecution. This review will include a second interview for “additional fact-gathering” — during which a lawyer can be present (or can dial in by phone). Parents will be allowed to do this even if they didn’t ask for a credible fear interview when they were first arrested.
Parents who fail their credible fear screenings will be allowed to remain in the US and apply for asylum if their child passes his or her credible fear screening. The reverse is also true: If a child fails her asylum screening but the parent passes his, both parent and child will be allowed to apply for asylum. This is the way things normally work when families are apprehended together; by instituting it now, the government is essentially wiping away the legal side effects of family separation.
Parents who aren’t eligible for a credible fear interview because they had been deported before and were returning will still be allowed to avoid deportation if they meet a higher standard (“reasonable fear”) and qualify for something called “withholding of removal.” Even if they fail that standard, they will be allowed to stay in the US while their children are going through their asylum cases.
Parents who have already been deported will not have their cases automatically reviewed by the government. However, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits will have 30 days to present evidence to the government that particular parents should be allowed to return, and the government will consider those requests. (The agreement doesn’t make it clear whether deported parents will have their own cases reopened, or whether they will solely be allowed to return to stay with their children while the children’s legal cases are ongoing.)
If the agreement is approved, it will officially send the legal fight over family separation into its endgame phase. While hundreds of parents and children remain separated, the legal fight over reunification is largely about who’s responsible for carrying out various parts of the government’s reunification plan; the new agreement would set a similar plan up for the legal due process of parents and children making claims to stay in the US.
It would almost certainly run into similar implementation obstacles to the reunification plan, but it would set expectations that the government would provide this process by default, rather than moving forward with deportation.
The Trump administration is never going to wholly be able to erase the consequences of its decision to separate families as a matter of course. But it is now agreeing to give up the legal advantages that it accrued by separating parents’ and children’s cases — and forcing parents to go through interviews with life-or-death stakes without knowing when or whether they’d ever see their children again.
**************************************
I’ve been saying it over and over again. Why not just do it right, provide full Due Process, and follow the law?
Not only are the policies being promoted by Sessions, Trump, and the rest of the GOP White Nationalists unconstitutional, illegal, vile, and immoral, they are totally wasteful of limited Government resources (particularly in a time of GOP-fueled budget deficits) and unnecessarily tie up the Federal Courts. Contrary to Jeff Sessions’s false narratives, no court system anywhere has unlimited time for all the nonsense that the Government could potentially pursue. When common sense and sane prosecutorial discretion lose out, they whole system suffers.
Think what might have happened if, instead of wasting time and money on illegal family separation, unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and bending protection law out of shape, the Government had done the right thing and spent the money:
Working with NGOs and legal aid groups to release folks in locations where they could get legal assistance, virtually guaranteeing their appearance in Immigration Court;
Agreeing to grant the many domestic violence and other types of gang-related cases that could have been granted after proper preparation and documentation under a proper application of the law (before Sessions messed it up);
Taking all of the cases of long-term law-abiding residents off overloaded Immigration Court dockets so that the real contested asylum cases could be given priority without denying anyone Due Process or moving everything else back through “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).
Any “bad guys,” or “true economic migrants” could have been given full hearings, denied, and removed. But, totally contrary to Sessions’s racist blather, most of the folks arriving are actually legitimate refugees. They could have been granted status and allowed to go out and work and study to make America better. I’ve found few individuals (including many native-born US citizens) more grateful and willing to work hard and contribute than those granted asylum.
The money spent on wasteful litigation and needless, cruel and inhuman, detention could instead have been used;
to establish a viable overseas refugee screening program in the Northern Triangle;
working with other countries to share resettlement responsibilities;
and trying to correct the situations in the Northern Triangle which gave rise to the refugee flows in the first place.
Sadly, this is hardly the first, and probably by no means the last, time that the US Government has been forced to reprocess large numbers of asylum seekers because of a failure to follow Due Process and do the right thing in the first place. Just check out the history of the ABC v. Thornburgh litigation and settlement (a case I was involved in during my time in the “Legacy INS” General Counsel’s Office).
Indeed, the Trump scofflaws are “doubling down” on every failed policy fo the past. They actually are at it again with their bone-headed proposal to thumb their collective noses at Judge Dolly Gee and withdraw from the Flores settlement and set up a “Kiddie Gulag” by regulation. Good luck with that. The Trump Scofflaws are already wasting your taxpayer money on more “tent cities in the Kiddie Gulag” that they almost certainly will be enjoined from using at some point. Then, cooler heads will prevail and we’ll undoubtedly have a “Flores II” settlement.
Also, compare the real role of immigration lawyers in enforcing the law and holding Goverment scofflaws like Sessions and Nielsen accountable with the totally bogus picture painted by Sessions in his false, unethical, and highly inappropriate speech to US Immigration Judges this week. Truth is exactly the opposite of nearly everything that Jeff Sessions says.
Our country can’t afford the scofflaw conduct, inhumanity, immorality, and wastefulness of Trump, Sessions, Miller and their racist White Nationalist cabal. Vote for regime change this Fall!
Defendants respectfully object to the appointment of former immigration judge (“IJ”) Carol King as the Flores independent monitor. As an initial matter, while Defendants agree that former IJ King has significant experience with immigration law, Defendants object because former IJ King appears to have little or no direct experience with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) holding and detention facilities themselves, or more specifically with the conditions at such facilities, the management of such facilities, or the legal standards applicable to such facilities, which go beyond substantive immigration law.
Moreover, former IJ King has no demonstrated background in overseeing complex litigation or compliance with consent decrees. Immigration judges have limited powers delegated to them by regulation to decide individual cases, and only for matters designated to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). This is very different from the substantial and complex task of overseeing the operations of multiple agencies as is required in the present matter. Given this lack of experience, Defendants disagree that former IJ King would have only a “minimal learning curve” in undertaking to serve as an independent monitor related to the issues in the Court’s June 27, 2017 order.
Defendants also object to the appointment of former IJ King on the ground that she has published a writing to promote her law practice that gives the appearance of a very real and serious bias against the defendants. These sentiments, expressed publicly, at the very least create the appearance that former IJ King would not carry out her duties as special master with the type of impartiality that is required for a quasi-judicial role. These statements criticize a defendant in this matter – the Attorney General – and address policies relating to children subject to the Flores Agreement.
Specifically, on her law office web site, former IJ King states in the “Introduction to Carol King Law Office” that “[t]he current wave of attacks on immigrants [that] has clearly been manufactured . . . to sow division and grab power” includes “those who have been so viciously attacked . . . immigrant parents and young children.” Introduction to Carol King Law Office, July 9, 2018, available at: https://carolkinglawoffice.com/2018/07/09/hello-world/. Former IJ King further states that “[t]he lack of any ethical, moral or compassionate compass reflected in the current administration is more disturbing than anything in recent history[,]” and that the “current actions on the part of the President, Attorney General and administration, which reflect only a commitment to power and to hatred, hurt me so deeply.” Id.
To be sure, there is nothing improper about holding strong views on government policies, but public statements such as these are not consistent with performing the quasi-judicial function of a special master, where officers must meticulously avoid “[c]onduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge” because it “undermines public confidence in the judiciary.” ABA Model Rules of Judicial Conduct 1.2, Comment [3]; see id. Comment [5] (“[t]he test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge . . . engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s . . . impartiality”). The published criticism of a named defendant, and of government policies related to children who are subject to the Flores Agreement, as an introduction to her law practice do not, Defendants submit, meet this exacting standard. A reasonable person could question, in light of such statements, whether former IJ King will be impartial in evaluating compliance with this Court’s orders for facilities that are currently operated by Defendants CBP and ICE, who are agencies of that same administration against which former IJ King has a clearly and publicly expressed bias. Defendants therefore object to the appointment of former IJ King as an independent monitor in this case.
**********************************
Let’s get this straight! The DOJ Attorneys who filed this with Judge Gee represent and work for a named defendant Jeff Sessions who:
Unapologetically masterminded the “zero tolerance” policy that resulted in the unconstitutional separation of children and the intentional violation of Judge Gee’s earlier order in the case;
After having his legal arguments soundly rejected by Judge Gee is actively trying to “back door” his contemptuous behavior by proposing unlawful regulations that any reasonable person would know would be “dead on arrival;”
This week told supposedly “fair and impartial” judges who work for him, without any supporting evidence, that “the vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid under the law;”
Knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the DOJ’s own statistics relating to asylum grants on the merits to understate the grant rates to make them appear to support his false anti-asylum narrative;
Warned Immigration Judges not to be “sympathetic” toward asylum applicants appearing before them in Immigration Court;
Intentionally created a false narrative linking asylum policy to Southern Border arrivals that ignores the majority of reliable studies showing that refugee producing conditions in foreign countries, not changes in US policy, drive individuals to seek refuge;
In the words of AILA, before Immigration Judges expressed his “disdain for lawyers who take a solemn oath to uphold the law” and showed “a complete disregard for the role of independent judges in overseeing our adversarial system;”
In front of a group of Immigration Judges referred to attorneys representing individuals asylum cases (many serving pro bono or “low bono”) as “dirty lawyers;”
Promoted the role of “judges” as enforcement officers rather than fair, impartial, independent adjudicators;
Unethically acted in a quasi-judicial capacity in Matter of A-B- after publicly prejudging the substantive issue in the case during a radio interview.
So, how do these DOJ lawyers, with straight faces and in compliance with their ethical duties, have the audacity to argue the ABA Model Rules of Judicial Conduct against Judge King (who does not currently serve in any judicial capacity) when their own boss and named defendant is in violation of that provision (and also the EOIR’s own rules of judicial conduct). No “reasonable person” would believe that Jeff Sessions, in light of his public antipathy to migrants, asylum seekers, and their lawyers, and his clear, highly inappropriate favoritism for DHS Enforcement could properly and ethically run the Immigration Courts and actually act in a quasi-judicial capacity in individual cases! Yet, he is still doing both, to the detriment of Due Process and the rule of law.
Jeff Sessions has total contempt for the Constitution, the law, and courts of every type (both the ones he controls and the ones he appears before through DOJ attorneys). At some point, the Article IIIs, if they wish to maintain their position as a “separate but equal Branch” are going to have to take on the biased, contemptuous, and overtly unethical performance of Attorney General Sessions head on. Otherwise, he will run right over them as he has the US Immigration Courts and the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process.
Sophia Genovese, Sept. 10, 2018 – “US asylum law is nuanced, at times contradictory, and ever-changing. As brief background, in order to be granted asylum, applicants must show that they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and that they are unable or unwilling to return to, or avail themselves of the protection of, their country of origin owing to such persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) & (2). Attorneys constantly grapple with the ins and outs of asylum law, especially in light of recent, dramatic changes to asylum adjudication.
Even with legal representation, the chances of being granted asylum are slim. In FY 2017, only 45% asylum-seekers who had an attorney were ultimately granted asylum. Imagine, then, an asylum-seeker fleeing persecution, suffering from severe trauma, and arriving in a foreign land where he or she suddenly has to become a legal expert in order to avoid being sent back to certain death. For most, this is nearly impossible, where in FY 2017, only 10% of those unrepresented successfully obtained asylum.
It is important to remember that while asylum-seekers have a right to obtain counsel at their own expense, they are not entitled to government-appointed counsel. INA § 240(b)(4)(A). Access to legal representation is critical for asylum-seekers. However, most asylum-seekers, especially those in detention, go largely unrepresented in their asylum proceedings, where only 15% of all detained immigrants have access to an attorney. For those detained in remote areas, that percentage is even lower.
Given this inequity, I felt compelled to travel to a remote detention facility in Folkston, GA and provide pro bono legal assistance to detained asylum-seekers in their bond and parole proceedings. I travelled along with former supervisors turned mentors, Jessica Greenberg and Deirdre Stradone, Staff Attorneys at African Services Committee(ASC)/Immigrant Community Law Center (ICLC), along with Lucia della Paolera, a volunteer interpreter. Our program was organized and led by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI). SIFI currently only represents detained asylum-seekers in their bond and parole proceedings in order to assist as many folks as possible in obtaining release. Their rationale is that since bond and parole representation take up substantially less time than asylum representation, that they can have a far greater impact in successfully obtaining release for several hundred asylum-seekers, who can hopefully thereafter obtain counsel to represent them in their asylum proceedings.
Folkston is extremely remote. It is about 50 miles northwest of Jacksonville, FL, and nearly 300 miles from Atlanta, GA, where the cases from the Folkston ICE Processing Center are heard. Instead of transporting detained asylum-seekers and migrants to their hearings at the Atlanta Immigration Court, Immigration Judges (IJs) appear via teleconference. These proceedings lack any semblance to due process. Rather, through assembly-line adjudication, IJs hear several dozens of cases within the span of a few hours. On court days, I witnessed about twenty men get shuffled into a small conference room to speak with the IJ in front of a small camera. The IJ only spends a few minutes on each case, and then the next twenty men get shuffled into the same room. While IJs may spend a bit more time with detainees during their bond or merits hearings, the time spent is often inadequate, frequently leading to unjust results.
Even with the tireless efforts of the Staff Attorneys and volunteers at SIFI, there are simply too few attorneys to help every detainee at the Folkston ICE Processing Center, which houses almost 900 immigrants at any given time, leaving hundreds stranded to navigate the confusing waters of immigration court alone.
During initial screenings, I encountered numerous individuals who filled out their asylum applications on their own. These folks try their best using the internet in the library to translate the application into their native language, translate their answers into English, and then hand in their I-589s to the IJ. But as any practitioner will tell you, so much more goes into an asylum application than the Form I-589. While these asylum seekers are smart and resourceful, it is nearly impossible for one to successfully pursue one’s own asylum claim. To make matters worse, if these asylum-seekers do not obtain release from detention ahead of their merits hearing where an IJ will adjudicate their asylum claim, they will be left to argue their claims in the Atlanta Immigration Court, where 95%-98% of all asylum claims are denied. For those detained and/or unrepresented, that number is nearly 100%.
Despite the Attorney General’s most recent comments that lawyers are not following the letter of the law when advocating on behalf of asylum-seekers, it is clear that it is the IJs, [tasked with fairly applying the law, and DHS officials, tasked with enforcing the law,] who are the ones seeking to circumvent the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Throughout the Trump era, immigration attorneys have faithfully upheld asylum law and have had to hold the government accountable in its failure to apply the law fairly. Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day to vindicate the rights of their clients pursuant to the INA, contrary to Sessions’ assertions.
But more importantly, asylum-seekers have suffered from serious human rights abuses and merit protection under our laws. Their cases are not denied because they are not bona fide. Their cases are not denied because they do not qualify as refugees under the INA. Indeed, most of these asylum-seekers were found to possess a credible fear of return upon their initial apprehension. Through a combination of lack of access to counsel, unfair and uneven adjudication by IJs, and impermissible interference by the Attorney General, credible and bona fide cases are frequently denied.
We’ve previously blogged about the due process concerns in immigration courts under Sessions’ tenure. Instead, I want to highlight the stories of some of the asylum-seekers I met in Folkston. If these individuals do not obtain counsel for the bond or parole proceedings, and/or if they are denied release, they will be forced to adjudicate their claims in the Atlanta Immigration Court where they will almost certainly be ordered removed. It is important that we understand who it is that we’re actually deporting. Through sharing their stories, I want to demonstrate to others just how unfair our asylum system is. Asylum was meant to protect these people. Instead, we treat them as criminals by detaining them, do not provide them with adequate access to legal representation, and summarily remove them from the United States. Below are their stories:
Twenty-Five Year Old From Honduras Who Had Been Sexually Assaulted on Account of His Sexual Orientation
At the end of my first day in Folkston, I was asked to inform an individual, Mr. J-, that SIFI would be representing him in his bond proceedings. He’s been in detention since March 2018 and cried when I told him that we were going to try and get him out on bond.
Mr. J- looks like he’s about sixteen, and maybe weighs about 100 pounds. Back home in Honduras, he was frequently ridiculed because of his sexual orientation. Because he is rather small, this ridicule often turned into physical assault by other members of his community, including the police. One day when Mr. J- was returning from the store, he was stopped by five men from his neighborhood who started berating him on account of his sexual orientation. These men proceeded to sexually assault him, one by one, until he passed out. These men warned Mr. J- not to go to the police, or else they would find him and kill him. Mr. J- knew that the police would not help him even if he did report the incident. These men later tracked down Mr. J-’s cellphone number, and continued to harass and threaten him. Fearing for his life, Mr. J- fled to the United States.
Mr. J-’s asylum claim is textbook and ought to be readily granted. However, given Sessions’ recent unilateral change in asylum law based on private acts of violence, Mr. J- will have to fight an uphill battle to ultimately prevail. See Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). If released on bond, Mr. J- plans to move in with his uncle, a US citizen, who resides in Florida. Mr. J-’s case will then be transferred to the immigration court in Miami. Although the Immigration Court in Miami similarly has high denial rates, where nearly 90% of all asylum claims are ultimately denied, Mr. J- will at least have a better chance of prevailing there than he would in Atlanta.
Indigenous Mayan from Guatemala Who Was Targeted on Account of His Success as a Businessman
During my second day, I met with an indigenous Mayan from Guatemala, Mr. S-. He holds a Master’s degree in Education, owned a restaurant back home, and was the minister at his local church. He had previously worked in agriculture pursuant to an H-2B visa in Iowa, and then returned to Guatemala when the visa expired to open his business.
He fled Guatemala earlier this year on account of his membership in a particular social group. One night after closing his restaurant, he was thrown off his motorcycle by several men who believes were part of a local gang. They beat him and threatened to kill him and his family if he did not give them a large sum of money. They specifically targeted Mr. S- because he was a successful businessman. They warned him not to go to the police or else they would find out and kill him. The client knew that the police would not protect him from this harm on account of his ethnic background as an indigenous Mayan. The day of the extortionists’ deadline to pay, Mr. S- didn’t have the money to pay them off, and was forced to flee or face a certain death.
Mr. S- has been in immigration detention since March. The day I met with him at the end of August was the first time he had been able to speak to an attorney.
Mr. S-’s prospects for success are uncertain. Even prior to the recent decision in Matter of A-B-, asylum claims based on the particular social group of “wealthy businessmen” were seldom granted. See, e.g., Lopez v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2017); Dominguez-Pulido v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 837, 845 (7th Cir. 2016) (“wealth, standing alone, is not an immutable characteristic of a cognizable social group”); but see, Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) (confirming that although wealth standing alone is not an immutable characteristic, the Respondent’s combined attributes of wealth, education status, and cattle rancher, satisfied the particular social group requirements). However, if Mr. S- can show that he was also targeted on account of his indigenous Mayan ancestry, he can perhaps also raise an asylum claim based on his ethnicity. The combination of his particular social group and ethnicity may be enough to entitle him to relief. See, e.g., Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 760 F.3d 80, 90 (1st Cir. 2014) (Respondent demonstrated that his “Mayan Quiché identity was ‘at least one central reason’ why he” was persecuted).
As business immigration attorneys may also point out, if Mr. S- can somehow locate an employer in the US to sponsor him, he may be eligible for employment-based relief based on his Master’s degree, prior experience working in agriculture, and/or his business acumen on account of his successful restaurant management. Especially if Mr. S- is not released on bond and forced to adjudicate his claims in the Atlanta Immigration Court where asylum denial rates are high, his future attorney may also want to explore these unorthodox strategies.
Indigenous Mam-Speaking Guatemalan Persecuted on Account of His Race, Religion, and Particular Social Group
My third day, I met with Mr. G-, an indigenous Mam from Guatemala. Mr. G- is an incredibly devout Evangelical Christian and one of the purest souls I have ever met. He has resisted recruitment by rival gangs in his town and has been severely beaten because of his resistance. He says his belief in God and being a good person is why he has resisted recruitment. He did not want to be responsible for others’ suffering. The local gangs constantly assaulted Mr. G- due to his Mam heritage, his religion, and his resistance of them. He fled to the US to escape this persecution.
Mr. G- only speaks Mam, an ancient Mayan dialect. He does not speak Spanish. Because of this, he was unable to communicate with immigration officials about his credible fear of return to his country upon his initial arrival in November 2017. Fortunately, the USCIS asylum officer deferred Mr. G-’s credible fear interview until they could locate a Mam translator. However, one was never located, and he has been in immigration detention ever since.
August 29, 2018, nine months into his detention, was the first time he was able to speak to an attorney through an interpreter that spoke his language. Mr. G- was so out of the loop with what was going on, that he did not even know what the word “asylum” meant. For nine months, Mr. G- had to wait to find out what was going on and why he was in detention. My colleague, Jessica, and I, spoke with him for almost three hours. We could not provide him with satisfactory answers about whether SIFI would be able to take his case, and when or if he would be let out of detention. Given recent changes in the law, we couldn’t tell him if his asylum claim would ultimately prevail.
Mr. G- firmly stated that he will be killed if he was forced to go back to Guatemala. He said that if his asylum claim is denied, he will have to put his faith in God to protect him from what is a certain death. He said God is all he has.
Even without answers, this client thanked us until he was blue in the face. He said he did not have any money to pay us but wanted us to know how grateful he was for our help and that he would pray for us. Despite the fact that his life was hanging in the balance, he was more concerned about our time and expense helping him. He went on and on for several minutes about his gratitude. It was difficult for us to hold back tears.
Mr. G- is the reason asylum exists, but under our current framework, he will almost certainly be deported, especially if he cannot locate an attorney. Mr. G- has an arguable claim under Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, on account of his Mam heritage, and an arguable claim on account of his Evangelical Christianity, given that Mr. G-’s persecution was compounded by his visible Mam ethnicity and vocal Evangelical beliefs. His resistance to gang participation will be difficult to overcome, though, as the case law on the subject is primarily negative. See, e.g., Bueso-Avila v. Holder, 663 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding insufficient evidence that MS-13 targeted Petitioner on account of his Christian beliefs, finding instead that the evidence supported the conclusion that the threats were based on his refusal to join the gang, which is not a protected ground). Mr. G-’s low prospects of success are particularly heart-wrenching. When we as a country fail to protect those seeking refuge from persecution, especially those fleeing religious persecution, we destroy the very ideals upon which this country was founded.
Twenty-Year Old Political Activist From Honduras, Assaulted by Military Police on Account of His Political Opinion
I also assisted in the drafting of a bond motion for a 20 year-old political activist from Honduras, Mr. O-, who had been severely beaten by the military police on account of his political opinion and activism.
Mr. O- was a prominent and vocal member of an opposition political group in Honduras. During the November 2017 Honduran presidential elections, Mr. O- assisted members of his community to travel to the polling stations. When election officials closed the polls too early, Mr. O- reached out to military police patrolling the area to demand that they re-open the polling stations so Hondurans could rightfully cast their votes. The military police became angry with Mr. O-’s insistence and began to beat him by stomping and kicking him, leaving him severely wounded. Mr. O- reported the incident to the police, but was told there was nothing they could do.
A few weeks later, Mr. O- was specifically targeted again by the military police when he was on his way home from a political meeting. The police pulled him from his car and began to beat him, accusing him of being a rioter. He was told to leave the country or else he would be killed. He was also warned that if he went to the national police, that he would be killed. Fearing for his life, Mr. O- fled to the US in April 2018 and has been in detention ever since.
SIFI was able to take on his bond case in August, and by the end of my trip, the SIFI team had submitted his request for bond. Since Mr. O-’s asylum claim is particularly strong, and because he has family in the US, it is highly likely that his bond will be granted. From there, we can only hope that he encounters an IJ that appropriately follows the law and will grant him asylum.”
(The author thanks Jessica Greenberg and Deirdre Stradone for their constant mentorship as well as providing the author the opportunity to go to Folkston. The author also thanks Lucia della Paolera for her advocacy, passion, and critical interpretation assistance. Finally, the author expresses the utmost gratitude to the team at SIFI, who work day in and day out to provide excellent representation to the detained migrants and asylum-seekers detained at Folkston ICE Processing Center.)
Photos from my trip to Folkston, GA:
The Folkston ICE Processing Center.
Downtown Folkston, GA.
Volunteers from Left to Right: Sophia Genovese (author), Deirdre Stradone (Staff Attorney at African Services Committee), Jessica Greenberg (Staff Attorney at ASC/ICLC), and Lucia della Paolera (volunteer interpreter).
Many thanks to the incomparable Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for forwarding this terrific and timely piece! These are the kinds of individuals that Jeff Sessions would like Immigration Judges to sentence to death or serious harm without Due Process and contrary to asylum and protection law.
As Sophia cogently points out, since the beginning of this Administration it has been private lawyers, most serving pro bono or “low bono,” who have been courageously fighting to uphold our Constitution and the rule of law from the cowardly scofflaw White Nationalist attacks by Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, and the rest of the outlaws. In a significant number of cases, the Article III Federal Courts have agreed and held the scofflaws at least legally (if not yet personally) accountable.
Like any bully, Sessions resents having to follow the law and having higher authorities tell him what to do. He has repeatedly made contemptuous, disingenuous legal arguments and presented factual misrepresentations in support of his lawless behavior and only grudgingly complied with court orders. He has disrespectfully and condescendingly lectured the courts about his authority and their limited role in assuring that the Constitution and the law are upheld. That’s why he loves lording it over the US Immigration Courts where he is simultaneously legislator, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, appellate court, and executioner in violation of common sense and all rules of legal ethics.
But, Sessions will be long gone before most of you new US Immigration Judges will be. He and his “go along to get along enablers” certainly will be condemned by history as the “21st Century Jim Crows.” Is that how you want to be remembered — as part of a White Nationalist movement that essentially is committed to intentional cruelty, undermining our Constitution, and disrespecting the legal and human rights and monumental contributions to our country of people of color and other vulnerable groups?
Every US Immigration Judge has a chance to stand up and be part of the solution rather than the problem. Do you have the courage to follow the law and the Constitution and to treat asylum applicants and other migrants fairly and impartially, giving asylum applicants the benefit of the doubt as intended by the framers of the Convention? Will you take the necessary time to carefully consider, research, deliberate, and explain each decision to get it right (whether or not it meets Sessions’s bogus “quota system”)? Will you properly factor in all of the difficulties and roadblocks intentionally thrown up by this Administration to disadvantage and improperly deter asylum seekers? Will you treat all individuals coming before you with dignity, kindness, patience, and respect regardless of the ultimate disposition of their cases. This is the “real stuff of genuine judging,” not just being an “employee.”
Or will you, as Sessions urges, treat migrants as “fish in a barrel” or “easy numbers,” unfairly denying their claims for refuge without ever giving them a real chance. Will you prejudge their claims and make false imputations of fraud, with no evidence, as he has? Will you give fair hearings and the granting of relief under our laws the same urgency that Sessions touts for churning out more removal orders. Will you resist Sessions’s disingenuous attempt to shift the blame for the existing mess in the Immigration Courts from himself, his predecessors, the DHS, and Congress, where it belongs, to the individuals and their attorneys coming before you in search of justice (and also, of course, to you for not working hard enough to deny more continuances, cut more corners, and churn out more rote removal orders)?
How will history judge you and your actions, humanity, compassion, understanding, scholarship, attention to detail, willingness to stand up for the rights of the unpopular, and values, in a time of existential crisis for our nation and our world?
Your choice. Choose wisely. Good luck. Do great things!
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday warned incoming immigration judges that lawyers representing immigrants are trying to get around the law like “water seeping through an earthen dam” and that their responsibility is to not let them and instead deliver a “secure” border and a “lawful system” that “actually works.”
He also cautioned the judges against allowing sympathy for the people appearing before them, which might cause them to make decisions contrary to what the law requires.
“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation. Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,” he said.
The comments immediately drew criticism from the union that represents the judges and from former judges.
“The reality is that it is a political statement which does not articulate a legal concept that judges are required to be aware of and follow,” said Dana Marks, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges and an immigration judge in San Francisco. “It did appear to be a one-sided argument made by a prosecutor.”
Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and now an immigration attorney, said the comments overlooked the fact that asylum laws were designed to be flexible.
“We possess brains and hearts, not just one or the other,” he said. It is sympathy, Chase said, that often spurs legal theories that advance the law in asylum law, civil rights, and criminal law.
“Sessions is characterizing decisions he personally disagrees with as being based on sympathy alone,” he said, “when in fact, those decisions were driven by sympathy but based on solid legal reasoning.”
Unlike other US courts, immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department whose evaluations are based on guidelines Sessions lays out. In that role, Sessions already has instituted case quotas, restricted the types of cases for which asylum can be granted, and limited when judges can indefinitely suspend certain cases. Advocates believe the Trump administration has made these decisions in order to speed up deportations. His comments on sympathy to immigrants appeared intended to bolster a decision he made recently to limit when asylum can be granted out of fear of domestic or gang violence.
Sessions also told the judges that they should focus on maximum production and urged them to get “imaginative and inventive” with their high caseload. The courts currently have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of deportation cases.
Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, which represents the nation’s 350 immigration judges, said Sessions’ speech was notable for its lack of any mention of fairness or due process. “We cannot possibly be put in this bind of being accountable to someone who is so clearly committed to the prosecutorial role,” said Tabaddor.
The union has long called for its separation from the Department of Justice in order to be truly independent of political decision-making.
“Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day — like water seeping through an earthen dam — to get around the plain words of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the act. That is our most serious duty,” Sessions said in a speech to 44 newly hired judges who were being trained in Falls Church, Virginia.
He ended his speech by telling the incoming judges that the American people had spoken in laws and “in our elections.”
“They want a safe, secure border and a lawful system of immigration that actually works. Let’s deliver it for them,” Sessions said.
From the beginning of October through the end of June, immigration judges had granted around 22% of asylum cases and denied around 41% of cases. The rest of the cases were closed. The rate is similar to previous fiscal years. Sessions’ decision to limit the types of cases in which asylum should be granted was made in mid-June.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that he plans to increase the number of immigration judges in the U.S. by 50 percent by the end of Fiscal Year 2018 – part of the administration’s effort to take on a case backlog that has ballooned under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy.
The number of immigration cases on hold in the U.S. has risen 38 percent since Trump took office, with 746,049 pending immigration cases as of July 31, up from 542,411 at the end of January 2017, according to an analysis of government data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Sessions asserted his authority on Monday during remarks welcoming 44 newly hired immigration judges – the largest class in U.S. history – noting that they must operate under his supervision and perform the duties that he prescribes.
As you take on this critically important role, I hope that you will be imaginative and inventive in order to manage a high-volume caseload,’ he said. ‘I do not apologize for expecting you to perform, at a high level, efficiently and effectively.’
The attorney general said the system for seeking asylum in the U.S. has been ‘abused for years’ and while the judges must respect immigrants’ rights, they should also ‘reject unjustified and sometimes blatantly fake claims.’
Sessions also had harsh words for the attorneys who represent immigrants, describing them as ‘water seeping through an earthen dam,’ who attempt to ‘get around’ immigration laws.
The message follows a series of policy changes that have put increasing pressure on immigration judges to close cases quickly while taking away their authority to prioritize cases based on their own judgment.
‘We’re clearly moving toward a point where there isn’t going to be judicial independence in the immigration courts anymore,’ former immigration Judge Jeffrey S. Chase told DailyMail.com.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivers remarks to the incoming class of immigration judges in Falls Church, Virginia
For example, the Justice Department earlier this year announced a quota system requiring judges to clear at least 700 cases annually in order to be rated as ‘satisfactory’ on their performance evaluations.
Quotas ‘would threaten the integrity and independence of the court and potentially increase the court’s backlog,’ according to the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union representing the judges.
Sessions also issued a decision earlier this year that takes away the authority of immigration judges to administratively close cases, a process that allowed a judge to indefinitely close low-priority cases to make room on the docket for more serious offenses – such as those involving violent criminals and gang members.
From Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2017, 215,285 cases were administratively closed, according to Sessions. Now experts say those cases will be added back to the dockets, further compounding the backlog.
In addition, Sessions issued a legal opinion earlier this year designed to make it impossible for victims of domestic violence and gangs to seek asylum in the U.S. – which some critics say will limit judicial independence.
Legal experts said Monday that Session’s speech was designed to assert his authority over the judges and impress upon them the importance of issuing rulings consistent with his own philosophy.
‘That was an enforcement speech,’ former immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt told DailyMail.com. ‘The whole implication that somehow (people seeking asylum) are bending the law and that there are attorneys trying to go through loopholes is the opposite of the truth … The losers in these asylum cases aren’t simply migrants trying to game the system. They are people facing real dangers when they go home.’
Sessions did not shy away from calling on the new judges to rise to the challenges before them.
‘Let me say this clearly: it is perfectly legitimate, moral, and decent for a nation to have a legal system of immigration and to enforce the system it adopts,’ Sessions said in his prepared remarks. ‘No great and prosperous nation can have both a generous welfare system and open borders. Such a policy is both radical and dangerous.’
Sessions has said that he has introduced a ‘streamlined’ approach for hiring judges – a historically lengthy process – to bring the average hiring time down to 266 days, compared from 742 days in 2017, according to Department of Justice data.
Immigration judges are appointed by the U.S. attorney general. The new additions bring the total number of immigration judges in the U.S. to 397.
***********************************************
There are lots of helpful charts and graphs accompanying Val’s excellent article. Go to the link above to view them, along with the complete article.
Sessions’s claim that we have a “generous welfare system and open borders” is total BS. We don’t have open borders, and never have had. And SEssions and his GOP cronies have worked hard to make our welfare system not very generous at all, particularly when it comes to foreign nationals. It’s a total insult, as well as an arrogant rewriting of history to imply that the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama Administrations didn’t care about immigration or border enforcement. All of them took their best shot at it, under the circmstances. I should know, as I served in all of those Administrations except for Bush I. Indeed, if anything, for better or worse, and many would say the latter, enforcement during the Obama era was probably more effective than it has been under the “Trump/Sessions gonzo approach.”
Individuals fleeing from the Northern Triangle aren’t coming for welfare. They are coming to save their lives, something that Sessions’s mindless restrictionist philosophy apparently makes it impossible for him to acknowledge. Moreover, individuals have a statutory right to apply for asylum, regardless of the means of entry. Insuring that asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture are propoerly extended to inbdividuals seeking refuge in the US is just as much a part of “enforcing the rule of law” as are removals. Indeed, the consequencers of wrongfully removing an individual entitled to protection are potentially catestropohic.
OK. Now let’s get beyond Sessions’s White Nationalist screed and get some truth about:
The ethical standards for Immigration Judges;
The real intent of the Refugee Act of 19809; and
What being a fair and impartial immigration judge is really about.
Sessions’s Statement Favoring A Party To Immigration Court Proceedings And Showing Disrespect For The Opposing Party & Their Representatives Violates The EOIR Ethical Code By Showing An “Appearance of Bias.”
Let’s remember that under the strange rules governing EOIR and the Immigration Courts within the USDOJ, Attorney General Jeff Sessions can and has taken on the role as a judicial adjudicator in an individual cases, changing results and setting precedent for the BIA and the Immigration Judges.
So, what does the EOIR Code of Judicial Ethics say about judicial conduct?
V. Impartiality (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8))
An Immigration Judge shall act impartially and shall not give preferential treatment to any organization or individual when adjudicating the merits of aparticular case. An Immigration Judge should encourage and facilitate pro bono representation. An Immigration Judge may grant procedural priorities to lawyers providing pro bono legal services in accordance with Operating Procedures and Policies Memorandum (OPPM) 08-01.
VI. Appearance of Impropriety (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14))
An Immigration Judge shall endeavor to avoid any actions that, in thejudgment of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts, wouldcreate the appearance that he or she is violating the law or applicable ethical standards.
. . . .
IX. Acting with judicial Temperament and Professionalism
An Immigration Judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous, and should act in a professional manner towards all litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the Immigration Judge deals in his or her official capacity, and should not, in the performance of official duties, by words or conduct, manifest improper bias or prejudice.
Note: An Immigration Judge should be alert to avoid behavior, including inappropriate demeanor, which may be perceived as biased. The test forappearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts the belief that the Immigration Judge’s ability to carry out his or her responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
Note: An Immigration Judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the immigration process into disrepute. Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant reference to personal characteristics. Moreover, an Immigration Judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased. Immigration Judges are not precluded from making legitimate reference to any of the above listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
Note: An Immigration Judge has the authority to regulate the course ofthe hearing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.1(c), 1240.9. Nothing herein prohibits theJudge from doing so. It is recognized that at times an Immigration Judgemust be firm and decisive to maintain courtroom control.
Wow. Sure sounds to me like Sessions is in clear violation of each of these!
Let’s get down to “brass tacks” here. Imagine that you are a represented asylum applicant from the Northern Triangle with an upcoming hearing. The morning of your hearing, you read the statement that Jeff Sessions made to the new Immigration Judges.
That afternoon, when you appear at the hearing you find that none other than Jeff Sessions is yo\ur U.S. Immigration Judge. So, do you think that you and your attorney are going to get a “fair and impartial” hearing, including a possible favorable exercise of discretion” on your asylum application, as our Constitution and laws require? Of course not!
But remember, all asylum applicants are appearing before “judges” who are actually employees of Jeff Sessions. Each judge knows that he or she owes career longevity to pleasing Sessions and his minions. Each judge also knows that at any time Sessions can arbitrarily reach down into the system, without explanation or notice, and “certify” any case or decision to himself.
Clearly, after having publicly taken a pro-DHS, pro-enforcement, anti-asylum applicant, anti-private attorney position, Sessions should not ethically have any role whatsoever in the outcome of cases in the Immigration Court System. But, clearly, he does have such a role. A big one!
If any sitting Immigration Judge conducted himself or herself the way Sessions just did, they would be suspended immediately. How does Sessions get away with disregarding judicial ethics in his own system?
The Refugee Act of 1980 Implements Our International Treaty Obligations Under the UN Convention & Protocol Relating To The Status Of Refugees and Is Actually About “Protecting” Those In Danger, Not Finding Ways Of “Rejecting” Their Claims.
Let’s hear from a former legislator who played a key role in developing and enacting the Refugee Act or 1980, former Representative Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) who at that time was the Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee. This is from the letter that Holtzman recently wrote to Secretary Nielsen resigning from the DHS Detention Advisory Committee because of its perversion of the law, particularly the illegal family separation policy engineered by Sessions.
What is so astonishing to me is how much this country has changed since 1980, when I was privileged as chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee to co-author with Senator Ted Kennedy the Refugee Act of 1980. The Act — which was adopted without serious controversy — created a framework for the regular admission of refugees to the U.S. The immediate stimulus for the bill was the huge exodus of boat people leaving Vietnam. Though the memory of the Holocaust played a role, too, particularly the knowledge that the U.S. could have rescued so many people from the hands of the Nazis but did not. The Refugee Act marked our commitment as a nation to welcoming persons fleeing persecution anywhere.
In those days, the U.S. also showed world leadership on refugee resettlement. For example, America understood that it bore a special responsibility for the refugees fleeing Vietnam because of its long involvement in the Vietnam War. Obviously, we could not absorb all the refugees, but our government worked hard to get resettlement solutions for all. First, it persuaded the countries neighboring Vietnam to which people fled in small boats not to push those refugees back out to sea, where they would confront pirates, drowning and other terrible dangers. (I know because I participated in speaking to those countries.) Then, the U.S. organized a world conference in Geneva, where countries agreed to accept specific numbers of refugees. The U.S. was able to induce other countries to act because it took the largest share. Our country’s leadership turned the boat people crisis into one of the most successful refugee resettlement programs ever.
Now, in response to the influx of (mostly) women and their children fleeing horrific violence in Central America, the U.S. government can think only of building a wall and unlawfully separating children from their parents — something I call child kidnapping, plain and simple — as a deterrent to keep others from coming to the US. How far we have we fallen.
And how easy it would be to do the right thing. The U.S. needs to start with recognizing that it once again has a special responsibility for a dire situation, this time in the Northern Triangle. We overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala, which was replaced by one right-wing government after another, including one that committed genocide against the indigenous population. In Honduras and El Salvador, we similarly propped up right-wing governments that did nothing for their people, leaving them without effective governance in place. The fact that gangs have been able to terrorize the population with impunity is a result.
More must be done as well. We should reinstate the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, established under President Obama and cancelled by the Trump Administration, whereby people could apply in their home countries for admission as refugees to the U.S. without facing the perils of the overland trip. Second, we should try to get Canada and other countries in South America to accept refugees from the Northern Triangle countries, reducing the burden on us. To do this, we would have to agree to take a substantial number of refugees from the Northern Triangle countries as well. And then we should work to improve the governance in these countries, perhaps by involving the United Nations and nearby countries, such as Costa Rica.
Unfortunately, the chance of any such enlightened response toward refugees from the Northern Triangle seems remote. These countries probably fall into Trump’s stated “shithole” category. Plainly, the hostile attitude toward the refugees persists. For example, 463 parents may have been deported without their children. Apparently DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen feels no responsibility for reuniting those with their parents, instead making the flimsy excuse that the parents wanted to leave them behind. While possibly true in a small number of instances, given the fact that many of the parents do not speak English, or even Spanish, but their indigenous language, it is more likely that a significant number of the parents had no idea of what was happening or how to get their children back. They may even have been coerced into leaving. In any case, Nielsen has a very poor record of truth-telling. On June 17, she insisted that “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”
Most Americans, fortunately, have found the separation policy abhorrent. Those of us who do, need to press the Administration to find a more humane and more comprehensive solution, like our country has done in the past. But if the Administration continues the enforced separation policy, I hope that the courts will enforce their decisions, which have required reunification, by holding the Secretary and others in contempt if necessary. Congress should be called on to act by holding hearings and adopting censure resolutions. None of us can sit idly by when our government stoops to such racist, malign behavior.
Yes, with responsible leadership, it would be relatively easy to do the right thing here. But, it’s not going to happen with the “wrong people” like Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, and Kristjen Nielsen in charge.
The real intent of the Refugee Act of 1980 was to give America the tools to take a leadership role in protecting individuals, particularly those flowing from situations we helped cause like the mess in the Northern Triangle. I’m sure that most of those involved in the bipartisan effort would be shocked by the overtly racist, restrictionist views being pawned off by Sessions as “following the law.” “I call BS” on Session’s perversion of protection laws.
Undoubtedly, cases like Matter of A-R-C-G-, incorrectly overruled by Sessions, actually substantially understated the case for protecting domestic violence victims. There is little doubt in my mind that under a proper interpretation “women in El Salvador” (or Guatemala or Honduras, or many other countries) satisfy the stated criteria for a “particular social group.”
Being a “woman in El Salvador” clearly is :
Immutable or fundamental to identity;
Particularized; and
Socially distinct.
Moreover, there is no legitimate doubt that the status of being a “woman in El Salvador” is often “at least one central reason” for the persecution. Nor is there any doubt that the Governments in the Northern Triangle are unwilling and unable to offer a reasonable level of protection to women abused because of class membership, Sessions’s largely fictional account of country conditions notwithstanding.
At some point, whether or not in my lifetime, some integrity will be re-injected into the legal definition by recognizing the obvious. It might come from Congress, a more qualified Executive, or the Courts. But, it will eventually come. The lack of recognition for women refugees, who perhaps make up a majority of the world’s refugees, is a symptom of the “old white guys” like Sessions who have controlled the system. But, that’s also likely to change in the future.
My esteemed colleague, retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Jeffrey S. Chase said it best:
“Sessions is characterizing decisions he personally disagrees with as being based on sympathy alone,” he said, “when in fact, those decisions were driven by sympathy but based on solid legal reasoning.”
The Proper Role Of a Good Immigration Judge Involves Sympathetic Understanding Of The Plight Of Refugees, What They Have Suffered, & The Systemic Burdens They Face in Presenting Claims.
Let’s see what some real judges who have had a role in the actually fairly adjudicating asylum claims have to say about the qualities of judging.
Here’s one of my favorite quotes from the late Seventh Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans in Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2004) (Evans, J., concurring) that sums up the essence of being a good Immigration Judge:
Because 100 percent of asylum petitioners want to stay in this country, but less than 100 percent are entitled to asylum, an immigration judge must be alert to the fact that some petitioners will embellish their claims to increase their chances of success. On the other hand, an immigration judge must be sensitive to the suffering and fears of petitioners who are genuinely entitled to asylum in this country. A healthy balance of sympathy and skepticism is a job requirement for a good immigration judge. Attaining that balance is what makes the job of an immigration judge, in my view, excruciatingly difficult.
Or, check out this heartfelt statement from my former colleague Judge Thomas Snow, one of “Arlington’s Finest,” (who also, not incidentally, had served as the Acting Chief Immigration Judge and Acting Director of EOIR, as well as being a long-time Senior Executive in the USDOJ) in USA Today:
Immigration judges make these decisions alone. Many are made following distraught or shame-filled testimony covering almost unimaginable acts of inhumanity. And we make them several times a day, day after day, year after year.
We take every decision we make very seriously. We do our best to be fair to every person who comes before us. We judge each case on its own merits, no matter how many times we’ve seen similar fact patterns before.
We are not policymakers. We are not legislators. We are judges. Although we are employees of the U.S. Department of Justice who act under the delegated authority of the attorney general, no one tells us how to decide a case. I have been an immigration judge for more than 11 years, and nobody has ever tried to influence a single one of my thousands of decisions
And finally, because we are judges, we do our best to follow the law and apply it impartially to the people who appear before us. I know I do so, even when it breaks my heart.
Here’s a “pithier” one from my friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks, former President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (who also was the “winning attorney” representing the plaintiff in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)) — I was on the “losing” INS side that day):
[I]mmigration judges often feel asylum hearings are “like holding death penalty cases in traffic court.”
Finally, here’s my take on being an Immigration Judge after 45 years in the field, including stints at the BIA, the “Legacy INS,” private practice, and academics:
From my perspective, as an Immigration Judge I was half scholar, half performing artist. An Immigration Judge is alwayson public display, particularly in this “age of the Internet.” His or her words, actions, attitudes, and even body language, send powerful messages, positive or negative, about our court system and our national values. Perhaps not surprisingly, the majority of those who fail at the job do so because they do not recognize and master the “performing artist” aspect, rather than from a lack of pertinent legal knowledge.
Compare Sessions’s one-sided, biased outlook with the statements of those of us who have “walked the walk and talked the talk” — who have had to listen to the horrible stories, judge credibility, look at whether protection can legally be extended, and, on some occasions, look folks in the eye and tell them we have no choice but to send them back into situations where they clearly face death or danger.
Sympathetic understanding of refugees and the protection purposes of refugee, asylum, and CAT laws are absolutely essential to fair adjudication of asylum and other claims for relief under the Immigration Laws. And, clearly, under the UNHCR guidance, if one is going to err, it must be on the side of protection rather than rejection.
That’s why Jeff Sessions, a cruel, biased, and ignorant individual, lacking human understanding, sympathy, a sense of fundamental fairness, a commitment to Due Process, and genuine knowledge of the history and purposes of asylum laws has no business whatsoever being involved in immigration adjudication, let alone “heading” what is supposed to be a fair and impartial court system dedicated to “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren tried to tell her colleagues and the rest of America the truth about Jeff Sessions and the horrible mistake they were making in putting such a famously unqualified man in charge of our Department of Justice. But, they wouldn’t listen. Now, refugees, families, and children, among his many victims, are paying the price.
Sessions closes with a final lie: that the American people spoke in the election in favor his White Nationalist policies. Whether Sessions acknowledges it or not, Donald Trump is a minority President. Millions more voted for Hillary Clinton and other candidates than they did for Trump.
Almost every legitimate poll shows that most Americans favor a more moderate immigration policy, one that admits refugees, promotes an orderly but generous legal immigration system, takes care of Dreamers, and controls the borders in a humane fashion as opposed to the extreme xenophobic restrictionist measures pimped by Sessions, Trump, Steven Miller, and the GOP far right. In particular, the separation of children, Sessions’s unlawful “brainchild,” has been immensely (and rightfully) unpopular.
Jeff Sessions has never spoken for the majority of Americans on immigration or almost anything else. Don’t let him get away with his noxious plans to destroy our justice system! Whether you are an Immigration Judge, a Government employee, or a private citizen, we all have an obligation to stand up to his disingenuous bullying and intentionally false, xenophobic, racially-motivated, unethical, scofflaw narrative.
Sessions to immigration judges: Immigrants’ attorneys like ‘water seeping’ around law
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a new group of immigration judges Monday that it is their job to “restore the rule of law” to the immigration system over the contrary efforts of the lawyers who represent immigrants.
The remarks at the training of the largest-ever class of new immigration judges implied that the judges were on the same team as the Trump administration, and that immigrants and their attorneys were trying to undermine their efforts.
“Good lawyers using all their talents and skills work every day … like water seeping through an earthen dam to get around the plain words of (immigration law) to advance their clients’ interests,” Sessions said, adding the same happens in criminal courts. “And we understand that. Their duty, however, is not uphold the integrity of the act. That’s our duty.”
Sessions noted that “of course” the system “must always respect the rights of aliens” in the courts. But he also warned the judges of “fake claims.”
“Just as we defend immigrant legal rights, we reject unjustified and sometimes fake claims,” Sessions said. “The law is never serviced when deceit is rewarded so that the fundamental principles of the law are defeated.”
The comments came in the context of Sessions’ repeated moves to exert his unique authority over the immigration courts, a separate legal system for immigrants that is entirely run by the Justice Department.
Sessions approves every judge hired and can instruct them on how to interpret law, and thus decide cases, as well as how to manage cases. He has used that authority multiple times in the past year, including issuing a sweeping ruling that will substantially narrow the types of cases that qualify for asylum protections in the US. Those decisions overrode the evolution of years of immigration judges’ and the immigration appellate board’s decisions.
Sessions reminded the new judges of that authority and those decisions in his remarks, saying he believes they are “correct” and “prudent” interpretations of the law that “restores” them to the original intent.
Another totally inappropriate and unethical effort by Sessions to insure that migrants, particularly asylum seekers, receive neither fair consideration nor Due Process from U.S. Immigration Judges in connection with their, in many instances, very compelling cases for protection.
Let’s shine a little light of truth on the Sessions’s dark myth-spinning:
As recently as 2012, the majority of asylum applicants who received decisions on the merits of their claims in Immigration Court were granted protection;
Conditions in most “sending countries” — particularly those in the Northern Triangle — have gotten worse rather than better;
There is no reasonable explanation for the large drop in approvals in recent years other than bias against asylum seekers;
Even after Sessions took over, 30% of those who get merits determinations won their cases;
The success rate is higher for those released from detention and given fair access to counsel;
Most detained migrants, particularly those intentionally detained in substandard conditions in obscure locations, do not have reasonable access to counsel;
Most attorneys representing detained asylum seekers serve pro bono or for minimal compensation (particularly in relation to the amount of time and effort required to prepare and present an asylum case in detention);
Detention of asylum seekers simply to deter them from coming is illegal;
Separation of families is a deterrent is also illegal;
Neither detention nor “zero tolerance” prosecutions have been shown to have a material impact on the flow of refugees to our Southern Border;
Sessions has provided no evidence of any widespread fraud in asylum applications by refugees from the Northern Triangle;
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”), the leading interpreter of refugee and asylum protections, has consistently criticized the US’s overly restrictive approach to asylum adjudication;
Article III U.S. Courts continue to be critical of both the unlawful policies being promoted by Sessions and the fundamental errors still being made by the BIA and some Immigration Judges in analyzing asylum cases and claims under the Convention Against Torture;
According to the US Supreme Court, a chance of harm as low as 10% can satisfy the generous legal standard for asylum;
According to the UNHCR, asylum applicants should be given the “benefit of the doubt;”
Most of those who fail to get asylum, like the abused woman denied protection by Sessions in Matter of A-B-, face life threatening situations in their home countries — we have merely made a conscious choice not to offer them asylum or some alternative form of life-saving protection.
As Sessions sees that his time as Attorney General will likely come to an end before the end of this year, he is doubling down on his White Nationalist, xenophobic, racist, restrictionist, lawless agenda. He wants to inflict as much damage on migrants, refugees, women, and people of color as he can before being relegated to his former role as a rightist wing-nut. He also seeks to convince the Immigration Judges that they are not independent juridical officials but mere highly paid enforcement agents with an obligation to deport as many folks as possible in support of the President’s agenda.
I do agree with Sessions, however, that the newly-minted Immigration Judges have a tremendously difficult job. If they adopt his philosophy, they are likely to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US and to wrongly return individuals to death-threatening situations. On the other hand, if they carefully and fairly follow the law and give full consideration to the facts, they will be compelled to grant protection in many cases, thus potentially putting them on EOIR’s “hit list.” (Basically, new US Immigration Judges, even those with many years of civil service, can be “fired at will” by EOIR during their first two years of “probation” as judges.)
The only solution is an independent Article I Immigration Court that will guarantee that someone as totally unqualified as Sessions can never again impose his personal will and bigoted, anti-Due-Process views on what is supposed to be a fair and impartial court system.
Over the past few months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has faced fierce criticism for his role in the Trump administration’s family separation policy. But while the White House continues to deal with the fallout from tearing kids away from their parents at the border, Sessions has been busy orchestrating another, much quieter attack on the country’s immigration system.
Tensions have been simmering for months between the attorney general and the hundreds of judges overseeing immigration courts, but they reached a new high in July. The flashpoint was the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan man who was scheduled to appear in a Philadelphia immigration court, but had repeatedly failed to turn up. The judge, Steven Morley, wanted to determine whether Castro-Tum had received adequate notice, and rescheduled a hearing for late July. But instead of waiting for that appointment, the Justice Department sent a new judge from Virginia to take over the case. Judge Deepali Nadkarni subsequently ordered Castro-Tum deported.
The move sparked immediate outcry: The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing about 350 immigration judges, filed a formal grievance, and 15 retired immigration judges released a public statement condemning the action. “Such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable,” they wrote.
This was just the latest of many accusations that Sessions and his Justice Department were interfering with judicial independence in immigration courts. Since the beginning of the year, the attorney general has severely limited judges’ ability to manage their cases, increased pressure on judges to close cases quickly, and dramatically reshaped how America determines who it will shelter. While Sessions isn’t the first attorney general to exercise these powers, immigration advocates say he’s using his authority in unprecedented ways and as a result severely limiting due process rights for migrants.
Unlike most courts, immigration courts are housed within the executive branch, meaning immigration judges are actually DOJ employees. Sessions is therefore ultimately in charge of hiring judges, evaluating their performance, and even firing them. He can also refer cases to himself and overrule previous judges’ decisions, setting precedents that effectively reshape immigration law.In a little more than six months, Sessions has issued four consequential decisions on immigration cases he referred to himself, in some instances overturning decades of legal precedent. Attorneys general under the Obama administration used that power only four times over eight years.
“We’re seeing Attorney General Sessions take advantage of the structural flaws of the immigration court system,” says Laura Lynch, the senior policy counsel at AILA, which has joined the judges’ union in asking Congress to make the immigration courts independent of the Justice Department.
Sessions’ changes have been “extremely demoralizing,” says Dana Leigh Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “I’ve been in the field for 40 years, and I have never seen morale among immigration judges so low.”
Here are the biggest ways Sessions is attacking the immigration courts:
It’s now much more difficult to apply for asylum
In June, Sessions overturned a decision granting asylum to a Salvadoran woman, known in court documents as A-B-, who had escaped an abusive husband. He used the case as an opportunity to declare that migrants can’t generally be given asylum based on claims of domestic abuse or gang violence—a catastrophic blow to the tens of thousands of Central American migrants fleeing these dangers.
Sessions’ decision, though, doesn’t just affect how judges can rule. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that helps process asylum cases, interpreted his decision to mean that survivors of domestic and gang violence usually won’t pass their initial “credible fear” interviews after they cross the border—a first step that determines whether asylum seekers are even allowed to make their case before a judge. As Mother Jones’ Noah Lanard has reported, immigration lawyers say they’ve seen “overwhelming” numbers of migrants denied at the credible fear interview stage since Sessions’ decision.
In a statement, a group of former immigration judges described this decision as “an affront to the rule of law,” pointing out that it challenges longstanding protections for survivors of gender-based violence. “Women and children will die as a result of these policies,” Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, toldMother Jones when the decision was first announced.
A group of asylum seekers is now suing Sessions in federal court, arguing that this new policy violates due process rights and contradicts existing immigration law. They say that the policy’s sweeping generalizations ignore the requirement that each case be heard on its own merits.
Making matters even more complicated, in another decision earlier this year, Sessions vacated a 2014 precedent that guaranteed asylum applicants have the right to a full hearing before a judge can decide on their case. “The implications of [the new decision] are tremendous,” says Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of Law and one of the lawyers representing A-B- and the asylum seekers suing Sessions. “It’s basically saying that a judge can decide a case on the papers alone, and not allow an individual the right to present their case in front of that judge.”
Judges have less control over their case loads …
This summer wasn’t the first time Castro-Tum’s case drew national attention. Judge Morley had “administratively closed” the case back in 2016—a common step that judges have used to set aside thousands of cases, oftentimes when immigrants had no criminal background or had been in the US for many years and had family ties. Though the cases weren’t technically closed, they were put on hold and typically never re-opened, usually so judges could focus on higher-priority cases.
Earlier this year, Sessions re-opened Castro-Tum’s case by referring it to himself, and used it to severely restrict when judges could use administrative closure. That sent the case back to Morley, which is how the DOJ ended up replacing the judge and sparking widespread outrage.
The judges union has said that administrative closure is an important and necessary tool for judges to manage their caseloads, and removing it would result in an “enormous increase” in a court backlog that’s already piling up with almost 750,000 cases. Sessions’ decision also noted that cases which had previously been administratively closed, such as Castro-Tum’s, could now be re-opened, potentially adding thousands more cases to the backlog and creating further uncertainty for the defendants.
… and will have to move through them more quickly
In a somewhat related move, in April, Sessions and the Justice Department announced new performance metrics for judges. According to a DOJ memo, judges would now need to complete at least 700 cases a year, as well as close cases within a certain time period, in order to receive a satisfactory performance review. If they fail to receive satisfactory marks, judges could potentially lose their jobs or be relocated. According to the memo, judges currently complete on average 678 cases a year. The new measures will go into effect October 1.
The judges’ union, legal scholars, and other associations have strongly criticized the move, noting that case quotas would place enormous pressure on judges to quickly complete cases and affect their ability to fully hear cases—likely leading to more deportations.
“A tough asylum case takes about three to four hours to complete, but they’re pushing judges to schedule three or four cases a day, which is probably twice as many as most judges could do and do a good job on…It’s basically inviting people to cut corners,” says Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who has been a vocal critic of the Trump administration. “[Sessions] is dumbing down the judges and treating them like assembly-line workers whose only job is to stamp out final orders of removal.”
It’s harder for them to reschedule cases
On August 16, Sessions limited the ability for judges to issue continuances, which they did to postpone or reschedule removal cases, often when a defendant was waiting for a visa or another kind of immigration benefit and needed time to resolve their pending applications. Sessions has determined judges can now only issue continuances under a “good cause” standard, such as when an immigrant is likely to succeed in their attempt to stay in the US, either by winning an asylum hearing or receiving a visa.
Several retired immigration judges sent a letter to Sessions the next day, calling his decision on continuances a “blow to judicial independence.” They noted that some judges may receive from 10 to 15 requests for continuances a day—and would now need to spend time writing decisions on them, in addition to hearing their cases. “Immigration Judges should be treated as judges, and should be afforded the independent judgment that their position requires, including the basic power to control and prioritize their own case dockets,” the retired judges wrote. Advocates have also expressed concerns that immigrants could now be deported while waiting for another immigration benefit that would have given them legal status.
And as more judges retire, Sessions gets to staff up
Marks, of the judges union, notes there’s been a “tsunami” of retirements over the past two years. “Members of the association are telling us [that] they are leaving at the earliest possible opportunity or choosing to leave now because of the actions of the current administration,” she says. “They do not feel supported. They do not feel that they are free to make the decisions they need to make.”
Given the retirements, Sessions will have the ability to reshape the courts even further: Since January 2017, the DOJ has sworn in 82new immigration judges, and plans to hire at least 75 more this fall. Sessions has also worked to cut down the time it takes to hire judges.
What’s more, the Justice Department has faced allegations of politicized hiring. In April, House Democrats sent a letter to Sessions expressing concern that the DOJ had blocked several judges’ appointments for ideological reasons. The DOJ said in a statement to CNN that it “does not discriminate potential hires on the basis of political affiliation.”
Finally, while the DOJ has a long history of hiring judges with immigration enforcement backgrounds, the judges union has expressed concern that the DOJ may now be “over-emphasizing litigation experience” in its hiring practices, and “created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds.” As of last year, a little over 40 percent of immigration judges previously worked at the Department of Homeland Security.
Schmidt, the retired immigration judge, says he’s worried that even more new judges will come from prosecutorial backgrounds. “Who would really want to work for Sessions, given his record, his public statements?” he asks.
Under Sessions, he says, the immigration court “has become a deportation railway.”
Sent from my iPad
**********************
Great article, bringing together “all of the threads” of Sessions’s White Nationalist destruction of the U.S. Immigration Courts and his vicious racially-motivated attack on refugees from the Northern Triangle, particularly abused women and children.
For many years, “Gonzo Apocalypto” was a GOP “back bencher” in the Senate. His White Nationalist, restrictionist agenda was too much even for his GOP colleagues. His views were quite properly marginalized.
Suddenly, Trump runs for President on an overtly racist, White Nationalist, xenophobic platform. That’s music to Gonzo’s ears and he becomes the earliest Senate supporter.
Wonder of wonders, Trump wins, makes Sessions clone Stephen Miller his top immigration adviser, and appoints Gonzo as AG. His eyes light up. Suddenly, he’s free to dismember the entire Immigration Court, sack it’s Due Process vision, and attack migrants and refugees of color, particularly women, children, and families in ways that are both life threatening and permanently damaging.
He also gets a chance to dismantle civil rights protections, promote homophobia, disenfranchise minority voters, favor far right Evangelical Christianity, fill up prisons with the poor, black, and Hispanic, encourage police brutality against minorities, screw criminal defendants, disregard facts, harm refugees, and, icing on the cake, protect and promote hate speech. It’s a “dream come true” for a 21st century racist demagogue.
That Trump has mindlessly attacked his most faithfully effective racist, White Nationalist Cabinet Member says more about Trump than it does Sessions. Sessions is going to continue socking it to immigrants and minorities for just as long as he can. The further back into the era of Jim Crow that he can push America, the happier he’ll be when he goes on to his next position as a legal analyst for Breitbart or Fox.
Until then, there will be much more unnecessary pain, suffering, degradation, and even death on tap for migrants and their families.
Join the New Due Process Army — stand up against Session’s White Nationalist Agenda!
Dan De Luce and Julia Edwards Ainsley report for NBC News:
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has consistently sought to exaggerate the potential security threat posed by refugees and dismissed an intelligence assessment last year that showed refugeesdid not present a significant threat to the U.S., three former senior officials told NBC News.
Hard-liners in the administration then issued their own report this year that several former officials and rights groups say misstates the evidence and inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S.
At a meeting in September 2017 with senior officials discussing refugee admissions, a representative from the National Counterterrorism Center came ready to present a report that analyzed the possible risks presented by refugees entering the country.
But before he could discuss the report, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand dismissed the report, saying her boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, would not be guided by its findings.
“We read that. The attorney general doesn’t agree with the conclusions of that report,” she said, according to two officials familiar with the meeting, including one who was in the room at the time.
Brand’s blunt veto of the intelligence assessment shocked career civil servants at the interagency meeting, which seemed to expose a bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda. Her response also amounted to a rejection of her own department’s view, as the FBI, part of the Justice Department, had contributed to the assessment.
“She just dismissed them,” said the former official who attended the meeting.
The intelligence assessment was “inappropriately discredited as a result of that exchange,” said the ex-official. The episode made clear that “you weren’t able to have an honest conversation about the risk.”
A current DHS official defended the administration’s response to the intelligence assessment, saying immigration policy in the Trump administration does not rely solely on “historical data about terrorism trends,” but rather “is an all-of-the-above approach that looks at every single pathway that we think it is possible for a terrorist to come into the United States.”
A spokeswoman for DHS said, “If we only look at what terrorists have done in the past, we will never be able to prevent future attacks … We cannot let dangerous individuals slip through the cracks and exploit our refugee program, which is why we have implemented security enhancements that would prevent such violent individuals from reaching our shores, while still upholding our humanitarian ideals.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Following the dismissal of the assessment, anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration clashed with civil servants about how to portray the possible threat from refugees in documents drafted for inter-agency discussions, former officials said. In the end, the president’s decision last year to lower the ceiling for refugee admissions to 45,000 did not refer to security threats, but cited staffing shortages at DHS as the rationale. But once the decision was issued, the White House released a public statement that suggested the president’s decision was driven mainly by security concerns and said “some refugees” admitted into the country had posed a threat to public safety.
An Afghan refugee sleeps on the ground while another looks out a window in an abandoned warehouse where they and other migrants took refuge in Belgrade, Serbia, on Feb. 1, 2017.Muhammed Muheisen / AP file
“President Donald J. Trump is taking the responsible approach to promote the safety of the American people,” said the Sept. 29 statement.
Political appointees in the Trump administration then wrote a new report a few months later that seemed to contradict the view of the country’s spy agencies.
In a press release at the time, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the report showed the need for tougher screening of travelers entering the country and served as “a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists.”
But the report is being challenged in court by several former officials and rights groups who say it inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S. Two lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and California allege the report improperly excludes incidents committed by domestic terrorists, like white supremacists, and wrongfully includes a significant number of naturalized U.S. citizens and foreigners who committed crimes overseas and were brought to the United States for the purpose of standing trial.
Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand speaks during the opening of the summit on Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking at Department of Justice in Washington, on Feb. 2, 2018.Jose Luis Magana / AP file
Mary McCord, former assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, which prosecutes terrorism charges, said the January 2018 report is “unfortunately both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.”
“The result is a report that presents an inaccurate picture of the threat of terrorism in the United States,” McCord said.
When the report was released in January 2018, Trump tweeted that it showed the need to move away from “random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit based” because it showed that “the nearly 3 in 4 individuals convicted of terrorism-related charges are foreign-born.”
But the report only focuses on international terrorism, which is defined as a crime committed on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. The document excludes domestic terrorism committed by groups such as white supremacists or anti-government militias, which are more likely to be supported by those born in the U.S.
Because of the way the terrorism statute is written, those who support domestic organizations like anti-government or white supremacists groups cannot be charged with terrorism, even if the groups they support have committed crimes. Only supporters of foreign terrorist organizations designated by the State Department can be charged with “material support” of terrorism.
Still, Trump has repeatedly stated that the overwhelming majority of terrorists in the United States came from overseas, even before the 2018 report.
In his first speech to Congress in February 2017, Trump said that the “vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our own country.”
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, MSNBC legal analyst and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, took issue with that statement and sued the Justice Department to provide documents that backed up the president’s claim. But the Department was unable to locate any records.
“There are a lot of domestic terrorism cases, and they are generally not committed by people born abroad. To the extent that those cases were excluded — white supremacist violence, anti-abortion terrorism and militia violence — the inquiry is grossly biased,” Wittes wrote on Lawfare.
Wittes said that almost 100, or about a quarter, of the 402 individuals listed as foreign-born terrorists committed their crimes overseas and were brought to the U.S. to face trial.
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller at roundtable discussion on California immigration policy at the White House on May 16.Evan Vucci / AP file
During her time in government as the chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Barbara Strack said her staff worked diligently to thoroughly vet refugees for any possible terrorist links. But she said there was no information she came across that indicated refugees posed a significant security threat.
“I did not see evidence that refugees presented an elevated national security risk compared to other categories of travelers to the United States,” she told NBC News.
The administration must decide by the end of the month how many refugees to allow in the country in the next fiscal year. Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, known for his hawkish stance on immigration, has been pushing for a drastic reduction in the ceiling.
The cap was set at 45,000 last year, but the number of refugees allowed in the country has fallen far below that ceiling, with only about 20,000 resettled in the United States since October 2017. Rights advocates and former officials accuse the White House of intentionally slowing down the bureaucratic process to keep the numbers down, overloading the FBI and other government agencies with duplicative procedures.
*******************************************
This level of total intellectual dishonesty, overt racism, and policy driven solely by a White Nationalist philosophy and political agenda by an Attorney General is unprecedented in my experience at the DOJ.
If you remember, Brand escaped to a “soft landing” in the private sector earlier this year. One of my theories is that she was trying to protect herself and her reputation for a future Federal Judgeship. If and when that happens, I hope that those serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee will remember her completely sleazy role in carrying Sessions’s racist-polluted water on this one. Someone with no respect for facts, the law, humanity, or professional expertise definitely does not deserve to be on the Federal Bench!
And for Pete’s sake don’t credit Sessions with any integrity whatsoever in not resigning under pressure from our “Mussolini Wannabe.” He’s not “protecting” the Mueller investigation or anything else worthy in the DOJ. In fact, he has wholly politicized the DOJ and taken it down into the gutter. The reason he “hangs on” is not because he respects the Constitution or rule of law. Clearly, he doesn’t! No, it’s because he wants to do as much damage to civil rights and people of color as he can during his toxic tenure.
Make no mistake, that damage he has done, as has been reported elsewhere, is very substantial. It has set the goals that Dr. Martin Luther King and others fought for and even gave their lives for back by decades. Despicable!
Sessions’s White-Nationalist driven lies and false narratives about refugees are described above. For the truth about refugees and immigrants and all of the great things they have done and continue to do for our country, see my recent post at https://wp.me/p8eeJm-313.
Trump admin seeks to keep immigrant families in detention indefinitely
By Tal Kopan, CNN
The Trump administration has released a proposal to overhaul the way that undocumented immigrant families are treated in custody, a maneuver that would allow the government to keep the families in detention as long as their immigration court case remains open.
The proposed federal regulations would notably revoke the court case known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, which governs how undocumented children can be treated in custody. The regulations are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Friday.
The more than 200-page rule would have sweeping implications for the immigration detention system in the US and is likely to face swift resistance from advocates who brought the Flores case and those who have supported it.
One of the biggest proposed changes would create a federal license system to allow for detention centers that could hold families. The administration argues that it is the state-based licensing system that is causing issues that would restrict family detention.
The arguments for the rule are similar to the case the administration has made in court before Judge Dolly Gee, who oversees the settlement. Gee has rejected those arguments in her courtroom.
“This rule would allow for detention at (family detention centers) for the pendency of immigration proceedings … in order to permit families to be detained together and parents not be separated from their children,” the rule states. “It is important that family detention be a viable option not only for the numerous benefits that family unity provides for both the family and the administration of the INA, but also due to the significant and ongoing influx of adults who have made the choice to enter the United States illegally with juveniles or make the dangerous overland journey to the border with juveniles, a practice that puts juveniles at significant risk of harm.”
Pretty outrageous. But, about what we would expect from a racist White Nationalist Administration with no respect for the Constitution, laws, Federal Courts, or human dignity, and that is hell-bent on wasting our taxpayer money on evil causes.
I predict that this will “reactivate” the Flores litigation before Judge Gee. She, in turn, will “stuff” the Administration on its insulting, contemptuous, and clearly bogus justification for the detention.
These individuals are coming to the US seeking to exercise legal rights to apply for protection. Every reliable study shows that if released under alternatives to detention, informed of what the system requires, given adequate notice, and, most important, given reasonable access to lawyers they show up for their hearings nearly 100% of the time and actually prevail on the merits in a significant number of cases (the success rate is kept artificially low by the disingenuous anti-asylum jurisprudence created by Sessions and by a pre-existing legal bias in the system against many asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, also fanned and encouraged by Sessions’s overt xenophobia).
Stay tuned for another monumental waste of taxpayer money on yet another misguided Administration attempt to impose a White Nationalist immigration agenda!
Quiroz Parada v. Sessions, 9th Cir., 08-29-18, Published
COURT STAFF SUMMARY:
The panel granted Moris Alfredo Quiroz Parada’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, in a case in which Quiroz Parada, a citizen of El Salvador, sought relief after he and his family were the victims of threats, home invasions, beatings, and killings at the hands of Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional guerillas.
The panel held that the record compelled a finding of past persecution. The panel explained that the Board mischaracterized what Quiroz Parada endured as simply threats against his family and attempts to recruit him, and ignored, among other evidence, his brother’s assassination, the murder of his neighbor as a result of Quiroz Parada’s own family being targeted, his experience being captured and beaten to the point of unconsciousness, repeated forced home invasions, and specific death threats toward his family. The panel concluded that the harm Quiroz Parada and his family suffered rose to the level of past persecution.
Applying pre-REAL ID Act standards, the panel held that the harm Quiroz Parada suffered bore a nexus to a protected ground, as the FMLN guerillas were motivated, at least in part, by his family’s government and military service. The panel noted that it was immaterial that the
FMLN’s attempted conscription of Quiroz Parada would have served the dual goal of filling their ranks in order to carry on their war against the government and pursue their political objectives, because their additional goal of retaliating against the Quiroz Parada family was a protected ground.
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the agency’s determination that the government successfully rebutted the presumption of future persecution. The panel noted that by the time the IJ considered the country conditions information submitted into the record it was five years out of date, and predated the FMLN’s rise to power in government. The panel explained that the government cannot meet its burden of rebutting the presumption by presenting evidence of the Salvadoran government’s human rights record at a time when the government was run by a different political party, particularly when at the time of the IJ hearing it was run by the very same FMLN who persecuted the Quiroz Parada family. The panel joined the Second Circuit in holding that reliance on significantly or materially outdated country reports cannot suffice to rebut the presumption of future persecution.
The panel concluded that the agency erred as a matter of law in denying Quiroz Parada’s application for CAT relief because it ignored pertinent evidence in the record and erred by construing the “government acquiescence” standard too narrowly. The panel explained that acquiescence does not require actual knowledge or willful acceptance of torture, and that awareness and willful blindness will suffice. The panel further explained that the acquiescence standard is met where the record demonstrates that public officials at any level, even if not at the federal level, would acquiesce in the torture the petitioner is likely to suffer, and that evidence showing widespread corruption of public officials, as the record revealed in this case, can be highly probative on this point. The panel noted that the country conditions reports and exhibits submitted by Quiroz Parada indicate the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government, or at least parts of the Salvadoran government, in the rampant violence and murder perpetrated by the Mara Salvatrucha gang, at whose hands Quiroz Parada fears that he will be killed.
The panel remanded for reconsideration of his CAT claim, an exercise of discretion whether to grant asylum relief, and an appropriate order withholding Quiroz Parada’s removal.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
PANEL: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judge, and Timothy J. Savage,* District Judge.
* The Honorable Timothy J. Savage, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
OPINION BY: Judge Paez
KEY QUOTES FROM OPINION:
Quiroz Parada applied for asylum5 and withholding of removal on September 27, 1994. If he is removed to El Salvador, Quiroz Parada fears he will be persecuted on account of his family status and political opinion. The source of that feared persecution is twofold: the MS gang members seeking revenge on behalf of their FMLN guerilla parents, as well as the FMLN itself—despite the fact that the FMLN is currently a political party, rather than a violent revolutionary movement. Because the FMLN is now the ruling political party, Quiroz Parada does not believe he can safely reside in any part of the country without falling victim to retribution by the FMLN. Moreover, simply laying low is not an option: Quiroz Parada believes the FMLN will learn of his return to the country and have the ability to locate him because he no longer has any Salvadoran documentation and would thus be required to renew all of his documents upon arriving in El Salvador. Quiroz Parada also testified that he is opposed to the FMLN’s “leftist wing” form of democracy and that he would feel compelled to speak out against the FMLN-run government’s policies, which he fears would result in persecution by the government. While Quiroz Parada is aware that the civil war ended several decades ago, he does not believe that the Salvadoran government would prosecute former FMLN guerillas if “they murder people, or behave badly.”6
5 Because Quiroz Parada applied for asylum prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the one-year bar for asylum applications does not apply.See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a).
6 Regrettably, as with many critical pieces of his testimony, Quiroz Parada’s explanation for why he does not believe in the Salvadoran government’s ability or willingness to prosecute former FMLN members who murder or otherwise attack their former enemies is transcribed as “[indiscernible] and [indiscernible].”
Thirteen years passed before the government took any action on Quiroz Parada’s 1994 asylum application. In May 2007, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officer finally interviewed Quiroz Parada. On May 31, 2007, Quiroz Parada’s asylum case was referred to an immigration judge; DHS simultaneously issued a notice to appear, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(I) for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. At a master calendar hearing in February 2008, an IJ sustained the charge of removability. Quiroz Parada requested relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and cancellation of removal.
The delays for Quiroz Parada didn’t end there: nearly five years passed between his February 2008 hearing and his merits hearing before an IJ in November 2012. The government submitted its hearing exhibits back in 2008, including a 2007 Department of State Country Report and a 2007 Department of State Profile on El Salvador. Yet for unknown reasons, the government did not update their exhibits during the years that passed between submission of their exhibits and the actual hearing—despite the fact that the country conditions reports were five years out of date by the time of the merits hearing.
Quiroz Parada, by contrast, submitted his exhibits approximately one week before the November 2012 hearing. In addition to a written statement describing his past persecution and fear of future persecution, Quiroz Parada submitted a number of other exhibits corroborating his claims. For example, he submitted a 2010 letter from his sister—written prior to her fleeing the country—imploring him to not return to El Salvador for any reason because of the risk that he will be kidnapped or killed by MS. The letter explained that the “police do[] not help, and they even get killed,” and warned that if he were to come back to the country, “history would repeat itself.” Another one of his sisters sent him a copy of a handwritten threat she received from MS members, which said they knew she “snitched on the barrio” and warned her that if she failed to leave the area by a particular date, her “daughters will suffer the consequences.” His exhibits also included several newspaper articles about the violence perpetrated by MS in Quiroz Parada’s home region; these articles echoed a letter from the National Civil Police of El Salvador describing MS’s crimes, the gang’s pervasiveness in Quiroz Parada’s home region, and how the rampant violence has forced many families to flee.
The long-awaited hearing in November 2012 did not begin on a promising note. Prior to hearing any testimony from Quiroz Parada or argument from his attorney, the IJ conveyed his belief that Quiroz Parada’s asylum claim “may be a lost cause.” Nonetheless, despite the IJ’s significant skepticism, he allowed Quiroz Parada’s attorney to present Quiroz Parada’s case for asylum. On February 8, 2013, the IJ issued a written decision denying Quiroz Parada’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and cancellation of removal. The IJ first found that Quiroz Parada was credible under both the pre-REAL ID Act and REAL ID Act standards.7 The IJ then determined that Quiroz Parada had not shown past persecution, but further concluded that even if he had, DHS had rebutted the presumption with evidence of changed country conditions. The IJ also found that Quiroz Parada had not shown an independent well-founded fear of future persecution. Because the IJ determined that Quiroz Parada had not established eligibility for asylum through either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, Quiroz Parada necessarily failed to meet the higher bar required to obtain withholding of removal. The IJ also rejected Quiroz Parada’s claim for CAT relief.
7 Although the REAL ID Act governs Quiroz Parada’s claim for cancellation of removal, it does not govern his claims currently on appeal, which were filed prior to May 11, 2005. See Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010).
Quiroz Parada appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal. In its decision, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determinations on Quiroz Parada’s asylum, withholding, and CAT claims, including the IJ’s alternative holding that even if Quiroz Parada had established past persecution, the government had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA denied relief to Quiroz Parada, but granted him voluntary departure. Quiroz Parada timely petitioned us for review.
. . . .
As an initial matter, we reject the government’s contention that we lack jurisdiction to consider Quiroz Parada’s CAT claim because he did not raise it before the BIA. Although Quiroz Parada did not specifically appeal his CAT claim to the BIA, the agency addressed the merits of the claim. It is well-established that we may review any issue addressed on the merits by the BIA, regardless of whether the petitioner raised it before the agency. See Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 355 (2014). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review the claim.
The agency’s first error was its failure to consider all relevant evidence. CAT’s implementing regulations require the agency to consider “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture,” and we have repeatedly reversed where the agency has failed to do so.See, e.g., Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770–72 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]here there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, a catchall phrase [that the agency has considered all of the evidence] does not suffice, and the decision cannot stand.”); Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The failure of the IJ and BIA to consider [relevant evidence] constitutes reversible error.”). Relevant evidence includes the petitioner’s testimony and country conditions evidence. See Cole, 659 F.3d at 771–72. Moreover, a petitioner’s credible testimony “may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Here, the relevant evidence included Quiroz Parada’s credible testimony, the 2007 country conditions reports, and exhibits submitted by Quiroz Parada. Yet the IJ summarily dismissed Quiroz Parada’s CAT claim, stating:
Based on the respondent’s testimony and the evidence in the record, the Court finds that the respondent has not shown that he is “more likely than not” to be tortured if he is removed to El Salvador. In addition, to be eligible for CAT relief, the respondent must establish that the torture feared would be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Matter of S-V-, 22 I&N Dec. 1306, 1311 (BIA 2000), disagreed with on other grounds by Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003). “Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture does not
extend protection to persons fearing entities that a government is unable to control.” Id.at 1312. The respondent has not alleged that he fears torture inflicted by any governmental entities in El Salvador, nor by any other entity with the acquiescence of any government official. Thus, he has not established eligibility for CAT relief.
This conclusion ignored significant evidence in the record demonstrating that 1) Quiroz Parada credibly feared death at the hands of the MS gang, and 2) the country conditions reports and other evidence in the record established not only that the government “acquiescence[d]” in the MS gang’s violence, but also that Salvadoran security forces engaged in torture on a regular basis—as the IJ himself found in a section of his decision summarizing the country conditions evidence:
[P]rotection of human rights was undermined by widespread violent crime, rampant judicial and police corruption, intimidation by the ubiquitous violent street gangs, and violence against witnesses. Criminal gangs are a serious, widespread, and pervasive socio-economic challenge to the security, stability, and welfare of El Salvador. Indeed, gangs are blamed for the bulk of crimes and murders in El Salvador. While the government’s fight against the gangs has met with some success in areas, El Salvador remains an exceptionally violent country because of the pervasive gang violence.
Although arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention, and torture are prohibited in El Salvador, Salvadoran security forces apparently continue to participate in such practices on a regular basis. Conditions in detention are degrading and extremely dangerous. Many officials throughout all levels of government engage in corruption with impunity despite a recent increased emphasis on enforcement.
Thus, while the IJ did “consider” the country conditions reports, the significant and material disconnect between the IJ’s quoted observations and his conclusions regarding Quiroz Parada’s CAT claim indicate that the IJ did not properly consider all of the relevant evidence before him.See Cole, 659 F.3d at 771–72 (explaining that indications of the agency’s failure to properly consider all of the relevant evidence “include misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence”).
The agency’s second error was its overly narrow construction of the “acquiescence” standard. In a similar case, we reversed and remanded where the agency “erred by construing ‘government acquiescence’ too narrowly,” noting that “acquiescence does not require actual knowledge or willful acceptance of torture; awareness and willful blindness will suffice.” Aguilar-Ramos, 594 F.3d at 705–06 (citing Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 2003)). In Aguilar-Ramos, we found “evidence in the record that suggests that gangs and death squads operate in El Salvador, and that its government is aware of and willfully blind to their existence.” Id. at 706. So too here.
Moreover, we have held that the acquiescence standard is met where the record demonstrates that public officials at any level—even if not at the federal level—would acquiesce in torture the petitioner is likely to suffer. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 509–10 (9th Cir. 2013). Evidence showing widespread corruption of public officials—as the record reveals here—can be highly probative on this point.See id. at 510 (noting that “[v]oluminous evidence in the record explains that corruption of public officials in Mexico remains a problem”). As in Madrigal, the country conditions reports and exhibits submitted by Quiroz Parada indicate the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government (or at least parts of the Salvadoran government) in the “rampant” violence and murder perpetrated by the MS gang—at whose hands Quiroz Parada fears that he will be killed. And as we have previously held, “torture” under CAT includes killings. See Cole, 659 F.3d at 771.
Because the agency erred by failing to consider all relevant evidence and by improperly construing the government acquiescence standard, we reverse the BIA’s determination that Quiroz Parada is not eligible for CAT relief and remand to the agency for further consideration of his claim.
******************************************
The BIA’s and IJ’s fundamental errors included:
Failing to follow their regulations requiring them to consider all the evidence;
Incorrectly finding no “past persecution;”
Incorrectly applying the regulatory presumption of future persecution;
Incorrectly denying asylum and withholding of removal;
Applying an incorrect standard for CAT protection;
Incorrectly analyzing country conditions for CAT.
Wow, what did the BIA and the IJ get right here other than the name and “A#?”
Contrary to the “Sessions myth” about “dirty attorneys” and respondents “gaming the system,” this case presents the perhaps extreme, but certainly not atypical, example where “the government took thirteen years to process the asylum application and then another five years to hold a hearing before an IJ—during which time the government had every opportunity to submit more up-to-date evidence of changed country conditions, but failed to do so.”
The respondent, “by contrast, submitted his exhibits approximately one week before the November 2012 hearing. In addition to a written statement describing his past persecution and fear of future persecution, Quiroz Parada submitted a number of other exhibits corroborating his claims.”
Moreover, once the hearing finally took place, it was fairly obvious from the IJ’s negative pre-hearing comments that he had already “prejudged’ the case against the respondent.
The court also notes how the phenomenon I call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) by the Government, which Sessions has shoved into overdrive, fuels “our previously-expressed concern that ‘constant remands to the BIA to consider the impact of changed country conditions occurring during the period of litigation of an asylum case would create a “Zeno’s Paradox” where final resolution of the case would never be reached.’”Baballah, 367 F.3d at 1078 n.11 (quoting Hoxha v. Ashcroft,319 F.3d 1179, 1185 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003)) (alteration omitted).”
The grossly under-studied phenomenon of “ADR” by the DHS and EOIR/DOJ also requires the respondent and his or her often pro bono attorney to constantly update the record and the evidence to deal with changing conditions, while the DHS often takes the lackadaisical approach they did here, apparently counting on the IJ or the BIA to “fill in the gaps” necessary to “get to a denial of the facially grantable claim.”
Here’s the court’s accurate statement of both the CAT standard for acquiescence and the current conditions in El Salvador:
“In Aguilar-Ramos, we found “evidence in the record that suggests that gangs and death squads operate in El Salvador, and that its government is aware of and willfully blind to their existence.” Id. at 706. So too here.
Moreover, we have held that the acquiescence standard is met where the record demonstrates that public officials at any level—even if not at the federal level—would acquiesce in torture the petitioner is likely to suffer. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 509–10 (9th Cir. 2013). Evidence showing widespread corruption of public officials—as the record reveals here—can be highly probative on this point.See id. at 510 (noting that “[v]oluminous evidence in the record explains that corruption of public officials in Mexico remains a problem”). As in Madrigal, the country conditions reports and exhibits submitted by Quiroz Parada indicate the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government (or at least parts of the Salvadoran government) in the “rampant” violence and murder perpetrated by the MS gang—at whose hands Quiroz Parada fears that he will be killed. And as we have previously held, “torture” under CAT includes killings. See Cole, 659 F.3d at 771″
Compare the above with Sessions’s completely disingenuous description of both the standard for “unwilling or unable to protect” — certainly “acquiescence” would meet or exceed “unwilling or unable to protect” — and the beyond deplorable country conditions in El Salvador in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
This case also illustrates how in the “haste makes waste” world of EOIR, transcripts are often missing or garble testimony critical to the respondent’s case.
Unfortunately, this case is but an example of the deep, ugly hidden truth about our Immigration Courts. Even before Session’s White Nationalist restrictionist moves against asylum seekers, the Immigration Courts were mistreating too many asylum seekers, particularly those from the Northern Triangle fleeing life-threatening violence. Well prepared claims were often shunted to the end of the docket by ADR at both the courts and the DHS Asylum offices. They are often replaced by “prioritized” claims in detention settings or in other unnecessarily rushed situations where individuals have not had adequate time to obtain competent counsel and to prepare the necessary documentation to win a claim.
That’s compounded by the fact that even in the past, statements of politicos within Administrations of both parties and the generally negative tenor of BIA precedents on asylum for the Northern Triangle have encouraged some willing Immigration Judges to either prejudge the cases or give them “short shrift” to discourage such claims in the future and to act as a “deterrent,” as well as to jack up the number of “case completions” by cutting corners. This was happening in some Immigration Courts and on some BIA panels even before Sessions took over.
Certainly, the message from Sessions has been overtly anti-asylum, anti-Hispanic, anti-female, anti-family, anti-Due-Process, anti-scholarship, and anti-deliberation. In essence: “Just rubber stamp ’em, deny ’em, and move ’em out as fast as you can if you want to keep your job. And, don’t forget that your job involves ‘partnership’ with the DHS prosecutors.”
Obviously, our Immigration Court systems had some deep-seated Due Process problems with anti-asylum, anti-Northern Triangle attitudes, as well as fundamentally incorrect views of the asylum law and regulations, by some Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration judges even prior to Sessions’s advent. That’s one of the key reasons why gross discrepancies in approval-denial rates in similar cases among Immigration Judges and among BIA “panels” (which often can be nothing more than a single Appellate Judge) had no reasonable explanation even during the Obama Administration.
Sessions has made all of this immeasurably worse! Rather than fostering an attitude of judicial independence, courtesy, fairness, respect for both parties, Due Process, and the generous consideration of asylum claims mandated by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and at least mouthed by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, Sessions has come up with ways of forcing the already broken Immigration Court system to take on even more cases, cut even more corners, and spew forth even more incorrect and unfair decisions, particularly in the area of asylum.
He has shown a simply horrible, outright hostility to working cooperatively with the individual Immigration Judges, the NAIJ, the private bar, the pro bono community, the NGO’s, and the academic community, along with the DHS, to develop methods of improving Due Process, fairness, and timeliness in the asylum adjudication system. Perhaps even worse, by reducing the status of judges to “denial officers,” and upping the stress levels to incredible heights, he’s also made the U.S. Immigration Judge and the BIA Appellate Immigration Judge jobs far less appealing to well-qualified individuals who would fairly, efficiently, correctly, and professionally adjudicate asylum claims. Such individuals also likely would have some of the “creative, yet practical” “think outside the box” approaches necessary to deal with the backlog in a timely manner without compromising Due Process. It’s painfully obvious that the Sessions and the other politicos now futilely trying to micromanage the Immigration Court system are devoid of any such insights.
Frankly, this is the type of case that probably could have been granted back in 1994 when it was first filed. Even by the time it finally got to Immigration Court, it appears to be the type of well-documented, clearly grantable case that could have been set for a “short block hearing” with the understanding that if certain aspects of the respondent’s background and experiences were verified under oath, the DHS would not oppose a grant of asylum.
Instead, this case has been “hanging around” the system for more than 24 years, and still hasn’t been finally resolved! More seriously, after taking five years on the docket to get to the merits hearing, both the IJ and the BIA clearly got it wrong!
The mess that currently exists in the Immigration Court and asylum systems is primarily the product of years of such abuse and mismanagement by a politically-driven adjudication system, aided and abetted by Congressional inaction and failure to provide adequate funding. Cutting more corners, pushing overwhelmed judges to turn out more cases in less time, and punishing asylum applicants by taking away their children, detaining them in substandard conditions, denying them reasonable access to counsel, denying them fairness, Due Process, and the life-saving protection to which many of them are entitled clearly isn’t the answer.
We need regime change (along with an attitude and culture change among some Immigration Judges and among some BIA panels)!
A new report from New American Economy (NAE) shows that immigrants in the City of Alexandria paid $364.6 million in taxes in 2016, including $262.4 million in federal taxes and $102.2 million in state and local taxes. The report was produced in partnership with the City of Alexandria Workforce Development Center and the Alexandria Economic Development Partnership.
In addition to their financial contributions, the new report, New Americans in Alexandria, shows the role that the immigrant population in Alexandria plays in the local labor force, as well as their contributions to the city’s recent population growth. Though they account for 28 percent of the city’s overall population, immigrants represent 32.3 percent the city’s working age population and 30.5 percent of its employed labor force. The report also shows that over half of the city’s population growth in between 2011 and 2016 is attributable to immigrants.
Foreign-born residents paid $364.6 million in taxes in the City of Alexandria in 2016. Immigrant households earned $1.4 billion in income in 2016. Of that, $262.4 million went to federal taxes and $102.2 million went to state and local taxes, leaving them with $998.8 million in spending power.
Immigrants were responsible for 52.0 percent of the total population growth in Alexandria between 2011 and 2016. Over those 5 years, the overall population in the city increased by 10.8 percent, while the immigrant population increased by 22.2 percent.
Despite making up 28.0 percent of the overall population, immigrants played an outsize role in the labor force in 2016. Foreign-born workers represented 32.3 percent of Alexandria’s working-age population and 30.5 percent of its employed labor force that year.
Immigrants are overrepresented among entrepreneurs in the city. Despite making up 28.0 percent of the population, immigrants accounted for 34.2 percent of all entrepreneurs in the city in 2016, generating $79.4 million in local business income.
Immigrants play a critical role in several key industries in the city, including in STEM fields. Foreign-born workers made up 62.2 percent of all workers in construction, 48.3 percent of all workers in hospitality and recreation, and 41.4 percent of all workers in healthcare. They also made up 21.4 percent of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workers.
40 percent of immigrants over the age of 25 had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2016, and 19.2 percent had an advanced degree.
Over one third of immigrants in the city—36.3 percent, or over 15,000 individuals— were naturalized citizens in 2016.
Over one third—31.2 percent—of refugees aged 25 and above in the city held at least a bachelor’s degree in 2016. 10 percent held an advanced degree.
The US Refugee Resettlement Program — A Return to First Principles:
How Refugees Help to Define, Strengthen, and Revitalize the United States
Donald Kerwin
Center for Migration Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The US refugee resettlement program should be a source of immense national pride. The program has saved countless lives, put millions of impoverished persons on a path to work, self-sufficiency, and integration, and advanced US standing in the world. Its beneficiaries have included US leaders in science, medicine, business, the law, government, education, and the arts, as well as countless others who have strengthened the nation’s social fabric through their work, family, faith, and community commitments. Refugees embody the ideals of freedom, endurance, and self-sacrifice, and their presence closes the gap between US ideals and its practices. For these reasons, the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support for nearly 40 years.
Yet the current administration has taken aim at this program as part of a broader attack on legal immigration programs. It has treated refugees as a burden and a potential threat to our nation, rather than as a source of strength, renewal, and inspiration. In September 2017, it set an extremely low refugee admissions ceiling (45,000) for 2018, which it had no intention of meeting: the United States is on pace to resettle less than one-half of that number. It has also tightened special clearance procedures for refugees from mostly Muslim-majority states so that virtually none can enter; cynically slow-walked the interview, screening, and admissions processes; and decimated the community-based resettlement infrastructure built up over many decades (Miliband 2018). At a time of record levels of forced displacement in the world, the United States should model solidarity with refugees and exercise leadership in global refugee protection efforts (Francis 2018a, 102). Instead, the administration has put the United States on pace to resettle the lowest number of refugees in USRAP’s 38-year history, with possible further cuts in fiscal year (FY) 2019.
This report describes the myriad ways in which this program serves US interests and values. The program:
saves the lives of the world’s most vulnerable persons;
continues “America’s tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries” and shares the “responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression” (Reagan 1981);
promotes a “stable and moral world” (Helton 2002, 120);
reduces spontaneous, unregulated arrivals and encourages developing nations to remain engaged in refugee protection (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan 2017, 42-43); and
promotes cooperation from individuals, communities, and nations that are central to US military and counter-terrorism strategies.[1]
In that vein, the report describes the achievements, contributions, and integration outcomes of 1.1 million refugees who arrived in the United States between 1987 and 2016. It finds that:
the median household income of these refugees is $43,000;[2]
35 percent of refugee households have mortgages;
63 percent of refugees have US-born children;
40 percent are married to US citizens; and
67 percent have naturalized.
Comparing the 1.1 million refugees who arrived between 1987 and 2016 with non-refugees,[3] the foreign born, and the total US population, the report finds:
Refugees’ labor force participation (68 percent) and employment rates (64 percent) exceed those of the total US population (63 and 60 percent respectively).[4]
Large numbers of refugees (10 percent) are self-employed and, in this and other ways, job creators, compared to 9 percent for the total US population.
Refugees’ median personal income ($20,000) equals that of non-refugees and exceeds the income of the foreign born overall ($18,700).
Refugees are more likely to be skilled workers (38 percent) than non-refugees (33 percent) or the foreign born (35 percent).
Refugees are less likely to work in jobs that new immigrants fill at high rates, such as construction, restaurants and food service, landscaping, services to buildings and dwellings, crop production, and private households.
Refugees use food stamps and Medicaid at higher rates than non-refugees, the foreign born, and the total US population. However, their public benefit usage significantly declines over time and their integration, well-being, and US family ties increase.
Comparing refugee characteristics by time present in the United States — from the most recent arrivals (2007 to 2016), to arrivals between 1997 to 2006, to those with the longest tenure (1987 to 1996) — the report finds:
Refugees with the longest residence have integrated more fully than recent arrivals, as measured by households with mortgages (41 to 19 percent); English language proficiency (75 to 55 percent); naturalization rates (89 to 24 percent); college education (66 to 32 percent); labor force participation (68 to 61 percent); and employment (66 to 55 percent) and self-employment (14 to 4 percent).
Refugees who arrived from 1997 to 2006 have higher labor force participation and employment rates than refugees who arrived from 1987 to 1996.[5]
Refugees who arrived between 1987 and 1996 exceed the total US population, which consists mostly of the native-born, in median personal income ($28,000 to $23,000), homeownership (41 to 37 percent with a mortgage), percent above the poverty line (86 to 84 percent), access to a computer and the internet (82 to 75 percent), and health insurance (93 to 91 percent).
Comparing nationals — in 2000 and again in 2016 — from states formerly in the Soviet Union, who entered from 1987 to 1999, the report finds that:
median household income increased from $31,000 to $53,000;
median personal income nearly tripled, from $10,700 to $31,000;
the percent of households with a mortgage increased from 30 to 40 percent;
public benefit usage fell;
English language proficiency rose;
the percent with a college degree or some college increased (68 to 80 percent);
naturalization rates nearly doubled, from 47 to 89 percent;
marriage to US citizens rose from 33 to 51 percent; and
labor force participation rate (59 to 69 percent), employment (57 to 66 percent), self-employment (11 to 15 percent), and the rate of skilled workers (33 to 38 percent) all grew.
The report also finds that refugees bring linguistic diversity to the United States and, in this and other ways, increase the nation’s economic competitiveness and security.
In short, refugees become US citizens, homeowners, English speakers, workers, business owners, college educated, insured, and computer literate at high rates. These findings cover a large population of refugees comprised of all nationalities, not just particularly successful national groups.
Section I of the report describes the nation’s historic commitment to refugees and critiques the administration’s rationale for dismantling the resettlement program. Section II sets forth the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) methodology for selecting the refugee data used in this report. Section III discusses the resettlement, national origins, and years of arrival of the refugees in CMS’s sample. Section IV details the report’s main findings on the achievements, contributions, and integration of refugees over time. It compares the characteristics of refugees, non-refugees, the foreign born, and the total US population; and examines the progress of refugees — measured in 2000 and 2016 — that arrived from the former Soviet Union between 1987 and 1999. This section also references the growing literature on the US refugee program and on the economic and fiscal impacts of refugees. Section V discusses the important role of voluntary agencies in the resettlement process, focusing on the work of Catholic agencies in building community support for refugees and promoting their entrepreneurial initiatives. Section VI identifies the national interests served by the refugee program, recommends ways to address several of the program’s longstanding challenges, and urges the president, Congress, Americans with refugee roots, and other stakeholders to work to strengthen and expand the program.
[1] Brief for Retired Generals and Admirals of the US Armed Forces in Support of Respondents at 19-21, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 1 7-965 (Mar. 30, 2018)http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.11.
[2] This is less than the median household income of the non-refugee population ($45,000), the foreign born ($56,000), and the total US population ($52,800). However, most refugees enter the United States without income, assets, or English language proficiency, and they advance dramatically over time. This report shows, for example, that the median personal income of refugees who arrived between 1987 and 1996 actually exceeds that of the total US population.
[3] The Center for Migration Studies identified non-refugees by removing persons selected as refugees from the population of all foreign born that entered after 1986, by single year of entry. In each year of entry, it then randomly selected the same number as the number of refugees.
[4] The labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of persons age 16 or over who are employed or seeking work, as opposed to out of the labor force entirely.
[5] The higher labor force participation and employment rates of refugees who arrived from 1997 to 2006 can likely be attributed to the older age of those who arrived from 1987 to 1996 (20 percent age 65 or over). Many of those who arrived in the 1987 to 1996 period had likely retired by 2016.
REGISTER FOR THIS FREE WEBINAR:
WEBINAR
The Contributions of Refugees to the Nation and the Importance of a Robust US Refugee Program
September 6, 2018, 1pm EDT
An employee solders a circuit board. (Dominik Osswald/Bloomberg)
President Trump has repeatedly promised to close the borders to stop undocumented migrants from taking American jobs, so far with only minimal success. Which shouldn’t be surprising. For a half-century, the government has been unable to stanch the flow of illegal migrants working for American companies because it continuously misdiagnoses the problem. Unless the government either holds employers responsible or grants undocumented workers legal rights, there will continue to be undocumented immigrants streaming across the border, no matter how harsh enforcement efforts are.
When we think of undocumented workers, we tend to think of farmworkers or those doing menial service jobs like hotel housekeeping. And yet undocumented workers have been foundational to the rise of our most vaunted hub of innovative capitalism: Silicon Valley.
If any industry should be automated, it would be the high-tech world of electronics. In 1984 the iconic Apple even touted its “Highly Automated Macintosh Manufacturing Facility,” bragging that “A Machine Builds Machines.” Yet Apple’s factory, like all the other electronic factories, was shockingly old-fashioned. There were more robots in Detroit’s auto factories than in Silicon Valley. The flexibility of electronics production in Silicon Valley, despite all the technical wizardry, came from workers not machines.
And while these companies employed many high-skilled, highly paid engineers, Silicon Valley became the tech hub of the world thanks to a very different set of workers. Unlike the postwar industries that created a middle class from union wages, electronics expanded in the 1970s and ’80s through low-cost, often subcontracted, often undocumented labor. Instead of self-aware robots or high-dollar professionals, it was women of color, mostly immigrants — hunched over tables with magnifying glasses, assembling parts sometimes on a factory line, sometimes on a kitchen table — who did the necessary but toxic work of semiconductor manufacturing. Many of the undocumented workers were from Mexico, while many of the documented ones were from there and Vietnam.
Consider Ampex, a leading audio manufacturer, whose 1980s assembly room looked like most in Silicon Valley: all women, and mostly women of color. Automation was not an option because the products changed too quickly to recoup the investment in machinery.
The tools these women used were hardly futuristic. In fact, they were one of the most ancient tools in existence — their fingernails. The women grew their nails long on each hand so that they could more easily maneuver the components onto the circuit boards. Tongs were an option, but fingernails worked better.
The high-end audio at Ampex was made possible by low-end subcontracting. In Quonset huts, temporary workers dropped off and collected subcontracted chemical processing that was too dangerous to be done by regular Ampex employees. The front and back doors of the huts were open, some lazily turning fans were on the ceiling, but otherwise there was no ventilation.
The workers stoked fires beneath vats of chemicals, some of which boiled. In the vats, the subcontracted workers dipped metals and printed circuits, which temps collected and returned to Ampex.
And this wasn’t even the bottom rung of the electronics industry. The bottom-rung of the electronics industry was not in a small factory or a Quonset hut, but a kitchen.
Investigators found that somewhere between 10 and 30 percent of electronics firms subcontracted to “home workers.” Like garment workers taking in sewing in the 1880s, electronics workers in the 1980s could assemble parts in their kitchen. A mother and her children gathered around a kitchen table assembling components for seven cents apiece. These little shops put together the boards used by big companies like Ampex.
The catch: the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) believed that as much as 25 percent of the Silicon Valley workforce (~200,000 people) was undocumented — which meant this thriving industry was routinely breaking the law. The INS tasked John Senko, an 18-year veteran, with opening the agency’s first office in San Jose and eliminating illegal migrant labor in Silicon Valley. Early raids yielded undocumented workers making between $5.50 and $7.50 an hour ($13.60 and $18.55 in 2018 dollars), which, in the lingering recession of the early 1980s, was good money. Americans out of work might not have wanted to be migrant farmworkers, but they did want factory jobs.
The INS encouraged the large companies to cooperate by offering them lenience for giving up their “illegal aliens.” At Circuit Assembly Corporation in San Jose, the INS asked for the names of its noncitizen employees. Of the 250 names, the company suspected that “20 or 30 of them could be using forged papers.” The actual number was 187.
But in a pattern that would repeat itself, and would reinforce the wrong incentive structures, the company received no sanctions or penalties because it cooperated. It replaced those employees with what Senko dubbed “legal workers,” while deporting the rest. The INS moved onto the next company.
This pattern, however, allowed companies to return to hiring undocumented workers once the heat was off. Papers were easy to forge, and employers had no reason to check them too closely. Senko and the INS were understaffed, growing to only a few dozen employees. And there was no real risk to breaking the law without any potential penalty for the company.
In addition to doing nothing to stanch the flow of undocumented workers, by targeting employees, not employers, the INS provoked a fierce backlash. Senko raided not just workplaces but neighborhoods. In Menlo Park, just near Stanford, INS agent blocked the streets, removed “Hispanic males” from cars and from homes, checking them for proof of citizenship. In Santa Cruz, the INS went door to door checking Hispanic citizenship.
These harsh tactics prompted pushback from local governments. In San Jose, officials fought against INS in the name of defending “chicano citizens” against harassment, passing a resolution against “the unwarranted disruption of the business community.” In December 1985, San Francisco declared itself a “sanctuary” and directed its police and officials not to assist the INS in finding “law-abiding” but “undocumented” migrants.
This resistance forced INS agents to enforce the law more selectively. But reducing these broad sweeps actually exacerbated the root problem. It gave Silicon Valley corporations even more power over their undocumented workforce.
Businesses could selectively check green cards against an INS database, or simply hand over troublemakers. This power made it impossible for unions to organize the electronics factories. The spokesman for the International Association of Machinists explained that whenever they tried to organize, the company “threatened to have anyone who joined the union deported.”
So long as undocumented workers remained cheaper and willing to work in worse conditions than American employees, and the risk of employing undocumented labor was nonexistent, enforcement was doomed to fail.
For John Senko, his time in San Jose was “the worst three years of my life.” He came to believe that if he was actually successful in deporting undocumented workers from Silicon Valley “we’d have a revolution.” He preferred, he said, businesses to cooperate rather than to have to raid them, but that missed the point.
“This economy,” former INS head Leonel Castillo told a newspaper in 1985, “was built on the assumption and reality of a heavy influx of illegal labor.” Castillo was not just referring to the electronics industry but the entire economy of the American West.
And that basic reality remains the same today: countless American businesses in a wide variety of industries thrive solely because they can rely on undocumented employees who will work for less in harsher conditions. If we want to reduce competition for American workers from undocumented foreign workers, we must either truly hold employers accountable (which has never been done) or extend workplace rights to noncitizens. Our current system of punishing the undocumented themselves simply won’t stop the problem — no matter how harsh President Trump’s tactics. When some workers count and others don’t, employers will choose the workers that can work cheaper and more dangerously, which, in turn, makes the rest of our work, citizens or not, more precarious.
************************************************
Employer sanctions have now been in effect for more than three decades without effective enforcement. Fact is, they target U.s. employers, rather than their foreign workers. Therefore, not likely to be much “red meat” for the Trump racist base, particularly those who actually employ undocumented individuals. Hypocrisy runs deep in the Trump White Nationalist empire.
‘Suicide,’ ‘catastrophe’: Nicaraguans in US terrified of looming end of protections
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Cassandra has lived and worked in the US over 20 years. Threats to her life have been made to her family and friends back in Nicaragua. It would be “suicide” to move back, she says.
But the Trump administration says she and thousands of other immigrants like her must do so by January.
On Jan. 5, roughly 5,300 Nicaraguans who have lived in the US since at least that date in 1999 will lose their protected status. If they have no other immigration status in the US, they will be forced to either return to the country or risk living in the US illegally.
The decision to end temporary protected status for Nicaraguans last November was overshadowed by similar Trump administration decisions to end such protections for hundreds of thousands more immigrants from neighbors Honduras and El Salvador. Nationals of Nicaragua received the shortest time frame of any of those TPS recipients to get their affairs together: 12 months.
But since that decision was made, Nicaragua has plunged into violence and political unrest, with at least 322 people dying there since mid-April, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States. By the White House’s own count, the toll is more than 350. The UN Refugee Agency has put out guidance to its member countries asking them to allow Nicaraguans to enter and to apply for asylum once there.
The situation is bad enough that the Trump administration sanctioned three Nicaraguan officials in July for human rights abuses, saying President Daniel Ortega and his vice president “are ultimately responsible for the pro-government parapolice that have brutalized their own people.”
In light of the violence, a bipartisan group of seven bipartisan lawmakers wrote to President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in late July asking the President to either reconsider ending temporary protected status for Nicaraguans or to designate a new status for them.
“It would be, frankly, I think, unacceptable to then send folks back to that same place that we’re sanctioning,” Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, one of those who signed the letter, told CNN. “It’s a barbaric regime that’s literally murdering people in the streets. … It would be a catastrophe, and it’s one that can be avoided.”
Diaz-Balart said he has not gotten a response from the administration to the letter, though he remains hopeful it will reverse course.
The Department of Homeland Security ignored repeated requests for comment from CNN about whether it’s considering extending further protections to Nicaraguans.
Hundreds of immigrant kids remain separated from parents
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Hundreds of children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border remain separated from their parents, including 497 in government custody, according to a new court filing Thursday.
The figure includes 22 children under the age of five still in government care. Six of those are 4 years old or younger whose parents were deported without them.
A total of 1,937 children have been reunified with parents, up only 14 from last week.
The numbers have changed only slightly from last week, as the court filing from the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union case describes a slow and laborious process to try to connect the families that have been separated.
It remains unclear exactly how many parents were deported without their children, though it’s in the hundreds. By the government’s latest count, there are 322 deported parents who have children still in custody.
But the ACLU, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of separated parents, says the administration has previously given it a list of deported parents that includes 70 additional cases. The administration said, according to the ACLU, that some of the discrepancy is due to kids being released from care. It’s not clear what will happen to those families.
US District Judge Dana Sabraw will hold a status hearing on the case Friday.
So, we send good folks who have been contributing to our economy and society back to likely harm at the hands of the repressive leftist Government of Nicaragua basically because they are Latinos. Of course, almost all of them have very plausible asylum, withholding, CAT, or cancellation of removal claims. So, more than 5,000 cases will needlessly be thrown back into our already overwhelmed Immigration Court system. No wonder the backlog continues to mushroom under Sessions’s White Nationalist policies! Racist-driven policies always come at a high cost!
In the meantime, Sessions continues publicly to thumb his nose at Federal Judges, while making less than impressive efforts to comply with their lawful orders. And, families and children continue to suffer from Sessions’s White Nationalist agenda.
The U.S. government expects children as young as 18 months to represent themselves in immigration court. Lawyers in Miami made a coloring book to help kids understand what they’re facing.
The U.S. government expects children, as young as 18 months and unable to speak, to represent themselves in immigration court to fight against their deportation. Lawyers in Miami made a coloring book to help kids understand what they’re facing.Image by Alfredo De Lara
Media coverage of the border crisis has heavily focused on separated parents and children. But migrant children’s nightmares are just beginning once they set foot here, as documented in the video above. Every child that crosses the border without permission has an immigration court case to fight, but there is no right to free counsel in that court.
So children, who sometimes speak only an indigenous language, are going up alone against government lawyers to fight to stay in the United States. If that sounds absurd, that’s because it is. Congress has the power to change this.
After President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy went into effect, we at Americans for Immigrant Justice began to see an increase in young children needing legal representation. We thought: How do we get toddlers to understand the gravity of their situation?
We created a coloring book to explain to these children their rights. It explains concepts such as what a country is, who is an immigrant and what a judge does. We read the book to separated and unaccompanied children as part of our “know your rights” presentations and have them act out scenarios from the story.
The kids in this video op-ed are the lucky ones. They were released from a children’s shelter run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to family members in Miami. We are representing them in court free. But for many children we engage with at the shelters, the coloring book is the only legal advice they receive.
The stakes are high: Over half of all children in immigration court are unrepresented. Nine out of 10 of them will be ordered deported. If we as a country are truly invested in protecting children, the bare minimum that we can do is ensure access to a lawyer for immigrant children who cannot afford one.
Jennifer Anzardo Valdes is the director of the Children’s Legal Program at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a nonprofit law firm based in Miami.
*******************************************
Click the above link and watch the video by Leah Varjacques.
Under Jeff Sessions, intentional child abuse has become a norm and the operation of the Immigration Courts with little or no regard for Due Process, common sense, and human decency is a national disgrace. When will it end? How many will suffer needlessly and be abused to feed Sessions’s White Nationalist myth? Where is justice?
Join the New Due Process Army and fight to hold Jeff Sessions accountable for all of his illegal and immoral actions!
(JTA) — A delegation of Jewish leaders from 17 organizations is visiting detention and migrant facilities on the U.S.-Mexico border.
The 27-person delegation visited detention centers in San Diego on Tuesday and is traveling to asylum-seeker shelters in Tijuana, Mexico, on Wednesday.
The trip, which is being organized by the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish refugee aid group HIAS, includes meetings with American and Mexican government officials, immigration attorneys and humanitarian workers. Among the participants are representatives from three Jewish movements — Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative — as well as groups such as the American Jewish World Service, the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and J Street. Mark Hetfield, CEO of HIAS, described the visits to detention centers and courthouses where migrants are being tried on charges that they entered the country illegally.
“It’s heartbreaking to see the way the United States is treating immigrants. It’s not treating them like human beings,” he told JTA in a phone interview from Tijuana.
Hetfield, a former immigration lawyer, said members of the delegation witnessed migrants being tried in a court as a group and that some who pleaded guilty to criminal charges lacked proper understanding of the consequences.
“It’s really troubling in terms of the lack of due process and the lack of understanding that people have as they’re going through and pleading guilty to these criminal proceedings,” he said.Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, said visiting a detention center for unaccompanied minors, which held children as young as 6 years old, was “eye opening.”
Though she described the shelter as “clean and decent” and the staff as “very caring,” she had concerns about the conditions.
“I asked if they go to school. They have school there, but I don’t know how you have meaningful educational programs for that kind of range of kids,” she said.
Kaufman referenced the Holocaust in speaking about the importance of the trip.
“As Jewish leaders, we need to bear witness. We all committed after the Holocaust to ‘Never again’ — we meant it,” she said. “I think we all live our lives with the belief that every person is made in the image of God, ‘b’tzelem Elohim,’ and should be treated with dignity and respect.”
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of ADL, called the trip “a moral imperative” in a statement to JTA.
“In the face of continued harsh policies by the Administration targeting immigrants and asylum seekers, we’re here to learn more about the crisis at the border, listen to the experiences of migrants and asylum seekers escaping violent conditions, and recommit to our advocacy for humane and compassionate immigration policies,” he said.Many Jewish groups have joined progressives and some conservatives in criticizing President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, including his executive orders banning citizens from some Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States and the since-rescinded policy of separating migrant families at the border.
Last week, HIAS organized a letter to Trump urging him to raise the cap on refugees admitted into the country to at least 75,000. The letter was signed by leaders of 36 Jewish groups. Trump set the cap for 2018 at 45,000, a historic low, and is considering a further decrease, The New York Times reported earlier this month.
*****************************************
Under Trump, Sessions, Miller, and the White Nationalist cabal running immigration policy in the name of our Government, 1939 is indeed upon us. The stain of how we are treating the vulnerable humans who seek only a fair shot at the legal protections we claim to offer might never be washed away.
Many thanks to my good friend and long time colleague, retired Judge Joan Churchill for sending this item my way.
In a move that advocates say could threaten due process rights for immigrants and lead to more deportations, immigration judges in multiple cities have been instructed to cram more hearings into their daily schedules, according to sources knowledgeable on the matter.
Advocates believe the Trump administration has undercut the independence of judges in order to speed up deportations. Already this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions restricted the types of cases in which asylum would be granted and limited the ability for judges to indefinitely suspend certain cases.
Judges across the country, in places like San Francisco; Arlington, Virginia; Memphis, and Dallas, recently received the instructions from assistant chief immigration judges, who supervise separate immigration courts, to schedule three merits hearings a day starting Oct. 1, according to sources who did not want to speak publicly on the matter.
An Executive Office for Immigration Review official said that that the assistant chief judges were not directed by the office’s leadership to push the instructions.
Advocates believe the move could be potentially disastrous for immigrants. During merits hearings, immigrants facing deportation provide evidence and call witnesses to back up their claims to remain in the country, such as arguing for asylum. In addition, earlier in the year, the Department of Justice announced that beginning Oct. 1, judges would be expected to complete 700 cases a year.
“The requirement of three merits hearings a day could do more to threaten the integrity of the court system than the 700-case-per-year requirement,” said Sarah Pierce, a senior analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. “Requiring immigration judges to schedule three merits hearings a day assumes each case will be a similar or at least comparable length — and that’s just not true.”
Pierce said some hearings, such as asylum hearings, may require detailed testimony that can make the case stretch on for hours. “By mandating three merits hearings a day the court would be placing unrealistic pressures on immigration judges, which will certainly have negative after effects on the due process rights of the foreign nationals in their courtrooms,” she said.
Until now, how many hearings a judge schedules each day has been up to the judges themselves. Often, judges schedule two such hearings a day, experts say.
Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and now an immigration attorney, said the instructions to schedule three could lead to judges feeling forced to speed through hearings.
“If a judge is going to think: ‘let me do [the] right thing and have an eight-hour hearing, or I’ve got my kids’ tuition I have to pay, I’m going to do what they want me to do,’” he said. “It’s the next step in taking away immigration judges’ independence, making them choose between job security and due process.”
Unlike federal judges who are given lifetime appointments, immigration court judges are employees of the Department of Justice. In his role overseeing the court, Sessions has been vocal in cutting down the backlog of deportation cases.
To that end, in March, judges were given benchmarks on how many days they should take to complete certain cases and how many cases they should finish every year beginning on Oct. 1.
Dana Marks, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges, told BuzzFeed News that she could not confirm or deny the report. Marks, however, said that their association is “deeply concerned any time” there is an encroachment on judges’ ability to manage their dockets.
“Micro-managing our dockets from afar does not help us to do our job more efficiently and effectively,” she said, “it hinders us.”
******************************
Of course demanding that Immigration Judges schedule additional cases is NOT “mere administration” or “value neutral.” Given the clear anti-immigrant, “blame the victims and the judges” message delivered by Sessions, it’s basically saying “most of the cases are easy denials — get the lead out and move ‘em out.”
A really good Immigration Judge can do a maximum of two full contested cases per day. A thorough job on a “contested merits case” including delivery of oral decision takes 3-4 hours. And, frankly, many Immigration Judges can’t fairly complete two cases.
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t working hard or good judges; it’s just a “fact of life” that judges are human and work at different paces. Also the preparation of the parties and whether or not the case requires an interpreter (obviously, cases in English go more quickly), things over which a judge has no control, enter into it. Indeed, judges purporting to complete more than two full contested cases per day are almost certainly cutting corners, doing a substandard job, or denying Due Process to the respondents.
Sessions, through a toxic combination of ignorance, incompetence, and gross bias is destroying what is left of Due Process in the Immigration Courts. Time for the Article III Courts to step in, oust Sessions from control on ethical grounds (he is a living, breathing, violation of judicial ethics), and appoint a “Special Master” to run the system until Congress steps up and creates an independent US Immigration Court.
Otherwise, one way or another, the Article IIIs will find themselves destroyed by the mess Sessions is intentionally creating in the Immigration Courts. The Article IIIs can’t “run and hide” from the “Sessions Debacle.” Eventually, they are going to be sucked into the legal, ethical, and moral morass Sessions is creating.
In the period leading up to World War II, the German courts not only failed to stand up to Hitler, but actually willingly joined in his racist, anti-semitic program that eventually led to the Holocaust. History didn’t let them off the hook. Where will the Article IIIs stand in the Trump/Sessions White Nationalist assault on the Constitution and the rule of law?
C. Ryan Barber reports for the National Law Journal:
Judge Who Forced Feds to ‘Turn That Plane Around’ Blocks Another Deportation
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan this month lambasted federal officials for the unauthorized removal of a woman and her daughter while their emergency court challenge was unfolding in Washington, D.C.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for D.C. May 27, 2009. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration not to depart a pregnant Honduran woman as she seeks asylum in the United States, two weeks after demanding that the government turn around a plane that had taken a mother and daughter to El Salvador amid their emergency court appeal challenging removal.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granted a temporary stay preventing the Honduran woman’s deportation following a hearing on her challenge to the administration’s decision to make it all but impossible for asylum seekers to gain entry into the United States by citing fears of domestic abuse or gang violence.
In court papers filed earlier this week, the Honduran woman’s lawyers—a team from Jones Day—said she fled her home country “after her partner beat her, raped her, and threatened to kill her and their unborn child.” The woman, suing under the pseudonym “Zelda,” is currently being held at a Texas detention center.
“Zelda is challenging a new policy that unlawfully deprives her of her right to seek humanitarian protection from this escalating pattern of persecution,” the woman’s lawyers wrote in a complaint filed Wednesday. The immigrant is represented pro bono by Jones Day partner Julie McEvoy, associate Courtney Burks and of counsel Erin McGinley.
At Thursday’s court hearing, McGinley said her client’s deportation was imminent absent an order from the judge blocking such a move. “Our concern today,” McGinley said, “is that our client may be deported in a matter of hours.”
U.S. Justice Department lawyers on Wednesday filed papers opposing any temporary stay from deportation. A Justice Department lawyer, Erez Reuveni, argued Thursday that the Honduran woman lacked standing to challenge the Justice Department’s new immigration policy, which makes it harder for immigrants seeking asylum to argue fears of domestic violence and gang violence.
After granting the stay preventing the Honduran woman’s deportation, Sullivan made clear he had not forgotten the events of two weeks ago, when he learned in court that the government had deported a mother and daughter while their emergency challenge to deportation was unfolding.
“Somebody … seeking justice in a United States court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her? It’s outrageous,” Sullivan said at the Aug. 9 hearing. “Turn that plane around and bring those people back to the United States.”
Sullivan on Thursday urged Reuveni to alert immigration authorities to his order. Reuveni said he would inform those authorities, adding that he hoped there would not be a recurrence of the issue that arose two weeks earlier.
“It’s got to be more than hopeful,” Sullivan told Reuveni in court Thursday. Reuveni said he could, in the moment, speak for himself and the Justice Department, but not the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“I cannot speak for ICE until I get on the phone with them and say this is what you need to do immediately,” Reuveni said.
Sullivan said he appreciated Reuveni’s “professionalism” and his efforts to “undo the wrong” that had been done to the Salvadoran mother and daughter earlier this month.
Stressing the need for a stay against Zelda’s deportation, McGinley said at Thursday’s hearing: “To be blunt, if she’s killed, there’s no remedy, your honor.” She added: “No remedy at all.”
****************************************
When individuals have access to high quality counsel like Jones Day, the courts pay more attention. That’s why Sessions & co. are working overtime to insure that individuals are hustled though the system without any meaningful access to counsel and, perhaps most outrageously, by excluding counsel from participation in the largely rigged “credible fear review process” before the Immigration Court. This isn’t justice; it isn’t even a parody of justice. It’s something out of a Kafka novel.
No wonder the Sessions-infused DOJ attorneys don’t want any real court to take a look at this abusive and indefensible removal of individuals with serious claims to relief without consideration by a fair and impartial adjudicator operating under the Constitution and our Refugee Act rather than “Sessions’s law.”
Judge Sullivan actually has an opportunity to put an end to this mockery of American justice by halting all removals of asylum seekers until at least a semblance of Due Process is restored to the system. The only question is whether he will do it! The odds are against it; but, with folks like Jones Day arguing in behalf of the unfairly condemned, the chances of halting the “Sessions Death Train” have never been better!
(Full Disclosure: I am a former partner at Jones Day. I’ve never been prouder of my former firm’s efforts to protect the American justice system and vindicate the rights of the most vulnerable among us. Congrats and appreciation to Jones Day Managing Partner Steve Brogan, Global Pro Bono Coordinator Laura Tuell, Partner Julie McEvoy, Of Counsel Erin McGinley, and everyone else involved in this amazing and much needed effort!)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61379839/1030619212.jpg.0.jpg)
An employee solders a circuit board. (Dominik Osswald/Bloomberg)
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for D.C. May 27, 2009. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.