Category: U.N. Convention and Protocol on Refugees

SESSIONS OVERRULES MATTER OF A-R-C-G-, TRASHES VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS OF GANGS SEEKING ASYLUM, DIRECTS U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO CONSIDER EVERY POSSIBLE WAY OF DENYING ASYLUM APPLICATIONS! – MATTER OF A-B-, 27 I&N DEC. 316 (AG 2018) – Decision Appears Geared To Using “Maxo Asylum Denials” As Enforcement Tool/Deterrent Along The Southern Border! – Circuit Court Battles Sure To Follow As Advocacy Groups Ramp Up To Defend Asylum System!

AB Merits 3929

EOIR HEADNOTE:

(1)Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 338 (BIA 2014) is overruled. That decision was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision.

(2)An applicant seeking to establish persecution on account of membership in a “particular social group” must demonstrate: (1) membership in a group, which is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct within the society in question; and (2) that membership in the group is a central reason for her persecution. When the alleged persecutor is someone unaffiliated with the government, the applicant must also show that her home government is unwilling or unable to protect her.

(3)An asylum applicant has the burden of showing her eligibility for asylum. The applicant must present facts that establish each element of the standard, and the asylum officer, immigration judge, or the Board has the duty to determine whether those facts satisfy all of those elements.

(4)If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.

(5)The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

(6)To be cognizable, a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted in an application for asylum.

(7)An applicant seeking to establish persecution based on violent conduct of a private actor must show more than the government’s difficulty controlling private behavior. The applicant must show that the government condoned the private actions or demonstrated an inability to protect the victims.

(8)An applicant seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group must clearly indicate on the record the exact delineation of any proposed particular social group.

(9)The Board, immigration judges, and all asylum officers must consider, consistent with the regulations, whether internal relocation in the alien’s home country presents a reasonable alternative before granting asylum.

KEY QUOTES:

For these and other reasons, I vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings before the immigration judge consistent with this opinion. In so doing, I reiterate that an applicant for asylum on account of her membership in a purported particular social group must demonstrate: (1) membership in a particular group, which is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct within the society in question; (2) that her membership in that group is a central reason for her persecution; and (3) that the alleged harm is inflicted by the government of her home country or by persons that the government is unwilling or unable to control. See M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. at 234–44; W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. at 209–18, 223–24 & n.8. Furthermore, when the applicant is the victim of private criminal activity, the analysis must also “consider whether government protection is available, internal relocation is possible, and persecution exists countrywide.” M-E-V- G-, 26 I&N Dec. at 243.

Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.1 While I do not decide that violence inflicted by non-governmental actors may never serve as the basis for an asylum or withholding application based on membership in a particular social group, in practice such claims are unlikely to satisfy the statutory grounds for proving group persecution that the government is unable or unwilling to address. The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

1 Accordingly, few such claims would satisfy the legal standard to determine whether an alien has a credible fear of persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v) (requiring a “significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 1158 of this title [8 U.S.C. § 1158]”).

page5image3058762624

. . . .

A-R-C-G- was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision. DHS conceded almost all of the legal requirements necessary for a victim of private crime to qualify for asylum based on persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.8 To the extent that the Board examined the legal questions, its analysis lacked rigor and broke with the Board’s own precedents.

. . . .

When an asylum applicant makes inconsistent statements, the immigration judge is uniquely advantaged to determine the applicant’s credibility, and the Board may not substitute its own view of the evidence on appeal. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]here the [immigration judge]’s adverse credibility finding is based on specific examples in the record of inconsistent statements by the

341

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3929

asylum applicant about matters material to his claim of persecution, or on contradictory or inherently improbable testimony regarding such matters, a reviewing court will generally not be able to conclude that a reasonable adjudicator was compelled to find otherwise.” (quotation omitted)). Under the REAL ID Act, “[t]here is no presumption of credibility” in favor of an asylum applicant. Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, §§ 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (2005) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Furthermore, the identified inconsistencies do not have to be related to an applicant’s core asylum claim to support an adverse credibility determination: “Considering the totality of circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other factor.” Id. (emphasis added). “[O]missions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse credibility determination,” and the existence of “only a few” such issues can be sufficient to make an adverse credibility determination as to the applicant’s entire testimony regarding past persecution. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273–74 (4th Cir. 2011).

. .  . .

The Board also erred when it found that the respondent established the required nexus between the harm she suffered and her group membership. Whether a purported persecutor was motivated by an alien’s group affiliation “is a classic factual question,” Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241, 247–48 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted), which the Board may overturn only if “clearly erroneous.”

The Board stated that “the record indicates that the ex-husband abused [the respondent] from his position of perceived authority, as her ex-husband and the father of her children.” A-B- at *3. From this, the Board held, in a conclusory fashion, that the “record as a whole supports a finding that the respondent’s membership in the particular social group of ‘El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationship where they have children in common’ is at least one central reason that he ex-husband abused her.” Id. While citing the standard of review, the Board did not apply it in summarily dismissing the immigration judge’s findings. Moreover, the Board’s legal analysis was deficient. The Board, required to find “clear error” of a factual finding, pointed to no record evidence that respondent’s husband mistreated her in any part “on account of” her membership in the particular social group of “El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationship where they have children in common.” The Board cited no evidence that her husband knew any such social group existed, or that he persecuted wife for reasons unrelated to their relationship. There was simply no basis in the Board’s summary reasoning for overturning the immigration judge’s factual findings, much less finding them clearly erroneous.

The Board also erred when it overruled the immigration judge’s finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to protect her from her ex-husband. This inquiry too involved factual findings to which the Board did not give proper deference. No country provides its citizens with complete security from private criminal activity, and perfect protection is not required. In this case, the respondent not only reached out to police, but received various restraining orders and had him arrested on at least one occasion. See A-B- at *14–15 (Immig. Ct. Dec. 1, 2015).

For many reasons, domestic violence is a particularly difficult crime to prevent and prosecute, even in the United States, which dedicates significant

343

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3929

resources to combating domestic violence. See, e.g., Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence (2000). The persistence of domestic violence in El Salvador, however, does not establish that El Salvador was unable or unwilling to protect A-B- from her husband, any more than the persistence of domestic violence in the United States means that our government is unwilling or unable to protect victims of domestic violence. In short, the Board erred in finding, contrary to the record and the immigration judge’s findings, that El Salvador was unable or unwilling to protect A-B- and that she thus had no choice but to flee the country.

D.

The Board, immigration judges, and all asylum officers should consider the following points when evaluating an application for asylum. First, an applicant seeking asylum or withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group must clearly indicate, on the record and before the immigration judge, the exact delineation of any proposed particular social group. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189, 190–91 (BIA 2018); Matter of A-T-, 25 I&N Dec. 4, 10 (BIA 2009). The immigration judge has a responsibility to “ensure that the specific social group being analyzed is included in his or her decision,” as it critical to the Board’s “appellate review that the proposed social group is clear and that the record is fully developed.” Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 191. The Board must also remember that it cannot sustain an asylum applicant’s appeal based on a newly articulated social group not presented before or analyzed by the immigration judge. Id. at 192; see also, e.g., Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240, 244–45 (8th Cir. 2017) (finding no jurisdiction to review a newly defined social group because the claim based on “membership in that narrowed social group” had not been raised below); Duarte-Salagosa v. Holder, 775 F.3d 841, 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (declining to address a particular social group raised for the first time on appeal).

Furthermore, the Board, immigration judges, and all asylum officers must consider, consistent with the regulations, whether internal relocation in the alien’s home country presents a reasonable alternative before granting asylum. Asylum applicants who have “not established past persecution . . . bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or government- sponsored.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). An immigration judge, “in the exercise of his or her discretion, shall deny the asylum application of an alien found to be a refugee on the basis of past persecution” if it is “found by a preponderance of the evidence” that “the applicant could avoid future

344

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3929

persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality, . . . and under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i). Beyond the standards that victims of private violence must meet in proving refugee status in the first instance, they face the additional challenge of showing that internal relocation is not an option (or in answering DHS’s evidence that relocation is possible). When the applicant has suffered personal harm at the hands of only a few specific individuals, internal relocation would seem more reasonable than if the applicant were persecuted, broadly, by her country’s government.

Finally, there are alternative proper and legal channels for seeking admission to the United States other than entering the country illegally and applying for asylum in a removal proceeding. The asylum statute “is but one provision in a larger web of immigration laws designed to address individuals in many different circumstances,” and “[t]o expand that statute beyond its obviously intended focus is to distort the entire immigration framework.”Velasquez, 866 F.3d at 199 (Wilkinson, J., concurring). Aliens seeking a better life in America are welcome to take advantage of existing channels to obtain legal status before entering the country. In this case, A-B- entered the country illegally, and when initially apprehended by Border Patrol agents, she stated that her reason for entering the country was “to find work and reside” in the United States. Aliens seeking an improved quality of life should seek legal work authorization and residency status, instead of illegally entering the United States and claiming asylum.12

12 Asylum is a discretionary form of relief from removal, and an applicant bears the burden of proving not only statutory eligibility for asylum but that she also merits asylum as a matter of discretion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1229a(c)(4)(A)(ii); see also Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2004). Neither the immigration judge nor the Board addressed the issue of discretion regarding the respondent’s asylum application, and I decline to do so in the first instance. Nevertheless, I remind all asylum adjudicators that a favorable exercise of discretion is a discrete requirement for the granting of asylum and should not be presumed or glossed over solely because an applicant otherwise meets the burden of proof for asylum eligibility under the INA. Relevant discretionary factors include, inter alia, the circumvention of orderly refugee procedures; whether the alien passed through any other countries or arrived in the United States directly from her country; whether orderly refugee procedures were in fact available to help her in any country she passed through; whether she made any attempts to seek asylum before coming to the United States; the length of time the alien remained in a third country; and her living conditions, safety, and potential for long-term residency there. See Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 473–74 (BIA 1987).

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

As my former BIA colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg used to say “there are lots of ways to deny an asylum application.” Sessions runs through most them with a tone that clearly encourages Immigration Judges to “just find a way to say no as quickly as possible.”

Additionally, he’s basically directing Asylum Officers to find no “credible fear” in almost all domestic violence and gang-related cases, thus cutting off hearings without effective Article III judicial review under the current state of the law. That’s likely to speed up the “deportation railway.”

It’s likely that this decision also will fulfill Sessions’s dream of mass denials of asylum at the Immigration Judge stage that will be more or less summarily affirmed by the BIA. Any Immigration Judge who doesn’t “get” Session’s strong anti-asylum message would have to be pretty slow on the uptake.

It seemed totally disingenuous for Sessions to pontificate that individuals should go through the “legal immigration system” while publicly trashing legal immigrants as “job stealers” and favoring massive cuts to legal immigration. But, intellectual honesty has never been one of this Attorney General’s strong points.

The “asylum denial express” might have some difficulty in the Courts of Appeals, however. Not all such courts are eager to “rubber stamp” hasty denials. And, by encouraging Immigration Judges to look for “any reason to deny” to cut corners, and avoid having to analyze the entire case, Sessions is likely to end up with sloppy work and lots of Circuit Court remands for “do overs.” At a minimum, that’s going to add to the already out of control Immigration Court backlog.

PWS

06-11-18

 

 

Related posts:

  1. THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!
  2. NY TIMES: Trump Mocks & Dehumanizes Vulnerable Refugees & His Administration Claims It’s OK To Return Them to Honduras; BUT The Facts Say The Opposite: Honduras Is An Armed Conflict Zone Where Gangs Exercise Quasi-Governmental Control & Those Who Resist Are Severely Punished, Often Maimed, Tortured Or Killed!
  3. MORE ARTICLES FEATURE “GANG OF RETIRED JUDGES’ STATEMENT” RE: SESSIONS’S OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF PROTECTION LAW! — Media Exposing Corrupt, Inherently Unfair, Biased “Court” System Where The Prejudiced Prosecutor “Cooks” The Results to His Liking! — Jeff Sessions Degrades The American Legal System & Our National Values Each Day He Remains In Office!
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

SESSIONS USES SPEECH TO U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO SPREAD LIES, MOUNT ALL OUT ATTACK ON US ASYLUM LAW AND INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION LAWS – Targets Most Vulnerable Refugee Women Of Color For Latest Round Of Legal Abuses – Orders Judges To Prejudge Applications In Accordance With His Rewrite Of Law – It’s “Kangaroo Court” – The Only Question Now Is Whether Congress & Article III’s Will Let Him Get Away With Latest Perversion Of Justice @ Justice!

“Top Kangaroo lays down the law to EOIR Judges”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-executive-office-immigration-review-legal

Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Executive Office for Immigration Review Legal Training Program
Washington, DC

~

Monday, June 11, 2018

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, James, for that introduction, and thank you for your years of superb service to the Department as an SAUSA, at Main Justice, and now here at EOIR.  James has been doing a fabulous job.  He understands these issues, knows exactly what our challenges are, and is working steadfastly every day to meet them.

Thank you also to Katherine Reilly, Kate Sheehy, Chris Santoro, Edward So, David Neal, Chief Judge Keller, Lisa Ward, Jean King, Robin Sutman, and all of the leadership team.

It is good to be with you today.

Each one of you plays an important role in the administration of our immigration laws.  Immigration judges are critical to ensuring that the Department of Justice carries out its responsibilities under the INA. You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly, and consistently.   As the statute states, Immigration Judges conduct designated proceedings “subject to such supervision and shall perform such duties as the Attorney General shall prescribe”.

This responsibility seeks to ensure that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws enacted by Congress. As you know, the INA was established to ensure a rational system of immigration in the national interest.

Of course there are provisions in the INA, consent decrees, regulations, and court decisions where the commonsense enforceability of the plain intent of the INA has been made more difficult.  That’s what you wrestle with frequently.

President Trump is correct: Congress needs to clarify a number of these matters.  Without Congressional action, clarity and consistency for us is much more difficult.

Let’s be clear: we have a firm goal, and that is to end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system.  This Department of Justice is committed to using every available resource to meet that goal. We will act strategically with our colleagues at DHS and across the government, and we will not hesitate to redeploy resources and alter policies to meet new challenges as they arise.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it will begin to refer as close to 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossers as possible to the Department of Justice for prosecution.  The Department of Justice will take up those cases.

I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border.  If you cross the Southwest border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you.  It’s that simple.

If someone is smuggling illegal aliens across our Southwest border, then we will prosecute them.  Period.

I have sent 35 prosecutors to the Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to detention centers near the border.  That is about a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling cases at the border.”

All of us should agree that, by definition, we ought to have zero illegal immigration in this country.

Each of us is a part of the Executive Branch, and it is our duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Ours is a public trust.

And the United States of America is not a vague idea.  It is not just a landmass or an economy.  Ours is a sovereign nation state with a constitution, laws, elections, and borders.

As you all well know, one of our major difficulties today is the asylum process.

The asylum system is being abused to the detriment of the rule of law, sound public policy, and public safety— and to the detriment of people with just claims.  Saying a few simple words—claiming a fear of return—is now transforming a straightforward arrest for illegal entry and immediate return into a prolonged legal process, where an alien may be released from custody into the United States and possibly never show up for an immigration hearing. This is a large part of what has been accurately called, “catch and release”.

Beginning in 2009, more and more aliens who passed an initial USCIS credible fear review were released from custody into the United States pending a full hearing.  Powerful incentives were created for aliens to come here illegally and claim a fear of return. In effect, word spread that by asserting this fear, they could remain in the United States one way or the other. Far too often, that rumor proved to be true.

The results are just what one would expect.  The number of illegal entrants has surged. Credible fear claims have skyrocketed, and the percentage of asylum claims found meritorious by our judges declined.

That’s because the vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid.  For the last five years, only 20 percent of claims have been found to be meritorious after a hearing before an Immigration Judge. In addition, some fifteen percent are found invalid by USCIS as a part of their initial screening.

Further illustrating this point, in 2009, DHS conducted more than 5,000 credible fear reviews.  By 2016, only seven years later, that number had increased to 94,000.  The number of these aliens placed in immigration court proceedings went from fewer than 4,000 to more than 73,000 by 2016—nearly a 19-fold increase—overwhelming the system and leaving legitimate claims buried.

Now we all know that many of those crossing our border illegally are leaving difficult and dangerous situations.  And we understand all are due proper respect and the proper legal process.  But we cannot abandon legal discipline and sound legal concepts.

Under the INA, asylum is available for those who leave their home country because of persecution or fear on account of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.  Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems— even all serious problems— that people face every day all over the world.

Today, exercising the responsibility given to me under the INA, I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.

We have not acted hastily, but carefully. In my judgment, this is a correct interpretation of the law. It advances the original intent and purpose of the INA, and it will be your duty to carry out this ruling.

This decision will provide more clarity for you. It will help you to rule consistently and fairly.

The fact is we have a backlog of about 700,000 immigration cases, and it’s still growing.   That’s more than triple what it was in 2009.  This is not acceptable.  We cannot allow it to continue.

At this time, when our immigration system and our immigration judges are under great stress, I am calling on you to use your best efforts and proper policies to enhance our effectiveness.  To end the lawlessness and move to the virtuous cycle, we have to be very productive. Volume is critical.  It just is.  We ask you to evaluate your processes and disposition rates.

We ask each one of you to complete at least 700 cases a year.  It’s about the average.  We are all accountable. Setting this expectation is a rational management policy to ensure consistency, accountability, and efficiency in our immigration court system. Thank you for working every day to meet and exceed this goal. You can be sure that this administration and this Department of Justice supports you in this critically important and historic effort.

That’s why we are hiring more than 100 new immigration judges this calendar year.  And we are actively working with our partners at DHS to ensure that we can deploy judges electronically and by video-teleconference where needed and to obtain appropriate courtroom facilities.

Let’s be clear. These actions will not end or reduce legal immigration. These actions will be directed at reducing illegal immigration. Only Congress can change legal immigration.

This is a great nation—the greatest in the history of the world.  It is no surprise that people want to come here.  But they must do so according to law.

When we lose clarity or have decisions that hold out hope where a fair reading of the law gives none, we have cruelly hurt many people. As we resolutely strive to consistently and fairly enforce the law, we will be doing the right thing.

The world will know what our rules are, and great numbers will no longer undertake this dangerous journey. The number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall. A virtuous cycle will be created, rather than a vicious cycle of expanding illegality.

The American people have spoken.  They have spoken in our laws and they have spoken in our elections.  They want a safe, secure border and a lawful system of immigration that actually works.  Let’s deliver it for them.

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

It’s all about numbers — volume over justice! What a total farce!

Sessions also lied about the low asylum grant rate.  Of cases in which a merits decisions on asylum is actually rendered by an Immigration Judge after hearing, here are the actual asylum grant rates from the EOIR’s own website

Figure 16

 

page37image189719840

Asylum Grant Rate

Grants

Denials

Grant Rate

FY 12

10,575

8,444

56%

FY 13

9,767

8,777

53%

FY 14

8,672

9,191

49%

FY 15

8,184

8,816

48%

FY 16

8,726

11,643

43%

In other words, for the last five years available, nearly half of the asylum applications actually decided on the merits were granted. And, that doesn’t even include individuals granted other types of protection such as withholding of removal and CAT after a merits hearing.

It’s a far cry from the bogus 20% figure Sessions used. In any event, it’s well established law that denial of an asylum application does not in any way show that it was “fraudulent” or “frivolous” as Sessions implies.

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

As usual, the ever-amazing Tal Kopan was one of the first to “hit the net running” with her analysis of the Sessions speech to EOIR.

Jeff Sessions primed to overhaul asylum law

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will announce a major decision that could impact thousands of asylum seekers from Central America on Monday — his latest move to use his unique authority to single-handedly reshape immigration law.

Sessions made the announcement at an annual training conference for the nation’s hundreds of immigration judges, telling them the decision would be coming and reminding them that they will be obligated to follow his interpretation of the law.

Though Sessions did not explicitly name the decision, it is widely expected to be a case involving asylum protections for domestic violence victims. Sessions referred the case to himself earlier this year and invited interested parties to submit briefs. In his remarks, Sessions implied he would be restricting the use of asylum for victims of crime, which would reverse previous court decisions and overrule a significant 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that ruled Central American domestic violence victims who cannot escape their abusive partners can qualify under asylum law for protection in the US.

“Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world,” Sessions said, reiterating the particular requirements of asylum under the law. “Today I will be exercising the responsibility given to me under the (Immigration and Nationality Act), I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.”

The ruling and announcement is the latest evidence of Sessions taking full advantage of his authority over the immigration courts — a separate court system designed by law to be under the auspices of the Justice Department. The attorney general functions as a one-person Supreme Court in the system, in addition to hiring and evaluating the lower court judges themselves.

Sessions also reminded judges that his decision will be final, unless a federal appellate court were to overturn it on appeal.

In addition to impacting domestic violence victims, the case could also have large-scale implications for victims of other forms of crime and violence — rampant in Central America, where a majority of US asylum seekers at the southern border come from.

Related: Judge in case Sessions picked for immigrant domestic violence asylum review issued ‘clearly erroneous’ decisions, says appellate court

“In my judgment, this will be a correct interpretation of the law,” Sessions said. “It advances the original intent and purpose of the INA, and it will be your duty, of course, to carry that out.”

More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/jeff-sessions-asylum-decision/index.html

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

According to Tal, the National Association  of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) immediately criticized Sessions’s overemphasis on numerical quotas that are actually still supposed to be the subject of “good faith” labor negotiations with the NAIJ before going into effect in the Fall.

Nevertheless, Tal’s longer article (linked above) would lead one to believe that many U.S Immigration Judges look forward their new well-defined role as an “asylum denial workforce” working as part of the law enforcement “team” to send vulnerable individuals, including children, back to death, rape, extortion, or constant beatings, in probable violation of international standards, as part of the DHS enforcement effort headed by Sessions.

Sessions received a warm welcome and reception from the judges present, who gave him multiple standing ovations at the beginning and end of his speech. But some leading immigration judges reacted unfavorably to the announcement.

Denying applications based on “precedents” intentionally misinterpreting the law will definitely make dockets move faster and might even allow some Immigration Judges to earn “gold stars” — and perhaps even recognition from the Chief Enforcer himself at next year’s conference — for exceeding their deportation quotas — at least until those pesky Article III Courts get involved.

We’ll see whether the Administration’s policies of intentional cruelty, criminal prosecution, child abuse, and sending folks back to places where their lives will be endangered without fairly considering their claims of protection works as a “deterrent” (never has in the past) or merely diminishes us as a society and a country.

As I always say, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation (and we are), but that won’t stop human migration.”

It’s a far cry from when the late Attorney General Janet Reno used to appear at Immigration Judge Conferences and urge us to do our duty to provide fairness, Due Process, and “equal justice for all.”

Stay tuned for the release of the AG’s decision and more reaction.

PWS

06-11-18

Related posts:

  1. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  2. EOIR TARGETS UNACCOMPANIED KIDS FOR DEPORATION RAILROAD!
  3. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

SCOFFLAWS: SESSIONS & NIELSEN LIE, CONFUSE, AND OBFUSCATE TO HIDE REAL ILLEGAL INTENT BEHIND CHILD ABUSE POLICY!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-family-separation-policy-is-meant-to-deter-immigration-that-could-make-it-illegal_us_5b194b89e4b0599bc6e17605

Roque Planas reports for HuffPost:

You won’t hear Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen call this “deterrence.”
headshot
By Roque Planas

The aim of President Donald Trump’s new policy of splitting kids from their mothers at the border is, in a word, deterrence: The White House wants to discourage more immigrants from trying to enter the United States.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump’s secretary of homeland security, is careful not to say this outright — she dodged a direct question on the subject from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a hearing last month.

Central American immigrants walk after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents in Febru

JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES
Central American immigrants walk after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents in February near McAllen, Texas. The Trump administration adopted a policy in May of intentionally separating mothers from their children at the border in order to deter migrants from crossing illegally into the U.S.

There’s a reason Nielsen and other administration officials shy away from attaching the word “deterrence” to the new policy: Changing immigrant detention policy as a way to deter undocumented people from coming to the U.S. is illegal, federal courts have repeatedly ruled. So now she and other Trump administration officials find themselves struggling to defend a family separation policy whose clear ambition is deterrence.

A growing number of mothers have crossed into the United States since 2014, often from Central America and often requesting asylum. Other administration officials were blunter in the past when discussing a policy that would split the families up to scare them away from coming.

The Department of Homeland Security was considering separating children from their parents “in order to deter” undocumented immigration, White House chief of staff John Kelly told CNN while serving as Nielsen’s predecessor last year. And Gene Hamilton, a former aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asked participants at a meeting last August on the policy to “generate paperwork laying out everything we could do to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S. illegally,” according to The New Yorker.

Whether or not the deterrence goal is spelled out, the strategy is likely to backfire. Former President Barack Obama learned that lesson in 2015, when a federal judge in Washington blocked his plans to lock up Central American immigrant mothers and their kids without bond to deter others from trying to cross the border.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the federal government can’t detain immigrants indefinitely for the sake of deterrence alone. Instead, the decision to detain needed to be based on whether the immigrant posed a threat to the community or a flight risk.

The Obama administration was forced to provide bond hearings to the migrants in family detention. A separate ruling that year ordered the Obama administration to start releasing people from family detention after three weeks in order to comply with the Flores settlement, a 1997 deal that bars the government from locking up children in detention centers.

The Trump administration hopes to skirt the rulings that got Obama officials into trouble by prosecuting immigrant parents at the border. The federal government can’t jail children while their mothers await trial, so immigration authorities transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement to find a sponsor or to non-secured facility to hold them, as if they arrived by themselves.

But this legal maneuver stands on the same shaky ground.

“Whether the deterrence to seeking protection is being done by detaining families or separating families doesn’t make a whole lot of difference,” said Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women’s Refugee Commission. “They’re both punishing families for seeking protection, and protection to which they have the right under U.S. law.”

The Trump administration is already running into legal trouble over its policy. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court in Southern California to overturn Trump’s family separation policy, asking U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw for a nationwide injunction to halt the practice. At a hearing on May 4, Sabraw repeatedly asked whether the Trump administration had adopted the family separation policy to deter others.

“If there were a blanket policy to separate for deterrence value, would that be legal?” Sabraw asked, according to a transcript of the hearing. “Would that pass muster under the Fifth Amendment?”

The judge did not receive a straight answer. The government’s lawyer, Sarah Fabian, instead argued that the government wasn’t separating mothers from their kids systematically, and only following existing immigration law to do so.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions undermined her argument three days later, when he announced that the Justice Department’s “zero tolerance” policy for prosecuting border-crossers included mothers who cross with their children.

Lee Gelernt, the lawyer leading the ACLU lawsuit, called the government lawyer’s unwillingness or inability to defend family separation on the merits without resorting to the legally fraught term “deterrence” significant.

“The government still needs a persuasive justification for separating children,” Gelernt wrote in an email. “And the government has not provided one.”

On Wednesday, Sabraw ordered that the case against family separation can move forward, over the Trump administration’s objections. Although he has yet to rule on the case’s merits, his order did not augur well for the federal government.

Implementing a family separation policy to deter other migrants “arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child,” Sabraw wrote. “Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.”

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

Ah, the never-ending legal, moral, and intellectual corruption and dishonesty of the Trumpsters!

Take depositions — force them to lie under oath or admit they have been lying publicly. And, as I recently pointed out, most Article III Federal Judges, who actually have contempt of court authority, take a dim view of perjury by Cabinet Officers in their court proceedings.

I also think that even under the Supreme’s restrictive standards, there is an ever increasing possibility of actually imposing monetary damages on Nielsen, Sessions, and others for their intentional denial of Constitutional rights and their dishonest schemes to conceal their true intent. I actually think that when the full truth some day comes out, we will find not only illegal deterrence, but rather clear evidence of racial animus underlying Sessions’s policies. To be honest, Sessions has turned the entire U.S. Immigration Court system into a tool for enforcement deterrence — a huge violation of Due Process, as well as an astounding conflict of interest and violation of ethics.

Also, not surprisingly, the name of Sessions’s restrictionist crony Gene Hamilton has surfaced in connection with this scheme.

PWS

06-11-18

Related posts:

  1. MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!
  2. GONZO’S WORLD: THIS IS WHY HE STAYS: UNDERNEATH ALL THE “TRUMP NOISE” SESSIONS IS METHODICALLY ERADICATING DUE PROCESS, PERVERTING THE LAW, & TURNING ONE OF THE LARGEST FEDERAL COURT SYSTEMS INTO A “KILLING FLOOR” TARGETING OUR MOST VULNERABLE & DESERVING REFUGEES! — “[Sessions] is dumbing down the judges and treating them like assembly-line workers whose only job is to stamp out final orders of removal.”
  3. NATION OF CHILD ABUSERS: WHILE MANY RIGHT WING APOLOGISTS (ALONG WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ) PAN NAZI COMPARISON, ACTUAL HOLOCAUST CHILD SURVIVOR YOKA VERDONER UNDERSTANDS THE PARALLELS! — Child Abuse Is Child Abuse —Evil Is Evil — Damage Is Irreparable!
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

Political Cartoonist Steve Sack @ Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Here’s What “Zero Tolerance” Looks Like!

Here’s Steve’s cartoon:

http://www.startribune.com/sack-cartoon-immigration-policy/484354261/

And, here’s what Steve Sack looks like:

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

America’s most notorious child abuser operates from a big U.S. Government Office on 10th & Pennsylvania, N.W., Washington, D.C.

PWS

06-10-18

 

Related posts:

  1. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  2. NATION OF CHILD ABUSERS: WHILE MANY RIGHT WING APOLOGISTS (ALONG WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ) PAN NAZI COMPARISON, ACTUAL HOLOCAUST CHILD SURVIVOR YOKA VERDONER UNDERSTANDS THE PARALLELS! — Child Abuse Is Child Abuse —Evil Is Evil — Damage Is Irreparable!
  3. MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!
  4. FOUR TODDLERS RESCUED BY PRO BONO LAWYERS FROM DEADLY SITUATION IN CBP CUSTODY — Putrid, Unsanitary, Repressive Conditions Causing Lifetime Harm To Other Traumatized Kids — But, Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Wants You To Know That She’s Not Taking Responsibility For The Humanitarian Disaster Intentionally Engineered On Her Watch!

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: PUNISHING THE PERSECUTED — In Matter of A-C-M-, BIA “Adjusts” View Of FMLN As Necessary To Deny Asylum To El Salvadoran Refugees!

Punishing the Victims: Matter of A-C-M-

On June 6, the BIA published its precedent decision in Matter of A-C-M-.  As the Board seems to no longer issue precedent decisions en banc, the decision is that of a divided three-judge panel.  The two-judge majority found the respondent to be barred from asylum eligibility because in 1990, she had been kidnaped by guerrillas in her native El Salvador, who after forcing her to undergo weapons training, made her do the group’s cooking, cleaning, and laundry while remaining its captive.

In 2011, an immigration judge granted the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal.  The DHS appealed the decision to the BIA, which reversed the IJ’s grant, finding that the respondent was ineligible for cancellation under section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII), which makes inadmissible to the U.S. anyone who has received military-type training from a terrorist organization.  The BIA stated in its 2014 decision that it found the guerrillas to be a terrorist organization at the time of the respondent’s abduction in 1990.

The case was remanded back to the immigration judge, where the respondent then applied for asylum, a relief from which she was not barred by the military training.  However, the IJ ruled that she was ineligible for asylum under another subsection of the law, which bars anyone who commits “an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training” for either the commission of a terrorist activity, someone who has committed or is planning to commit a terrorist act, or to a terrorist organization or member of such organization.

The respondent in A-C-M- clearly wasn’t providing her labor by choice; she was forcibly abducted by the guerrillas and was then held against her will.  However, the BIA decided in a 2016 decision, Matter of M-H-Z-, that there is no duress exception to the material support bar.  Therefore, in the Board’s view, the involuntary nature of the labor was irrelevant.

In her well-reasoned dissent, Board Member Linda Wendtland acknowledged a critical question: “whether the respondent reasonably should have known that the guerrillas in 1990 in El Salvador were a terrorist organization.”  Note that the statutory language quoted above requires that the actor “knows or reasonably should know” that the support will aid a terrorist activity or organization.

The decision doesn’t name the guerrilla organization (presumably the FMLN).  It also fails to mention when the Board itself concluded that the group had been a terrorist organization in 1990.  The Board’s view of the guerrillas was not always so, as witnessed in its 1988 precedent decision in Matter of Maldonado-Cruz.  The case involved an asylum-seeker from El Salvador who had been kidnaped by guerrillas in that country, given brief military training, and then forced to serve in the group’s military operations.  He managed to escape, and legitimately feared that if returned to El Salvador, he would be killed by death squads the guerrillas dispatch to punish deserters.

The BIA denied asylum.  In doing so, it expressed the following rationale: “It is entirely proper to apply a presumption that a guerrilla organization, as a military or para-military organization, has the need to control its members, to exercise discipline.”  The Board noted that the guerrillas needed non-volunteer troops to fill out the military units required to fight against the government. It continued: “To keep them as cohesive fighting units they must impose discipline; and an important form of discipline…is the punishment of deserters.”

The Board’s language in Maldonado-Cruz really does not sound as if it is describing a terrorist organization.  Frankly, it’s tone wouldn’t sound out of place in describing the penalties imposed by the Park Slope Food Coop towards members who miss their shifts.  If the Board didn’t contemporaneously view the guerrillas as terrorists, why would they expect the respondent to have done so?

Judge Wendtland did not need to answer that question, because she convincingly argued that the respondent’s cooking and cleaning did not constitute “material support” under the statute.  She is correct. Notice the examples of support contained in the statutory language: safe houses, funds, transportation, weapons, explosives, and training. All of these are of a quite different nature from cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry.

The respondent in A-C-M- was not someone whom Congress intended to exclude under the anti-terrorism provisions.  She did not provide money or weapons to ISIS to carry out terrorist acts. To the contrary, she performed labor completely unrelated to any violent objective.  She was forced to perform such labor – in the words of Judge Wendtland, “as a slave” – for a group whose terrorist nature was far from clear.

In adopting the two-member majority’s view, the Board has chosen an interpretation of the statute that turns Congressional intent on its head by punishing the victims of terrorism, and adds insult to injury by labeling these victims as terrorists themselves.  Hopefully, the lone dissenting opinion will prevail on appeal.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

 

3rd-Generation Gangs and Political Opinion

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog     Archive     Contact

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

The BIA has a long-standing history of finding ways to construe the law and facts to deny protection to refugees from Central America, one of the most violent areas in the world for decades.

Judge Linda Wendtland is one of the few BIA jurists since the 2003 “Ashcroft Purge” to stand up to her colleagues and  the Attorney General for the rights of Central American asylum seekers to fair treatment under the asylum laws.

As most of us familiar with Immigration Court and immigration enforcement know, the “material support” bar is very seldom used against real terrorists and security threats. Most caught up in its absurdly overbroad web are minor players — victims of persecution themselves or “freedom fighters” many of whom actually supported forces allied with or assisting the US Government.

Probably one of the biggest and most grotesque examples of “legislative overkill” in recent history. And, the BIA has made the situation much worse by construing the bar in the broadest, most draconian, and least reasonable way possible.

Moreover, the DHS waiver process is totally opaque compared with the Immigration Court process, thereby encouraging arbitrary and capricious decision-making that escapes any type of judicial review.

PWS

06-10-18

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. STOMPING ON THE PERSECUTED! — BIA MAJORITY FINDS WAY TO USE “MATERIAL SUPPORT BAR” TO DENY PROTECTION TO THE VICTIMS OF PERSECUTION – Judge Linda Wendtland, Dissenting, Gets It Right! — Matter of A-C-M-, 27 I&N Dec. 303 (BIA 2018)!
  3. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  4. 🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: AILA Blasts Appointment Of Prosecutors Without Judicial Qualifications To Top Judicial Positions in Billy the Bigot’s Weaponized Anti-Due-Process “Court” System — Dysfunction, Bias, Illegitimate Decisions Run Rampant As Congress, Article IIIs Fail to Enforce U.S. Constitution!

MIKE MILLER @ WASHPOST EXPOSES “TURNSTILE JUSTICE” AT BORDER US DISTRICT COURT: US Magistrate Presides Over “Clown Court” Where Traumatized, Bewildered, Migrants Are Coerced Into Pleading Guilty To Crimes Without Understanding The Consequences — Assistant US Attorney “High Fives” Speedy Finish, Turning “Trials” Into A “Sporting Event” — Even The Public Defender Partakes Of The Clown Show By Purporting To Represent 71 Individuals Simultaneously! — Come On, Folks, Whatever Happened To Due Process, Ethics & Professional Responsibility?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/they-just-took-them-frantic-parents-separated-from-their-kids-fill-courts-on-the-border/2018/06/09/e3f5170c-6aa9-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html

Miller writes:

MCALLEN, Texas — The words “all rise” were still ringing in the brightly lit South Texas courtroom last week when Peter E. Ormsby slipped unceremoniously into his seat.

“Good morning,” the 62-year-old federal magistrate said as the courtroom filled with the clanking of shackled defendants returning to their wooden benches. “We’re here to take up a number of criminal cases that allege that the defendants violated the immigration laws of the United States.”

Seated in front of Ormsby were 71 disheveled immigrants caught illegally crossing the Rio Grande. The number of defendants has soared amid President Trump’s crackdown on a new surge of border crossers. But the mass hearing was remarkable less for its size than for who it included: parents.

For the first time, federal courtrooms here and across the Southwest are being flooded with distraught mothers and fathers who have been charged with misdemeanor illegal entry and separated from their children — a shift in policy touted by the administration as a way to stop families from trying to reach the United States but decried by critics as traumatizing and inhumane. Last month a Honduran father separated from his wife and 3-year-old son killed himself in a Texas jail cell, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

In McAllen alone, 415 children had been stripped from their parents between May 21 and June 5, according to federal public defenders.

Now, on the morning of June 6, 14 more parents from Central America were facing an agonizing choice with uncertain consequences. They could plead guilty in the hope of speeding up their reunification with their children, but risk damaging their chances of receiving asylum in the United States. Or they could plead innocent and head to trial, a process that could take days or weeks and prolong their separation from their kids.

Seven miles from Mexico and surrounded by brushlands that are home to the border’s busiest smuggling routes, the Bentsen Tower federal courthouse has become one of the anguished epicenters of family separation.

On Wednesday morning, the evidence of that was the tears on the parents’ faces. Many clutched fliers with a phone number they could call to try to get their kids back from the increasingly crowded federal shelters where they are being housed.

. . . .

By day’s end, he would sentence more than 100 people, including 28 parents. Most would receive the lightest punishment possible — time served — before they were handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The frenzied pace of the proceedings was no accident. As Moody emerged from court in the afternoon, she and a colleague exchanged a high-five.

“I said I’d get done by 3:20,” the prosecutor said, checking the time to see she was only nine minutes behind schedule.

‘Prosecuting everybody’

Aleman-Bendiks had arrived at the tall, dark glass courthouse shortly after dawn that morning. After preparing for an hour in an office decorated with her diplomas from Rice University and Harvard Law, the 52-year-old federal public defender headed upstairs to the courtroom, where the air smelled like sweat and the 71 immigrants were already seated. She was representing all of them.

“How many of you were traveling with children?” she asked in Spanish. More than a dozen hands shot up.

“How did they separate you?” she said to a Guatemalan woman whose 8-year-old daughter was taken away.

“How long since you saw her?” she asked a Honduran separated from her 6-year-old girl.

“They just took them?” she said to a Salvadoran whose two daughters were gone.

This is what Trump’s zero-tolerance policy looked like to Aleman-Bendiks and scores of other federal public defenders along the border.

. . . .

For Meyers, the challenge is not only logistics but the wrenching stories of families being torn apart. In a conference call with her assistant federal public defenders last month, she said she told them to force judges to confront the issue.

“We think it’s important for the court and everybody to hear what’s happening,” she said.

On May 22, Aleman-Bendiks asked Ormsby in court to pressure the government to provide more information about the fate of families being separated. On May 31, she and her boss, Kyle B. Welch, met with ten officials from ICE, Border Patrol, the Justice Department and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which cares for the children separated from their parents as well as “unaccompanied minors”who arrived in the United States on their own.

“The idea was to try and give us a sense of what’s happening here,” Aleman-Bendiks said, but the meeting delivered little clear information.

One Border Patrol official did say agents in and around McAllen had a policy of not separating children under 5 from their parents — although that policy does not appear to be in place elsewhere along the border. Children as young as 18 months have been taken from their parents.

On Wednesday, Aleman-Bendiks asked Ormsby to order the government to hand over lists of children separated from their parents so that immigration attorneys could ensure they were reunited.

“My concern is that there are lost children here in the system,” she said. “We are hearing it every day, your honor, and it’s not right.”

Ormsby noted that “children are not within the jurisdiction of this court. These people are here because they have a criminal case here.”

He invited her to prepare a brief on how he could order the government to provide lists. “But on its face,” he added, “it seems questionable to me that the court would have the authority to do that.”

. . . .

But immigration advocates aren’t so sure. “They are now convicted of a crime,” said Leah Chavla of the Women’s Refugee Commission. “Under U.S. law, that could be a bar to them receiving asylum, so they’d have to get a waiver.”

In the end, those complications mattered less to the parents in Ormsby’s courtroom than seeing their kids again. All of them pleaded guilty to illegally crossing the border and were sentenced to time served.

“Obviously, in each of your situations, you committed a crime and so the government was within their rights to pursue that,” the magistrate said. “Whether or not they should exercise their discretion that way is something that is obviously being debated.”

“As someone who has children myself,” he added, “it would be a terrible situation to be separated under those conditions.”

Then the guards put handcuffs back on the parents and led them out of the courtroom, where their future remained as unclear as the location of their children.

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

Read Mike’s complete report at the above link.

As described in Mike Miller’s article, U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby appears to preside over a “court” where “justice” for traumatized, obviously bewildered, and coerced migrants is a cross between a sporting event and a bad joke.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that understanding the immigration consequences of a conviction is a critical element in a migrant’s voluntary decision to plead guilty. Many of these migrant defendants obviously wanted to know whether a guilty plea would 1) free them from detention, 2) reunite them with their children, and 3) adversely affect their asylum cases. Neither Judge Ormsby nor anyone else in his courtroom was able to answer accurately. Judge Ormsby had the authority to defer accepting the pleas until the Assistant U.S. Attorney provided the answers. Yet, he did not do so. These guilty pleas appeared to be neither informed nor voluntary. A federal judge therefore should not have accepted them.

No wonder the prosecuting Assistant U.S Attorney “high fived” at the end of this farce. Likewise, the Public Defender’s claim to simultaneously represent 71 non-English-speaking defendants was a remarkable twist on the canons of ethics and professional responsibility.

Would a group of white, middle class, mostly first-time misdemeanor defendants have been treated this way in federal court? I doubt it. Yet, due process applies equally to everyone in the U.S. regardless of status.

PWS

06-10-18

 

Related posts:

  1. MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!
  2. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  3. EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST: KID KILLERS ON THE LOOSE: “Sixteen-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez died horribly and needlessly. The Trump administration’s policy of deliberate, punishing cruelty toward Latin American migrants killed him.”
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

DUE PROCESS UPDATE: COULD ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SCOFFLAWS SESSIONS & NIELSEN BE ON THE HORIZON? – US District Judge Finds “At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue “shocks the conscience” and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is denied.”

Judge rules that challenge to family separation at border can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that a challenge to the practice of separating parents seeking asylum from children at the border can proceed.

The ACLU brought the case against the Trump administration.

In her opinion, the  said “at a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue ‘shocks the conscience’ and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is denied.”

The ruling is a victory for critics of the administration’s separation of families — though plenty of hurdles remain before the practice is outlawed.

The ruling does not mean the challenge will ultimately succeed — but it is a substantial step for critics of any separating families who say the practice is abhorrent enough that it should be unconstitutional in any case. The judge’s ruling Wednesday keeps that argument alive.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/family-separation-ruling/index.html

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

Here’s a copy of Judge Dana Sabraw’s complete order in Ms. L v. ICE.  I particularly recommend Part II (E) which sets forth an excellent discussion of how Due Process applies to individuals physically in the U.S. regardless of status.

Interestingly, although the statement of the law of Due Process was basically uncontested by the DOJ attorneys on the case, it conflicts in both tone and substance from most, if not all, of the statements about foreign nationals made by Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, Cotton, Goodlatte, and the rest of the GOP “White Nationalist gang” who seldom acknowledge that migrants coming to our Southern Border are human beings, let alone that they are actually protected by our Constitution!

Ms L v ICE order 6-6-18

Thanks to my good friend and “immigration guru” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law for sending me this decision!

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

I hope that the ACLU will depose Sessions in connection with this case. He has “spun” and lied about what’s really happening to asylum applicants, including those who appear at the border and apply for asylum without making an unlawful entry. Indeed, the “named plaintiff Ms L” is just such an individual who was, for no apparent reason other than cruelty and “deterrence,” separated from her young daughter for 4 months. She was only released when the ACLU filed this case.

Read this account by Jenny Samuels, ACLU Editorial Staff, about Sessions’s web of deceit, legal misrepresentation, and lack of human decency and morality. https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/jeff-sessions-deceitful-spin-family

Sessions has a history of bias, lawless behavior, and being a less than credible witness under oath. And, a U.S. District Judge might take misrepresentations or perjury more seriously than did the GOP Senators (Sessions’s former colleagues) on the Judiciary Committee.

Although the ultimate resolution of this case might be years down the line, it also raises an interesting question of whether Sessions, Nielsen, and other DHS officials can be held personally liable for a “Bivens Constitutional Tort” if they knowingly and intentionally violated the established Due Process rights of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs are correct in their allegations, it certainly seems that this is exactly what happened. Sessions is quickly establishing himself as one of the worst, probably the very worst, “Constitutional Scofflaws” in recent memory.

How bad is Sessions’s lack of respect for the Constitution? Bad enough that the three career DOJ Attorneys assigned to defend the ACA withdrew from the case for ethical reason after Sessions’s latest all out attack on the “rule of law:” His completely disingenuous political decision not to defend further the Government’s previously-established position that the ACA is Constitutional. See https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/8/17442238/trump-aca-obamacare-texas-department-of-justice-rule-of-law

While the scared asylum applicants and their children that Sessions and his cronies seek to persecute present no real threat to our security as a nation, Jeff Sessions and his continuing war on equal justice for all, human decency, the law, ethics, and our Constitution is an existential threat to our national security and future as a democracy. He must be thwarted and eventually removed from office through our Constitutional system before it’s too late for everyone!

PWS

06-09-18

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  2. INSIDE THE CHILD ABUSE CONSPIRACY: LIKE MANY CRIMINALS, TRUMP’S “GANG OF SIX” CAN’T KEEP THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT — But, There Is One Consistency — Everything These “Kakistocrats” Say Is A Lie!
  3. NATION OF CHILD ABUSERS: WHILE MANY RIGHT WING APOLOGISTS (ALONG WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ) PAN NAZI COMPARISON, ACTUAL HOLOCAUST CHILD SURVIVOR YOKA VERDONER UNDERSTANDS THE PARALLELS! — Child Abuse Is Child Abuse —Evil Is Evil — Damage Is Irreparable!
  4. SCOFFLAWS OUTED AGAIN: U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S ILLEGAL ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAW: ORDERS PROCESSING OF ALL WHO APPLY TO RESUME! — “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden!”

THREE NEW ARTICLES FROM MICA ROSENBERG & FRIENDS @ REUTERS SHOW SESSIONS’S DEEP MORAL CORRUPTION!I

I wanted to pass along our latest story about the U.S. Mexico border:

EXCLUSIVE: Nearly 1,800 families separated at U.S.-Mexico border in 17 months through February

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-exclusive/exclusive-nearly-1800-families-separated-at-u-s-mexico-border-in-17-months-through-february-idUSKCN1J42UE

 

and for a deeper dive on the new “zero tolerance”’ prosecution policy:

Concerns over U.S. court backlog grow with rising border prosecutions

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-prosecutions/concerns-over-u-s-court-backlog-grow-with-rising-border-prosecutions-idUSKBN1IA310

 

Two colleagues also recently dug into the immigration detention squeeze:

Exclusive: U.S. sending 1,600 immigration detainees to federal prisons

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-prisons-exclusi ve/exclusive-u-s-immigration-authorities-sending-1600-detainees-to-federal-prisons-idUSKCN1J32W1

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

Corruption takes many forms.

PWS

06-08-18

 

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. 9TH CIRCUIT JUDGES COMPLICIT IN HUMAN RIGHTS & LEGAL VIOLATIONS INFLICTED ON TERRIFIED TEEN ASYLUM APPLICANTS: Reuters Study Exposes How Disingenuous Article III Judges Are Letting Trump Administration “Get Away With Potential Murder” Under Clearly Illegal, Unconstitutional, & Incompetently Administered “Remain In Mexico” Abomination!
  2. NPR: FRONTLINE TAKES YOU INSIDE THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT LED TO FAMILY SEPARATION — Featuring Michelle Brane Of The Women’s Refugee Commission
  3. CRIME BLOTTER: CHILD ABUSE🤮☠️⚰️🦹🏿‍♀️: DOJ IG REPORT CONFIRMS WHAT COURTSIDE & OTHERS KNEW FROM THE START: Trump, Sessions, Miller, Rosenstein, Hamilton Are Cowards🐓, Lying 🤥 Criminals, Child Abusers🦹🏿‍♀️, Who Belong Behind Bars For Intentionally Abusing Asylum Seeking Families & Kids & Then Having Their Sleazy DOJ Lawyers Lie To Federal Judges! — What Happened To “Due Diligence” As An Ethical Requirement For Government Lawyers?
  4. KAREN TUMULTY @ WASHPOST: Trump Is The Ugliest American – Amazingly, He Keeps Getting Uglier!

LATEST FROM TRAC: IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM COLLAPSING UNDER EXPLODING BACKLOG AS TRUMP/SESSIONS “DISSING” OF DUE PROCESS, BLATANT POLITIZATION, INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATION, AND “GONZO” ENFORCEMENT POLICIES TAKE HOLD — Backlog Soars By An Amazing 32% In Just Over One Year Since Sessions Assumed Control — Now An Astounding 714,000 – Sessions’s Wrong-Headed Actions Geared To Push It Over ONE MILLION With No Sensible End In Sight!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. The Immigration Court’s backlog keeps rising. As of the end of May 2018, the number of cases waiting decision reached an all-time high of 714,067. This compares with a court backlog of 542,411 cases at the end of January 2017 when President Trump assumed office. During his term the backlog has increased by almost a third (32%) with 171,656 more cases added.

The pace of court filings has not increased – indeed, case filings are running slightly behind that of last year at this time. What appears to be driving the burgeoning backlog is the lengthening time it now takes to schedule hearings and complete proceedings in the face of the court’s over-crowded dockets.

For example, cases that ultimately result in a removal order are taking 28 percent longer to process than last year – up from 392 days to an average of 501 days – from the date of the Notice to Appear (NTA) to the date of the decision. And compared with the last full fiscal year of the Obama administration, cases resulting in removal take an average of 42 percent longer.

Decisions granting asylum or another type of relief now take over twice as long as removal decisions. Relief decisions this year on average took 1,064 days – up 17 percent – from last year.

Wait times in Houston, San Antonio, Chicago, Imperial (California), Denver, and Arlington (Virginia) now average over 1,400 days before an immigrant is even scheduled for a hearing on his or her case. At many hearing locations hearings are currently being scheduled beyond 2021 before an available slot on the docket is found.

To read the full report, including how long at each court hearing location current cases are waiting before their hearing is scheduled, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/516/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through May 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

Wow! The “One Man Supreme Court” is also a “One Man Wrecking Crew” trying his best to bring down the entire U.S. justice system with his remarkable mix of bias, ignorance, cruelty, political grandstanding, and just plain old incompetence.  To my knowledge, he’s never run anything larger than a modest sized U.S. Attorney’s Office, and not everyone who worked with him then was enamored by the way he handled that job. In fact, he was so bad that members of his own party his own party helped block him from a U.S. District Judge position because of his perceived racial bias and lack of ability to deal fairly with minorities.

All of this while, the GOP Congress just sits back and “ho hums” about the mess they have created and allowed to fester in the DOJ and their lack of meaningful oversight over Sessions’s destructive, often dishonest, actions and gross mismanagement!

And, destroying the U.S. Immigration Courts is by no means the last or least of his efforts. According to Richard Morosi’s “banner headline top story” in today’s Los Angeles Times, Sessions & Co have so overloaded the U.S. District Courts along the border with non-violent misdemeanor immigration offenders that those courts 1) don’t have time for more serious offenders, major fraudsters, and other real criminals; and 2) are abandoning their values and independence to produce what one former senior prosecutor, Charles La Bella, termed “turnstyle justice” (“not what the federal courts were meant to do”). It’s so horrible that one long-time U.S. District Judge has already quit because he couldn’t take the wanton wastefulness, stupidity, and inhumanity of it all.  You can check out Morosi’s full article here: http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=aec32f3c-e756-4d4a-acbc-f7e451bd9d87

In other words, Sessions is compromising the actual safety and security of the United States and threatening the integrity of our U.S. Court System to indulge his own racist, xenophobic desire to punish “regular folks, dishwashers, landscapers . . .people who are coming to pick fruit or find menial work to send money back home.”

At least the Chief U.S. District Judge trying to deal with this mess has included defense attorneys along with judges and prosecutors in his new “case management committee.”  Compare that with the Immigration Courts, where Sessions, his DOJ politicos, and administrative bureaucrats in Falls Church manage the cases from afar, based solely on political and enforcement considerations. The U.S. Immigration Judges who actually hear the cases, the hard-working (largely pro bono) defense attorneys, and even the local ICE prosecutors are effectively “frozen out” of the system for setting priorities and managing cases. I’ll wager that there is no other court system in the United States that attempts to operate in this bone-headed and obviously counterproductive manner!

Under Sessions, more judges = more backlog! That militates against Congress throwing any more judges, money, and personnel into this mess until the Immigration Courts are removed from the DOJ, a long, long overdue move.

How do you build more backlog with more judges? First, by demoralizing and effectively forcing out some of the most experienced and fairest judges and replacing them with “newbies,” Sessions reduces judicial legal expertise, productivity, and independence, at least in the short run.

Second, by trashing the very promising “prosecutorial discretion” program undertaken by ICE prosecutors with the encouragement and cooperation of the Immigration Judges, he forces “low priority” cases into the court system at the expense of the more difficult and complex cases that then get pushed to the end of the line. Astoundingly, Sessions’s recent legally flawed “beat down” of “Administrative Closing” virtually guarantees that several hundred thousand low priority “closed” cases will be returned to the courts’ active dockets in the near future, thus artificially pushing the backlog  beyond 1,000,000!

This is known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” It started under Obama, but has accelerated dramatically under Sessions. This is essentially what is happening with Sessions’s irresponsible prosecution of minor misdemeanants over in the U.S. District Courts along the border.

Third, and this jumped out from the TRAC report, it now takes much longer to complete cases, particularly asylum case and other cases granting relief,  because they are all contested by ICE and Sessions is actively trying to “jack” the law against respondents, particularly asylum applicants. A wise Attorney General actually committed to the job of justice for all in America and responsible use of taxpayer-funded resources would work cooperatively with prosecutors, defense attorneys, and Immigration Judges within existing precedents favorable to asylum applicants to encourage “pretrial” of the many well-documented, meritorious asylum cases and other cases for relief (like cancellation of removal) now unnecessarily clogging the dockets so that they could be granted relief on “short-block dockets” by Immigration Judges. In other cases, they could be closed and removed from the docket to pursue alternative forms of relief at USCIS. This would be a great way of attacking the backlog without running over anyone’s Due Process rights! But, that’s not what Sessions is interested in.

Not only are asylum cases becoming unnecessarily complex and time-consuming under Sessions, but his apparent plan to intentionally misconstrue U.S. asylum law to disadvantage bona fide applicants in favor of his restrictionist agenda and personal biases against asylum seekers, women, and Central Americans is almost sure to result in many “losers” for the Government in the Courts of Appeals. This, in turn, is likely to result in massive returns for “do-overs” — just as happened during the Due Process disaster than occurred following the “Ashcroft Purge” of the BIA in 2003!

PWS

06-08-18

Related posts:

  1. GONZO’S WORLD: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DIVERSE “NATION OF IMMIGRANTS” ANOINTS A COMMITTED XENOPHOBE AS ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER? – Gonzo Is Deconstructing Our System Of Justice, One Day At A Time!
  2. DUE PROCESS UNDER ATTACK: ANOTHER “IMMIGRATION HARDLINER” MOVES OVER TO DOJ TO HELP GONZO TORMENT, TRASH, AND BULLY THE MOST VULNERABLE
  3. THE ROUNDTABLE IN ACTION: HON. ILYCE SHUGALL DELIVERS POWERFUL STATEMENT IN THE LA TIMES ON WHY SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS A JUDGE IN OUR OBSCENELY DISTORTED AND UNFAIR U.S. IMMIGRATON COURT SYSTEM – “But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.”
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

NATION OF CHILD ABUSERS: IT’S NOW THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATON – The Damage: Irreparable – The Stain On Our National Values: Indelible!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/children-immigration-borders-family-separation.html

Miriam Jordan reports for the NY Times:

When he landed in Michigan in late May, all the weary little boy carried was a trash bag stuffed with dirty clothes from his dayslong trek across Mexico, and two small pieces of paper — one a stick-figure drawing of his family from Honduras, the other a sketch of his father, who had been arrested and led away after they arrived at the United States border in El Paso.

An American government escort handed over the 5-year-old child, identified on his travel documents as José, to the American woman whose family was entrusted with caring for him. He refused to take her hand. He did not cry. He was silent on the ride “home.”

The first few nights, he cried himself to sleep. Then it turned into “just moaning and moaning,” said Janice, his foster mother. He recently slept through the night for the first time, though he still insists on tucking the family pictures under his pillow.

José’s separation from his father is part of the Trump administration’s latest and most widely debated border enforcement policy. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally, a directive that is already leading to the breakup of hundreds of migrant families and channeling children into shelters and foster homes across the country.

The goal, according to administration officials, is to discourage Central American families from making the perilous journey to the United States’ southwest border, where they have been arriving in swelling numbers this year to claim asylum.

In just the first two weeks under President Trump’s new policy, 638 parents who arrived with 658 children had been prosecuted, administration officials told Congress.

Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, emphasized that separating families was not the aim but merely the effect of a decision to step up prosecutions of those who cross the border illegally. “We do not have a policy to separate children from their parents. Our policy is, if you break the law we will prosecute you,” she told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on May 15.

She said the Trump administration is doing a better job than its predecessors in assuring that migrant children are placed with sponsors who are carefully screened. “We can make sure that the children go to people who are actually family members and who are not traffickers and who won’t abuse them,” she said.

Whether the policy will succeed as a deterrent remains an open question. What is clear is that it is creating heartbreak and trauma for those subjected to it, with parents and children often unaware of one another’s whereabouts.

. . . .

In several letters to the Department of Homeland Security, the American Academy of Pediatrics has urged an end to parent-child separation, which researchers have said can cause lifelong trauma in children. When the policy was unveiled, the academy’s president, Dr. Colleen Kraft, said she was dismayed at its “sweeping cruelty.”

José’s last name and that of his foster family, as well as where they live, are not being published in order to protect their privacy.

Since his arrival in Michigan, family members said, a day has not gone by when the boy has failed to ask in Spanish, “When will I see my papa?”

They tell him the truth. They do not know. No one knows.

José’s father is in detention, and parent and child until this week had not spoken since they were taken into the custody of United States authorities.

Image
Immigrants near McAllen, Tex., in April. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally.CreditLoren Elliott/Reuters

“I am watching history happen before my eyes. It’s horrendous,” said Janice, 53.

Janice, her husband, Chris, and their two teenage daughters have firsthand experience with underage migrants. They are among a number of families who have in recent years provided a temporary home, called transitional foster care, to minors seeking refuge in the United States, usually after fleeing violence and economic uncertainty in Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala.

In the last two years, 12 children, including two sets of siblings, have occupied the room upstairs with its soothing white-and-light-blue walls and twin beds with colorful bedding. All had arrived in the United States alone and remained in the family’s care for a few weeks or months until a long-term sponsor already in the country, often a relative, was identified and cleared by the authorities to receive them.

“They had access to their parents on a daily basis,” Janice said. “They talked to them on the phone. We have done video chats with Mom and Dad and siblings with every placement — except now.”

José is the first child they have hosted who crossed the border with a parent, rather than alone, then was forcibly separated and left with no ability to contact them. On his flight to Michigan were two other Central American boys in similar circumstances who were placed with families in the area.

The majority of youths apprehended at the border over the past several years have been housed in government shelters and most of them are teenagers who came alone, often expecting to join family members already in the United States. About 11,000 children are currently in these facilities, which are at 95 percent capacity, according to Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. The department has reserved an additional 1,218 beds in various places for migrant children, including some at military bases, he said.

On May 10, three days after Mr. Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, the government issued a call for proposals from “shelter care providers, including group homes and transitional foster care” in anticipation of a surge in children separated from their parents who would require housing.

. . . .

“For two days, he didn’t shower, he didn’t change his clothes. I literally had to peel the socks off his feet. They were so old and smelly,” Janice said. “I realized that he didn’t want anyone to take anything away from him.”

Image

A drawing of José’s father. Since the child’s arrival in Michigan, his foster family said, a day has not gone by when he has failed to ask in Spanish, “When will I see my papa?”

The one thing that animated him was discussing his “photos,” as he called the family drawings.

He introduced “mi familia,” pointing to the figures of his parents, brother and younger sister. Staring intensely at the sketch of his father, with a slight mustache and a cap, he repeated his name out loud again and again.

It was “just me and him” on the trip from Honduras, he told Janice one night as he lay in bed shuffling the pictures, taking turns looking at one and then the other.

“He holds onto the two pictures for dear life,” Janice said, through tears. “It’s heart-wrenching.”

Janice does not blame José’s parents for putting him through the ordeal.

In early May, she traveled to Central America to see for herself the conditions on the ground, and returned convinced that gang-fueled violence, extortion and recruitment of children were compelling parents to make the arduous journey over land with their children to the United States. “I have nothing but sorrow and compassion for the families,” she said.

When sirens pierced the quiet of the night last week, José’s eyes widened with fear. “La violencia, la violencia,” he said. The family assured him that it was not violence; it was fire trucks.

In recent days, the boy began attending a multi-age kindergarten at Bethany with about a dozen other migrant children.

. . . .

Earlier this week, José spoke with his parents for the first time since their lives had diverged. The phone calls were separate: His father remains in detention, and his mother is in Honduras.

The calls went smoothly, according to the case manager.

But they changed everything. Somehow, it had sunk in that there was no way of knowing when he would see his family. “It triggered all the separation trauma again,” said Janice.

She tried to offer him his toys, but he erupted in anger, screaming and crying at the kitchen table for almost an hour.

“It was really hard to watch. The look on his face was anguish,” said Janice, her voice breaking.

When his fury subsided, the boy collapsed on the kitchen floor, still sobbing. “Mama, Papa,” he said, over and over.

Nearby lay the family pictures, which he had flung on the floor.

*****************************************************
Read the entire, totally disturbing and enraging, article at the link.
Is this the way we want to be remembered by our children, grandchildren, and future generations? As nation that put cruel, arrogant, and inhumane individuals in charge of our Government and then stood by and watched while they abused children, spread xenophobia, enriched the rich, mocked ethics, and thumbed their noses at human decency.
Assuming that the “Joses of the world” live to grow up, there will be a horrible price to pay for future generations of Americans as they are forced to come to grips with the grotesque human rights abuses committed in the name of a perverted nationalism. Very much like the reckoning that the Catholic Church has had to undergo for tolerating and covering up decades and generations of sexual, physical, and mental abuse of youth!
Get out the vote to limit the power of the horrible minority that has taken over our Government and our nation and to eventually remove them from office at all levels. America cannot and will not “be great again” until the stain of Trumpism is removed from our national Government!
Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions, Never!
Join the New Due Process Army today!
PWS
06-07-18

Related posts:

  1. GONZO’S WORLD: AS SESSIONS RAMPS UP THE “NEW AMERICAN GULAG,” RAMPANT SEXUAL ABUSE OF FEMALE DETAINEES CERTAIN TO INCREASE! – AG’S Child Abuse Also Makes Him Complicit In Sexual Abuse! – See The Short Video By Emily Kassie Here!
  2. FOUR TODDLERS RESCUED BY PRO BONO LAWYERS FROM DEADLY SITUATION IN CBP CUSTODY — Putrid, Unsanitary, Repressive Conditions Causing Lifetime Harm To Other Traumatized Kids — But, Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Wants You To Know That She’s Not Taking Responsibility For The Humanitarian Disaster Intentionally Engineered On Her Watch!
  3. AMERICA’S “MASS ATROCITY” — Professor Kate Cronin-Furman Says Don’t Kid Yourself About What The Trump Administration Is Doing In Your Name & How “Ordinary Civil Servants” Carry Out The Unthinkable & Unacceptable!
  4. [BUREAU] ‘CRATS CONTINUE TO FLEE SINKING DHS SHIP AS ABUSES, LIES, COVER-UPS MOUNT — John Sanders Latest To Exit — Trump Taps Mark Morgan, Eager Architect Of Administration’s Temporarily Aborted “Community Reign of Terror” (A/K/A/ “Operation Wetback ‘19”) Program As Next Acting CBP Chief — Expect More Mindless Cruelty, Lies, False Narratives, White Nationalist Racism, Violations Of Law & Human Rights!

STOMPING ON THE PERSECUTED! — BIA MAJORITY FINDS WAY TO USE “MATERIAL SUPPORT BAR” TO DENY PROTECTION TO THE VICTIMS OF PERSECUTION – Judge Linda Wendtland, Dissenting, Gets It Right! — Matter of A-C-M-, 27 I&N Dec. 303 (BIA 2018)!

MATTER OF ACM 3928_0

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) An alien provides “material support” to a terrorist organization if the act has a logical and reasonably foreseeable tendency to promote, sustain, or maintain the organization, even if only to a de minimis degree.

(2) The respondent afforded material support to the guerillas in El Salvador in 1990 because the forced labor she provided in the form of cooking, cleaning, and washing their clothes aided them in continuing their mission of armed and violent opposition to the Salvadoran Government.

PANEL:  BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES COLE, PAULEY, & WENDTLAND

OPINION BY: JUDGE ROGER PAULEY

CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION: JUDGE LINDA WENDTLAND

KEY QUOTES FROM MAJORITY:

The Immigration Judge incorporated by reference the respondent’s credible testimony and all the documents submitted at her cancellation of removal hearing. In her August 8, 2016, decision, the Immigration Judge found that the respondent is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on the material support bar in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Act. The Immigration Judge stated that, but for the material support bar, she would have granted the respondent’s asylum application on humanitarian grounds pursuant to Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1989), noting the horrific harm she experienced from the guerrillas in El Salvador because, in addition to being kidnapped and required to perform cooking and cleaning for the guerrillas under threat of death, the respondent was forced to witness her husband, a sergeant in the Salvadoran Army, dig his own grave before being killed. However, the Immigration Judge granted the respondent’s request for deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture.

KEY QUOTE FROM CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION:

In view of our relatively recent holding in Matter of M-H-Z-, 26 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2016), that the material support bar contains no exception for duress, “it is especially important to give meaning to the statutory limit of ‘material.’ That term calls for [I]mmigration [J]udges, the Board, and the courts to strike a balance written into the Act.” Jabateh v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 332, 348 (7th Cir. 2017) (Hamilton, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Individuals arriving in this country from “some of the most dangerous and chaotic places on earth . . . may not have been able to avoid all contact with terrorist groups and their members, but we should not interpret the statute to exclude on this basis those who did not provide ‘material’ support to them,” since “[m]any deserving asylum-seekers could be barred otherwise.” Id. Unlike the majority, which apparently would apply the bar without any meaningful limit, I would not decline to carry out our responsibility to strike the foregoing critical balance.

Nor do I believe that Congress intended to relegate the respondent, who did not afford support that qualifies as “material,” to the statutory waiver process under section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, which is intended only for those individuals whose support did meet the threshold materiality requirement.2 And given my view that the respondent’s conduct does not come within the “material support” bar in the first place, I need not reach the question whether the respondent reasonably should have known that the guerrillas in 1990 in El Salvador were a terrorist organization.

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

Once again, faced with competing possible interpretations of the law, the BIA majority chooses the interpretation most unfavorable to the applicant. So, what else is new?

The majority judges engage in a wooden, lifeless, hyper-technical analysis, devoid of any obvious understanding of either the purpose of refugee laws or the actual human situation of refugees. By contrast, Judge Wendtland shows an understanding of both the human situation of refugees and undesirability and impracticality of construing the law so as to bar deserving refugees or force them to “jump through more hoops.”

Everybody actually agrees that “but for” this obtuse application of the law, this respondent deserves asylum! So, why not just take the readily available course of construing the ambiguous provision in favor of the applicant?  Why go out of the way to create bad law and hurt innocent individuals? Why would Congress have desired this absurdly unpalatable result?  And, I wouldn’t count on the USCIS under the policies of this Administration to grant a waiver in this case under their even more opaque and politicized processes.

This case also demonstrates a continuing practice of the BIA to render major precedents without considering the case en banc. How many of the other Appellate Immigration Judges agree with Judge Pauley’s decision? How many agree with Judge Wendtland? On which side are Chairman Neal and Vice Chair Adkins-Blanch?

We’ll never know, because today’s Board imposes life or death decisions on respondents and changes the course of the law while allowing the vast majority the Appellate Immigration Judges to hide in anonymity in their “Ivory Tower” chambers, without any accountability or taking any legal or moral responsibility for the decisions that they impose on others. It’s a national disgrace (originating with the bogus “Ashcroft reforms”) that must be changed for the BIA to once again become a credible appellate tribunal.

Due process and fairness to individuals are fictions in today’s broken and biased U.S. Immigration Court system. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise!

PWS

06-06-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”
  3. THE HUMAN AGONY OF ASYLUM: SPEND 4 MIN. WITH MS. A-B- & HUMAN/WOMEN’S RIGHTS EXPERT PROFESSOR KAREN MUSALO — Beaten, Raped, & Threatened With Death By Her Husband, Hounded Throughout Her Country, Abandoned By El Salvadoran Authorities, She Sought Refuge In The U.S., Winning Her Case At The BIA — Then She Was Targeted For A Vicious Unprovoked Attack By Notorious Scofflaw Immigration Judge Stuart Couch & White Nationalist Xenophobe Jeff Sessions — She’s Still Fighting For Her Life!
  4. REPORT FROM FBA, AUSTIN: Read My Speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”

NOLAN’S LATEST IN THE HILL: “Undocumented immigrants shouldn’t replace legal ones”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/390812-undocumented-immigrants-shouldnt-replace-legal-ones

 

Family Pictures

Nolan writes in The Hill:

President Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union included the following remarks:

“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

“We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

Clinton is not the only Democrat who has spoken out against illegal immigration. The Republicans provide a number of examples in a blog they posted recently: “The Democrat Hard Left Turn on Illegal Immigration.”

 

  • In 1993, then-Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “When it comes to enforcing laws against illegal immigration, we have a system that will make you recoil in disbelief. … Yet we are doing almost nothing to encourage these people to go home or even to deter them from coming here in the first place.”
  • In 1994, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ran a political ad showing illegal immigrants crossing the border and promised to get tough on illegal immigration with more “agents, fencing, lighting, and other equipment.” 
  • In 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said “Better fences and better security along our borders” would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”
  • In 2009, during a speech at Georgetown Law, Senator Chuck Schumer(D-N.Y.) said, “When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.”

The blog also provides video clip links, including one that shows Clinton receiving a standing ovation for his remarks about Americans being disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering the country.

. . . .

A recent report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on the labor laws California has enacted to protect unauthorized immigrant workers indicates that many of the immigrants who have been attracted to California by its sanctuary policies are being exploited by unscrupulous employers.

In fact, the main beneficiaries of California’s sanctuary policies are the employers who exploit undocumented immigrant workers and deportable immigrants in police custody who otherwise would be turned over to ICE when they are released.

California has had to enact seven laws to protect undocumented workers from being exploited by their employers.

EPI found that the ability of U.S. employers to exploit unauthorized workers undercuts the bargaining power of U.S. workers who work side by side with them. When the wages and labor standards of unauthorized immigrants are degraded, it has a negative impact on the wages and labor standards of U.S. workers in similar jobs.

In reality, we could meet all of our immigration needs with legal immigration. We do not need nor ultimately benefit from uncontrolled illegal immigration.

 

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

Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete article.

I’m all for replacing the uncontrolled flow of undocumented migrants with legal migrants. That’s why I favor a “smart” immigration policy that would:

  • Legalize the vast majority of those currently here without documentation who are working in needed jobs, law-abiding, and contributing to our society. Legalization would allow them to be screened, brought into the tax system (if they aren’t already), and protected by U.S. labor laws.
  • Expand legal immigration opportunities, particularly for  so-called “non-professional,” manual labor skills and jobs that are badly needed in the U.S. and which now often are filled by undocumented labor. That would allow screening of visa applicants abroad, a controlled entry process, and protections under the labor laws. To the extent that undocumented migration is being driven by unfilled market forces, it would decrease the flow of undocumented individuals, thus saving us from expensive, unneeded, inhumane, and ineffective “enforcement overkill.” Immigration enforcement would be freed to concentrate on those who might actually be a threat to the U.S.
  • Create more robust, realistic refugee laws that would bring many more refugees through the legal system, particularly from the Northern Triangle. This, along with cooperation with the UNHCR and other nations would reduce the need for individuals to make they way to our borders to apply for asylum. Asylum processing could be improved by allowing the Asylum Office to review and grant “defensive” as well as affirmative applications, thus lessening the burden on the Immigration Courts.
  • More investment in Wage and Hour, NLRB, and OSHA enforcement to prevent unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of workers of all types.
  • We have full employment, surplus jobs, a declining birth rate, and we’re losing the “STEM edge” to the PRC, Canada, Mexico, the EU and other nations that are becoming more welcoming and attractive to “high skill” immigrants. We’re going to need all of the legal immigration we can get across the board to remain viable and dynamic in a changing world.

PWS

06-06-18

 

Related posts:

  1. VICTORY DANCE! — ICE’S HOMAN SAYS CLIMATE OF FEAR HAS STEMMED BORDER CROSSINGS & PROVES UNRESTRAINED, ARBITRARY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT WORKS! — “There’s no population that’s off the table,” he said. “If you’re in the country illegally, we’re looking for you and we’re looking to apprehend you.” — America Won’t Be Truly Safe Until The Last Cook, Gardner, Construction Worker, Nanny, Janitor, Tree Cutter, Mechanic, Handyman, Carpenter, Home Health Aide, Computer Programmer, Healthcare Worker, Lettuce Picker, Cow Milker, Landscaper, Lawnmower, Bricklayer, Roofer, Window Washer, Waiter, Sandwich Artist, Teacher, Minister, Coach, Student, Parent, Clerk, Fisherman, Farmer, Maid, Chicken Plucker, Meat Processor, Etc., Without Docs Is Removed And US Citizens Take Over All These Jobs!
  2. WASHINGTON POST: GONZO’S IMMIGRATION COURT “REFORMS” WILL CREATE “KANGAROO COURTS!” —Recent “moves to evaluate judges based on the speed with which they handle dockets that typically exceed 2,000 cases, rather than on fair adjudication, is a recipe for assembly-line injustice.”
  3. WALL? WHAT WALL? – BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS BEST BAR TO (NEEDED) IMMIGRATION (Hey, I Could’ve Told ‘Em That!) – But, White Nationalist Goal Of Returning To A “White America” Ultimately Doomed — “You can slow the rate of Latino and Asian immigration, but it won’t make the population whiter,”. . . “It will just become less white at a slower pace.”
  4. JAMELLE BOUIE @ SLATE: TRUMP, SESSIONS, MILLER & THE GOP RESTRICTIONISTS HAVE PUT GOOD OL’ 1920S RACISM AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST IMMIGRATION AGENDA! –“What good does it do to bring in somebody who’s illiterate in their own country, has no skills, and is going to struggle in our country and not be successful? . . . That is not what a good nation should do, and we need to get away from it.” — J. “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Attorney General of the United States of America & Unapologetic White Nationalist With A Long History Of Racism!

CALLING ALL U.S. JUDGES (ARTICLE III, U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES, ADMINISTRATIVE, STATE, ACTIVE, RETIRED, SENIOR), INVOLVED IN (OR WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT) ASYLUM AND REFUGEE ADJUDICATION AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE: Come Join Me At The America’s Conference Of The International Association Of Refugee & Migration Judges At Beautiful Georgetown Law Center In Washington, D.C. , August 1-5, 2018!

 

 

International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges

America’s Chapter

Office of the Vice President

Alexandria, Virginia

 

June 6, 2018 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

As those of you who know me well realize, since my retirement from the bench, there’s not much that can keep me away from Maine and Wisconsin in July and August! But, this year’s America’s Chapter Conference at the beautiful campus of Georgetown Law in D.C. is one of those exceptions.

 

As the Vice President of the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges’ (IARMJ) Americas Chapter, I enthusiastically invite you to join me at the Americas Chapter Conference to be held in Washington, D.C., August 1-5, 2018.  

 

As you may be aware, the IARMJ is a voluntary association of judges and quasi-judicial decision makers whose main purpose is to foster an understanding of the obligations created by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. For instance, this includes supporting capacity building initiatives and the sharing of best practices with nascent refugee determination systems in the Americas to help develop expertise and practices around the world, in accordance with international legal instruments and standards. Then Chief U.S. Immigration Judge (now BIA Appellate Immigration Judge) Michael J. Creppy and I were among the founding members of the IARLJ (the original name of the IARJM) in Warsaw, Poland, two decades ago. As you might expect, my signature is scrawled large across the bottom of the original articles!

 

The conference will begin with two days of pre-conference workshops, followed by two days of plenary sessions, and a capstone program examining law and justice at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on day five. Expert speakers at this event will include, in addition to internationally renowned academics and specialists, representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services – Asylum Division as well as other government entities and NGOs. 

 

This August, the Americas Chapter seeks to examine the theme of resilience in our asylum systems through an in-depth legal analysis and discussion of various topics, including trauma-informed adjudications techniques, the real-world impact of heavy workloads and humanitarian caseloads on adjudicators, the impact of bias on adjudicative decisions and how lessons learned from recent migration surges can help to inform the creation of more resilient legal protection systems and processes.  

 

Participation is open worldwide, and we aim to invite asylum and refugee judges, quasi-judicial decision makers and tribunal members at all levels. I am thus writing to request your support to both attend this special and timely Conference and to help us promote participation at the Conference, among current and retired U.S. Immigration Judges, BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, and Article III Federal Judges at all levels.

 

This will be a unique opportunity to make asylum judges throughout the world aware of the challenges that we are facing here in the United States and to share notes with them on how to effectively adhere to the principles enunciated in the 1952 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

 

 

ociation of Refugee Please find attached a draft version of the agenda for  your reference. I encourage you to visit our website at https://www.iarlj.org/events/event/56-iarlj-americas-chapter-conference for updated conference information, including registration details. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the following email: iarmjamericaschapter@gmail.com.

 

I look forward to seeing you at Georgetown Law in August!

Due Process Forever!

 

Best regards,

 

Paul

Americas Chapter, IARMJ

 

HERE’S THE AGENDA: 

Agenda ENG 2018

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

Friends, there has NEVER been a more important time for this Conference and this terrific organization dedicated to promoting professionalism, respect, fairness, Due Process, and international understanding in interpreting and applying the 1952 Convention on the Status of Refugees — the most important international accord in the timeless history of refugees!  Meetings like this don’t come to the United States often. Don’t miss this opportunity for a special, one-of-a-kind experience with your peers from elsewhere!

IMPORTANT NOTE: Although we would, of course, love to have you join our organization and will have a favorable membership rate for new members, membership in the IARMJ is not required to attend this conference!

Hope to see you at Georgetown Law in August!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-06-18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. INCONVENIENT TRUTH: HALEY SWEETLAND EDWARDS @ TIME TELLS WHAT TRUMP, MILLER, COTTON, SESSIONS, & THEIR WHITE NATIONALIST GANG DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: Human Migration Is A Powerful Force As Old As Human History; It’s A Plus For Receiving Nations; It Won’t Be Stopped By Walls, Jails, Racist Laws, Or Any Other Restrictionist Nonsense; But, It Can Be Intelligently Controlled, Channeled, Harnessed, & Used For The Benefit Of The U.S. & The Good Of The Migrants! — “But to maximize that future good, governments must act rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.”
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- & The Unresolved Tension In Asylum Adjudication! – Plus My Added Commentary On EOIR Training!
  3. NY TIMES: Trump Mocks & Dehumanizes Vulnerable Refugees & His Administration Claims It’s OK To Return Them to Honduras; BUT The Facts Say The Opposite: Honduras Is An Armed Conflict Zone Where Gangs Exercise Quasi-Governmental Control & Those Who Resist Are Severely Punished, Often Maimed, Tortured Or Killed!
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

HON. JEFFREY CHASE WITH “LAW YOU CAN USE” TO FORCE THIS ADMINISTRATION TO RECOGNIZE REFUGEES FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE — Yes, Many Recently Arrived Refugees From The Northern Triangle Qualify As “Political” Refugees – Here’s How To Argue & Support Their Cases!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/6/3/3rd-generation-gangs-and-political-opinion

3rd-Generation Gangs and Political Opinion

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issues his decision in Matter of A-B- (the case he certified to himself to decide whether “being a victim of private criminal activity” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes),  it may negatively impact those asylum applicants who fear gang violence on account of their membership in a particular social group. Attorneys representing such claimants should consider whether their clients may alternatively claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political opinion under a “third-generation gang” theory, supported by country condition evidence.

In their article ‘Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion Ground,1 Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence make a very important point: that “the Refugee Convention’s concept of political opinion incorporates ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of the State, government, and policy may be engaged,’ or that of other persecutory agents where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection” (citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 746 (Can.)).

Relying on this broad interpretation of political opinion, Anker and Lawrence next note that some military and law enforcement experts have concluded that the larger Central American gangs (including MS-13 and Mara 18) “have developed a degree of politicization, sophistication, and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation gangs,’” which “function as de facto governments, controlling significant territory (competing with the state for power).”  Anker and Lawrence cite Lieutenant Colonel Howard L. Gray, Gangs and Transnational Criminals Threaten Central American Stability, 7 U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project (2009)); in documenting such claims, practitioners should also reference John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gang Studies: An Introduction,” 14-4 Journal of Gang Research 1 (Summer 2007), and “Third General Gangs Strategic Note No. 1: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) 500 Man Commando Unit Planned for El Salvador,” Small Wars Journal, Sept. 10, 2016.  The last article quotes Douglas Farah, Visiting Senior Fellow, National Defense University Center for Complex Operations as stating that “The MS has strong political and military ambitions and now views itself as political/military rather than a gang…MS 13 now has troops, weapons, and a cause…efforts to form a joint force with the 18 is less likely but both sides are in discussion to at least have lines of communication open.”2

Under the definition of political opinion cited above, gangs such as MS-13 and Mara 18 are at least other persecutory agents from which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection.  Such gangs might also be the de facto “state” itself in areas they control.  The idea that opinions or matters that engage such gangs might constitute political opinion finds support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has recently published Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Guatemala (January 2018), El Salvador (March 2016), and Honduras (July 2016).  These can be found on the website Refworld.org. UNHCR has been described as “the entity that most resembles a supervisory body of the [1951] Convention.”3  Although U.S. courts and the BIA have been inconsistent in the deference accorded to its opinions, given the clearly stated intent of Congress in passing the Refugee Act of 1980 to conform U.S. asylum law to the language of the 1951 Convention (which was binding on the U.S. based on its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees), it has been argued that courts should defer more consistently to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Convention’s provisions.4

UNHCR’s 2016 Eligibility Guidelines for El Salvador includes an “Assessment of International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from El Salvador.”  The agency concludes that “depending on the particular circumstances of the case, UNHCR considers that persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion…”5  The UNHCR Guidelines report at p. 12 that “gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population of their territories.”  According to UNHCR, residents in such gang-controlled zones “are reportedly required to ‘look, listen and keep quiet’ (‘mirar, oir, callar’), and often face a plethora of gang-imposed restrictions on who they can talk with and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, who they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the color of their hair.”

At p. 28 of its Guidelines, UNHCR states:

The ground of political opinion needs to reflect the reality of the specific geographical, historical, political, legal, judicial, and sociocultural context of the country of origin. In contexts such as that in El Salvador, expressing objections to the activities of gangs may be considered as amounting to an opinion that is critical of the methods and policies of those in control and, thus, constitute a “political opinion” within the meaning of the refugee definition. For example, individuals who resist being recruited by a gang, or who refuse to comply with demands made by the gangs, such as demands to pay extortion money, may be perceived to hold a political opinion.

Anker and Lawrence note in their conclusion that many denials of such claims “reflect adjudicators’ and courts’ lack of knowledge (often because they are not presented with evidence) of regarding the political nature and context of the present conflict in that region.”  This is an extremely important point. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Castro v. Holder6 that “a claim of political persecution cannot be evaluated in a vacuum….”  The court noted that it has “remanded cases in which the agency denied an application for asylum based on its failure to properly engage in the “complex and contextual factual inquiry” that such claims often require…Nevertheless, in this case, the agency has once again embraced an ‘impoverished view of what political opinions are, especially in a country where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous hold’” in denying the asylum claim “without any coherent examination of the surrounding political environment.”

Immigration judges dealing with seriously overloaded dockets, limited authority to grant continuances, and completion quotas will be hard pressed to engage in “complex and contextual factual inquiry.”  Practitioners should do their best to educate adjudicators through country condition evidence, expert testimony, memoranda of law, and through detailed direct examination of the asylum-seeker.

Practitioners should also rely on the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996), which held that imputed political opinion may satisfy the refugee definition (relying in part on the UNHCR Handbook and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; and that asylum applicants need not show conclusively why persecution may occur, but need only produce facts to establish that a reasonable person would fear that the danger arises on account of a protected ground.  The Board in S-P- also set forth five elements to consider in identifying motive, including “indications in the particular case that the abuse was directed toward modifying or punishing opinion rather than conduct (e.g., statements or actions by the perpetrators or abuse out of proportion to nonpolitical ends)” (Id. at 494).  With the support of the UNHCR Guidelines, a strong argument can be made that death threats or actual killings for offenses such as “looking mistrustfully at a gang member,” “wearing certain clothing.” or “accidentally turning up uninvited in a gang zone” constitute “statements or actions…out of proportion to nonpolitical ends” under the criteria found in Matter of S-P-.7

Where another motive exists for the feared harm, practitioners should argue that mixed motives will support a grant of asylum where one of the motives is tethered to a statutory ground.  See Matter of S-P-, supra at 495.  In Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded to INS’ argument that a labor union leader could not establish a nexus to political opinion because his dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic in nature by finding “any attempt to unravel economic from political motives is untenable in this case.”  The court concluded that the petitioner’s union activities “imply a political opinion,” concluding that “the Government’s view of what constitutes a political opinion is too narrow.” Or, as Anker and Lawrence explain, “gangs can, for example, view a person who refuses extortion as an enemy opposing them and, at the same time, also want the funds.”

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

Notes:

1.  14-10 Immigration Briefings 1 (October 2014).

2.  I first heard Farah speak at a country condition training on gang violence in the Northern Triangle held by USCIS for its asylum officers; at my invitation, Farah was a speaker on the same topic at the 2015 EOIR Training Conference for its immigration judges and BIA staff.

3.  American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees: A Need for Harmony in the Face of a Refugee Crisis (Note), 131 HARVARD L.R. 1399 (March 2018).

4.  See, e.g., American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, supra; Bassina Farbenblum, Executive Deference in U.S. Refugee Law: Internationalist Paths Through and Beyond Chevron,” 60 DUKE L.J. 1059 (2011); Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 1 (1997).

5.  UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from El Salvador (March 2016) at 30. http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=56e706e94&skip=0&query=guidelines%20on%20&coi=SLV

6.  597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).

7.  See UNHCR Guidelines on El Salvador at 29; Matter of S-P-, supra at 494.

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Blog     Archive     Contact

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

One of the best ways of putting an end to the Administration’s “false narrative” that refugees from the Northern Triangle aren’t “real” refugees is by 1) getting everyone competently represented; 2) providing documentary and expert proof of what’s “really” happening in the Northern Triangle (not what bogus and biased  Country Reports prepared by the Trump DOS might say); and 3) vigorously litigating these cases with the appropriate citations and legal arguments up to the U.S. Courts of Appeals where judges a) don’t owe their jobs to Jeff Sessions; and b) aren’t bound by Sessions’s legal misinterpretations and this Administration’s xenophobic policies.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Join the New Due Process Army and fight for the legal rights of refugees!

PWS

05-04-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. MORE ARTICLES FEATURE “GANG OF RETIRED JUDGES’ STATEMENT” RE: SESSIONS’S OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF PROTECTION LAW! — Media Exposing Corrupt, Inherently Unfair, Biased “Court” System Where The Prejudiced Prosecutor “Cooks” The Results to His Liking! — Jeff Sessions Degrades The American Legal System & Our National Values Each Day He Remains In Office!
  3. TRUMP TREATS KIDS AS HUMAN PAWNS IN UGLY POLITICAL CHESS GAME – Administration’s Continued Spreading Of False Narrative On Migration Makes Continuing Migration Outside of Legal System Inevitable!
  4. TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!

JEREMY STAHL @ SLATE: THE BIG UGLY – SEPARATION OF FAMILIES & DETENTION — TRUMP, SESSIONS, NIELSEN = LIES, IMMORALITY, ILLEGALITY!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trumps-child-separation-policy-is-a-moral-and-constitutional-abomination.html

JURISPRUDENCE

A Moral and Legal Abomination

The government has offered no substantive legal justification for the Trump administration’s policy of indefinitely separating children from their parents at the border.

By JEREMY STAHL

On Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein proposed a law that would bar the intentional separation of asylum-seeking parents from their children when they cross the border. “It’s hard to conceive of a policy more horrific than intentionally separating children from their parents as a form of punishment,” the California Democrat said in a statement publicizing the move.

Affidavits from a February lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union show precisely what Feinstein describes. The Congolese asylum-seeker at the center of the case, known as “Ms. L,” described having her 6-year-old daughter taken away by the U.S. government without explanation. “She was taken into another room and then I heard her screaming: Don’t take me away from my mommy!” the woman wrote. In court filings, the government questioned whether Ms. L was in fact her child’s mother. The woman had her child returned only after the suit was filed and the government was made to conduct a DNA test that proved her parentage.

“[T]hese terrible policies call into question whether we are in violation of our own laws and our obligations under international law,” Feinstein said in proposing a law to stop the practice of splitting up families at the border. Feinstein is right: There seems to be no coherent legal justification for separating children from their parents, some of whom—like Ms. L—presented themselves at a port of entry as asylum-seekers and have not been charged with any crimes.

The rationale top Trump administration officials have stated publicly—that such a practice will deter undocumented immigrants from seeking asylum at the border—appears to be so patently unconstitutional that the government’s own lawyers have renounced it in court. If the broad outlines here sound familiar, that’s because the legal fight over the policy is shaping up as a replay of the battle over President Donald Trump’s disastrous first travel ban, which was quickly struck down as a blatant violation of due process rights.

A federal judge in San Diego is set to rule any day on the question of whether the government is lawlessly abducting immigrant children at the border. The ACLU is seeking a classwide preliminary injunction to put a stop to the practice. Based on a close reading of legal filings in the case, the public statements of policymakers, and a transcript from a critical hearing last month, it’s difficult to fathom how the judiciary could possibly rule in favor of the government.

In court proceedings last month, Judge Dana Sabraw indicated that the case, Ms. L v. ICE—filed by the ACLU on behalf of Ms. L and other asylum-seeking parents who have had their children taken away—should hinge on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Under a series of Supreme Court precedents, family integrity has long been considered a “fundamental” due process right. Among other rulings, the ACLU’s lawsuit cited the Supreme Court’s opinion in 2000’s Troxel v. Granville, which stated that there is “a fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child.” This precedent mandates both that the government show a compelling government interest in separating a child and parent—preventing child abuse, for instance—and that it is using the least restrictive means to fulfill that interest.

In the ACLU’s case, the government has not shown a lawful basis for its policy of indefinitely separating immigrant children from their parents at the border. In fact, government lawyers have denied the existence of any such policy at all. In response to Sabraw’s question about whether the government “has a practice, or perhaps even a policy, of separation of families as a deterrence mechanism,” Justice Department attorney Sarah B. Fabian asserted, “There is not such a policy.”

This claim directly contradicts the administration’s publicly stated reasoning. When asked by CNN in March 2017 about the possibility of separating children from their parents at the border, then­–Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said, “I am considering, in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that.”

Per the New York Times, that policy was put on hold at the time because it was deemed too controversial. But in the last several months, as Trump has reportedly put intense pressure on his Cabinet to reverse an uptick in border crossings by undocumented immigrants, such a policy appears to have been put into place. Last month, the Washington Post reported that a pilot version of a program of separating families had occurred “in the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector, which includes New Mexico, between July and November 2017, and [the administration] said the number of families attempting to cross illegally plunged by 64 percent.” And in a pair of speeches last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions seemed to herald the launch of a formal policy, calling it a “zero-tolerance” immigration measure. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally,” Sessions said. “It’s not our fault that somebody does that.” Kelly, now Trump’s chief of staff, stated again last month in an interview with NPR that the purpose of “family separation” is deterrence. “The name of the game to a large degree … a big name of the game is deterrence,” he said.

The current secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, did not provide a direct answer when asked by NPR if “family separation at the border … [was] meant to act as a deterrent,” explaining that it’s very common for adults to get separated from their children when they commit crimes. In testimony before Congress in April, Nielsen said, “When we separate, we separate because the law tells us to, and that is in the interest of the child.”

In April, the Post reported that portions of the separation policy had been memorialized in a memo—a document that described the maneuver’s deterrent effect:

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

“Such a policy would mean separating parents and children, because the parents would be placed in criminal detention, where children cannot be held,” the Post noted.

In a statement provided to the Post, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman said, “DHS does not have a policy of separating families at the border for deterrence purposes.” Waldman did justify the splitting of families, though, by claiming it was necessary to combat child smuggling as well as to “protect” children from their own “nefarious” border-crossing parents. “DHS does … have a legal obligation to protect the best interests of the child whether that be from human smugglings, drug traffickers, or nefarious actors who knowingly break our immigration laws and put minor children at risk,” she said.

While the government denies the existence of a concrete policy, the numbers tell a different story. “Customs and Border Protection informed me that 658 children were taken from 638 parents during a 14-day period in May,” Feinstein reported on Thursday. This is a huge uptick from the six-month period between October and April, when the New York Times reported that “more than 700 children”—roughly 120 per month, as compared to 658 in 14 days—were reportedly separated “from adults claiming to be their parents.”

Let’s imagine that, based on all this evidence, Judge Sabraw—who was appointed by George W. Bush—determines there is in fact a new government policy of separating children and parents at the border. The court would then need to examine the government’s stated rationale for enacting such a rule. For the policy to pass constitutional muster, the government needs some legal justification for the indefinite separation of parents from children, even when the parents and children are undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court held in 2000’s Zadvydas v. Davis that due process rights apply to undocumented immigrants. This holding suggests the government may not separate asylum-seekers from their children indefinitely and without cause. During last month’s arguments, it sounded like the judge believed the policy justification stated by Kelly—deterrence of illegal immigration—was clearly unconstitutional. “A policy of deterring families from entering the United States by separating them … would [that not be] a clear substantive due process violation?” Judge Sabraw asked of Fabian, the government attorney.

“If it was done without any otherwise authority to cause the separation, I think, we might be closer to that problem,” she acknowledged, claiming the government does have such authority stemming from the Immigration and Nationality Act. When Sabraw responded that the government still hadn’t presented a substantive due process rationale, Fabian said the government has a right to separate parents who are jailed for violating the law from their children while those parents are behind bars. The ACLU, in this lawsuit, is not contesting that fact. What it is contesting is the government’s apparent policy of refusing to return children to parents once they’ve served their time—generally around a month for misdemeanor illegal entry—and of taking children from parents who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry seeking asylum and have not been charged with any crime.

When confronted about the legality of these practices, the government has merely asserted they are legal without providing a substantive justification. “They can’t come up with a justification because the truth is that the only justification that makes sense is their perceived view of the deterrence value,” Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney litigating the case, told me.

Having reviewed the transcript from the hearing, and having read the government’s legal filings, Gelernt appears to be correct. At May’s hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned Fabian about whether a substantive due process violation had occurred. Fabian asserted it had not. The judge then made clear that the government had to offer an actual argument. “Simply saying there is detention and … therefore the family integrity gives way doesn’t address specifically what’s happening in this case,” Sabraw said. “Doesn’t there have to be some determination in order to comply with Fifth Amendment rights before separately detaining family members?”

Fabian, at this point, simply stated: “We don’t agree that that has to be made.” She then said that when a minor and parent are separated, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act dictates that the minor be placed with another custodian. But she didn’t explain why the decision to indefinitely separate the minor from the parent would be made in the first place.

Later, the judge specifically addressed those situations in which a person has been convicted of an unlawful entry misdemeanor, had their child lawfully separated from them while they were incarcerated, and then been detained by immigration officials separately from their children while awaiting asylum. “Is there any process that [the Department of Health and Human Services] has or DHS has where after a person has served their time, efforts or a process exists to explore the lawful options of reuniting the parent with the child?” Sabraw asked. “There is not a process that would reunite them at that time because she is in ICE custody and remains unavailable,” Fabian responded. “Shouldn’t there be” some process for reuniting “after a person does their time?” the judge asked. Fabian then argued that it is in the best interests of children to remain separated from their detained parent because such a parent is “not going to be a suitable custodian.”

The notion that a child is better off without his parent not only flies in the face of logic, it also contradicts government policies that allow the detention of some undocumented asylum-seekers with their children. If such parents have historically been considered suitable custodians—and in some cases are still considered suitable custodians—how can other similarly situated parents not be considered suitable custodians?

The government ultimately leaned on the argument that DHS must make decisions in a hurry. “The goal is not to prolong that process but to get folks to the location where they can be housed long-term if that is what is going to happen,” Fabian argued. Again, this argument is illogical: It wouldn’t take any longer to decide to keep parents and children together than it would to decide to separate them. Sabraw also asked if DNA testing might help the government distinguish biological parents from child smugglers, as it had in the case of Ms. L. Fabian said she didn’t know if that was “a feasible option.”

The ACLU has asked the court to allow it to add more plaintiffs to Ms. L v. ICE, which was previously filed with two plaintiffs. One of the motions seeking class certification includes affidavits from several other immigrants who’ve had their children taken away at the border. Those affidavits offer more examples of what it looks like when kids as young as 18 months old are literally ripped away from their parents.

Testimony of Mr. U:

All I can remember is how much my son and I were both crying as they took him away. I do not recall anyone questioning whether I am really his biological father or whether I was a danger to him or abusive in any way. I even had my son’s birth certificate proving I am his father. … It has been six months since I last saw my son.

Testimony of Ms. G:

Shortly after arriving, I was told that I was going to be separated from my daughter. There were no doubts expressed that I was my daughter’s biological mother and I have a birth certificate to show our relationship. They did not say that I was a danger to my daughter or was abusive. … I know that [my children] are having a very hard time detained all by themselves without me. They are only six and four years old in a strange country and they need their parent. I hope I can be with my children very soon. I miss them and am scared for them.

Testimony of Ms. J. I. L.

That day, March 13, a woman came to pick up my kids. I was given only five minutes to say goodbye before J.S.P.L. and D.A.P.L. were torn from me. My babies started crying when they found out we were going to be separated. It breaks my heart to remember my youngest wail, “Why do I have to leave? Mami, I want to stay with you!” … In tears myself, I asked my boys to be brave, and I promised we would be together again soon. I begged the woman who took my children to keep them together so they could at least have each other. She promised she would, and she left with my boys. … I am particularly worried about my older son J.S.P.L. who was not doing well back in El Salvador after he saw MS gang members beat me and threaten me. He did not even want to leave my side to go to the restroom. … Both of my sons need their mother. I do not know if they are eating, sleeping, or even going to the restroom.

Testimony of Mirian:

The U.S. immigration officers then told me that they were taking my [18-month old] son from me. They said he would be going to one place and I would be going to another. I asked why the officers were separating my son from me. They did not provide any reason. … The immigration officers made me walk out with my son to a government vehicle and place my son in a car seat in the vehicle. My son was crying as I put him in the seat. I did not even have a chance to comfort my son, because the officers slammed the door shut as soon as he was in his seat. I was crying too. I cry even now when I think about that moment when the border officers took my son away.

Nielsen has said the government is acting as expeditiously as possible in such cases. “It’s not our intent to separate people one day longer than is necessary to prove that there is in fact a custodial relationship,” she told NPR last month. These affidavits call that claim into question.

Gelernt added that he has never seen anything this dramatic in his many years of working on immigration cases and doesn’t believe the public outrage has been nearly commensurate with the actions taking place.

“I just feel like the debate has become so abstract,” Gelernt told me. “If any policymaker could sit in that room for a day and watch these kids begging and screaming not to be taken away, I don’t know how they could continue this practice.” He says he fears the general population is already forgetting about the stakes of this case: “Roseanne will make another comment and the kids will be sitting there for another eight months, and no one will remember them.”

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

Join the New Due Process Army. Fight the Trump/GOP Immigration Abomination!

PWS

06-04-18

Related posts:

  1. AMERICA’S “MASS ATROCITY” — Professor Kate Cronin-Furman Says Don’t Kid Yourself About What The Trump Administration Is Doing In Your Name & How “Ordinary Civil Servants” Carry Out The Unthinkable & Unacceptable!
  2. TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!
  3. LAW YOU CAN USE: ALL-STAR PROFESSOR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS TELLS US HOW TO STOP THE TRUMP, SESSIONS, NIELSEN PLAN FOR A “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY DETENTION AND LEGAL ADVOCACY” — 136 Harvard Latinx Law Review Vol. 21 — “This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable!”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations!