ACLU – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

FEDERAL JUDGE IN MD ZAPS REGIME’S ILLEGAL DETENTION POLICY: “(T)his order is in the public interest because it requires Respondents to comport with their own rules and regulations, bars arbitrary agency action toward vulnerable immigrant communities, and diminishes the emotional and financial impact on families participating in the provisional waiver process.”

https://apple.news/AcWMzcJwDQSmvOGCYhZfQog

Regina Garcia Cano reports for AP:

BALTIMORE (AP) ― A federal judge in Maryland has banned immigration officials from arresting, detaining and deporting immigrants who are seeking legal status based on their marriages to U.S. citizens.

U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel issued the ruling Friday in a case filed by six couples accusing immigration officials of luring families to marriage interviews in Baltimore, only to detain the immigrant spouse for deportation. Hazel also ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release from custody immigrants married to U.S. citizens detained before they could complete the first step of the process to obtain legal residency.

Federal regulations allow U.S. citizens to try to legalize the status of spouses who have been living in the country illegally, including those with deportation orders. But the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Maryland couples, has argued that a growing number of officers have “cruelly twisted” the rules by detaining immigrant spouses following the required marriage interviews.

The months-long process typically requires couples to demonstrate the legitimacy of their marriage as part of the first step. If the couples pass an interview and earn other approvals, immigrant spouses eventually must travel abroad for a visa interview at a U.S. consulate. Only if they receive a visa can they return to the U.S. legally.

It’s unclear how many people have become permanent U.S. residents through the Obama-era regulations. They were created to significantly reduce the time that U.S. citizens are separated from immediate family members while trying to build a lawful immigration case from their home countries.

WATCH: For-profit prisons reap business benefit from Trump’s immigration stance

“(T)his order is in the public interest because it requires Respondents to comport with their own rules and regulations, bars arbitrary agency action toward vulnerable immigrant communities, and diminishes the emotional and financial impact on families participating in the provisional waiver process,” Hazel wrote. He has not ruled on the class certification sought by the plaintiffs.

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government in its response filed last year asked Hazel to dismiss the case arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiffs’ “claims are not likely to be successful.”

The ruling only applies to anyone living in Maryland, but the ACLU is also pursuing a similar complaint in Massachusetts. It is unclear how many people must be released from custody under Hazel’s ruling.

Among the plaintiffs is Elmer Sanchez, a native of Honduras who was ordered in absentia to be deported in 2005 and married a U.S. citizen in 2013. He was taken into custody in May moments after he and his wife successfully finished their interview with an immigration officer in Baltimore. He was released six weeks later after the ACLU sought an emergency order to prevent imminent deportation.

“These families endured trauma under the actions of ICE,” ACLU of Maryland attorney Nick Steiner said in a statement Monday. “Their blatant disregard for their own rules and regulations that are meant to prevent family separation is unconstitutional. We are hopeful about the ruling and we believe it’s a step in the right direction in recognizing that immigrants have constitutional protections too.”

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

Not many things this regime hates more than being required to follow the law!

PWS

02-11-20

FEDERAL JUDGE AGAIN FAULTS DHS DETAINER PROGRAM

https://apple.news/AmD6XgoXgST-3d3Rtb9esMQ

Joel Rubin and Brittany Mejia report for the LA Times:

A federal judge in Los Angeles upends the way ICE may use local police to detain people it suspects of being in the country illegally.

A federal judge in Los Angeles this week issued his final judgment in a long-running immigration case, upending the way Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses local police to detain people it suspects of being in the country illegally.

The judgment filed Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte formalized a ruling he made in September that included a permanent injunction barring ICE from using error-prone databases when issuing so-called detainers, which are requests made to police agencies to keep people who have been arrested in custody for up two days beyond the time they would otherwise be held.

The earlier ruling also blocked ICE from issuing such requests to state and local law enforcement in states where there isn’t an explicit statute authorizing police to arrest someone or keep them in custody on an immigration detainer.

The ruling, which applied to ICE activity in all but a few states, appeared to have enormous implications for how the government targets people for deportation. However, attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice and civil rights groups that brought the case disagreed over whether the injunction went into effect immediately, and ICE gave no indication it had changed its practices.

Last fall, an ICE spokesman said the agency was “reviewing the ruling and considering our legal options.”

This week’s judgment erased any ambiguity.

Under the judgment, ICE has three months to “adopt and implement any policies, practices, trainings, and systems changes necessary to ensure consistent and effective compliance” with the judgment, Birotte wrote. The judge ordered government lawyers to provide him with evidence it had implemented new policies.

“This judgment ensures that ICE has to comply with the court’s findings that the program it’s had for decades is grounded in unconstitutional practices that have to end,” said Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who helped argue the case.

The class-action lawsuit alleged that the databases that agents consult to issue detainers are so badly flawed by incomplete and inaccurate information that ICE officers should not be allowed to rely on them as the sole basis for keeping someone in custody.

In September, the judge agreed with that assessment, finding that the databases often contained “incomplete data, significant errors, or were not designed to provide information that would be used to determine a person’s removability.”

These errors, according to that decision, have led to arrests of U.S. citizens as well as noncitizens in the country lawfully. From May 2015 to February 2016, of the 12,797 detainers issued in that period, 771 were lifted, according to ICE data. Of those 771, 42 were lifted because the person was a U.S. citizen.

In the years since the lawsuit was filed, ICE has amended its policies, saying the changes made the process for issuing detainers more rigorous.

Previously, for example, agents would check individual databases in search of evidence of someone being in the country illegally. But three years ago, the agency launched a new system, in which 10 databases are automatically queried. A supervisor is required to sign off on decisions to issue detainers.

Birotte said in his judgement this week that conducting interviews with people suspected of being in the country illegally and checking the hard copy files the government keeps on immigrants is the most reliable source of information for issuing detainers.

The judge’s decision affects any detainer requests issued by an ICE officer in the federal court system’s Central District of California. That designation is significant because it includes the Pacific Enforcement Response Center, a facility in Orange County from which ICE agents send out detainer requests to authorities in 43 states, Guam and Washington, D.C.

Dozens of deportation officers and contract analysts work in shifts around the clock every day at the center. In 2018, the center issued 45,253 detainers and alerted agents at field offices to more than 28,000 additional people released from law enforcement custody before ICE could detain them.

If ICE tries to move its detainer operation to another facility, Birotte said, it must alert him in advance and the injunction would follow it to the new location.

All existing detainers issued by the enforcement center were also nullified by the judge’s ruling. Pasquarella said it was unknown how many people that affects, but said it is in “the thousands.”

Finally, Birotte gave ICE a month to alert the thousands of local and state police departments to which it sent detainer requests of his judgment and “its impact on detainers issued by ICE.” He ordered ICE to post its notice prominently on its website and said the agency “shall specifically inform these agencies that a detainer does not provide the legal authority for a state or local law enforcement officer to make a civil immigration arrest.”

The detainer process begins when police arrest and fingerprint a person. The prints are sent electronically to the FBI and checked against the prints of millions of immigrants in Homeland Security databases. If there is a match — such as someone who applied for a visa or was apprehended by Border Patrol — it triggers a review process, which often culminates with an agent at the center deciding whether to issue a detainer.

Approximately 70% of the arrests ICE makes occur after the agency is notified about someone being released from local jails or state prisons. In fiscal year 2019, ICE had lodged more than 160,000 detainers with local law enforcement agencies, according to the agency.

An ICE spokeswoman declined to comment on the judgment and would not say whether ICE had yet changed its practice of issuing detainer requests. Instead, she referred reporters to a statement released Thursday by the White House.

“A single, unelected, district judge in the Central District of California issued a legally groundless and sweeping injunction that — if not immediately lifted — will guarantee the release of innumerable criminal illegal aliens into our communities putting citizens at dire risk,” the statement said. “This ruling undermines the pillars of immigration enforcement and blocks traditional and vital law enforcement cooperation that has occurred for decades.”

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

Judge Andre Birotte found that the ICE detainer program is riddled with legal errors. Not too surprising. In addition to using DHS’s inherently unreliable databases, immigration “detainers” are issued by immigration agents, not neutral and detached magistrates as they should be, which makes them constitutionally suspect and has led to rulings across the country that they should not be honored.

If I were the ACLU, however, I wouldn’t “do the victory dance” yet. Led by the complicit “J.R. Five,” the Supremes often have shown themselves to be willing, sometimes enthusiastic, enablers of the regime’s White Nationalist campaign to dehumanize and “Dred Scottify” immigrants under our laws.

As the ACLU accurately has stated: “The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every person, regardless of immigration status.”

Unfortunately, the “J.R. Five” has ignored the rule of law and our Constitution when it comes to protecting the rights of immigrants. They have managed to “tune out” their own immigration heritages, their own good fortune and privileged positions, and turn a deaf ear to humanity and its unnecessary suffering. Instead they have allied themselves with Trump, Stephen Miller, and the other White Nationalists in subjecting immigrants and other people of color to the “New Era of Jim Crow.”

Someday, if America survives as a democracy, we will get “regime change.” But, the problems of a life-tenured judiciary infected with too many at its highest levels who are unwilling to stand up for human rights and/or who are driven by a twisted far-right ideology incorporating many of the worst aspects of white supremacy and its abuses of power over history will not necessarily disappear overnight.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-09-20

THE NDPA STRIKES BACK: ACLU Sues In DC To End The Regime’s Bogus “Safe Third Country” Abuse Of Human Rights & The Rule Of Law! — Regime’s Actions Could Be Characterized As “Crimes Against Humanity!”

https://apple.news/ALbDFozeyQemj7zT-zO0VUA

Camilo Montoya-Galvez reports for CBS News:

ACLU files lawsuit to halt Trump policy of sending asylum-seekers to Guatemala

Washington — The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday mounted the first legal challenge against the Trump administration’s policy of sending migrants who seek protection at the U.S.-Mexico border to Guatemala, a country with a skeletal asylum regime that has seen an exodus of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens in the past two years because of extreme poverty and endemic violence.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeks to halt the implementation of a controversial asylum agreement with the Guatemalan government. Under the deal forged last summer, the U.S. has sent more than 150 asylum-seekers from Honduras and El Salvador to Guatemala, denying them access to America’s asylum system and requiring them to choose between seeking refuge in the Central American country or returning home.

The agreement, the ACLU said in its 54-page complaint, amounts to “a deadly game of musical chairs that leaves many desperate asylum-seekers without a safe haven, in violation of U.S. and international law.”

“If this rule remains in effect, it means that the U.S. can completely wash their hands of any responsibility to provide safe haven for people fleeing persecution,” Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s top immigration litigator, told CBS News. “It would end asylum at the southern border, plain and simple.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told CBS News that while it cannot comment on litigation, “the U.S. Government and the Government of Guatemala remain committed to the asylum cooperative agreement and stand behind the integrity of the program.”

For lead plaintiff, returning home isn’t an option

As of last week, 158 Honduran and Salvadoran migrants have been rerouted by the U.S. to Guatemala, including dozens of families and at least 43 children, according to the Guatemalan migration institute. Nine people initially chose to request protection in Guatemala, but five of them have since abandoned their claims, the institute said. The rest have asked for help returning to their home countries.

The lead plaintiff in the ACLU’s lawsuit is a gay man from El Salvador who was sent by the U.S. to Guatemala after asking for asylum at the southern border. The man, identified only by the initials U.T., says he was sexually abused as a child, disowned by his family because of his sexuality and threatened by a gang member who solicited him for sex in El Salvador.

When he arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border, he was told he would be sent to Guatemala. He told Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, who make the initial determination about whether migrants should be subject to the U.S.-Guatemala deal, that he feared being sent to Guatemala. His concerns fell on deaf ears.

He was then referred for an interview with an asylum officer and again expressed fear of persecution in Guatemala. Nonetheless, he was deported to the country shortly afterward.

During these types of interviews, migrants must affirmatively say they fear being sent to Guatemala. Even if they do, they have to meet a fear of persecution threshold that is much higher than that of the typical “credible fear” interviews most asylum-seekers at the southern border are subject to.

The ACLU says the man applied for asylum once in Guatemala, but officials there advised him to seek protection in Mexico instead, since Guatemala is “unsafe for gay people.” The State Department warns of “societal discrimination” and police abuse against LGBTI people in Guatemala.

Returning to El Salvador is not an option for the asylum-seeker, who is currently in Mexico, since he “fears that he will be attacked or killed for his sexual orientation if he tries to live openly as a gay man,” according to the ACLU.

“A way for the U.S. to simply pass the buck”

There are five other individual plaintiffs in the ACLU’s lawsuit, including a woman and two families who were sent to Guatemala by the U.S. The Tahirih Justice Center and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, two organizations that provide legal services to asylum-seekers, are also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit — which the National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and Human Rights First joined the ACLU in filing.

The group is asking the court to prohibit officials from enforcing a regulation the administration unveiled in November to implement the Guatemala deal and similar agreements that the U.S. brokered with Honduras and El Salvador which have not yet been implemented. The suit also challenges a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) guidance document for asylum officers carrying out the agreement.

The ACLU alleged that both measures violate U.S. statutes designed to prevent officials from sending asylum-seekers to places where they may face persecution and that provide legal safeguards for migrants the government seeks to deport quickly. The group also said the policy violates administrative law, since the administration did not give the public a chance to comment on it and failed to provide “reasoned explanations” for dramatically changing the asylum system at the southern border.

The administration maintains that its agreements with Guatemala and the other countries in Central America’s Northern Triangle will foster the “distribution” of asylum claims among nations in the region and provide protection to migrants “closer to home.” But the ACLU says the so-called “Asylum Cooperative Agreements” represent a dramatic departure from the “safe third country” provision in U.S. law that the administration is using to defend their legality.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law an act that codified the “safe third country” concept, allowing the U.S. to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to send asylum-seekers to third countries, as long as the U.S. government made sure those asylum-seekers would not face persecution based on a protected ground under U.S. asylum law and would have access to a “full and fair” process to request protection in those nations.

Gelernt and his group believe the accords with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras violate this law because the countries do not have fully functioning asylum regimes, unlike Canada — the only nation which has an official “safe third country” agreement with the U.S.

“There is no way the administration can plausibly claim that Guatemala can provide a safe, fair and full asylum process. This administration has simply thumbed their nose at Congress,” Gelernt said, noting that Canada, a developed country with a robust asylum system, is a safe place for refugees.

“This is not a way to provide people with a fair asylum process but a way for the U.S. to simply pass the buck,” he added.

Guatemala has experienced moderate economic growth since the end of a bloody civil war in the 1990s, but it continues to grapple with high homicides rates, drug trafficking, political instability and widespread poverty, especially among its large indigenous communities in the Western highlands of the country. Only about 262 migrants sought refuge in Guatemala in 2018, according to the United Nations.

The ACLU also noted in its lawsuit that the Trump administration hasn’t publicly revealed any designations certifying that the Northern Triangle countries have the capacity to take in migrants rerouted there by the U.S., despite a requirement that such a certification be included in the government regulation to enforce the asylum agreements.

Sweeping implications for asylum-seekers

All three agreements the U.S. made last year suggest that they could grant the U.S. the power to reroute most asylum-seekers from any country in the world, barring a few exceptions, like unaccompanied children, to Central America. The ACLU underscored the sweeping nature of the deals in its suit, saying that in practice, the U.S. could send asylum-seekers from Afghanistan to one of the Northern Triangle countries, even if they did not travel through there to get to the U.S. southern border.

The administration believes it can include “all populations” in the agreements, and it recently announced it was planning to send Mexican asylum-seekers to Guatemala. The move sparked scathing criticism at home and abroad, with Mexico’s government objecting to the proposal.

Unlike migrants from Honduras and El Salvador, Mexican asylum-seekers do not travel through Guatemalan territory to reach the U.S.-Mexico border. A plan to subject Mexicans to the U.S.-Guatemala accord could, in practice, lead to the U.S. flying a Mexican asylum-seeker from Tijuana, San Diego’s neighboring city, some 1,500 miles away, asking her to seek protection in Guatemala.

How Guatemala continues to implement its “Asylum Cooperative Agreement” with the Trump administration will now be decided by conservative government of President Alejandro Giammattei, who took office on Tuesday.

The asylum agreements with countries in Central America are part of a series of policies the administration rolled out over the past year to restrict asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. These also include a sweeping rule that renders most non-Mexican migrants ineligible for asylum and the Migrant Protection Protocols program, which has required more than 57,000 asylum-seekers from Central America to wait in dangerous Mexican border cities for the duration of their U.S. immigration proceedings.

First published on January 15, 2020 / 4:19 PM

© 2020 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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

The bogus “Safe Third Country Agreements” with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, clearly unsafe countries without functioning asylum systems, in violation of U.S. and international laws, are daunting acts of malicious fraud. This fraud is undertaken, in the open, by a neo-fascist regime that has contempt for humanity and human rights, believes itself above the law, and has no fear of being held accountable by the Federal Courts or Congress (notwithstanding Trump’s impeachment).

The regime’s unlawful fraudulent actions are defended in court by DOJ lawyers who believe the obligation of truthfulness before tribunals and other ethical requirements simply don’t apply to them. And, that’s probably with good reason.

The Trump regime has been peddling lies, false narratives, and bad faith legal arguments to the Federal Courts, all the way up to the Supremes, for nearly three years now with no consequences to the lawyers or their political clients. Indeed, Wilbur Ross lied under oath in the “Census Case,” but continues to be the Secretary of Commerce; to my knowledge, the Government lawyers who tried to present, defend, and rationalize. Ross’s census fraud are still on the payroll. A few Supremes even voted to sweep it all under the rug. It took an unusual display of backbone by Chief Justice Roberts to prevent the fraud from being perpetrated on American voters, particularly targeting voters of color.

Private lawyers who conducted themselves in a similar manner would likely be facing state disciplinary proceedings. A private executive who lied under oath like Ross probably would have been referred for a perjury prosecution or held in contempt of court.

But, Federal Judges, who are used to giving U.S. government lawyers pretty much a “free pass,” don’t seem to “get” that they are now dealing with a willfully corrupt, thoroughly dishonest, neo-fascist regime, not “just another Administration.”

When the laws, rules, and our Constitution don‘t apply to our Government, and nobody is held accountable for outrageous official wrongdoing (arguably “crimes against humanity” in the “Safe Third Country Fraud”) we all lose!

Due Process Forever! Complicity In The Face Of Tyranny, Never!

PWS

01-16-20

US DISTRICT JUDGE DANA SABRAW REJECTS ACLU CLAIM THAT DHS HAS RETURNED TO POLICY OF “SYSTEMATICALLY SEPARATING” FAMILIES AT BORDER

Mica Rosenberg
National Immigration Reporter, Reuters

Kanishka Singh
Political News Journalist
Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/judge-rules-in-favor-of-trump-administration-in-family-separation-case-idUSKBN1ZD1LY?il=0

Judge rules in favor of Trump administration in family separation case

(Reuters) – A U.S. federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s ongoing separations of families at the U.S.-Mexico border based on parents’ criminal history or health exclusions are being carried out with proper discretion.

Mexican asylum seekers camping near the Paso del Norte international border crossing bridge while waiting to apply for asylum to the U.S. are evicted by the local government, who will move them to a local shelter, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico January 7, 2020. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego, California, on Monday, was a rare victory for the government in a case that has been ongoing since 2018.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first brought the case over President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of criminally prosecuting all border crossers, which led to the separation of hundreds of families and sparked national outrage. Sabraw had ordered the administration to find and reunite separated families.

Trump officially halted the practice with an executive order on June 20, 2018. But the ACLU claimed in court that since then, the government has continued the practice and separated more than 1,000 families in violation of Sabraw’s order.

The government has said it separates families when it suspects the parent has a criminal record, a communicable disease, or when there are questions about the relationship between the adult and the migrant child. It claimed its current practice is no different than prior administrations.

The rights group argued, however, that the administration was taking children from parents when they had only minor infractions like traffic violations or previous illegal border crossings.

Sabraw found government officials were “generally exercising their discretion to separate families at the border” in a manner consistent with migrants’ “rights to family integrity and the Court’s orders.”

The judge added there was no evidence before the court that the government has “returned to systematically separating families at the border.”

Sabraw did say that the government should use its rapid DNA testing technology to confirm parentage and not separate families based on “subjective concerns” alone.

The ACLU highlighted that part of the ruling in a statement: “The court strongly reaffirmed that the Trump administration bears the burden if it attempts to separate families based on an accusation that the adult is not the child’s parent,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said.

The group said it was considering its next move in the case.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru and Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Matthew Lewis

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

While most news commentators to date have viewed this as a “victory” for the Trump Administration,” Judge Sabraw did reaffirm the principles of his original injunction that had forced a change in Government policy. He did, however, reject the ACLU’s request for expanded injunctive relief, except for timely DNA testing. He found no evidence that the DHS had failed to comply with the terms of the prior injunction on a systemic basis.

PWS

01-14-20

WE KNOW THAT SESSIONS, WHITAKER, & BARR HAVE TURNED THE DOJ INTO A LEGAL, MORAL, PROFESSIONAL, & ETHICAL CESSPOOL — Some Federal Judges Are Beginning To Take Notice: “To say the least, it is disappointing that [DOJ] counsel, after consulting with other counsel including ‘prosecutors and appellate attorneys’ in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”

Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford
U.S. District Judge
WDNY

Dan Kowalski over @ LexisNexis Immigration Community reports:

FW: due process victory: Hassoun v. Searls

“[T]he Court finds that 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) is not a permissible reading of § 1231(a)(6), and that it is accordingly a legal nullity that cannot authorize the ongoing, potentially indefinite detention of Petitioner. … The Court further finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary before it can determine the lawfulness of Petitioner’s continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226a.”

Note also the roasting, on page 11, of DOJ lawyers for failure to do basic 1L legal research: “To say the least, it is disappointing that Respondent’s counsel, after consulting with other counsel including “prosecutors and appellate attorneys” in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/hassoun_op.pdf

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

I hear and appreciate U.S District Judge (WDNY) Elizabeth A. Wolford’s outrage and frustration.

But, for hard working members of the New Due Process Army this is “just another day at the office” in dealing with the Trump Regime’s unethical, scofflaw, fact free White Nationalist nativist agenda: lies and pretexts presented to the Supremes to hide an intentional census undercount directed at reducing Hispanic voting and political power; false narratives about migrants and crime; a bogus largely self-created “border emergency;” fraudulent “national security” justifications; EOIR “administrative changes” intended to undermine the right to representation and eliminate due process; twisted unethical “precedents” entered by the chief prosecutor that always come out against the individuals; misogynist racist misinterpretations of asylum law intended to kill, maim, and torture vulnerable women of color; child abuse cloaked in disingenuous “law enforcement” rationales; bogus “civil detention” to punish lawful asylum seekers; a grotesquely dishonest “Migrant Protection Protocol” intended to subject migrants to deadly conditions in Mexico; “Safe” Third Countries that are among the most dangerous in the world without functioning asylum systems; irrational “public charge” regulations intended to reduce legal immigration without legislation; EOIR’s distorted statistics intentionally manipulated to minimize asylum grants and cover up the anti-asylum bias improperly infused into the system; vicious unsupported attacks on the private bar by the Attorney General and other regime politicos. The list goes on forever.

Unfortunately, this scofflaw and unethical behavior will continue until Federal Judges back up their words with actions: declarations of unconstitutionality; sanctions against the Government for frivolous litigation; removing political control over EOIR; referring Barr and other DOJ attorneys who are abusing the justice system to bar authorities for possible discipline.

“This ain’t your Momma’s or Papa’s DOJ!” (Or for that matter one that those of us who served in the recent past would recognize.) Its antecedents and “role models” are America’s vile, deadly, discredited Jim Crow era and 20th & 21st Century fascist regimes.

Time for Article III Judges to get out of their ivory towers, stop tiptoeing around Government corruption, dishonesty and misconduct, and start looking at things from the human perspective of the individuals and their courageous attorneys caught up in this legal, moral, and ethical quagmire and fighting not only for their own lives but for the future of our nation! There is and will be “only one right side of history” in this existential struggle!

Due Process Forever; The Corrupt White Nationalist Immigration Agenda Never!

PWS

12-21-19

BIA SEEKS TO REPEAL CAT BY MISINTERPRETATION; MUSALO’S FACT FINDING MISSION TO EL SALVADOR SHOWS MALICIOUS ABSURDITY OF REGIME’S BOGUS “SAFE THIRD COUNTRY” ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS; 9th & 11th CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO TANK ON THE RULE OF LAW; & OTHER LEGAL NEWS ABOUT THE WHITE NATIONALIST REGIME & THE RESISTANCE — The Gibson Report — 12-10-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

TOP UPDATES

NY to begin issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants<https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/immigrants-driver-s-licenses-new-york-1.39283599>

Newsday: The Green Light Law also allows new kinds of records to be used by immigrants to apply for licenses. These include an unexpired passport from another country, an unexpired identification number from a consulate, and a foreign driver’s license that is valid or expired for less than 24 months. If an applicant doesn’t have a Social Security number, they need to sign an affidavit that they hadn’t been issued one. Even the federal government would need a court order to obtain these records. The law requires that most of the records to eventually be destroyed, and supporters expect that would happen before court orders could be issued. The documentation is specifically identified as not being a public record under the law.

Justices Lean Toward Broader Review of Deportation Orders<https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-lean-toward-immigrants-over-deportation-review>

Bloomberg: Justices from both the conservative and liberal wings of the court aggressively questioned the government’s attorney in a case examining what immigration decisions are reviewable in federal court.

More immigration judges to be assigned to cases at tent facilities<https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/06/politics/immigration-court-judges-remain-in-mexico/index.html>

CNN: As of mid-September, there were 19 judges from three separate immigration courts in Texas hearing cases. But the latest expansion includes the use of immigration judges assigned to a center in Fort Worth, Texas, that is closed to the public, leaving little opportunity for people to observe hearings.

Inside the So-Called “Safe Third”—and Trump’s Latest Attack on Asylum-Seekers<https://msmagazine.com/2019/12/04/inside-the-so-called-safe-third-and-the-trump-administrations-latest-attack-on-asylum-seekers/>

Ms.: [Karen Musalo (CGRS)] recently returned from a human rights fact-finding trip with colleagues to El Salvador, and our findings illustrate the absurdity of a U.S. / El Salvador safe third country agreement.

Year In Review: The Most Significant Immigration Stories Of 2019<https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/12/09/the-most-disturbing-immigration-stories-of-2019/#74b86cac1302>

Forbes: The year 2019 produced many significant and, in some cases, tragic stories about immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The list is not comprehensive but focuses on those stories considered most important to remember.

North Dakota county may become US’s 1st to bar new refugees<https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-dakota-county-uss-1st-bar-refugees-67579252>

ABC: If they vote to bar refugees, as expected, Burleigh County — home to about 95,000 people and the capital city of Bismarck — could become the first local government to do so since President Donald Trump issued an executive order making it possible.

Trump Has Built a Wall of Bureaucracy to Keep Out the Very Immigrants He Says He Wants<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/trump-h1b-visa-immigration-restrictions/>

MJ: Even as President Donald Trump has complained about rules that prevent American companies “from retaining highly skilled and… totally brilliant people” from abroad, his administration has made sweeping changes to the H-1B program, denying visas to skilled immigrants, some who have been working in the United States for years. USCIS has been denying H-1B petitions at a record rate: 24 percent of first-time H-1B applications were denied through the third quarter of 2019 fiscal year, compared with 6 percent in 2015.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Matter of O-S-A-F-<https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1224026/download>

(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is acting “in an official capacity,” that is, “under color of law” is covered by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988), but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity, also known as a “rogue official,” is not covered by the Convention.

(2) The key consideration in determining if a public official was acting under color of law is whether he was able to engage in torturous conduct because of his government position or if he could have done so without a connection to the government.

New Acting Court Administrator at New York – Varick Immigration Court

EOIR: Effective today, Paul Friedman is the Acting Court Administrator for the New York – Varick, Fishkill, and Ulster immigration courts. Paul is currently the Court Administrator for the Elizabeth Immigration Court in New Jersey. He will be splitting his time between the Elizabeth IC and the Varick IC each week.

Appeals court lifts some rulings blocking Trump ‘public charge’ rule for immigrants<https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/trump-public-charge-immigrants-legal-076855>

Politico: A divided 9th Circuit panel clears away obstacles to a key administration immigration policy, but courts in other parts of the country [including SDNY] still have it on hold.

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Programs that Rush Migrants Through Asylum Screenings Without Access to Attorneys in Border Patrol Facilities<https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-programs-rush-migrants-through-asylum-screenings>

ACLU: The lawsuit states that the new programs – known as Prompt Asylum Claim Review (“PACR”) and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (“HARP”) – require the detention of asylum seekers in dangerous CBP facilities known as “hieleras” (or “iceboxes” for their freezing temperatures) with no meaningful way to obtain or consult with an attorney before their hearings.

Acevedo v. Barr Denied<https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-3519/17-3519-2019-12-03.html>

Justia: The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s determination that petitioner was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner’s conviction under New York Penal Law 110.00, 130.45 for attempted oral or anal sexual conduct with a person under the age of fifteen constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and was therefore an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that petitioner’s conviction under the New York statute did not encompass more conduct than the generic definition and could not realistically result in an individual’s conviction for conduct made with a less than knowing mens rea.

11th Circuit Defers to Matter of A-B-<https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/12/04/11th-circuit-tanks-defers-to-matter-of-a-b-refugee-women-of-color-sentenced-to-potential-death-without-due-process-by-judges-elizabeth-l-branch-peter-t-fay-frank-m-hull/>

Courtside: The BIA concluded, based on recent precedent from the Attorney General, Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), that Amezcua-Preciado’s proposed social group of “women in Mexico who are unable to leave their domestic relationships” was not a cognizable particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

Typo/ambiguity in the new I-912 instructions for SIJS<https://www.uscis.gov/i-192>

Page 6 of the new I-912 instructions state: “If you are applying for adjustment of status or filing related forms based on SIJ classification, you are not required to complete Part 2. of Form I-912 or to show proof of income to request a fee waiver.” Part 2 is the biographical information. It is possible this is an error and USCIS meant Part 3, regarding income. If you have any test cases that won’t age out, spread the word on how this plays out.

USCIS Extension of Comment Period on Proposed Rule with Adjustments to Fee Schedule and Other Changes<https://www.aila.org/advo-media/submit-feedback-notices-requests-for-comment/84-fr-67243-12-9-19>

USCIS extension of the comment period on the proposed rule published at 84 FR 62280 on 11/14/19, which would significantly alter the USCIS fee schedule and make other changes, including form changes. Comments are now due 12/30/19. (84 FR 67243, 12/9/19) AILA Doc. No. 19120900

EOIR to Open New Immigration Court in Los Angeles<https://www.aila.org/infonet/eoir-to-open-new-immigration-court-in-los-angeles>

EOIR will open a new immigration court in Los Angeles, on December 9, 2019. The Van Nuys Blvd. immigration court will cover Kern, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties, and parts of Los Angeles County. Notice includes court’s location, contact information, and hours of operation. AILA Doc. No. 19120234

CBP Meets with Privacy Groups to Discuss Biometric Entry-Exit Mandate<https://www.aila.org/infonet/cbp-meets-with-privacy-groups-to-discuss-biometric>

On 12/3/19, CBP met with privacy groups to discuss its implementation of the congressional biometric entry-exit mandate and the protection of traveler privacy during the biometric facial comparison process at ports of entry. CBP has implemented this technology at more than 20 U.S. ports of entry. AILA Doc. No. 19120432

DOS Final Rule Clarifying Passport Regulations Regarding Applicants with Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt<https://www.aila.org/infonet/dos-84-fr-67184-12-9-19>

DOS final rule making a clarification to the regulations on passports regarding situations in which a passport applicant is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury as having a seriously delinquent tax debt. The rule is effective 12/9/19. (84 FR 67184, 12/9/19) AILA Doc. No. 19120932

USCIS 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Additional Proposed Revisions to Form I-290B<https://www.aila.org/advo-media/submit-feedback-notices-requests-for-comment/uscis-84-fr-66924-12-6-19>

USCIS 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. USCIS originally published this notice at 84 FR 39359 and decided to propose additional changes in this new 60-day notice. Comments are due 2/4/20. (84 FR 66924, 12/6/19) AILA Doc. No. 19120934

ICE Opening New Detention Facility in West Texas<https://www.aila.org/infonet/ice-opening-new-detention-facility-in-west-texas>

ICE announced that it is opening the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, the week of December 9, 2019. The facility, which will be managed by Management and Training Corporation (MTC), will house about 1,000 ICE detainees as they await outcomes of their immigration proceedings or removal.

AILA Doc. No. 19120430

ICE Provides Guidance on the Phase-Out of the Interactive Scheduling System<https://www.aila.org/infonet/ice-provides-guidance-on-the-phase-out>

Obtained via FOIA, ICE provided the guidance to ICE staff regarding the phase-out of the Interactive Scheduling System and replacement by the DHS Portal to schedule Notices to Appear. The Portal replaced CASE-ISS as of August 2019. Special thanks to Aaron Hall. AILA Doc. No. 19120330

Update to Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAxOTEyMDMuMTM4MDU4MTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvaS0xOTI_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1yc3MtZmVlZCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249Rm9ybXMlMjBVcGRhdGVzIn0.igkmXB-R6v9goSblHb89LrAWdtcG83febe5H96Erz2U/br/72220790478-l>

Update to Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.

Update to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDIsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAxOTEyMDMuMTM4MDU4MTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvaS0yOTBiP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9cnNzLWZlZWQmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPUZvcm1zJTIwVXBkYXRlcyJ9.BnD9VWQtxoxzTff9s58El_ZL4l5JOIv4hyGLDNNvDJE/br/72220790478-l>

Update to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.

Update to Form I-191, Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDMsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAxOTEyMDMuMTM4MDU4MTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvaS0xOTE_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1yc3MtZmVlZCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249Rm9ybXMlMjBVcGRhdGVzIn0.9detMlYAc9qo9rwvtKBwQvFvEDlzTVJbDR2Bych15f0/br/72220790478-l>

Update to Form I-191, Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.

RESOURCES

* Asylos<https://www.asylos.eu/>: Free country conditions database and individualized research.

* Practice Advisory: Strategies and Considerations in the Wake of Pereira v. Sessions<https://cliniclegal.org/resources/practice-advisory-strategies-and-considerations-wake-pereira-v-sessions>

* Practice Alert: Updates to the BIA Practice Manual<https://www.aila.org/infonet/practice-alert-updates-to-the-bia-practice-manual>

* USCIS Issues Policy Alert Regarding Fees for Submission of Benefits Requests<https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-issues-policy-alert-regarding-fees>

* GAO: Arrests, Detentions, and Removals, and Issues Related to Selected Populations<https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-36>

* New NY DMV Guidance<https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/driver-licenses-and-green-light-law> and license and permit guide<http://nysdmv.standard-license-and-permit-document-guide.sgizmo.com/s3/?_ga=2.197959914.472787525.1575669305-120439318.1520888742>

* DHS report on CBP detention of children and families<https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fccp_final_report_1.pdf>

* FAQ: Federal Court’s Preliminary Injunction Restores Asylum Eligibility for Asylum Seekers Turned Back at Ports of Entry Before July 16, 2019<https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/other_litigation_documents/challenging_custom_and_border_protections_unlawful_practice_of_turning_away_asylum_seekers_faq.pdf>

* Human Rights Fiasco: The Trump Administration’s Dangerous Asylum Returns Continue<https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HumanRightsFiascoDec2019.pdf>

* Practice Pointer: CBP Transfer Notices for U Visa Petitions<https://asistahelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Practice-Pointer_-Transfer-Notices-to-CBP.pdf>

* Forced Return to Danger: Civil Society Concerns with the Agreements Signed between the United States and Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador <https://www.lawg.org/wp-content/uploads/Forced-Return-to-Danger-STC-Civil-Society-Memo-12.4.19.pdf>

* Making Way for Corruption in Guatemala and Honduras<https://www.lawg.org/wp-content/uploads/LAWGEF-Guatemala-Honduras-memo-December-2019.pdf>

EVENTS

* 12/10/19 Immigration Justice Campaign for a Free Webinar on Recent Attacks on Asylum<https://www.aila.org/about/announcements/join-ijc-for-free-webinar-recent-attacks-asylum>

* 12/10/19 USCIS Invites Stakeholders to Teleconference on SIJ Classification Updates <https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-invites-stakeholders-teleconference-on-sij>

* 12/10/19 Working With Transgender, Gender Non-conforming, and Non-binary Immigrants: A Guide for Legal Practitioners!<https://avp.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fb8da3e27ad6713b5d8945fc2&id=70a5b33685&e=15233cf2a6>

* 12/12/19 Family-Based Immigration<https://mailchi.mp/e0c658697ffb/save-the-dates-new-immigration-law-fundamentals-series?e=09f6a8c81a>

* 12/12/19 Annual AILA New York Chapter Symposium<https://agora.aila.org/Conference/Detail/1637>

* 12/13/19 Walk-through of our latest Practice Advisory: Adjustment Applications of TPS Holders<https://secure.everyaction.com/Ehcp3tCeXkSu6MU8WxWOTw2?emci=458c6463-4518-ea11-828b-2818784d6d68&emdi=eb297b03-6318-ea11-828b-2818784d6d68&ceid=6058633&contactdata=fMDCB%2fqMqZ3aN7qEu%2bEEOZ%2f2u0bt1aESH09dm5dECnvlpUiBkFdYswuRXlQCtzzyIpgKxImxdeQKGFsR9FmfW5bEKkiDV4xpC%2brHKTjalyc7w16jw%2bSgJg5GHlK0kroKZ05AP0aHGbsGnYQCk2EX70whLDCxYaRq%2f0jgrAKy3hBelwcS%2fB5nvMSmoeNxg%2f83NHhP5SSrMwjY6MHa0O9UbSCevL%2frb%2fQ2w9N1BEtsFNwULTT1RpAXYa1Axo%2fAcXRktUZ3InKJH5jCw7olAZDtDVKQemN6U%2fzkwURRNhwT4S32Y5xzNEB9X0qfvoiUKvxe>

* 12/16/19 Census 101: Energizing and Mobilizing NYC Nonprofits to Get Out The Count<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rryroN2pG2kYUew8H3e8zCTyLRsqnyrB1o9RQ1e8L6s/edit>

* 12/17/19 Adjustment of Status and Consular Processing<https://mailchi.mp/e0c658697ffb/save-the-dates-new-immigration-law-fundamentals-series?e=09f6a8c81a>

* 12/17/19 Incredibly Credible: Preparing Your Client to Testify<https://agora.aila.org/Conference/Detail/1632>

* 12/17/19 Keeping Our Communities Safe: The Impact of ICE Arrests at NYS Courts<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/keeping-our-communities-safe-the-impact-of-ice-arrests-at-nys-courts-registration-80735649501>

* 12/20/19 Census 101: Energizing and Mobilizing NYC Nonprofits to Get Out The Count<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rryroN2pG2kYUew8H3e8zCTyLRsqnyrB1o9RQ1e8L6s/edit>

* 2/6/20 Basic Immigration Law 2020: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas<https://www.pli.edu/programs/basic-immigration-law?t=live>

* 2/7/20 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Forms of Immigration Relief 2020<https://www.pli.edu/programs/asylum-juvenile-immigration-relief?t=live>

* 2/28/20 5th Annual New York Asylum and Immigration Law Conference

* 7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020<https://www.pli.edu/programs/defending-immigration-removal?t=live>

ImmProf

Sunday, December 8, 2019

* Music Break: Watch Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Stunning Video: “Immigrants (We Get the Job Done)”<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/music-break-watch-lin-manuel-mirandas-stunning-new-video-for-immigrants-we-get-the-job-done.html>

* Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump Public Charge Rule<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/ninth-circuit-stays-injunction-of-trump-public-charge-rule.html>

* Trump is trying to make it too expensive for poor American immigrants to stay<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/trump-is-trying-to-make-it-too-expensive-for-poor-american-immigrants-to-stay.html>

Saturday, December 7, 2019

* Immigrants’ access to legal assistance further diminished by EOIR memo<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/the-justice-department-recently-issueda-policy-memo-that-would-limit-immigrants-ability-to-rely-on-friends-of-the-court-for-l.html>

* Immigration Article of the Day: Aspiring Americans Thrown Out in the Cold: The Discriminatory Use of False Testimony Allegations to Deny Naturalization by Nermeen Arastu<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/immigrtaion-article-of-the-day-aspiring-americans-thrown-out-in-the-cold-the-discriminatory-use-of-f.html>

Friday, December 6, 2019

* Your Playlist: Luba Dvorak<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/your-playlist-luba-dvorak.html>

* Workplace Immigration Inquiries Quadruple Under Trump<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/workplace-immigration-inquiries-quadruple-under-trump.html>

* Inside the Cell Where a Sick 16-Year-Old Boy Died in Border Patrol Care<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/inside-the-cell-where-a-sick-16-year-old-boy-died-in-border-patrol-care.html>

* From the Bookshelves: The Ungrateful Refugee: What Immigrants Never Tell You by Dina Nayeri (2019)<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-the-ungrateful-refugee-what-immigrants-never-tell-you-by-dina-nayeri-2019.html>

Thursday, December 5, 2019

* Russian Finds Inventive Way to Swindle Migrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/russian-finds-inventive-way-to-swindle-migrants-.html>

* Immigration Article of the Day: Becoming Unconventional: Constricting the ‘Particular Social Group’ Ground for Asylum by Fatma E. Marouf<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/immigration-article-of-the-day-becoming-unconventional-constricting-the-particular-social-group-grou.html>

* University-Wide Scholarship Program for Displaced Students<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/university-wide-scholarship-program-for-displaced-students.html>

* Joseph A. Vail Asylum Law Workshop<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/joseph-a-vail-asylum-law-workshop.html>

* New Report Based on 3,000 Legal Screenings of Undocumented Immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/new-report-based-on-3000-legal-screenings-of-undocumented-immigrants.html>

* From the Bookshelves: They Came to Toil: Newspaper Representations of Mexicans and Immigrants in the Great Depression by Melita M. Garza<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-they-came-to-toil-newspaper-representations-of-mexicans-and-immigrants-in-the-g.html>

* Music Break: Rapper Rich Brian gets vulnerable about his Asian identity, immigration story<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/music-break-rapper-rich-brian-gets-vulnerable-about-his-asian-identity-immigration-story.html>

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

* Looking for Exam Inspiration?<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/looking-for-exam-inspiration-.html>

* GAO Report: Immigration-Related Prosecutions Increased from 2017 to 2018 in Response to U.S. Attorney General’s Direction<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/gao-report-immigration-related-prosecutions-increased-from-2017-to-2018-in-response-to-us-attorney-generals-direction.html>

* Peter Margulies: Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’s Ban on Uninsured Immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/peter-margulies-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-against-president-trumps-ban-on-uninsured-immigr.html>

* ICE bought state driver’s license records to track undocumented immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/ice-bought-state-drivers-license-records-to-track-undocumented-immigrants.html>

* “Building a Wall Out of Red Tape” from PRI/The World<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/pris-building-a-wall-out-of-red-tape.html>

* How McKinsey Helped the Trump Administration Detain and Deport Immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/how-mckinsey-helped-the-trump-administration-detain-and-deport-immigrants.html>

* Immigration Article of the Day: Faithful Execution: Where Administrative Law Meets the Constitution by Evan D. Bernick<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/immigration-article-of-the-day-faithful-execution-where-administrative-law-meets-the-constitution-by.html>

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

* From the Bookshelves: Perchance to DREAM: A Legal and Political History of the DREAM Act and DACA by Michael A. Olivas<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-perchance-to-dream-a-legal-and-political-history-of-the-dream-act-and-daca-by-m.html>

* Unprecedented: Trump Is First to Use PATRIOT Act to Detain a Man Forever<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/unprecedented-trump-is-first-to-use-patriot-act-to-detain-a-man-forever.html>

* El Sueño Americano | The American Dream: Photographs by Tom Kiefer<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/el-sue%C3%B1o-americano-the-american-dream-photographs-by-tom-kiefer.html>

* SCOTUSblog: Argument preview for Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Ovalles v. Barr<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/scotusblog-argument-preview-for-guerrero-lasprilla-v-barr-and-ovalles-v-barr.html>

* César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández: Abolish Immigration Prisons<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/c%C3%A9sar-cuauht%C3%A9moc-garc%C3%ADa-hern%C3%A1ndez-abolish-immigration-prisons-.html>

* History of United States Immigration Laws<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/history-of-united-states-immigration-laws.html>

Monday, December 2, 2019

* From the Bookshelves: Border Wars by Julie Hirschfield Davis and Michael D. Shear<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-border-wars-by-julie-hirschfield-davis-and-michael-d-shear.html>

* Is OPT in peril? Colleges sign amicus brief opposing end of OPT<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/is-opt-in-peril.html>

* A Fact Worth Remembering: Half of Undocumented Immigrants are Visa Overstays<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/a-fact-worth-remembering-half-of-undocumented-immigrants-are-visa-overstays.html>

* Immigration in Pop Culture: ICE Raid on “Shameless”<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/1

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

The item about the BIA’s atrociously wrong CAT interpretation in Matter of O-F-A-S-, the results of the Musalo visit to El Salvador, the continuing “go along to get along” with Trump’s legal abuses in immigration by gutless panels of the 9th & 11th Circuits in City & County of San Francisco and AMEZCUA-PRECIADO, respectively, and the expansion of lawless “Tent Courts” by EOIR ought to outrage every American.

On the flip side, the possibility that the Supremes will finally stiff the Regime’s bogus arguments for limiting or eliminating judicial review of final orders of removal and the new ACLU suit about the Regime’s unlawful schemes to prevent attorney access for asylum seekers provide at least some hope of better days to come for the “Good Guys of the Resistance.”

Thanks, Elizabeth, for keeping the NDPA informed!

PWS

12-10-19

INSIDE TRUMP’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” THERE IS NEITHER DUE PROCESS NOR JUSTICE! – So, What Happened To The Legislative & Judicial Branches Who Are Supposed To Protect Against Such Outrageous Executive Overreach? — “Whatever we call them, America’s immigration prisons are antithetical to the free society we claim to be. We must do all we can to dismantle this system.”

https://apple.news/AsyQuZEMeR0mXWpvWd19-Mg

By Naureen Shah:

opinion

At detention facilities, legal rights ‘in name only’

Whether we call them ‘concentration camps’ or detention centers, the lack of justice for those seeking refuge must end.

7:42 pm EDT Oct. 25, 2019

As President Donald Trump prepares to pick a new secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is preparing to appear in a Brooklyn court. She is being sued for blocking a man on Twitter who criticized her for calling immigration detention sites “concentration camps.” Her opponents seized on the comment. One of their talking points: America’s hardworking immigration officers should not be equated with Nazis.

To some extent, I can understand their perspective.

I recently visited four Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention sites across the country. I met many of their workers. They carried clear plastic backpacks and lunchboxes as they filed through security in the morning, looking weary and bored. As I left each site, some asked me whether I had had a “nice visit” and wished me safe travels.

These workers don’t bring to mind cinematic villains. Yet they are part of a system that, no matter its appearances, is inflicting the horror of trapping people inside.

I saw it in the eyes of the people I interviewed in detention. A 28-year-old Cuban woman told me about spending five days sleeping on the ground in an outdoor cage run by Border Patrol, the “perrera” — a place for dogs. That was followed by 17 days in the “hielera,” a frigid room. She had been denied a shower the entire time.

She recounted this months later, when I met her at an ICE detention site in Adams County, Mississippi. She had not seen or talked to her husband for months, since U.S. authorities separated and detained them. She said that last summer, an asylum officer interviewed her and determined that her fear of persecution if she returned to Cuba was credible — the first step in an asylum case. But she said she had never seen a judge, had no court date, no lawyer, no ICE officer assigned to her. She was alone and trapped: She had no idea of what would happen to her next, how to move her asylum case forward and whether she would ever be released.

COLUMN: In the hands of police, facial recognition software risks violating civil liberties

Adams County is part of the immigration detention boom. Detention levels have skyrocketed to a record high of about 50,000 people a day, at an annual cost of more than $2 billion. Counties are grabbing at detention contracts that provide jobs, although many will be filled by out-of-town residents. New detention sites are opening in the Deep South — hours from urban areas with networks of pro bono or low-cost attorneys. Even in big cities, the number of people detained far outpaces the number of attorneys available to help them. The result is that these immigration jails are effectively legal black holes, where legal rights often exist in name only.

“You come to this place and you can never win,” another woman told me. She had spent three months in an ICE detention center near Miami, separated from her then 5-month-old baby. Her husband, a U.S. citizen, was driving her to Walmart when local police questioned them during a random traffic stop. She was not accused of a crime, and she was in the process of petitioning for residency based on her marriage to a citizen. But police took her to a local jail and held her for ICE.

COLUMN: After terrifying ICE raid, Mississippi is still fighting back

“I haven’t seen my baby in three months,” she said, and asked me what would happen to her.

Without a lawyer, she is likely to remain in detention for months or years — and ultimately be deported away from her husband and child. Just 3% of detained individuals without a lawyer succeeded in their cases, compared with 74% of nondetained and represented individuals who won in theirs, according to a study that focused on New York immigration cases. For asylum-seekers, the stakes are often life or death.

Yet immigrants have been denied the right to a government-appointed lawyer in their deportation proceedings. I met many who didn’t have enough money to make a phone call from prison, let alone pay a lawyer. Even those who could afford it struggled to find one, since they are stuck on the inside without access to Google, email or a cellphone.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Our immigration system is set up for them to fail, with Kafka-esque limits on their ability to apply for legal relief and appeal to federal courts. Navigating this complex and unforgiving set of legal rules is hard for lawyers, let alone for detained individuals. Some are offered release on bond, but in unaffordable amounts like $25,000.

Many people I met had never seen a judge, several months into their detention. They had no idea how or when they might ever be free. They were confused, scared and, in some cases, suicidal. A woman from Cameroon who fled its ongoing civil war after her father was murdered told me she prayed that God would provide her a way out.

We have an obligation to respond.

Local governments should end ICE detention contracts, if they exist, and prohibit new ones. Cities and states should robustly fund free legal service providers and bond funds. Major law firms should send their lawyers to the Deep South to work with local pro bono providers to address the drastic shortfalls in legal services. Community groups should lobby Congress to cut funding for detention and pass comprehensive reform legislation like the Dignity For Detained Immigrants Act.

Trump’s new Homeland Security secretary is likely to ramp up immigration detention to even higher levels, using the specter of prison to deter people from coming here and the reality of it to punish those who do. We cannot afford to be divided by semantics.

Whatever we call them, America’s immigration prisons are antithetical to the free society we claim to be. We must do all we can to dismantle this system.

Naureen Shah is the senior advocacy and policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, working on immigrant rights.

get our free app

7:42 pm EDT Oct. 25, 2019

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

DHS’s “New American Gulag” – the “brainchild” of Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, and Steve Bannon – is an affront to our Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Remember that the next time Trump’s “Gulag Enablers” like Kelly, Nielsen, Sessions, and Barr try to “reinvent themselves” as something other than the sleazy human rights violators they are and will always remain.

PWS

10-29-19

ACLU COURT EVIDENCE SUGGESTS McALEENAN LIED TO CONGRESS WHILE VIOLATING COURT ORDER ON CHILD SEPARATIONS — Continuing Separations Appear To Be Part Of Intentional Misapplication & Misinterpretation Of Narrow “Exception” — “Best Interests Of Child” Buried Beneath A Web Of Deception

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/aclu-us-has-taken-nearly-1000-child-migrants-from-their-parents-since-judge-ordered-stop-to-border-separations/2019/07/30/bde452d8-b2d5-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html

Maria Sacchetti reports for the WashPost:

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union told a federal judge Tuesday that the Trump administration has taken nearly 1,000 migrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border since the judge ordered the United States government to curtail the practice more than a year ago.

In a lengthy court filing in U.S. District Court in San Diego, lawyers wrote that one migrant lost his daughter because a U.S. Border Patrol agent claimed that he had failed to change the girl’s diaper. Another migrant lost his child because of a conviction on a charge of malicious destruction of property with alleged damage of $5. One father, who lawyers say has a speech impediment, was separated from his 4-year-old son because he could not clearly answer Customs and Border Protection agents’ questions.

Acting Homeland Security secretary Kevin McAleenan has said that family separations remain “extraordinarily rare” and happen only when the adults pose a risk to the child because of their criminal record, a communicable disease, abuse or neglect. Of tens of thousands of children taken into custody at the border, 911 children were separated since the June 26, 2018, court order according to the ACLU, which cited statistics as of June 29 that the organization received from the government as part of ongoing legal proceedings.

During a July 12 tour of a detention center in McAllen, Tex., reporters saw almost 400 men being held in cages. They allegedly crossed the border illegally. (The Washington Post)While the judge recognized that parents and children might still be separated when a parent is found to pose a risk to their child, the ACLU and others say federal immigration and border agents are splitting up families for minor alleged offenses — including traffic violations — and urged the judge Tuesday to clarify when such separations should be allowed.Approximately 20 percent of the new separations affected children under 5 years old, the ACLU said, compared with about 4 percent last year.

“They’re taking what was supposed to be a narrow exception for cases where the parent was genuinely a danger to the child and using it as a loophole to continue family separation,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in an interview. “What everyone understands intuitively and what the medical evidence shows, this will have a devastating effect on the children and possibly cause permanent damage to these children, not to mention the toll on the parents.”

[Accused of gang ties, separated parents struggle to get their kids back]

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment Tuesday.

The tally of child separations adds to the approximately 2,700 children who were taken from their parents during a chaotic, six-week period from May to June 20 last year, when a Trump administration border crackdown triggered one of the worst crises of his presidency.

The policy sought to deter a crush of asylum seekers, who were surrendering as families at the U.S. southern border, by prosecuting parents for the crime of illegal entry and sending their children to federal shelters. Reports of traumatized, crying children led to widespread demands to reunite the families.

Venezuelan migrant mothers and their children turn themselves in to law enforcement officials to seek asylum after illegally crossing the Rio Grande near Mission, Tex., on July 25. (Loren Elliott/Reuters)

Trump ordered federal officials to stop separating families on June 20, 2018, and said it is the “policy of this Administration to maintain family unity” unless the parent poses “a risk” to the child.

Six days later in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ordered the Trump administration to reunite the families, a process that dragged on for months because the government had failed to track the parents and children after splitting them up. A still-unknown number of families were separated before the policy officially began.

McAleenan, who at the time signed off on the zero tolerance policy and carried it out as commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May that family separations are “extraordinarily rare” and make up a tiny portion of the now more than 400,000 families taken into custody at the border since the court ruling.

Central American migrants walk along train tracks as they head toward the United States in Saltillo, Mexico, on July 24. (Daniel Becerril/Reuters)

At that time, he testified, about one to three family separations happened out of about 1,500 to 3,000 family members apprehended each day. He also said then that separations occur “under very controlled circumstances.”

Testifying before the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee on July 18, McAleenan emphasized that the separation process is “carefully governed by policy and by court order” to protect the children.

“This is in the interest of the child,” he said. “It’s overseen by a supervisor, and those decisions are made.”

[IG: Trump administration took thousands more migrant children from parents]

Of the 911 child separations, 678 were for alleged criminal history, the ACLU said Tuesday, citing government records. Offenses included drunken driving, assault and gang affiliation, as well as theft, disorderly conduct and minor property damage.

Many cases lacked details about the alleged crimes, the ACLU said, and several charges were decades old. Among those separated because of concerns about parental fitness were an HIV-positive father of three young daughters and a mother who broke her leg and required surgery.

Child advocates and medical professionals have repeatedly warned that separating children from their parents can lead to lasting severe physical and emotional disorders.

“Forcibly separating children from their parents is like setting a house on fire,” Jack Shonkoff, a pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School, said in an affidavit included in the ACLU’s motion. “Prolonging that separation is like preventing the first responders from doing their job and letting the fire continue to burn.”

Jennifer Nagda, policy director of the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, a child advocate for unaccompanied and separated children, told the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform that the group represented about 120 children and found that nearly all separations were “contrary to the best interests of the child.”

“DHS officials with no child welfare expertise are making split-second decisions, and these decisions have traumatic, lifelong consequences for the children and their families,” Nagda said in her testimony. She also filed an affidavit in the ACLU’s case Tuesday.

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

It’s with very good reason that I consider “Big Mac With Lies” to be one of the most dishonest and dangerous public officials in America.

Some reporters seem to mistakenly “cut him some slack” because he: 1) served in the Obama Administration (which had its own very dismal record on treatment of families and children seeking asylum); and 2) unlike folks such as “Gonzo,” “Cooch Cooch,” Miller, Kobach, et al., he’s not a “lifelong White Nationalist ideologue.”

But, I don’t see how being a liar, apologist, “cover up artist,” and human rights abuser in support of a racist White Nationalist Administration is somehow “better” than being a “true believer” in White Nationalist racism. Falsely claiming that Guatemala and Mexico are “Safe Third Countries,” that asylum applicants won’t show up for hearings (when they almost always do, particularly when they are given access to lawyers and have the system properly explained to them), and falsifying stats to paint an untruly negative picture of asylum seekers from Central America is no less vile than Trump’s lies and racist tweets.

As a lawyer and a graduate of Amherst Collge and Chicago Law, “Big Mac” is cerainly smart enough to know that places like Guatemala and Mexico don’t come remotely close to satisfying the legal definition of a “Safe Third Country.” He also has enough Government immigration enforcement experience to know for sure that the extralegal, cruel, and ineffective “enforcement only” approach he disingenuously advocates as a “Trump toady” won’t come anywhere near to solving the problems driving forced migration or saving the lives of the vulnerable.

I actually have a better understanding of what drives the Trumps, “Gonzos,” Millers, and “Cooch Cooches” of the world than what drives corrupt public servants like McAleenan to violate their oaths of office and to pick on those whose rights and human dignity they should be standing up for, no matter how vile the leadership of the Administration they nominally serve (actually, they serve the American people, not any particular political leader) might be.”Big Mac” is a disgrace to honest Federal civil servants and to all Americans who believe in democracy and “good government.” History must hold him accountable.

PWS

08-01-19

DUE PROCESS & RULE OF LAW PREVAIL ANYWAY — USD JUDGE TIGAR STOPS TRUMP’S ASYLUM TRAVESTY FOR NOW! — Conflicting Decisions On Same Day!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/asylum-ruling-tro.html

Miriam Jordan & Zolan Kanno-Youngs report for The NY Times:

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to continue accepting asylum claims from all eligible migrants arriving in the United States, temporarily thwarting the president’s latest attempt to stanch the flow of migrants crossing the southern border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction against a new rule that would have effectively banned asylum claims in the United States for most Central American migrants, who have been arriving in record numbers this year. It would have also affected many migrants from Africa, Asia and other regions.

The decision came on the same day that a federal judge in Washington, hearing a separate challenge, let the new rule stand, briefly delivering the administration a win. But Judge Tigar’s order prevents the rule from being carried out until the legal issues can be debated more fully.

The rule, which has been applied on a limited basis in Texas, requires migrants to apply for and be denied asylum in the first safe country they arrive in on their way to the United States — in many of the current cases, Mexico — before applying for protections here. Because migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala make up the vast majority of asylum seekers arriving at the southern border, the policy would virtually terminate asylum there.

“This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws,” Judge Tigar wrote in his ruling on Wednesday, adding that the government’s decision to put it in place was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The government, which is expected to appeal the decision, has said that the rule intends to prevent exploitation of the asylum system by those who unlawfully immigrate to the United States. By clogging the immigration courts with meritless claims, the government argues, these applicants harm asylum seekers with legitimate cases who must wait longer to secure the protection they deserve.

Under the policy, which the administration announced on July 15, only immigrants who have officially lost their bids for asylum in another country or who have been victims of “severe” human trafficking are permitted to apply in the United States.

Hondurans and Salvadorans have to apply for asylum and be denied in Guatemala or Mexico before they become eligible to apply in the United States, and Guatemalans have to apply and be denied in Mexico.

The policy reversed longstanding asylum laws that ensure people can seek safe haven no matter how they got to the United States. On July 16, the day the new rule went into effect — initially in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas — the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the policy in court in San Francisco. The case in Washington was filed separately by two advocacy organizations, the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, or Raices.

“The court recognized, as it did with the first asylum ban, that the Trump administration was attempting an unlawful end run around asylum protections enacted by Congress,” said Lee Gelernt, the A.C.L.U. lawyer who argued the case in San Francisco.

The groups challenging the rule argued that immigration laws enacted by Congress expressly state that a person is ineligible for asylum only if the applicant is “firmly resettled” in another country before arriving in the United States. The laws also require an asylum seeker to request protection elsewhere only if the United States has entered into an agreement with that country and the applicant was guaranteed a “full and fair procedure” there, they said.

Judge Tigar agreed. “The rule provides none of these protections,” he said in his ruling.

During a hearing in the case on Wednesday, a lawyer for the Justice Department, Scott Stewart, said that a large influx of migrant families had spawned a “crisis” that had become “particularly stark” and created a “strain” on the asylum system.

“Migrants understand the basics of the incentives and are informed about how changes in law and policy can affect their options,” Mr. Stewart told the judge.

Judge Tigar voiced concern about forcing asylum seekers to apply for protection in Mexico or Guatemala. “We don’t see how anyone could read this record and think those are safe countries,” he said, referring to the rule’s language that migrants must apply to the first safe country.

The judge also said that the government did not address the “adequacy of the asylum system in Guatemala,” which is not equipped to handle a surge in applications.

Charanya Krishnaswami, advocacy director for the Americas at Amnesty International, said it was inhumane and cruel to force people fleeing violence to seek safety in places that are as dangerous as the homes they fled. “Everyone seeking protection has the right to humane treatment and a fair asylum process under U.S. and international law,” she said.

In federal court in Washington, two advocacy groups made similar arguments against the new policy.

But that judge, Timothy J. Kelly, found that the groups did not sufficiently support their claim that “irreparable harm” would be done to the plaintiffs in the case if the policy were not blocked. While the rule would affect migrants seeking asylum, the judge said, “the plaintiffs before me here are not asylum seekers.”

“They are only two organizations, one of which operates in the D.C. area, far from the southern border,” he added.

In recent years, the number of migrants petitioning for asylum has skyrocketed.

Migrant families and unaccompanied children have been turning themselves in to Border Patrol agents and then requesting asylum, which typically enables them to remain in the United States for years as their cases wind through the backlogged immigration courts. Only about 20 percent of them ultimately win asylum, according to the government, and many of those whose applications are rejected remain in the country unlawfully.

The administration announced the new asylum policy despite the fact that Guatemala and Mexico had not agreed to the plan, which means those countries have made no assurances that they would grant asylum to migrants intending to go to the United States. Talks with Guatemala broke down and the country’s president, Jimmy Morales, backed out of a meeting that had been scheduled for July 15 at the White House. On Wednesday, President Trump said that his administration was considering imposing tariffs on Guatemalan exports or taxing money sent home by migrants.

The new asylum rule is just one of many efforts by the Trump administration to curb the entry of migrants.

At ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection agents have significantly slowed the processing of applicants through metering — limiting how many migrants are processed to as few as a dozen per day.

And some 16,000 migrants are waiting in Mexican border towns like Tijuana under a policy commonly referred to as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until the day of their court hearing. The policy makes it more difficult for the migrants to secure a lawyer to represent them in the United States, undermining their chances of winning protections.

In November, President Trump unveiled a separate policy that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Judge Tigar, who was also hearing that case, issued a temporary restraining order blocking that rule. The case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs reported from Washington, and Miriam Jordan from Los Angeles.

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

It’s a much more reasonable order than that issued by Judge Kelly in DC earlier in the day which declared “open season” on asylum seekers. Judge Tigar has been on the front lines of Trump’s war on Due Process and the rule of law. Significantly, he pointed out the absurdity of the Trump Administration’s outrageous scofflaw attempt to classify Guatemala, one of the most dangerous countries in the world, without a functioning asylum system, as a bogus “safe third country.”

It’s on to the appellate courts!

PWS

07-24-19

ATTN FORMER IJs: HELP STOP TRUMP’S ATTEMPT TO ERADICATE U.S.ASYLUM LAW: EMERGENCY AMICUS BRIEF SIGN-ON REQUEST!

Forwarded message ———
From: grussendorf paul <pauldgrussendorf@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Call for sign-on. Amicus brief for ACLU TRO. 3rd Country Transit Interim Reg
To: immprof@lists.ucla.edu <immprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Cc: John Gossert <judge800@yahoo.com>, William Van wyke <wvanwyke@yahoo.com>

Hi Everyone
I’m cooperating with Covington & Burling to submit an amicus brief with ACLU for their TRO motion against the latest abomination, the attempt to bar virtually all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border by requiring everyone to first file for asylum in a country of transit and most likely Guatemala or Mexico. Anyone who can’t show that they’ve filed and received a rejection from that country is barred from raising asylum in the US. Unfortunately there’s a really short turnaround, the brief must be filed this Sunday for arguments on Wednesday in the 9th. I’m submitting as an expert based upon my most recent position as a supervisory asylum officer who has done adjudication son the border and refugee adjudications in El Salvador. If anyone would like to see a draft of the brief ready hopefully by tomorrow and consider adding their name to it please let me know Also if someone has the address for Paul Schmidt or would like to forward this to other retired IJs please do so.
Thanks!

Sent from my iPad

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

I’m in. Hope others will join the ACLU’s effort to defend American Justice (not related in any way to the U.S. Department of “Justice”)!

PWS

07-19-19

NDPA COUNTERATTACKS: ACLU, Immigrants’ Rights Groups Challenge Trump’s Scofflaw Attempt To Repeal Asylum Statute By Regulation That Failed To Comply With Legal Requirements For Advance Notice & Comment!

hhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/civil-rights-and-immigration-groups-file-lawsuit-challenging-new-trump-limits-on-asylum-claims-11563310786

Brent Kendall reports for the WSJ:

Civil-rights and immigration groups filed a lawsuit challenging new Trump administration rules that could dramatically limit asylum claims by Central American migrants seeking entry to the U.S.

The suit, filed in a northern California federal court on Tuesday, alleges the new asylum policy is “an unlawful effort to significantly undermine, if not virtually repeal, the U.S. asylum system at the southern border.

It “cruelly closes our doors to refugees fleeing persecution,” the suit added.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of several groups that assist migrants and refugees.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Brent’s article at the above link.

Go New Due Process Army, Beat Scofflaws!

PWS

07-16-19

DHS OFFICIAL ON TRUMP’S LATEST RACIST ATTACK ON ASYLUM: “IT’S F***ED Up!”— Racists Are Running Our Country With “Malicious Incompetence” — That’s a BIG Problem For Everyone, Not Just Those Targeted By Their Outrageous White Nationalist Attacks!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/trump-asylum-central-americans

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

The US will end asylum protections for Central Americans and others who cross through Mexico to reach the southern border, the Trump administration announced Monday, a sweeping, unprecedented move that will quickly be challenged in court.

The new move, which bars asylum for any individual who crosses through a third country but does not apply there for protection before reaching the US southern border, takes effect Tuesday in the form of a regulatory change.

It becomes the latest in a series of attempts by the Trump administration to actively deter asylum seekers from reaching the border. The details of the plan and efforts to implement it were first reported by BuzzFeed News in May, and experts say it would keep hundreds of thousands of people fleeing violence from entering the US.

“With one regulation the US is nearly entirely turning its back on this asylum flow,” Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, told BuzzFeed News.

Multiple Department of Homeland Security officials who spoke with BuzzFeed News voiced concerns about the administration’s move.

“It’s fucked up,” one official said. “There’s a reason people apply for asylum in the US — we have a robust asylum system. Other countries on the route to the southern border don’t.”

Rodrigo Abd / AP

Another said it would be blocked in court.

“Flatly inconsistent with our treaty obligations. Flies in the face of decades of case law. Destined to be enjoined and or struck down immediately,” the official said.

Another DHS official said the move was not only mistaken, but it would backfire on the administration.

“This administration continues to pervert the 1980 Refugee Act and its later amendments by passing regulations that burden its own employees with overly cumbersome, ill-conceived new ‘standards,'” the official said. “This rule will effect all those who reach our southern land border but may have fled from anywhere in the world. It does nothing to fix our broken immigration system, which is at its breaking point because the administration’s mismanagement.”

Administration officials have been working on the plan for weeks, considering it a potential solution to the high rate of families crossing the border.

“Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ‘pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States and enable DHS and [the Department of Justice] to more quickly and efficiently process cases originating from the southern border, leading to fewer individuals transiting through Mexico on a dangerous journey,” said acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan.

Advocates said they would move to sue immediately.

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group would immediately sue.

“The Trump administration is trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger. This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly,” he said.

The ACLU previously filed a lawsuit over the administration’s attempt to ban asylum for those who crossed the border without authorization. The policy was later blocked in federal court and has since not been implemented.

Oliver De Ros / AP

The new regulation would make anyone traveling through Mexico by land to the southern border ineligible for asylum if they did not first seek protection before reaching the US. Immigrants could attempt to receive protection through a process that would be much more difficult.

The ban would apply not just to Central Americans but other non-Mexican nationalities, including Cubans, Haitians, and Venezuelans who in recent months have applied for asylum at the southern border in higher numbers.

The new rule allows for a few exceptions, including if an immigrant was a victim of severe human trafficking or if they traveled through a third country that did not have adequate asylum protections. The person could also avoid the new ban if they can prove that they applied for protection in a third country and later were ordered a final denial. It’s unclear how many people could fit these categories.

“This latest regulation is an attempt to close down one of the few remaining avenues for people in need of protection,” said Ur Jaddou, former chief counsel for the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. “The only ray of light for those seeking safety is that Congress was clear when it enacted the asylum law and this attempt to circumvent it by regulation will likely see the same fate of other Trump administration attacks on the law and result in a federal court injunction.”

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

Only the Article III Courts can stop this continuing outrage. But, will they do their job before the country descends into total chaos and the race wars that Trump and the GOP are openly promoting?

PWS

07-16-19

COURTSIDE HISTORY: Trump’s American White Nationalist Antecedents Were The Racist Pols & Pseudo-Scientists Of A Century Ago! — The Lies & Ugliness Of The Past Are Being Repeated — Only This Time It’s People Of Color Rather Than Italians, Irish, Slavs, Catholics, & Jews Who Are Targeted For “Dehumanization” (Although It Would Be Wrong To Underestimate Trump’s Responsibility For The Revival Of Anti-Semitism)!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/opinion/sunday/anti-immigrant-hatred-1920s.html

Daniel Okrent writes in the NY Times:

In early 1921, an article in Good Housekeeping signaled the coming of a law that makes President Trump’s campaign for immigration restriction seem mild by comparison. “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend,” it read. “The dead weight of alien accretion stifles national progress.” The author was Calvin Coolidge, about to be sworn in as vice president of the United States. Three years later, the most severe immigration law in American history entered the statute books, shepherded by believers in those “biological laws.”

The anti-immigrant fervor at the heart of current White House policymaking is not a new phenomenon, nor is the xenophobia that has infected the political mainstream. In fact, race-based nativism comes with an exalted pedigree — and that pedigree is something we all should remember as the Trump administration continues its assault on immigrants of specific nationalities. The scientific arguments Coolidge invoked were advanced by men bearing imposing credentials. Some were highly regarded scholars from Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford. One ran the nation’s foremost genetics laboratory. Another was America’s leading environmentalist at the time. Yet another was the director of the country’s most respected natural history museum.

Together, they popularized “racial eugenics,” a junk science that made ethnically based racism respectable. “The day of the sociologist is passing,” said the Harvard professor Robert DeCourcy Ward, “and the day of the biologist has come.” The biologists and their publicists achieved what their political allies had failed to accomplish for 30 years: enactment of a law stemming the influx of Jews, Italians, Greeks and other eastern and southern Europeans. “The need of restriction is manifest,” The New York Times declared in an editorial, for “American institutions are menaced” by “swarms of aliens.”

Image

Protesters rallied last June against family separations in front of the United States Port of Entry in downtown El Paso, Texas. CreditVictor J. Blue for The New York Times

Keeping people out of the country because of their nationality was hardly a novel idea. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was avowedly racist. In 1923 a unanimous Supreme Court declared that immigrants from India could be barred from citizenship strictly on racial grounds.

What was different about the new, putatively scientific campaign was that even whiteness was no ticket to entry.

Writing about Slavic immigrants, the sociologist Edward A. Ross of the University of Wisconsin — later the national chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union — declared, they “are immune to certain kinds of dirt. They can stand what would kill a white man.” The president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology said newcomers from eastern and southern Europe were “vast masses of filth” who were “living like swine.”

The Washington Post editorialized that 90 percent of Italians coming to the United States were “the degenerate spawn” of “Asiatic hordes.” A Boston philanthropist, Joseph Lee, his city’s leading supporter of progressive causes, explained to friends why he became the single largest financial backer of the anti-immigrant campaign: His concern, he wrote, was that without a restriction law, Europe would be “drained of Jews — to its benefit no doubt but not to ours.”

The “biological” justifications for this nativism were first developed in Cold Spring Harbor, on Long Island, in laboratories financed by the widow of the railroad baron E.H. Harriman. (One of her goals, Mary Harriman said, was preventing “the decay of the American race.”) The laboratory’s head, the zoologist Charles B. Davenport, took the ideas of the British gentleman scientist Francis Galton — who had coined the word “eugenics” in 1883 — welded them to a gross misunderstanding of the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel, and concluded that the makeup of the nation’s population could be improved by the careful control of human breeding. One of the first steps, he believed, was to impose new controls on open immigration.

At first, Davenport wished to bar the immigration only of people afflicted by specific disorders — epileptics, the “feebleminded” and others of similarly troublesome (to Davenport) disability. But soon he was caught up in a racialist whirlwind initiated by “The Passing of the Great Race,” a book by Madison Grant, the founder of the Bronx Zoo and the era’s most prominent conservationist. A bilious stew of dubious history, bogus anthropology and completely unfounded genetic theory, Grant’s work persuaded Davenport and others that the American bloodstream was threatened not by suspect individuals, but by entire ethnic groups.

First published in 1916 and reissued in a series of revisions over the next eight years — all of them brought into print by Maxwell Perkins, the celebrated editor of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway — “The Passing of the Great Race” savagely denigrated the peoples of eastern and southern Europe while exalting the “Nordics” of northwestern Europe. With the presumed authority of scholarship, he summarized the essential argument of racial eugenics.

“Whether we like to admit it or not,” Grant wrote, “the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting” to the “lower type.” Lower than Nordics were the questionable “Alpines.” Lower than the “Alpines” were the woeful “Mediterraneans.” And, he concluded, “the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”

Grant was not an actual scientist. But Henry Fairfield Osborn, a world-famous paleontologist and his closest friend, definitely was. Osborn, who once expressed his opposition to the extension of the Westchester Parkway near his country estate because it would bring thousands of “East Side Jews” to the area, presided over the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years, and made that institution the beating heart of the combined eugenics and anti-immigration movement. “I am convinced,” said Osborn, that the “spiritual, physical, moral and intellectual structure” of individuals is “based on racial characteristics.” It wasn’t a matter of ethnic bias, he said — it was “cold-blooded” science.

Other scholars rallied to the cause. Robert M. Yerkes — his name immortalized today at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta — conducted a severely flawed series of tests of American servicemen purporting to establish the intellectual inferiority of eastern and southern Europeans. Charles W. Gould, a lawyer in New York, sponsored “A Study of American Intelligence,” by Carl C. Brigham, a young Princeton psychologist (and later the inventor of the SAT). Brigham’s conclusion: “There can be no doubt that recent history has shown a movement of inferior peoples or inferior representatives of peoples to this country.”

At the same time, Perkins and his colleagues at Charles Scribner’s Sons published a raft of books promoting racialized eugenics. Scribner publicists wrote in one promotion piece: “The inrush of lower races is threatening the very blood of our country.” Perkins’s authors were echoed in the country’s leading magazine, The Saturday Evening Post. “Race character is as fixed a fact as race color,” the Post declared. “Thirty years ago,” the magazine insisted in another article, “science had not perhaps sufficiently advanced to make us fully aware” of the danger of open immigration. Now it had.

Read more

Opinion articles about immigration.

Opinion | Janet Murguía

The American Family Makes This Country Great, and It’s in Danger

May 2, 2019

Opinion | Alan Cross

Alabama Is More Pro-Immigrant Than You Think

April 30, 2019

When the 1924 Immigration Act reached the floor of Congress, passage was assured. Albert Johnson, chairman of the House Immigration and Naturalization Committee, declared that “the fundamental reason” for immigration restriction was “biological.” During the floor debate, one congressman said the law was provoked by “the necessity for purifying and keeping pure the blood of America.” Given the arguments presented by so many of the nation’s leading scientific figures, who could disagree?

The resulting law established quotas by nation; they cut like a scythe. In the last year before their introduction, more than 220,000 Italians entered the United States. The quota slashed that number to less than 4,000. Reductions nearly as harsh were imposed on other eastern and southern European groups, while tens of thousands of slots reserved for Britons, Scandinavians and other “Nordics” went unfilled.

The 1924 quotas remained in force for more than 40 years — while the economic devastation of a worldwide depression hit southern Europe especially hard; while a 1939 measure that would have allowed 20,000 German Jewish children into the United States died in Congress, and the savagery of the Holocaust began; while the Nazis and their allies starved 350,000 Greeks and slaughtered 200,000 Serbs; and while displaced-persons camps stretched across the ruins of postwar Europe.

In 1920, Charles Davenport had asked Madison Grant, “Can we build a wall high enough around this country” to keep out the unwanted? They could, and they did.

Daniel Okrent is the author of “The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America.”

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

The race-based ”Aryan Nationalism” of 1920’s America helped pave the way for the Nazi atrocities of World War II.

Out of the failure of the West to save lives when it was possible before the start of World War II and the horrible human exterminations that followed came the 1951 U.N. Convention on Refugees. It is that Convention which Trump and other nationalist leaders throughout the Western World are committed to destroying.

At the recent Louisiana State Bar Immigration Conference, held on April 26, 2019, Attorney R. Andrew Free of Nashville, TN, who had been to the border and observed firsthand the lawless, counterproductive, and inhumane behavior of both the Mexican and U.S. authorities toward asylum seekers, particularly women and children, made an excellent “historical perspective” presentation.

Free traced the origins of today’s xenophobic and racist-inspired restrictionist immigration policies policies to two historic events: 1) the Eisenhower Administration’s 1954 “Operation Wetback” directed against Mexicans which resulted in some Mexican-American citizens and lawful residents being swept up in the indiscriminate “dragnet,” without any hint of due process, directed against Hispanic appearing and Spanish speaking individuals along the Southern Border; and 2) the highly racist Immigration Act of 1924, praised by such “modern day Jim Crows” as Jeff Sessions and his acolyte White House Advisor Stephen Miller.

Do we as a people REALLY want to be remembered the way Coolidge, Albert Johnson, and the host of racist “pseudo-scientists” are described in this article? Or, are we willing to take a stand against the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda being pushed by Trump and his many enablers?

How can we forget our own immigrant heritages and the nasty racist stereotypes thrown at almost every group of new immigrants, including of course enslaved African Americans and other “involuntary forced migrants,” who built America into a great nation!

Due Process Forever — White Nationalism Never!

PWS

05-09-19

SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: U.S. Judge Finds Trump’s “Remain In Mexico” Program Illegal – Orders Halt! – Malicious Incompetence, Illegal Gimmicks Thwarted – We Need A Government That Follows The Laws!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/federal-judge-blocks-trump-administration-program-forcing-asylum-seekers-to-remain-in-mexico-while-awaiting-court-hearings/2019/04/08/68e96048-5a42-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.137c9c2e12a3

By Maria Sacchetti

April 8 at 5:46 PM

A federal judge on Monday blocked an experimental Trump administration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases make their way through the immigration court system, a major blow to President Trump as border crossings have surged to their highest point in more than a decade.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco enjoined the Migrant Protection Protocols policy days after outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pledged to expand the program. The policy began in January.

[Read the Migrant Protection Protocols ruling]

Trump has justified blocking asylum seekers from entering the United States by claiming that many asylum seekers are trying to carry out a scam — that they are coached to file false asylum claims knowing that they will be released into the country because of a lack of detention bed space. The administration had hoped to keep more asylum seekers in Mexico — and off U.S. soil — while they await court hearings on their claims.

Migrants who reach U.S. soil — including areas that are outside U.S. border barriers but inside U.S. territory — have the legal right to seek asylum. They generally are either held in detention facilities to await rulings in their cases or are released into the United States.

The policy had been one idea to stem the flow of migrants into the country, but Seeborg said his order ending the policy will take effect at 5 p.m. on April 12. Within two days, he said, the 11 migrants named in the lawsuit must be allowed to enter the United States, and the administration may not implement or expand the program.

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a “very important decision” on an “unpredecented” attempt to block asylum seekers from setting foot on U.S. soil.

“What it will mean is that nobody else can be sent to Mexico,” said Judy Rabinovitz, an ACLU lawyer. “They can’t enforce this policy.”

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

As I had predicted!

PWS

04-08-19

SUPREMES BOOST ADMINISTRATION’S “GULAG” WITH SPLIT DECISION ON MANDATORY DETENTION STATUTE — NIELSEN V. PREAP — Why Both Sides “Live To Fight Another Day”

HERE’S THE “FULL TEXT” OF THE DECISION:

PREAP-16-1363_a86c

SYLLABUS BY COURT STAFF (NOT PART OF THE OPINION):

NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

ET AL. v. PREAP ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 16–1363. Argued October 10, 2018—Decided March 19, 2019*

Federal immigration law empowers the Secretary of Homeland Security to arrest and hold a deportable alien pending a removal decision, and generally gives the Secretary the discretion either to detain the alien or to release him on bond or parole. 8 U. S. C. §1226(a). Another provision, §1226(c)—enacted out of “concer[n] that deportable crimi- nal aliens who are not detained continue to engage in crime and fail to appear for their removal hearings,” Demore v. Kim, 538 U. S. 510, 513—sets out four categories of aliens who are inadmissible or de- portable for bearing certain links to terrorism or for committing spec- ified crimes. Section 1226(c)(1) directs the Secretary to arrest any such criminal alien “when the alien is released” from jail, and §1226(c)(2) forbids the Secretary to release any “alien described in paragraph (1)” pending a determination on removal (with one excep- tion not relevant here).

Respondents, two classes of aliens detained under §1226(c)(2), al- lege that because they were not immediately detained by immigra- tion officials after their release from criminal custody, they are not aliens “described in paragraph (1),” even though all of them fall into at least one of the four categories covered by §§1226(c)(1)(A)–(D). Be- cause the Government must rely on §1226(a) for their detention, re- spondents argue, they are entitled to bond hearings to determine if they should be released pending a decision on their status. The Dis- trict Courts ruled for respondents, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

——————

* Together with Wilcox, Acting Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Khoury et al. (see this Court’s Rule 12.4), also on certiorari to the same court.

2 NIELSEN v. PREAP Syllabus

Held: The judgments are reversed, and the cases are remanded.

831 F. 3d 1193 and 667 Fed. Appx. 966, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III–A, III–B–1, and IV, concluding that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of §1226(c) is contrary to the plain text and structure

of the statute. Pp. 10–17, 20–26.
(a) The statute’s text does not support the argument that because

respondents were not arrested immediately after their release, they are not “described in” §1226(c)(1). Since an adverb cannot modify a noun, §1226(c)(1)’s adverbial clause “when . . . released” does not modify the noun “alien,” which is modified instead by the adjectival clauses appearing in subparagraphs (A)–(D). Respondents contend that an adverb can “describe” a person even though it cannot modify the noun used to denote that person, but this Court’s interpretation is not dependent on a rule of grammar. The grammar merely com- plements what is conclusive here: the meaning of “described” as it appears in §1226(c)(2)—namely, “to communicate verbally . . . an ac- count of salient identifying features,” Webster’s Third New Interna- tional Dictionary 610. That is the relevant definition since the indis- putable job of the “descri[ption] in paragraph (1)” is to “identif[y]” for the Secretary which aliens she must arrest immediately “when [they are] released.” Yet the “when . . . released” clause could not possibly describe aliens in that sense. If it did, the directive given to the Sec- retary in §1226(c)(1) would be incoherent. Moreover, Congress’s use of the definite article in “when the alien is released” indicates that the scope of the word “alien” “has been previously specified in con- text.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1294. For that noun to have been previously specified, its scope must have been settled by the time the “when . . . released” clause appears at the end of para- graph (1). Thus, the class of people to whom “the alien” refers must be fixed by the predicate offenses identified in subparagraphs (A)– (D). Pp. 10–14.

(b) Subsections (a) and (c) do not establish separate sources of ar- rest and release authority; subsection (c) is a limit on the authority conferred by subsection (a). Accordingly, all the relevant detainees will have been arrested by authority that springs from subsection (a), and that fact alone will not spare them from subsection (c)(2)’s prohi- bition on release. The text of §1226 itself contemplates that aliens arrested under subsection (a) may face mandatory detention under subsection (c). If §1226(c)’s detention mandate applied only to those arrested pursuant to subsection (c)(1), there would have been no need for subsection (a)’s sentence on the release of aliens to include the words “[e]xcept as provided in subsection (c).” It is also telling that subsection (c)(2) does not limit mandatory detention to those arrested

Cite as: 586 U. S. ____ (2019) 3

Syllabus

“pursuant to” subsection (c)(1) or “under authority created by” sub- section (c)(1), but to anyone so much as “described in” subsection (c)(1). Pp. 15–17.

(c) This reading of §1226(c) does not flout the interpretative canon against surplusage. The “when . . . released” clause still functions to clarify when the duty to arrest is triggered and to exhort the Secre- tary to act quickly. Nor does this reading have the incongruous re- sult of forbidding the release of a set of aliens whom there is no duty to arrest in the first place. Finally, the canon of constitutional avoid- ance does not apply where there is no ambiguity. See Warger v.Shauers, 574 U. S. 40, 50. Pp. 20–26.

JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICEKAVANAUGH, concluded in Parts II and III–B–2:

(a) This Court has jurisdiction to hear these cases. The limitation on review in §1226(e) applies only to “discretionary” decisions about the “application” of §1226 to particular cases. It does not block law- suits over “the extent of the Government’s detention authority under the ‘statutory framework’ as a whole.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, ___. For reasons stated in Jennings, “§1252(b)(9) does not present a jurisdictional bar.” See id., at ___. Whether the District Court in the Preap case had jurisdiction under §1252(f)(1) to grant in- junctive relief is irrelevant because the court had jurisdiction to en- tertain the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief. And, the fact that by the time of class certification the named plaintiffs had obtained ei- ther cancellation of removal or bond hearings did not make these cases moot. At least one named plaintiff in both cases could have been returned to detention and then denied a subsequent bond hear- ing. Even if that had not been so, these cases would not be moot be- cause the harms alleged are transitory enough to elude review.County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 52. Pp. 7–10.

(b) Even assuming that §1226(c)(1) requires immediate arrest, the result below would be wrong, because a statutory rule that officials “‘shall’ act within a specified time” does not by itself “preclud[e] ac- tion later,” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U. S. 149, 158. This principle for interpreting time limits on statutory mandates was a fixture of the legal backdrop when Congress enacted §1226(c). Cf.Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U. S. 202, 209. Pp. 17–20.

JUSTICE THOMAS, joined by JUSTICE GORSUCH, concluded that three statutory provisions—8 U. S. C. §§1252(b)(9), 1226(e), and 1252(f)(1)—limit judicial review in these cases and it is unlikely that the District Courts had Article III jurisdiction to certify the classes. Pp. 1–6.

ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the

4 NIELSEN v. PREAP Syllabus

opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III–A, III–B–1, and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II and III–B–2, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KAVANAUGH, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a con- curring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

WHY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL’S OFFICE SHOULD BE HAPPY:

🙂 They won;

🙂 They whipped the detested Ninth Circuit and bested several of those “liberal West Coast District Judges” who are always meddling, and also whacked the ACLU who was representing the plaintiffs;

🙂 While the issue regarding the constitutionality of mandatory indefinite detention without bond remains, there is some reason to believe that the Supremes will eventually take that issue and the “breakdown” will be the same, thus resulting in another Government victory;

🙂 For now, except in the 9th Circuit, the DHS is free to “slammerize” indefinitely without recourse any foreign national convicted of certain deportable crimes, even if the conviction was long ago, the sentence has been completed, and the individual has stayed out of trouble since release;

🙂 The longer the constitutional issue kicks around the lower Federal Courts, the more “Trumpy” those courts are likely to get.

WHY THE ACLU AND THEIR ALLIES SHOULD ALSO BE HAPPY:

🙂 They prevailed on the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction to decide the claim;

🙂 This case was decided on a very narrow statutory basis involving rather arcane linguistic analysis;

🙂 The issue of the constitutionality of the mandatory detention statute remains very much “alive” in the lower Federal Courts;

🙂 The ACLU and other plaintiffs have preliminarily won on the constitutional issue in the Ninth Circuit (Rodriguez v. Marin) following a Supreme Court remand (Jennings v. Rodriguez); therefore, an injunction in the Ninth Circuit remains in effect requiring bond hearings every six months for those mandatorily detained pending further proceedings in the U.S. District Court;

🙂 The ACLU is likely to prevail on the constitutional issue in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit; depending on the pace of the lower court proceedings, Rodriguez might not come up for decision by the Supremes until after the 2020 election;

🙂 If the Democrats were to sweep the 2020s (a big “if,” to be sure, particularly after 2016), the ACLU might be able to convince a Democratic President and Congress to solve the problem with legislation mitigating mandatory detention without review, thereby perhaps “mooting” the Supreme Court case before decision;

🙁 But, keep in mind that once in power, Obama and other Democratic Administrations embraced mandatory detention and were more than happy to defend it in court and employ it in practice;

🙂 On the other hand, the ACLU probably can count on the Trump Administration to continue to pile up a record of detention abuses that will “rev up” more Democratic political sentiment for at least some statutory restraints on, if not outright abolition of, long-term civil immigration detention.

Stay tuned!

PWS

03-18-19

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity In The Face Of Tyranny, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; The Corrupt White Nationalist Immigration Agenda Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Go New Due Process Army, Beat Scofflaws!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: