Tag: Boston Immigration Court

DUE PROCESS HERO: MASS. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE PATTI B. SARIS SHOWS SCHOLARSHIP & COURAGE IN STANDING UP FOR DUE PROCESS WHERE SUPREMES & CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE FAILING – Rules Unfair Bond Procedures For Migrants Unconstitutional!

Hon. Patti B. Saris
Hon. Patti B. Saris
Chief U.S. District Judge
District of Massachusetts
Shannon Dooling
Shannon Dooling
Immigration Reporter
WBUR (NPR)
Boston, MA

https://apple.news/AzNJ2zr0UT9Ov_uPY-QTVcw

Shannon Dooling reports for WBUR (NPR) Boston:

A Federal Judge Orders Sweeping Changes To Bond Hearings In Boston Immigration Court
A federal judge in Boston ruled Wednesday that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to place the burden of proof on undocumented immigrants in bond hearings. The decision from U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris will usher in sweeping changes to the way bond hearings are administered in Boston immigration court.
Saris ruled that asking an undocumented immigrant who is eligible for bond to prove why they are neither a flight risk nor a threat to the community violates the individual’s due process.
Moving forward, the burden of proof will be placed instead on federal immigration officials, similar to how bond hearings are decided in criminal court proceedings. The ruling also mandated that immigration judges in Boston consider the individual’s ability to pay when setting a bond amount above $1,500. Saris additionally ordered immigration judges to consider alternative conditions to detention, like GPS monitoring and orders of supervision that require regular check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The ACLU of Massachusetts filed the class action suit in June arguing the government is constitutionally required to prove why an individual should be deprived of liberty.
With her ruling Wednesday, Judge Saris agreed with that argument. The ACLU estimated hundreds of immigrants detained in New England could be affected by the ruling, and, for some, the decision would result in new bond hearings.
In her ruling, Saris ordered the Boston immigration court to notify non-criminal immigrants currently in detention of her decision — both those individuals who have already received a bond hearing and those awaiting a bond hearing.
Additionally, Saris mandated the federal government identify and locate all eligible immigrants who already have received a bond hearing under the previous process and remain detained as a result.
Saris also agreed with an additional argument made by the ACLU in the case.
She ruled the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the top court in the immigration system, also violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) with its 1999 decision, which switched the burden of proof in bond hearings to the detainee.
The APA provides guidelines for federal agencies when developing and issuing regulations, like allowing the public to comment on proposed changes and overall transparency in the rule-making process. It’s important to note that Saris’ consideration of the APA’s guidelines for the Board of Immigration Appeals could set a powerful precedent for others seeking to challenge similarly broad decisions.

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

You can read Chief Judge Saris’s opinion in Brito v. Barr at the first link in the text of Shannon’s original article (go to link above). Her Due Process analysis is clear, logical, succinct, and straightforward. None of the legal gobbledygook and turgid prose too often used by the Supremes and Federal Appellate Judges struggling for ways to uphold Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal immigration agenda.

Indeed, it’s the type of clear Due Process analysis that could and should have been applied long ago to hold the entire Immigration Court system unconstitutional because it is run by a biased prosecutor who controls the judges and can change results. This is clear violation of the Due Process requirement for a fundamentally fair process for determining deportability that must provide a fair and impartial decision maker. End of decision.

Interestingly, the 1999 BIA precedent rejected by Chief Judge Saris, Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1122 (BIA 1999) was decided while I was BIA Chair. I actually dissented. However, my dissent did not challenge the burden or standard of proof – just its misapplication by my colleagues in the particular case then before us.

Unfortunately, this great decision only applies within the jurisdiction of the Boston Immigration Court right now. But, it’s certainly something that the New Due Process Army can build upon in the future!

PWS

11-27-19

Related posts:

  1. CONSTITUTIONAL SCOFFLAW BARR “OUTED” AGAIN: U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman (WD WA) Rips AG’s Unconstitutional Denial Of Bonds To Asylum Seekers – Finds Matter of M-S- Unlawful!
  2. 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.”
  3. 🏴‍☠️“BIZARRO COURTS” — THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS IN THE U.S., YET ICE & THEIR “PARTNERS” AT EOIR HAVE ESTABLISHED A CONSTITUTION-FREE “COURT SYSTEM” THAT OPERATES BEYOND THE LAW & MORALITY IN A LEGAL NEVER-NEVER LAND 🧚‍♂️ — How Do They Get Away With It Under The Noses Of Congress & Article III Courts? — An Outrageous Story of Gross 🤮 Institutional & Personal Failures & Ethical Lapses Across All Three Branches of Our Federal Government ☠️👎🏻!
  4. THE TRUTH IS OUT, THANKS TO MICHELLE MENDEZ @ CLINIC: Practice Pointers on Matter of Castillo-Perez & “Takeaways” From FOIA Trove On In Absentias!

COURAGEOUS U.S IMMIGRATION JUDGES LIKE PAUL GAGNON OF THE BOSTON IMMIGRATION COURT CONTINUE TO PROTECT ABUSED REFUGEE WOMEN UNDER THE LAW DESPITE SESSIONS’S EXTRALEGAL ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE PROTECTION IN MATTER OF A-B- — Continuing Threats By Bill Barr & EOIR Against Judges Who Act Fairly & Impartially Fail To Deter Some From Upholding Their Oaths Of Office — Of Course, “Women in Guatemala” are a “Particular Social Group,” As Beautifully & Convincingly Set Forth By Judge Gagnon’s Recent Decision, A Primer On The Proper Application Of Asylum Law That Carries Out The Intent Of The Supreme’s 1987 Decision in Cardoza-Fonseca!

Boston Judge Gagnon Decision

Thanks to Judge Jeffrey Chase, leader of our Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges for sending this to me.

Also, I join Judge Chase in congratulating Gerald D. Wall and the Greater Boston Legal Services (a clinical program of Harvard Law School) for providing pro bono representation in this case.

Note how succinct, straightforward, logical, and well-supported by authority Judge Gagnon’s decision is. Compare that with the nearly incomprehensible 30+ page anti-asylum, lie-filled, intellectually dishonest, and legally incorrect screed written by Sessions in support of his cowardly extralegal attack on some of the most vulnerable and deserving of protection among us in his Matter of A-B- atrocity.

Now think of how the system could work if Judge Gagnon’s correct decision were the precedent and all asylum applicants had access to qualified pro bono counsel.

Many cases could be promptly granted by an honest USCIS Asylum Office committed to properly applying protection law.  They would not even have to reach the backlogged Immigration Courts or be subjected to toxic, counterproductive “gimmicks” like “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” or absurdities like claiming that everyone should apply in Guatemala, from which this respondent was fleeing for her life and which has neither a functional government nor a credible asylum system.

That, plus perhaps using retired judges from all types of courts and bringing back retired Asylum Officers and adjudicators trained to recognize and quickly grant “slam dunk” asylum cases like this would be the key to establishing a credible, independent, Immigration Court and a reestablishing a functioning asylum system of which we all could be proud.

Instead, our current maliciously incompetent White Nationalist regime continues to ignore our laws, our Constitution, and our international obligations in leading a cowardly and disreputable “race to the bottom” in which the richest and most powerful country in the world conducts itself as a “Banana Republic” led by a tinhorn dictator.

PWS

08-08-19

 

Related posts:

  1. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  2. JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”
  3. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  4. THREE THANKSGIVING CHEERS FOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE JULIE NELSON (SF) & APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE ELLEN LIEBOWITZ (BIA) — Doing Justice, Granting Asylum, Saving Lives In The Age Of Trump!