"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
The UW Law School launched a new center to support Wisconsin’s DREAMers, an all-encompassing term describing individuals who have lived in the United States without official lawful status since coming to the country as a minor. The Center for DREAMers was awarded a grant through the Baldwin Wisconsin Idea Endowment, a competitive grant program that fosters public engagement and the advancement of the Wisconsin Idea.
Clinical Professor and Director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the Law School Erin Barbato, together with Erika Rosales of the School of Education, will lead the Center for DREAMers.
Erika Rosales School of Education University of Wisconsin, Madison PHOTO: UW Law
The center will serve the approximately 11,000 DREAMers in Wisconsin, working with organizations to coordinate the provision of legal representation, mental and social services, and career and educational counseling to ease the burden of some of the uncertainty experienced by undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.
Barbato, who teaches second- and third-year law students to represent individuals in removal proceedings and with humanitarian-based immigration relief, says the center will become an important resource for the community.
“The Center for DREAMers will bring together comprehensive resources for students that have DACA in Wisconsin,” says Barbato. “Currently, no organization in Wisconsin exists that has the capacity to serve the unique educational and legal needs of DACA recipients. We hope the center will serve this population in a manner that will allow them to fulfill their potential in a state and country they call home. We are honored to have the opportunity to serve this population so they no longer have to live in fear and one day they will have equity in educational opportunities as well as citizenship.”
As a part of its community-focused approach, the center provides outreach events and support on different campus and community locations, including the South Madison Partnership. A particular focus includes outreach to DACA communities throughout the state of Wisconsin, including bi-monthly information events.
The center’s mission also aligns with the Law School’s law-in-action tradition.
“The University of Wisconsin Law School is renowned for its law-in-action approach to legal education, and the Center for DREAMers aligns with that practical approach to learning and the pursuit of equal justice,” says Dean Dan Tokaji. “We’re grateful for the Baldwin Wisconsin Idea Endowment’s support for the center and are thrilled by the opportunities this will provide for our students and the community.”
Located in the Law School’s Economic Justice Institute, the center opened in October and began providing office hours and counseling services. Clinical law students in the Immigrant Justice Clinic play an instrumental role in the center’s work, says Barbato. Under her guidance, the students provide direct representation to people with DACA in renewals and may provide representation to people with DACA who are eligible for pathways to citizenship through family, employment, or for humanitarian-based reasons.
Congratulations, Erin, my friend, on your continuing extraordinary leadership, creativity, and overwhelming commitment to achieving social justice in America. You are indeed an inspiring role model for America’s new generation of lawyers! So proud of what you and your colleagues are doing at my alma mater! Go Badgers!
Intercept: But data that Gershel was able to obtain for his report suggests that bad faith isn’t the primary problem. The S visa system itself is broken. Getting an S visa, an interagency process that requires an application from the Justice Department and then approvals by agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, can take up to a decade — a laborious process that dissuades officials at the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and other agencies from even applying for them. Making S visas even less appealing, the law requires that federal agencies monitor the applicant until the process is complete.
WaPo: The Biden administration unveiled plans Friday to bring hundreds, possibly thousands, of deported veterans and their immediate family members back to the United States, saying their removal “failed to live up to our highest values.”
Reuters: They said Washington is in talks with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan about letting in the at-risk Afghan citizens. Two of the sources were U.S. officials and all requested anonymity.
AP: Four of the large-scale shelters will remain open, including one that has faced criticism from immigrant advocates at Fort Bliss Army Base in El Paso, Texas, she said. Others are in Albion, Michigan; Pecos, Texas; and Pomona, California, she said.
WaPo: Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.
Politico: With Donald Trump and a dozen House Republicans joining Abbott on the border on Wednesday, the GOP is loudly signaling its conviction that immigration will be a potent political weapon ahead of the midterm elections and presidential primary in 2024.
Law360: The House Appropriations Commission has released its homeland security budget for 2022, and it slashes U.S. Customs and Border Protection spending by $927 million, shaves ICE’s budget down a hair and cuts a controversial program that allowed local law enforcement to be deputized as immigration officials.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that INA §241, not INA §236, governs the detention of noncitizens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning that such noncitizens are not entitled to a bond hearing while they pursue withholding of removal. (Johnson, et al. v. Guzman Chavez, et al., 6/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21062935
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Patel v. Garland to decide whether INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) “preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.” AILA Doc. No. 21070132
Reuters: A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday said a longstanding settlement agreement requiring the government to detain minors who enter the U.S. illegally in licensed facilities rather than hotels applies to children who came to the country during the COVID-19 pandemic.
PLS: Today, the Second Circuit issued a landmark decision in Brathwaite v. Garland, a case filed by PLS, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA’s) imposition of a presumption of finality to state criminal convictions that were under appellate review was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Law360: The Fourth Circuit has affirmed the constitutionality of a federal illegal reentry law, dismissing a Honduran immigrant’s claim that it unlawfully allows an administrative agency, rather than a jury, to establish an element of a crime and incorporates the facts supporting a removal order.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit has sent an appeal by a Honduran asylum-seeker back to the Board of Immigration Appeals, saying the BIA needs to get the immigration judge in the case to clarify an “ambiguous” statement that the man is “likely” to be killed by cops in an order denying asylum.
On rehearing en banc, the court held that where a petitioner is a child at the time of the alleged persecution, IJs and the BIA must take the child’s age into account in analyzing past persecution and fear of future persecution for purposes of asylum. (Portillo-Flores v. Garland, 6/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21063030
The court held that when an applicant is discretionarily denied asylum but granted withholding of removal and the IJ fails to reconsider its discretionary denial of asylum, the BIA must remand for the IJ to conduct this required reconsideration. (Thamotar v. Att’y Gen., 6/17/21) AILA Doc. No. 21062832
The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the IIRAIRA barred its review of 10 of the 11 alleged policies, because either the policy was unwritten or the challenges to it were untimely. (M.M.V., et al. v. Garland, et al., 6/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 19092532
The BIA rescinded the absentia order of removal, after finding that an IJ, who has properly entered an in absentia order of removal, has the authority to determine whether a late arrival constitutes “exceptional circumstances.” Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L- 28 I&N Dec. 318 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21070137
The district court denied Arizona and Montana’s request for preliminary injunction and dismissed the case without prejudice. (State of Arizona, et al., v. DHS, et al., 6/30/21)
Newsweek: The first-ever lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was filed Wednesday over long-distance transportation of detained migrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Law360: A technology union has urged the D.C. Circuit to bar over 150 colleges and universities from having a say in its lawsuit challenging work permit extensions for foreign graduates, saying that the schools’ arguments are purely political.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released the Interagency Strategy for Promoting Naturalization (PDF, 3.77 MB), a whole-of-government approach to breaking down barriers to U.S. citizenship and promoting naturalization to all who are eligible, as outlined in President Biden’s Executive Order 14012.
MacKenzie Scott Philanthropist & Author Official USG Photo from 2016 Naturalization Ceremony Public Realm
Bess Levin Politics & Finance Writer Vanity Fair
Bess Levin in the Levin Report:
On Tuesday, for the third time in less than a year, Mackenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, announced that she had given more than a billion dollars to charity. This time, it was $2.74 billion to 286 different organizations, including ones focused racial justice. That brings her charitable giving since divorcing Bezos in 2019 to more than $8 billion, with much of it coming in the last 12 months, including $4.2 billion in grants announced last December. In a Medium post published this morning, Scott wrote that she and her new husband, Dan Jewett, as well as “a constellation of researchers and administrators and advisors,” are “attempting to give away a fortune that was enabled by systems in need of change,” and that they are “governed by a humbling belief that it would be better if disproportionate wealth were not concentrated in a small number of hands.” She didn’t add, “like those of my cheapskate ex-husband, Jeff,” though it’s hard to believe she wasn’t thinking it!
Even if Scott was not, few people will be able to look at the huge amounts of money she has been giving away and not think about the fact that Bezos, the literal richest man in the world, has distributed what philanthropic experts define as “diddly-squat” as a proportion of his wealth, preferring instead to focus on launching himself into space. In 2018, amidst substantiatedreports that Amazon employees relieve themselves in bottles or forego bathroom breaks for fear “of being disciplined for idling and losing their jobs as a result,” and data revealing that nearly one third of Amazon’s Arizona employees were relying on food stamps, Bezos said in an interview that he couldn’t for the life of him think of a way to spend his vast fortune outside of funding his for-profit rocket-ship company, Blue Origin. (“The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel,” he told Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner. “That is basically it.… I am currently liquidating about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock to fund Blue Origin. And I plan to continue to do that for a long time. Because you’re right, you’re not going to spend it on a second dinner out.”) A month after that, Amazon was instrumental in killing a proposed $275-per-employee tax for large Seattle–based businesses that would have helped alleviate the city’s serious homeless problem caused by companies like Amazon.
Over the years, Bezos has said things about charitable giving like, “Our core business activities are probably the most important thing we do to contribute, as well as our employment in the area,” and, “I’m convinced that in many cases, for-profit models improve the world more than philanthropy models, if they can be made to work.” In 2010 he donated $100,000 to help vanquish an initiative to impose a state income tax on Washington’s wealthiest residents, per The Seattle Times. “There’s almost nothing I could have predicted with more precision than that Jeff would hate the idea,” early Amazon investor Nick Hanauer, a backer of the initiative, told the outlet.
Speaking of taxes, Amazon, of course, pays very little of them, having avoided federal income taxes in numerous years. Meanwhile, Bezos himself was recently featured in ProPublica for paying nothing in federal income taxes in 2007 and 2011, and paying a “true tax rate” of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018. He also applied for and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children in 2011, when he was worth roughly $18 billion, ProPublica reported.
Only being human, Bezos apparently doesn’t like it when people start wondering why he doesn’t give away more of his $195.2 billion fortune. After The New York Times insinuated a few years ago that he was a cheap prick, Bezos announced that he would donate $2 billion to philanthropic ventures, which at the time represented a tiny fraction of his net worth (now, it’s much less). Last year, he pledge significantly more through the Bezos Earth Fund, though as Recode noted in February:
…the fact is that we don’t even know where that $10 billion sits. Is the money actually placed in a charitable vehicle like a foundation, a donor-advised fund, or a limited liability company? Or is it more of a rhetorical pledge, similar to Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s commitment in 2015 to set aside 99 percent of their money to philanthropy.… We don’t know. Bezos’s representatives have consistently declined to share information on the Earth Fund’s structure.
Next month, Bezos will (temporarily) leave earth, after adding $65 billion to his net worth during the pandemic.
******************
Read the rest of the always entertaining Levin Report at this link:
Description:
After a tumultuous four years in immigration law, the Biden administration promised to make immigration reforms a priority. The term started off with a series of executive orders reversing some policies, directing implementation of new ones, and asking agencies to pause and reassess. This panel will explore what has changed in the first 100 days of the administration and what still needs to be done with regard to family separation, enforcement, and due process as well as humanitarian, family, and business immigration law.
Moderator:
Elizabeth Gibson, New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG)
Speakers:
Denise Bell, Amnesty International
Kennji Kizuka, Human Rights First
Claire Razzolini, Gibney Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council
Charles Wheeler, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
Program Fee:
Free for Members | Free for Non-Lawyers | $15 for Non-Member Lawyers
Non-Lawyers please call Customer Service at 212-382-6663 to register.
Presumably, the panel will discuss the ongoing failure of the Biden Administration & “Team Garland” to address the continuing due process disaster, institutionalized racism, and misogyny at EOIR.
We have just seen on refugee numbers how channeled public outrage and organized pressure can quickly turn around misguided nativist policies. How can the advocacy community, legal community, academia, humanitarians, religious groups, civil rights organizations, ethnic communities, and other members of NDPA unite to force Judge Garland to make the long, long, long overdue progressive changes in our Immigration Courts and to reinstitute at least some semblances of fairness, due process, and independence into this totally dysfunctional system until Congress creates an Article I Court?
Congrats to Professors Benitez and Vera and GW Law!
“Is there some problem here?” “Random violence?” “Mere common crime?” “Reasonable state protection?” Does Attorney General Merrick B. Garland share the views of one of his predecessors, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions that lives of of brown-skinned refugee women don’t matter? Is that why Garland hasn’t revoked Matter of A-B-? Is that why Trump/Miller “plants” with notorious records of anti-asylum misogyny directed at Central American women continue to serve as “Appellate Judges” on Garland’s BIA even as refugee women continue to be turned back to “death without due process” at our borders? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
If YOU were a refugee woman pleading for YOUR LIFE in Immigration Court, who would YOU want as the Judge?
This Stephen Miller clone holdover from the Trump Administration:
“Appellate Immigration Judge” approved by Stephen Miller to find the “final solution” for female refugees of color Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
Or these internationally-renowned practical scholar-experts in gender based asylum:
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawProfessor Deborah Anker Director, Harvard Law Immigration & Refugee Clinic PHOTO: Harvard Law
This might also be a good time to watch (or re-watch) the following video short featuring the “real” Ms. A-B- (and her lawyers) who was arbitrarily targeted by White Nationalist “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions to receive an unwarranted “death sentence” in violation of due process!
So why is Judge Garland retaining the “Trump-Miller-Sessions-Barr BIA” rather than replacing them with much better qualified immigration/human rights experts dedicated to due process like, for example, Alberto Benitez and Paulina Vera?
👍🏼🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For Refugee Women! Tell Judge Garland To End Institutionalized Misogyny @ EOIR!☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻Remove Anti-Asylum Zealots & Those Unwilling To Stand Up For Due Process For All Asylum Seekers From The BIA! Appoint Real Judges To Restore Due Process!
A few “takeaways” from one of America’s leading “practical scholars:”
Think about a new start with a “clean slate;”
Deportation is “state violence;”
Immigration Courts are constructed to provide Gov. with an unfair advantage;
No rules, no due process, no justice;
Kudos to the NDPA & the Round Table;
Trump Administration spent inordinate effort improperly skewing the law to insure everything is denied and remove equible discretion from IJs;
Good provisions that provided discretion in the past to alleviate hardship and injustice have been eliminated by Congress: suspension of deportation, JRAD, 212(c), 245(i), registry (not repealed but now virtually useless b/c of 1972 cutoff date).
Hon. Thomas “Frosty the Snowman” Snow, flanked by Hon. John Milo “JB” Bryant (on right, in the funny looking dark suit) and by Judge Rodger B. “Marine” Harris and me (on left) departing for my last “Thursday Judges’ Lunch” on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016.
Here’s what the W&M Clinic Website had to say:
Retired Immigration Judge Speaks to Students and Community Members
On March 9th, Retired Immigration Judge Thomas Snow spoke to a group of over fifty community members and students about the immigration court system. His presentation focused on practical tips and information regarding immigration court proceedings, what puts someone at risk of removal from the United States, and information about immigration detention.
Judge Snow’s remarks put into context many issues that have been across the headlines, including what happens when someone is in immigration detention, access to counsel, and criminal charges or convictions that put someone at risk of removal. He discussed a wide range of reasons why individuals with different immigration statuses may be put in deportation proceedings, ranging from green card holders who stay out of the country too long to asylum seekers fleeing violence in their home countries. Attendees were able to hear firsthand the importance of immigrants showing up to court, and the importance of having an attorney.
Judge Snow also discussed the role of immigration judges. He viewed his role as someone who applies the law as it is written, not as he hopes or wants it to be. He told stories about cases where he found immigrants to be sympathetic, but how the law would not protect them from removal because of how it is currently written.
Community members posed several questions to the retired judge, ranging from advice for professors serving as expert witnesses to thoughts on policy. Perhaps most important to the community members in attendance, the Judge discussed how letters from community members can be helpful to an immigrant’s case. “I only spend a few hours with someone in their individual hearing,” the Judge said. “It helps to hear from someone who really knows the person.”
Attendees where effusive with their praise for the presentation. “Judge Snow really did a great a job of explaining things so clearly,” said Professor Jennifer Bickham Mendez, Professor of Sociology at William & Mary. “It was an incredibly valuable session.”
“We are so grateful to Judge Snow for sharing his expertise and practical information with our students and community, and for being such an engaging speaker,” said Professor Stacy Kern-Scheerer, Director of the Immigration Clinic. “His presentation brought together so many organizations and individuals in the community who work with and support immigrants, and now we are all better equipped and more informed.”
The William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic plans to host more events in the future to educate the Hampton Roads community on issues related to immigration law and policy. Please contact us to discuss presentations to your group or organization, and check out our Clinic Events page to learn about other upcoming presentations.
*************************
This is just the first of many performances! “Frosty” ☃️ has already “played” the Law Schools at GW, W&L, George Mason, and of course his alma mater UVA! What a great start to “the next phase” of an already-distinguished career!
After four years of obfuscation, myths, lies, blame shifting, and misdirection from EOIR “management,” folks are hungry for truth, transparency, and humanity. Judge Snow certainly embodies those three characteristics, and he can can “deliver” in an entertaining and engaging manner that “connects” with audiences eager for knowledge.
Sitting Immigration Judges who actually hear the cases were muzzled by the DOJ. Eventually, they weren’t even allowed to participate as speakers at CLE and other educational and training events. Or, if they were allowed to participate, their remarks were censored and heavily edited by “handlers” in Falls Church to ensure compliance with the “party line.”
Naturally, withholding vital information about what really happens in court is a key way of building dysfunction throughout the system and stymieing informed and productive dialogue that might actually solve problems. It’s also a way in which the true scope of the ongoing disaster and demoralization at EOIR has been kept “under wraps.” While the real “victims” of this inexcusably and intentionally broken system are the migrants and their long-suffering attorneys, many serving pro bono or low bono, this dysfunction has also adversely affected judges, staff, interpreters, and ICE counsel.
Of course, my friend is sort of a “ringer.” He taught as an Adjunct Professor at UVA in the field of international criminal law before joining our bench in Arlington in 2005. And, “behind the scenes,” he introduced the “professor sweater look” to our chambers.
Next spring, after COVID is lifted, I suspect that if he hasn’t been “inked” to an academic contact or a “TV judge” show, “Frosty” might be found doing the “Florida Law School Circuit” and taking in some Nats spring training.⚾️ In the meantime, to quote a long-departed WFT coach, “Frosty” remains “cheap and available” to speak to your class, organization, or event! He also does weddings, funerals, and bah mitzvahs. (All future bookings, of course, through his “exclusive agent” — here at “Courtside”).
Thanks for your continuing contributions to truth, justice, and the American way, my friend!🦸♂️
I am reaching out again to ask for your help in recruiting adjunct professors for VIISTA, the new online certificate program I created at Villanova University to train immigrant advocates. The program launched in the fall and will start again in May. We expect to need 3-5 additional adjunct professors to start in May, August and/or January.
The VIISTA certificate program is aimed at people who are passionate about immigrant justice but are not interested in pursuing a law degree at the moment, such as recent college grads, people seeking an encore career, retirees and the many who currently work with migrants and want to understand more about the immigration laws that impact them. It is also attractive to students seeking to take a gap year or two between college and law school or high school and college.
VIISTA is offered entirely online and is asynchronous, allowing students to work at their own pace and at times that are most convenient for them. I piloted the curriculum during last academic year and the students loved it. It launches full time in August, and will subsequently be offered each semester, so students can start in August, January, and May.
The Adjunct Professors will work with me to teach cohorts of students as they move through the 3-Module curriculum. Module 1 focuses on how to work effectively with immigrants. Module 2 is designed to teach the immigration law and policy needed for graduates to apply to become partially accredited representatives. Module 3 has more law, and a lot of trial advocacy for those who want to apply for full DOJ accreditation. Each Module is comprised of 2×7-week sessions and students report that they have worked between 10-15 hours/week on the course materials. As an adjunct professor, you will provide feedback weekly on student work product, conduct live office hours with students and work to build engagement and community among the students in your cohort. Tuition for each Module is $1270, it is $3810 for the entire 3-Module certificate program.
I would love for you to help me by sharing this with former students and immigration lawyers in your networks. Here is a link to the job posting:
Also, please note that scholarships are being offered through the Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor to select students who are sponsored to take VIISTA by recognized organizations. For more information on the scholarships, visit this page, https://www.rightsofthepoor.org/viista-scholarship-program
My best,
Michele
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Founding Faculty Director, VIISTA: Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates
Michele tells me that the time commitment is approximately 8-10 hrs/week, and significantly, the teaching can be done from anywhere you have an internet connection!
For those of you who haven’t taught law online, I was amazingly pleased by my experience last summer at Georgetown Law. Of course, I attribute that almost all to the remarkable skills of the students in creating dialogue and sharing information. They also did it with humor, creativity, and “presence,” showing that they understood the ”performing artist” aspects of lawyering, judging, and teaching!
I also benefitted from the outstanding technical support, instruction, and patience from the Georgetown Law staff! I know that Michele’s technical support is also some the most talented out there on the internet!
And, the best part of the job would, in my view, be working with Michele who is one of the best, most creative, and most “constructively disruptive”minds in American law, as well as being just a wonderful human being! I learn something new every time I speak with her!
Michele’s goal for VIISTA is to get 10,000 more trained accredited representatives out there representing asylum seekers in 10 years (or fewer). Let’s help her get there!
President-elect Joe Biden, who pledged to serve all Americans, can respond boldly to address the needs of large swaths of rural America where people feel left behind. In the first 100 days of his administration, he can prove that he wants to see real change and will act to secure broader prosperity.
Drawing on more than 20 years of working in communities across four rural states, we see actionable, specific opportunities for Biden to make federal policy work for rural places. Here’s what we recommend:
• Engage in genuine conversations in rural places about the role of the federal government. The pandemic aside, fundamental economic changes, limited career pathways and crumbling (or non-existent) infrastructure plague many rural places. These challenges require public-private partnerships, directed by local needs and leadership. Many of the federal programs designed to address the underlying issues in rural places fail because they were designed for the rural reality of 1960, not of today. Let’s get current, understand why programs aren’t working and make them better.
• Elevate rural to the level it deserves in the president’s Cabinet. Rural places are currently served through a web of programs spread across numerous federal agencies. One might think this approach would help address policy deficiencies, but in fact, when everyone is in charge, no one is. The Biden administration can send a strong message that it means business by putting someone clearly in charge of its rural agenda and creating a new Department of Rural Development dedicated to improving, centralizing, and deploying the support and services necessary for rural people and places to thrive.
• Invest in doing economic development differently in rural places. Federal employees work diligently on their mission, providing grants and other services to constituents as directed by statute. And yet, the available tools for solving complicated, systemic and immediate issues are limited. To do economic development differently – and better – we need to eliminate programs that have limited utility, expand others that focus on building capacity in rural places, increase the flexible application of federal dollars and move the measurement of economic development outcomes beyond one-dimensional (and fleeting) metrics like job creation.
• Focus on and communicate about rural-urban connections rather than the divide. Rural places don’t benefit from being talked about as a monolith, a backwater or fly-over country. Rather, we as a nation need to raise up narratives and policies that recognize differences in rural places across the country, and that celebrate and support the natural, community, and economic assets that define those communities and their relationship to nearby urban areas. The stereotype of the American dream is changing. We now have a tapestry of rural, suburban and urban, and an opportunity to focus on collective prosperity rather than competition, exclusion and negative trade-offs.
The first hundred days will show how the Biden presidency will serve all Americans. Yes, there is a pandemic raging, but the widening gulf between rural and urban, rich and poor, red and blue requires a new tone, a new path and new solutions. Let’s get to it.
Rob Riley is president of the Northern Forest Center, a regional innovation and investment partner that creates rural vibrancy across Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. The center co-founded the national Rural Development Innovation Group with the Aspen Institute and the U.S. Endowment for Forestry & Communities.
**************************
Read Rob’s full article at the link.
These are great, and timely ideas. They also present an outstanding opportunity to use the power of immigration to make our country a better place for everyone.
Immigrant entrepreneurs, small businesspeople, and investors can pool their ideas, skills, and resources with rural communities. Innovative rural Americans can help redesign and tailor methods that have worked in other countries for the American situation.
Immigrants with experience in agriculture and product marketing can help alleviate some of the labor shortages in rural areas.
Immigrants with tech skills can partner with rural Americans to help insure that, rather than sometimes being left behind, rural areas are on the cutting edge of accessible, high speed, state of the art technology that will integrate many educational and commercial activities with those now centered in “urban hubs.” (For example, why couldn’t a high tech area in rural America where land and housing are cheaper and a skilled (or highly motivated and trainable) workforce is eager for work be just as effective as Crystal City, VA as the next big tech hub?)
Immigrants with health service backgrounds can assist even more rural communities in insuring that first-class healthcare (and the jobs and economic opportunities it creates) is available everywhere in America.
My experience is that immigrants of all types, like rural Americans, highly value education, particularly for future generations. Innovative educational programs can be developed to meet the common needs of immigrant and rural communities.
There are just a few of the opportunities that come to mind. Obviously, I’m not a labor economist. But, I’m sure that if immigrant advocates concentrate on ways to actively engage and integrate immigrants into solving problems and improving the quality of life in rural and small-town America there are many other great opportunities for success out there just waiting to be tapped.
Immigrants have always been “part of the solution” rather than “part of the problem” in America. After four years of counterproductive unrestrained bigotry, false narratives, and hate-driven lies, its time for “truth, justice, and the American way” to come to the forefront again.
Published Dec. 27, 2020
Updated Dec. 29, 2020, 10:07 a.m. ET
Last Wednesday, I broke the news to Heather Cox Richardson that she was the most successful individual author of a paid publication on the breakout newsletter platform Substack.
Early that morning, she had posted that day’s installment of “Letters From an American” to Facebook, quickly garnering more than 50,000 reactions and then, at 2:14 a.m., she emailed it to about 350,000 people. She summarized, as she always does, the events of the day, and her 1,120 words covered a bipartisan vote on a spending measure, President Trump’s surprise attack on that bill, and a wave of presidential pardons. Her voice was, as it always is, calm, at a slight distance from the moment: “Normally, pardons go through the Justice Department, reviewed by the pardon attorney there, but the president has the right to act without consulting the Department of Justice,” she wrote. “He has done so.”
The news of her ranking seemed to startle Dr. Richardson, who in her day job is a professor of 19th century American history at Boston College. The Substack leader board, a subject of fascination among media insiders, is a long way from her life on a Maine peninsula — particularly as the pandemic has ended her commute — that seems drawn from the era she studies. On our Zoom chat, she sat under a portrait that appeared as if it could be her in period costume, but is, in fact, her great-great-grandmother, who lived in the same fishing village, population a bit over 600.
She says she tries not to think too much about the size of her audience because that would be paralyzing, and instead often thinks of what she’s writing as a useful primary document for some future version of her historian self. But there was no ignoring her metrics when her accountant told her how much she would owe in taxes this year, and, by extension, just how much revenue her unexpected success had brought. By my conservative estimate based on public and private Substack figures, the $5 monthly subscriptions to participate in her comments section are on track to bring in more than a million dollars a year, a figure she ascribes to this moment in history.
“We’re in an inflection moment of American politics, and one of the things that happens in that moment is that a lot of people get involved in politics again,” she said.
Many of those newly energized Americans are women around Dr. Richardson’s age, 58, and they form the bulk of her audience. She’s writing for people who want to leave an article feeling “smarter not dumber,” she says, and who don’t want to learn about the events of the day through the panicked channels of cable news and Twitter, but calmly situated in the long sweep of American history and values.
Dr. Richardson’s focus on straightforward explanations to a mass audience comes as much of the American media is going in the opposite direction, driven by the incentives of subscription economics that push newspapers, magazines, and cable channels alike toward super-serving subscribers, making you feel as if you’re on the right team, part of the right faction, at least a member of the right community. She’s not the only one to have realized that a lot of people feel left out of the media conversation. Many of the most interesting efforts in journalism in 2021, some of them nonprofit organizations inspired by last summer’s protests over racism, will be trying to reach people who are not part of that in-group chat. One new nonprofit, Capital B, plans to talk to Black audiences, while another well-regarded model is Detroit’s Outlier Media, which is relentlessly local and often delivered by text message. For Dr. Richardson’s audience, it’s an intimate connection. She spends hours a day answering emails from readers. She spent most of Saturday sending thank-you notes for Christmas presents.
The challenge for many of those efforts, and for nonprofit news organizations in general, has been reaching large numbers of people. Dr. Richardson, whose run of short essays began when she was stunned by the response to one she posted last September, has done that by accident, though she credits her huge audience of older women to the deepening gender gap in American politics.
“What I am doing is speaking to women who have not necessarily been paying attention to politics, older people who had not been engaged,” Dr. Richardson said. “I’m an older woman and I’m speaking to other women about being empowered.”
Dr. Richardson confounds many of the media’s assumptions about this moment. She built a huge and devoted following on Facebook, which is widely and often accurately viewed in media circles as a home of misinformation, and where most journalists don’t see their personal pages as meaningful channels for their work.
. . . .
***************
Read Ben’s full article at the link.
Dr. HCR is certainly a favorite at our house! Her writing is very “accessible” — you don’t have to be a scholar or an academic to understand her “info packed” daily letters.
She also illustrates the important role of history and the liberal arts at promoting critical thinking and informed analysis at all levels of our educational system.
“Conspiracy theories,” intentionally false narratives, myths, racial bias, inequality, and hatred all flourish in the dark.
Coach Thompson’s influence extended far beyond the basketball court. One of his most interesting “stats” is that 74 of 77 of his 4-year players graduated from one of the most academically rigorous universities in the nation! That’s a rate virtually unheard of today! Coach Thompson always preached to his players what was “really important” in life, particularly life beyond sports,
I join the Georgetown Community and the rest of the nation in mourning the death of this great American leader, educator, and role model.
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
TRAC: TRAC has concluded that the data updated through April 2020 it has just received on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts are too unreliable to be meaningful or to warrant publication. We are therefore discontinuing updating our popular Immigration Court Asylum Decisions app.
TIME: The Immigrant Defense Project, an advocacy organization that provides legal services to immigrants, shared a video Friday afternoonshowing a man they say is of Puerto Rican descent being detained by a group of men, one of whom is wearing a vest identifying him as a member of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a division under Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
CLINIC: On May 27, 2020, the USCIS Fee Rule transitioned back to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA. That means the rule is in the process of finalization. Advocates following the progress of the rule estimate that the final rule will be published during the Summer of 2020. Major rules such as this must be made effective at least 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, allowing time for Congressional review. In emergency situations, a major rule can be made effective before 60 days.
TRAC estimates that cancelled immigration court hearings due to COVID-19 will “increase hearing delays for months and probably years to come.” TRAC estimates that with scheduling delays in the court’s exiting backlog taken into account, 850,000 immigrants may well be affected by the shutdown. AILA Doc. No. 20060531
Daily Beast: Detainees can be held for weeks or months before seeing a judge. The Justice Department gave “the word of the agency under penalty of perjury” that it would fix that—but only in NY.
Politico: Trump is expected to slowly wind down the program and use that as leverage to try and strike a broader immigration deal with Democrats this summer, according to six people familiar with the situation.
Gothamist: Each organization has to follow the same eligibility requirements. They have to choose immigrants who don’t qualify for any government assistance. Recipients can get between $400 and $1000 dollars depending on family size. The grant will fund 20,000 families.
Law360: A U.S. Department of Homeland Security official blamed an “unintentional internal disconnect” after the department sent out conflicting guidance on how migrants stuck in Mexico can pick up their rescheduled U.S. immigration court dates, causing confusion at the border.
SCOTUSblog: With the grant in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, the justices added another immigration case to their docket for next term. At issue in the case is the kind of notice that the government must provide to trigger the “stop-time rule,” which stops noncitizens from accruing the time in the United States that they need to become eligible for discretionary relief from deportation. See also On the home stretch? The term’s remaining decisions.
HRW: The United States government should initiate an internal investigation into the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program, Human Rights Watch said today after submitting a formal complaint to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department should be held accountable for its failure to protect asylum seekers under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program from routine targeting in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.
Unpublished BIA decision reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte after the respondent’s criminal conviction was vacated because he had not been advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Deltoro-Aguilar, 2/12/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060502
Unpublished BIA decision holds that misuse of a social security number under 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(8) is not a CIMT because seeking to obtain a job and support one’s family is not reprehensible. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of M-E-A-, 2/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060501
Unpublished BIA decision holds that possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance under 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. 780-113(a)(30) is not categorically an aggravated felony. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of G-L-C-, 2/5/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060500
The court held that the Connecticut statute under which the petitioner had been convicted for carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit criminalized conduct that is not a “firearms offense” under the INA, and was therefore not a removable offense. (Williams v. Barr, 5/27/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060538
Aligning with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Robles-Urrea v. Holder, the court held that misprision of a felony in violation of 18 USC §4 is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and granted the petition for review. (Mendez v. Barr, 5/27/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060536
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for third-degree sexual assault under Connecticut General Statutes §53a-72a(a)(1) fell categorically under the definition of an aggravated felony crime of violence as defined in 18 USC §16(a). (Kondjoua v. Barr, 5/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060535
The court held that the petitioner did not make a timely objection to the adequacy of her initial Notice to Appear (NTA), which was received in 2010 and had omitted the time and place of her hearing, and that she could not show excusable delay and prejudice. (Chen v. Barr, 5/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060832
The court denied the petitions for review, finding that the petitioners, who had pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine in violation of Minnesota’s fifth-degree possession statute, were removable under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i). (Bannister v. Barr, 5/26/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060836
The court found that the BIA’s denial of asylum to the petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador who claimed he would suffer persecution based on his opposition to joining the Mara 18 gang, was supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Prieto-Pineda v. Barr, 5/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060838
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the government violated the petitioners’ due process rights by failing to provide them a full and fair opportunity to rebut the government’s fraud allegations before terminating their asylum status. (Grigoryan v. Barr, 6/2/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060839
The court upheld the BIA’s determination that the petitioner’s conviction for felony vehicular flight from a pursuing police car while driving against traffic in California was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) that rendered him removable. (Lepe Moran v. Barr, 6/2/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060840
On 5/29/20, President Trump issued a proclamation suspending the entry of certain Chinese nationals seeking to enter the United States on an F or J visa to study or conduct research, with noted exceptions. The proclamation is effective at 12:00 pm (ET) on June 1, 2020. (85 FR 34353, 6/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052990
DHS OIG reported CBP separated at least 60 asylum-seeking families from May 6-July 9, 2018, despite reporting only seven separations. DHS OIG determined that the separations were based solely on the parents’ prior nonviolent immigration violations and were inconsistent with DHS’s public messaging. AILA Doc. No. 20060233
Item 6 under “Top News” is particularly enlightening. It shows how instead of exercising leadership and integrity on social justice, the Supremes’ majority is so “in bed” with the White Nationalist Administration that Trump is already assuming that the Supremes will ignore the lower Federal Courts’ correct rulings to enable his scofflaw (and irrational) shafting of “Dreamers” so that Trump can use them as “hostages” for dumping on other categories of immigrants and further racist abuses. The Supremes’ continuing support for the regime’s racist agenda and their continuing “Dred Scottification” of African Americans and Hispanics is not likely to go unnoticed, particularly as to the the cruelty, stupidity, and lack of humanity in going after Dreamers at this point in time.
The Dreamers more then deserve long term protection on their own merits; the idea that there has to be a “trade-off” for doing something clearly in the public interest and the “right thing to do” is total B.S. It reinforces the Trump charade that immigration is somehow “bad” for America. It isn’t.
We’re fortunate that the Dreamers are here and that we still have a chance to make up for past mistakes and integrate them fully into our society. We’re also fortunate that many of our other “undocumented” neighbors have been willing to risk their lives to keep our economy and our society afloat during the pandemic. The real “drag on our society” has been Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the gang of “malicious incompetents” in the kakistocracy who did so little to help stem the pandemic and so much to sow racism, injustice, divisions, and unrest in our society.
Hopefully, the Dems will give Trump’s disingenuous scheme a pass, and the voters will figure out that the first step to racial healing in American is to get rid of Trump’s racist regime and its GOP “fellow travelers” at the ballot box. That’s also the way to get started on the reforms of the police, the Supremes, and the rest of the Article III Judiciary needled to make “equal justice for all” a reality rather than an eternally unfulfilled promise.
Anna Patchin Schmidt English Teacher Beloit Memorial High School Beloit, WI
2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, Wisconsin
By Anna Patchin Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 5, 2020. I almost couldn’t pull this off this year due to the realities of quarantine life. But here are my annual end-of-the-year reflections on education (and life)!
It has been a tumultuous school year in Beloit. We saw yet another superintendent come and go, but not before sustaining damage from his abusive leadership style and warped priorities. For a while the anonymous facebook profile “Jane Smith” stole our attention with a series of fascinating social media exposés. An election that coincided with a stay-at-home order and a brazen disregard for life and democratic values by state lawmakers, did at least result in some refreshing new faces on the school board. Meanwhile, a so-called “public” charter school has used the chance to sneak into town and garner support by exploiting the fears of white parents and the frustrations of parents of color.
And yet amidst the chaos and uncertainty of distance learning during a global pandemic, I actually think that we are in a better position than ever. Indeed, our current explosive national climate should be a wake up call that results in a renewed commitment to public education and a heightened awareness of its vital role in communities.
Earlier this year, long before the trauma induced by Covid-19 and George Floyd’s murder, I noticed a troubling narrative reflected in many conversations: “The School District of Beloit USED TO BE great,” or similarly, “The School District of Beloit is not the right place for my child ANYMORE.” Only now, in light of recent events, do I better understand what this narrative means. I can’t help but think that its unspoken truth is: “We never USED TO have to talk about race. We USED TO be able to push all this under the rug.”
If we are really serious about dismantling racism, as so many claim to be, then we need to get serious about supporting public schools. No doubt the public schools have a long-standing history of perpetuating systemic racism and oppression. I’m hardly suggesting that we ignore or accept the status quo. On the contrary, we still need the reforms inspired by activists that help our schools function better and thus serve all members of the community. This kind of activism could take many forms, including standing up to a corrupt school board member, pushing for teacher training on equity and trauma-informed instruction, promoting fair and representative hiring practices, or raising concerns about how bias influences individual and district-wide policies resulting in a disproportionate effect.
But instead of contributing towards positive change, many people opt out of public schools with the following justifications:
-“We are looking for a more rigorous curriculum.”
-“I’m concerned about all the behavior problems in public schools.”
-“I don’t think I should have to sacrifice my own child to make a political statement.”
-“We had a really bad experience with a teacher or principal.”
-“The school district doesn’t meet the individual needs of MY child.”
These types of explanations may not be racist in intent but, nevertheless, the results of these decisions do reinforce inequity.There are easy outs and self-serving options (for those few who have the resources to make these choices), but they do not hold up for those who are serious about being anti-racist. Private schools and charter schools will always be selective about who and how many students they serve. They continue to siphon funds away from public schools that desperately need them and their profit and successes are paid for by the struggle of others. We all live with a fair amount of hypocrisy in our lives. But the discrepancy between sharing black lives matter memes and then opting out of public school is just too much for me.
When I reflect on the sentiment that Beloit schools “used to be great,” I can’t help but think about the huge number of people marching at Horace White Park last Sunday, many of whom were our students. Their presence, their courage, and their sense of purpose is, for me, a marker of success and greatness and I’m proud to support them. While there are a growing number of fears I have for my own children as they grow up in this world, the value of their education in the School District of Beloit isn’t one of them.
*********************
Anna Patchin Schmidt is a High School English teacher in the Public Schools of Beloit, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, Professor Daniel Barolsky, and their three children Oscar, Eve, and Atticus, all of whom attend a bilingual program at Todd Elementary School, a Beloit Public School. Anna holds a B.A. and a B.Mus., both with honors, from Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin where she was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She received her M.A. in Education from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. She is also certified to teach English Language Learning and did so in the Menasha and Walworth, Wisconsin Public School Systems before joining the Beloit System. She and Daniel are dedicated members of the “Beloit Proud” Movement, and she is also a qualified Doula who has assisted in the delivery of several babies. Anna grew up in Alexandria, Virginia, where she attended Alexandria City Public Schools (as did her brothers, Wick & Will) and graduated from T.C. Williams High School (“Remember the Titans”) with honors, earning 12 varsity letters, rowing on several championship crew teams, and playing oboe in the T.C. Williams Band. She is our daughter.
Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.
In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–
In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr,2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).
in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).
In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).
David Cleveland ESQUIRE
Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.
More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr,944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions,884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder,745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).
In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.
How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?
When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).
Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.
To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov
In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center. A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.
******************************
Take it from me, as someone who has presided over hundreds of asylum hearings, this is great advice from two of the best to set foot in my courtroom!
As I always said in my my “mini lectures” on “Presenting an Asylum Case in Immigraton Court:” “Beware and Be Prepared!” Preparation, preparation, preparation! It’s what wins cases (and appreciation from “the bench”).
We hope this email finds you well. We are writing on behalf of the Mount Sinai Human Rights Program, an organization in New York that provides medical and psychiatric evaluations to asylum seekers to invite you to participate in an interview-based research study we are conducting. You may qualify to participate in this study because you are a former immigration judge with experience reviewing forensic medical evaluations for asylum seekers.
The purpose of this study is to understand how legal professionals appraise forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. If you participate in this study, we will send you two medical-legal mental health affidavits that are fully redacted of any identifying information and guiding questions. We will ask you to read the affidavits and then participate in a recorded interview by telephone or video-call about the affidavits and your attitudes towards mental health evaluations. We will keep your responses de-identified and your identity anonymous in any publications resulting from this research. This interview is anticipated to last at least 60 minutes.
Further information about this study is included in our Research Information Sheet. If you are interested in participating, we will send you a copy of the sheet. This study has been approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board as an exempt study #18-00919.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating and we will set up a time to interview you. We are hoping to conduct interviews throughout the month of April. Feel free to be in touch with any questions.
Please respond directly to Aliza or Gus @ Mount Sinai Human Rights Program. As noted, the results are “without attribution” so you will not be publicly identified.
I participated and found it enjoyable, worthwhile, and educational. As outlined above, the time commitment is moderate — less than a “full merits asylum hearing!”
