Executive Order – Page 102 – immigrationcourtside.com

DARA LIND @ VOX NEWS: Is More DACA Litigation On the Way As DHS “Slow Walks” Adjudication of New Applications Filed Before Cutoff?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/1/17066606/daca-apply-statistics-backlog

Lind writes:

In September, when the Trump administration announced that it was winding down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that protected young unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation, tens of thousands of immigrants were waiting to hear back about DACA applications they’d already submitted.

Many of them are still waiting.

According to new statistics from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, at least 20,000 immigrants who applied for the program before the September announcement are still awaiting approval for their applications.

That means that 20,000 or so immigrants have had to live in fear of deportation, and haven’t been able to get a job in the US legally, since September 5, 2017 — when the administration announced no new DACA applications would be accepted — even though they applied for DACA before the cutoff.

The precise number isn’t entirely clear. One USCIS report says there were “approximately” 21,950 initial DACA requests pending as of the end of January; another says there were 25,513. (USCIS was asked for comment Wednesday but was unable to provide it before publication.)

But what’s clear is that the overwhelming majority of those immigrants submitted their applications back when DACA was still in full effect — and have been waiting anxiously to hear back from the government as the program’s future has been called into doubt.

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

Read Dara’s complete article at the link. USCIS has plenty of time to send out mindless requests for additional information on what used to be routine business visa petitions, but not enough time and resources to adjudicate these requests? Gimme a break! The “Administration of Scofflaws” does virtually nothing without a court order.

Thanks to Roxanne Lea Fantl of Richmond, VA for alerting me to this item!

PWS

03-12-18

TAL @ CNN TELLS ALL ON HOW SESSIONS IS USING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE SCREWED UP U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS TO ATTACK DUE PROCESS & TARGET VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS — One Of My Quotes: “I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/politics/sessions-immigration-appeals-decision/index.html

Sessions tests limits of immigration powers with asylum moves
Tal Kopan
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 8:01 AM ET, Sat March 10, 2018

Washington (CNN)The US immigration courts are set up to give the attorney general substantial power to almost single-handedly direct how immigration law is interpreted in this country — and Jeff Sessions is embracing that authority.

Sessions quietly moved this week to adjust the way asylum cases are decided in the immigration courts, an effort that has the potential to test the limits of the attorney general’s power to dictate whether immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in the US and, immigration advocates fear, could make it much harder for would-be asylees to make their cases to stay here.
Sessions used a lesser-known authority this week to refer to himself two decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals, the appellate level of the immigration courts. Both deal with asylum claims — the right of immigrants who are at the border or in the US to stay based on fear of persecution back home.

In one case, Sessions reached into the Board of Immigration Appeals archives and overturned a ruling from 2014 — a precedent-setting decision that all asylum cases are entitled to a hearing before their claims can be rejected. In the other, Sessions is asking for briefs on an unpublished opinion as to how much the threat of being the victim of a crime can qualify for asylum. The latter has groups puzzled and concerned, as the underlying case remains confidential, per the Justice Department, and thus the potential implications are harder to discern. Experts suspect the interest has to do with whether fear of gang violence — a major issue in Central America — can support asylum claims.
A Justice official would say only on the latter case that the department is considering the issue due to a “lack of clarity” in the court system on the subject. On the former, spokesman Devin O’Malley said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 2014 holding “added unnecessary cases to the dockets of immigration judges who are working hard to reduce an already large immigration court backlog.”
Tightening asylum
Sessions referring the cases to himself follows other efforts during his tenure to influence the courts, the Justice Department says, in an effort to make them quicker and more efficient. In addition to expanding the number of Board of Immigration Appeals judges and hiring immigration judges at all levels at a rapid clip, the Justice Department has rolled out guidance and policies to try to move cases more quickly through the system, including possible performance measures that have the judges’ union concerned they could be evaluated on the number of closed cases.

“What is he up to? That would be speculation to say, but definitely there have been moves in the name of efficiency that, if not implemented correctly, could jeopardize due process,” said Rená Cutlip-Mason, until last year a Justice Department immigration courts official and now a leader at the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that supports immigrant women and girls fleeing violence.
“I think it’s important that the courts balance efficiencies with due process, and any efforts that are made, I think, need to be made with that in mind,” she added.
The Board of Immigration Appeals decisions could allow Sessions to make it much harder to seek asylum in the US.
Asylum is a favorite target of immigration hardliners, who argue that because of the years-long backlog to hear cases, immigrants are coached to make asylum claims for what’s billed as a guaranteed free pass to stay in the country illegally.
Advocates, however, say the vast majority of asylum claims are legitimate and that trying to stack the decks against immigrants fleeing dangerous situations is immoral and contrary to international law. Making the process quicker, they argue, makes it harder for asylum seekers — who are often traumatized, unfamiliar with English and US law, and may not have advanced education — to secure legal representation to help make their cases. The immigration courts allow immigrants to have counsel but no legal assistance is provided by the government, unlike in criminal courts.
Reshaping the immigration courts
Beyond asylum, Sessions’ efforts could have far-reaching implications for the entire immigration system, and illustrate the unique nature of the immigration court system, which gives him near singular authority to interpret immigration laws.
Immigration cases are heard outside of the broader federal court system. The immigration courts operate as the trial- or district-level equivalent and the Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the appellate- or circuit court-level. Both are staffed with judges selected by the attorney general, who do not require any third-party confirmation.
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
In this system, the attorney general him or herself sits at the Supreme Court’s level, with even more authority than the high court to handpick decisions. The attorney general has the authority to refer any Board of Immigration Appeals decision to his or her office for review, and can single-handedly overturn decisions and set interpretations of immigration law that become precedent followed by the immigration courts.
The power is not absolute — immigrants can appeal their cases to the federal circuit courts, and at times those courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court will overrule immigration courts’ or Justice Department decisions. That’s especially true when cases deal with constitutional rights, said former Obama administration Justice Department immigration official Leon Fresco. Fresco added that the federal courts’ deference to the immigration courts’ interpretation of the law has decreased in the past 10 years, though that could change as more of the President’s chosen judges are added to the bench.
But Sessions could be on track to test the limits of his power, and the moves might set up further intense litigation on the subject.
“From what I can see, Sessions is really testing how far those powers really go,” said Cutlip-Mason. “The fact that the attorney general can have this much power is a very interesting way that the system’s been set up.”
Retired immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, who served for years in federal immigration agencies and the immigration courts, said that to say the immigration courts are full due process is “sort of a bait and switch.” He says despite the presentation of the courts’ decisions externally, the message to immigration judges internally is that they work for the attorney general.
“I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”

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

The idea that the U.S. Immigration Courts can fairly adjudicate asylum cases and provide Due Process to migrants with Jeff Sessions in charge is a bad joke.

America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

PWS

03-11–17

GONZO’S WORLD: APOCALYPTO BLASTS FEDERAL JUDGES WHO STAND UP TO ADMINISTRATION’S LAWLESS BEHAVIOR — Expresses Confidence That GOP’s “Bought & Paid For” Justices On Supremes Will Crush Rule Of Law & Stomp Out Judicial Independence!

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/10/jeff-sessions-federal-judges-trump-agenda-453116

Brent D. Griffiths reports for Politico:

. . . .

A former conservative stalwart in the Senate, the attorney general acknowledged that some Republicans sought similar legal battles on friendly turf, in states like Texas, during Obama’s time in office, in a process known as forum shopping. But with Trump now in the White House, it is liberals who are hoping for advantages in places like California and Hawaii. The Obama administration failed to convince the Louisiana-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down an injunction against DACA with a similar argument.

The Supreme Court has not weighed in definitely on the topic of nationwide injunctions; instead justices have ruled on the particulars of a specific case. But Sessions is optimistic that the highest court in the land will soon issue a brush back to would-be legal resisters. A federal appeals court can overturn or limit the scope of an injunction.

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will soon send a clear message to the lower courts that injunctions ought to be limited to the parties of the case,” he said.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

I don’t remember Ol’ Gonzo giving impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate against a single Federal Judge’s decision to block the Obama DAPA plan!

So, according to Gonzo, every individual who suffers from the Administration’s daily misinterpretations and intentional misapplications of the Constitution and Federal statutes should have to bring an individual suit. Sounds like a judicial nightmare and a way for the Executive to co-opt the Federal Courts, the only branch of Government that their patsies and sycophants don’t yet control (but the Administration is certainly working on “dumbing down” the Federal Judiciary with its appointees).

As I’ve pointed out before, the GOP appointees to the Supremes have a choice to make. Trump, Sessions, the Koch Bros, and other GOP bigwigs are publicly making it clear that the GOP considers them to be “bought men” (no women in this group) who can be counted on to dance to the tune of their benefactors.

The Supremes turn down of Gonzo’s outrageous scofflaw request to short-circuit the legal system on Dreamers gave the Court a little momentary credibility. But, that’s been offset by their handling of the travel ban cases and their shrug-off of the major Constitutional violations in the “New American Gulag” in Jennings v. Rodriguez.

In particular, the obtuse, tone-deaf, legally bankrupt position of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch in Jennings showed an unseemly eagerness to stomp on the individual rights of the people to please their Fat Cat political “handlers.” America deserves better from two of the life-tenured judges serving on our highest Court! Perhaps if they or their families had spent some time in “the Gulag” it would help “clarify” their fuzzy thinking and get them over some of their highly bogus jurisdictional roadblocks to doing justice . . . .

PWS

03-11-17

NOLAN @ THE HILL: IF CA WINS “SANCTUARY CASE” THEY MIGHT REGRET IT — The Wrath & Vengeance Of Trump, Sessions, & DHS Could Be Devastating To Communities & Undocumented Populations!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/377605-even-without-trumps-lawsuit-california-may-have-to-abandon-sanctuary

This case is very risky for Trump. He is likely to lose in the Ninth Circuit, and it is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court would handle this federal vs. state rights issue. Immigration experts on both sides say this lawsuit takes the sanctuary-cities debate into uncharted territory.

The only certainty is that a loss would clear the way for the enactment of more sanctuary laws in California and other states.

Ironically, California’s sanctuary policies make it easier for ICE to find undocumented aliens.

Instead of being spread out across the United States, a quarter of the nation’s undocumented aliens are living in California. California’s labor force has 1.75 million undocumented aliens. Nearly 10 percent of its workers are undocumented aliens. And in 2014, more undocumented aliens lived in Los Angeles County, Calif., than in any other county in the United States.

This would make it easy for Trump to carry out a successful, large-scale enforcement campaign in California to arrest undocumented aliens and impose sanctions on the businesses that employ them, which is likely to be his next step if the lawsuit fails.

California could end up having to abandon its sanctuary policies to protect its undocumented population.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.

Putting together Nolan’s analysis with that of Professor Peter Markowitz in the preceding article, one can conclude that both sides are likely to come out losers in this contest. We’ll see.

PWS

03-10-18

PETER MARKOWITZ IN THE NYT: CA Can Thank The Late Justice Scalia For Likely Win On Sanctuary Case!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/opinion/trump-california-sanctuary-movement.html

The Justice Department lawsuit emphasizes that immigration is a federal matter, that we must have a uniform scheme to oversee it and that this scheme is being undermined by sanctuary laws. In most states, federal immigration authorities are able to leverage state and local criminal justice systems. The Justice Department is arguing that California’s refusal to participate requires it to adapt and employ different enforcement strategies.
It is fair to ask whether states should have the power to abstain from federal law enforcement programs that they view as immoral or adverse to their local interests. It is not, however, a new question.
In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.
Attorney General Sessions’s attempt to spin his attack on sanctuary laws as a logical extension of the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision is a transparent attempt to sidestep the clear rule established in Printz.
As California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, recently explained, “California is in the business of public safety, not in the business of deportations.” By exercising their constitutional right to stay out of the business of deportation, California and other sanctuary jurisdictions have been able to strengthen ties between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. Those ties, in turn, mean that immigrant witnesses and victims of crime are not fearful of coming forward to assist the local police. That is why a recent report by the Center for American Progress demonstrated that, contrary to Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions’s heated rhetoric, sanctuary laws improve public safety by driving down overall crime rates.
This is precisely the type of legitimate justification for local abstention that the Supreme Court established as a bedrock principle of our federal system of government over two decades ago.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

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

Interesting point. Strange bedfellows. Read the rest of Professor Markowitz’s article at the link.

PWS

03-10-18

APOCALYPTO NOW! — CAL TO GONZO: “BRING IT ON, BABY!”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/defaul t.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

From the LA Times Editorial Board:

Jeff Sessions vs. California
Ironically, the attorney general’s lawsuit could help dispel myths about ‘sanctuary state’ laws.
Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions warned California on Wednesday that “there is no secession” from federal jurisdiction as he appeared before members of the California Peace Officers Assn. in Sacramento to announce a lawsuit against three so-called sanctuary state laws. His claims drew immediate rebukes from state officials, with Gov. Jerry Brown’s initial response after the suit was filed late Tuesday standing as one of the better jabs: “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!” He followed it at a news conference with another shot at Sessions, a former U.S. senator: “A fellow from Alabama talking to us about secession?” Grab the popcorn; this could get interesting.

Oddly, we (sort of) welcome the Trump administration’s legal challenge in hopes that it will clarify not just for state officials but for the federal government where the lines of responsibility and culpability might lie. We suspect the courts will side with California on most if not all of the legal issues Session’s lawsuit raises, and in the process could underscore the reality that California’s menu of state and local laws limiting involvement with federal immigration enforcement do not offer anyone anything remotely like sanctuary.

Just consider the statistics provided in its lawsuit. Last year, 14% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests occurred in California. So far this year, the state accounts for 13% of the national total. So the laws at issue don’t seem to have done much to hinder enforcement here.

The federal challenge hinges on the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” which says federal laws take precedence over state laws. That’s true, but that doesn’t mean the federal government can dragoon state authorities into enforcing federal statutes. Similarly, states should not craft laws on immigration policy — that’s a federal responsibility — and should not undermine the federal government as it enforces its own immigration codes. But the state laws at issue here do not set immigration policy. As the news website Vox points out, the federal lawsuit isn’t really about restoring ICE’s abilities, “but rather about making it easier for the agency to do its job.” California isn’t stopping federal enforcement (a recent series of raids up and down the state are proof of that); it is saying that it won’t help.

That’s more than just a legitimate position — it’s one that local law enforcement officials insist is better for public safety. There’s research to back them up, too. When local communities view police, who are responsible for enforcing criminal laws and protecting public safety, as immigration enforcers in a different uniform, fewer crimes get reported and fewer witnesses come forward. That undermines community safety and the criminal justice system.

Do some specific elements of the state laws at issue cross the line from non-involvement to impediment? That’s a good question for the courts. One of the laws tells businesses that they can’t voluntarily cooperate with immigration agents, which could be an overstep — what right does a state have to tell a private business when it can and can’t offer information to federal officials? But another law targeted by Sessions helps the state carry out its duty to ensure the safety of public facilities. That measure establishes a state inspection regimen of facilities with which the federal government contracts to house detainees. The vast majority of those, including the Adelanto Detention Facility in San Bernardino County, are owned and operated by private corporations, and the state has a responsibility to make certain such facilities meet state health and safety codes even if the sole customer is the federal government.

What this lawsuit really is about is politics. California political leaders have persistently challenged a wide range of Trump administration policies. Brown is the main figure in a global coalition of sub-national governments seeking to meet global-warming emissions under the Paris Agreement that Trump is walking away from. State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has sued the administration over the suspension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the travel ban, a Trump rule allowing more employers to stop offering insurance coverage for birth control, and on and on.

For the administration, liberal and ethnically diverse California is the America its political supporters hate, and this lawsuit is another front in our ongoing culture wars. So as state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León tweeted, “bring it on.” Clarifying these lines of responsibility just might do everyone some good.

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

Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions might wish he hadn’t started this civil war. California doesn’t have much to lose by defending its laws. But, Gonzo could see all or part of his attack on American communities go down in flames!

As this editorial suggests, it’s probably time to have this fought out in court, rather than in the battle of words and insults.

On the other hand, at a time when the country is faced with many other real problems, this kind of unnecessary fight picked by Sessions on behalf of Trump and the White Nationalists seems like a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. But, wasting the taxpayers’ money while lining the pockets of the rich is one of the hallmarks of the Trump Administration.

PWS

03-08-18

SESSIONS APPEARS TO BE MOUNTING ALL-OUT ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHTS OF VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS IN “CAPTIVE” U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS — “Out Of The Blue” Certification Of Matter Of A-B- Could Turn Deadly For Those At Risk!

3918

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3918

Matter of A-B-, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General March 7, 2018

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

The Attorney General referred the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to himself for review of issues relating to whether being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable “particular social group” for purposes of an application for asylum and withholding of removal, ordering that the case be stayed during the pendency of his review.

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(h)(l)(i) (2017), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001). To assist me in my review, I invite the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of this case, including:

Whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable “particular social group” for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.

The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or before April 6, 2018. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before April 13, 2018. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before April 20, 2018. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to AGCertification@usdoj.gov, and in triplicate to:

United States Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.

227

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

Something pretty strange is going on here! The BIA has never, to my knowledge, held that “being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group.'” Quite to the contrary, the BIA has always found that “victims of crime” are not a PSG.

Moreover, “Matter of A-B-” is not a BIA precedent. In fact, it’s impossible to tell from the cryptic certification what facts or context the amici should address.

Stay tuned. But, given Sessions’s record of hostility and outright misrepresentations concerning asylum seekers, we could be heading for a monumental, years long battle in the Article III Federal Courts as to whether the U.S. will continue to honor our Constitutional, statutory, and international obligations to protect “refugees” applying for asylum.

PWS

03-07-18

WNYC’S BETH FERTIG FERRETS OUT FOOLISHNESS BEHIND THE SESSIONS/DHS ATTACK ON ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION – I’m Quoted and Pictured!

https://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-administration-reviewing-thousands-deportation-cases-once-put-pause

Beth reports:

“Last year, a young mother who came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico as a child thought she’d essentially won her fight against deportation.

Twenty-four year old Jenny isn’t eligible for DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. She was in the midst of immigration court proceedings when she told her attorney that she was a victim of domestic violence, which is why WNYC agreed not to use her real name.

In May, Jenny reported her boyfriend to police for allegedly beating and trying to choke her. That action suddenly changed the course of her immigration case.

Jenny was able to apply for what’s called a U visa that would allow her to stay in the U.S. It’s for immigrant victims of crime who cooperate with law enforecement.

The waiting list for a U visa is about three years. But because Jenny met the criteria, and got the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office to sign off on her documents, the immigration judge agreed to put her cause on hold. The legal term for this is administrative closure. The government would no longer seek to deport her while she waited for her special visa.

But a month later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asked the same judge to recalender Jenny’s case and put it back on the docket — meaning she’d have to fight against deportation all over again.

The reason? ICE wrote that Jenny’s U visa was “speculative” and “not available within a reasonable period of time.” The agency said three years was too long to wait — even though they’re controlled by another governmental agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (both are within the Department of Homeland Security). ICE said she could wait for her U visa while in Mexico.

The agency also noted that Jenny had been convicted of petit larceny when she was 18. Though it’s not considered a crime that could lead to an immigrant’s removal, it brought her to ICE’s attention a few years ago, and her unlawful presence in the U.S. triggered the deportation proceedings.

For Jenny, the about face was extremely upsetting after suffering domestic abuse and moving into a women’s shelter. “I seek help and I’m still kind of being, you know, bullied,” she said.

Her attorney, Kendal Nystedt of the immigrant rights group Make the Road New York, said ICE seemed to mischaracterize immigration law and said its arguments “were also insulting given the humanity of my client.”

The judge apparently agreed. Late last year, in a one page memo, he denied the government’s request and let Jenny remain in the U.S. But data obtained by WNYC shows that Jenny wasn’t the only immigrant who thought they could stay, only to have the government give their case a second look.

In Fiscal Year 2017, ICE asked to recalendar almost 9400 cases that were administratively closed, or put on pause. That’s an increase of almost 74 percent from the year before President Trump took office. In response, it appears immigration judges may be applying more scrutiny to the government’s requests. They granted 85 percent of those motions to put the cases back on their dockets in 2017, compared to 96 percent in 2016.

When asked why the government is revisiting more cases, ICE spokewoman Jennifer Elzea said the agency generally reviews cases that were administratively closed “to see if the basis for prosecutorial discretion is still appropriate.”

But it’s clear this legal strategy also lets the Trump administration try to deport more immigrants. Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur said there’s a good reason. “Under the Obama Administration, administrative closure was treated as a form of amnesty,” he explained.

Arthur is a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports more restrictive immigration policies. Without commenting on Jenny’s situation he said some cases that were administratively closed involved immigrants who may never qualify for whatever benefit they thought they were likely to receive. But he said the previous administration didn’t act because there were “not deemed a priority for removal.”

In other words, he Obama administration had made criminals the top priority for removal, letting too many others remain.

Retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt

Beth Fertig/WNYC

Another former immigration judge said that Obama era policy made sense, however. Paul Wickham Schmidt granted administrative closures when he worked in the Arlington, Virginia court.

“An example of a type of case that gets closed quite a bit are cases of individuals who have relatives petitioning for them. And there’s a big backlog of petitions,” Schmidt explained. “So rather than continuing the case time after time, sometimes for years, judges were saying ‘look I’m going to take this case off the docket.'”

He said this management strategy was necessary. The immigration courts have a backlog of 670,000 thousand pending cases. “You’re not even going to complete 670,000 cases probably within my lifetime. You’ve got to decide which cases really belong at the front of the line and which cases you’re not going to prioritize,” he said. “Wasting time in immigration court just doesn’t make sense.”

Despite concerns about further burdening an immigration court system that’s already bursting at the seems, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering a much more dramatic step than simply seeking to recalendar the 9400 cases that were reviewed last year. He’s looking into recalendaring all cases that were administratively closed – and there are estimates there could 350,000 of them.”

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

Go to the link to hear the audio from WNYC!

Putting cases like “Jenny’s” back on the already overcrowded dockets is cruel, counterproductive, and wasteful of judicial time. She’s established the qualifications for a U visa, for Pete’s sake. There really isn’t any “uncertainty” — if she stays out of trouble with the law, she’ll get a U visa when her number comes up. No reason on earth for her to “occupy space” on the Immigration Court’s docket.

If she were unwise enough to get into legal trouble before then (seldom happens, in my experience), then that would be the time to 1) revoke her U visa approval, and 2) put her back on the docket. With dockets stretching out for years, why would an Immigration Judge do anything other than keep putting a case like Jenny’s at the end of the docket until her “U number” is reached?

Just because somebody is “removable” doesn’t mean that it makes any sense to put them on already overcrowded Immigration Court dockets. That’s particularly true of an individual who meets the requirements for a legal status (albeit one that because of the arcane structure of the Federal Regulations, an Immigration Judge can’t actually grant).

It’s analogous to the local prosecutor jamming a judge’s docket with jaywalking, littering, and unleashed dog cases so that there isn’t time to hear felony rape and robbery cases! No other law enforcement agency in America that I’m aware of operates without any real prosecution priorities the way Sessions and the DHS are trying to do in this Administration.

And, of course, one large class of “Administratively Closed” cases involves those who had their DACA applications approved by USCIS after Removal Proceedings had been initiated. What would be the point of putting such cases “back on the docket” if DACA were actually terminated?

Even the DHS claims that “Dreamer” cases would not be an “enforcement priority.” (Although, during the Trump Administration such claims by DHS have often proved to be “not credible.”) Therefore, it would literally be years before they could be heard. And many of them have strong cases for other forms of immigration relief such as Cancellation of Removal. I want to believe that the fate of the Dreamers will be resolved long before then.

PWS

03-07-18

NEW SCHOLARSHIP FROM PROFESSOR RUTH ELLEN WASEM, LBJ SCHOOL @ UT TAKES ON PROBLEMS OF 21ST CENTURY IMMIGRATION GOVERNANCE — “Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed.”

Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First

Ruth Ellen Wasem The University of Texas at Austin

6 Journal on Migration and Human Security 97 (2018)

KEY QUOTE:

Even with fragmented governance and strained resources, the US immigration system has enjoyed successes. Each year, approximately one million foreign nationals legally become permanent residents in the United States. In FY 2015 and FY 2016, the Bureau of Consular Affairs issued over 10 million visas each year to foreign nationals coming to the United States as nonimmigrants (i.e., for a temporary purpose and a temporary period of time) and over half a million visas to LPRs (Bureau of Consular Affairs 2017). CBP admitted almost 77 million foreign nationals as nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in FY 2015 (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). That year, DOL processed 711,820 employer applications for 1,580,778 positions for temporary and permanent labor certifications Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First Century 117 (Office of Foreign Labor Certification 2016). In FY 2015, there were 730,259 LPRs who became US citizens. That same year, the United States admitted 69,920 refugees, and USCIS approved 26,124 asylees. DHS apprehended 462,388 foreign nationals and deported 444,431 foreign nationals in FY 2015. Another 253,509 foreign nationals were denied entry, and 129,122 foreign nationals returned home without a formal order of removal (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). In FY 2016, EOIR judges received 328,122 cases and completed 273,390, including those of 8,726 foreign nationals who were granted asylum (EOIR 2017). Considerable credit is due to the people carrying out immigration-related responsibilities across the federal government.

Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed. While there are limits to how much one government can control migration, the building blocks in Figure 3 offer a reasonable set of priorities. Effective immigration governance, coupled with laws and policies that incorporate the national interests, is key to maintaining a robust sovereign nation.

Get the entire article, which I highly recommend, at this link:

Wasem,ImmigrationGovernance21st Century

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

Words of wisdom, to be sure. If only our policy makers had the same degree of understanding.

Today, we operate on an illusion that a few folks sitting in Washington, D.C. can “pull all the strings” to seal borders, override market forces, ignore international conditions and agreements, change behavior in foreign countries, and dominate forces of human migration that have been at work since before all of us were born and will continue long after we’re all gone. It’s a toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance that will leave immigration and refugee policy in tatters for years to come.

I can only hope that there are those out there in the upcoming generations who will bring to the immigration phenomenon practical scholarship, reason, humanity, fairness, and better ideas on management of our laws for the benefit of our country and humanity as a whole.

PWS

03-07-18

HON. LORY DIANA ROSENBERG COMMENTS ON AG’S DECISION IN MATTER OF E-F-H-L-!

Paul (and all) – Here is my preliminary response to your Courtside post, which you may publish:

The AG may be motivated by any number of explanations, as Immigration Courtside thoughtfully suggests. Nevertheless, the AG’s cryptic and unreasoned ruling will predictably engender more litigation and take up more court time than arguably may be saved by denying all asylum seekers access to the due process protections codified in the statute and regulations, and reiterated in numerous currently standing BIA precedents and federal circuit court decisions.

First, he vacated a 4 year old precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, an action that should not be taken lightly. Cf. Matter of E-F-H-L- 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014)(remanding with instructions to honor the guarantee iof a full evidentiary hearing on an asylum claim). The AG contends that “[b]ecause the application for relief which served as the predicate for the evidentiary hearing required by the Board has been withdrawn with prejudice, the Board’s decision is effectively mooted.” Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018). To the contrary, it is worth noting that, historically, many of the Board’s precedent decisions, which have been rendered moot by federal circuit court reversals or remands, have nonetheless remained in force and served as precedent in all cases other than that of the named respondent.

Assuming the AG’s decision was more than a knee-jerk, irrational, result-oriented response to an IJ’s administrative close order, but a decision fit for an Attorney General, he is expected to have read the Board’s reasoning in reaching the outcome it reached in E-F-H-L- (BIA). The Board plainly recognized the applicability of the statutory provisions that guarantee “a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government.” See section 240(b)(4)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (4)(B)(2012)(governing procedures in removal proceedings). In contrast, the AG’s opinion contains no reasoning what so ever and reveals no effort to respect the terms of the statute, much less to distinguish them in any way.

Second, the Board’s decision in E-F-H-L- also cited to governing ”regulations implementing these statutory provisions in the context of asylum and withholding of removal applications,” which provide that,

such applications for relief filed with the Immigration Court will be decided “after an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual issues in dispute,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3) (2013).

such an evidentiary hearing will entail the respondent “shall be examined under oath on his or her application and may present evidence and witnesses in his or her own behalf,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3)(iii).

such regulations also apply to applications for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (citation omitted).

The Board specifically recognized that “[t]hese regulations clearly give the Immigration Judge ‘the authority . . . to properly control the scope of any evidentiary hearing,’ 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3)(ii) . . .” and to discontinue or limit an evidentiary hearing “in the interests of efficiency, including by limiting testimony and focusing issues.” Nonetheless, the Board ruled in E-F-H-L- that, at a minimum, there must be an evidentiary hearing, which includes “an opportunity for the respondent to present evidence and witnesses in his or her own behalf.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3). In contrast, the AG’s opinion offers no colorable justification for abrogating these regulations, which remain in force, making his action in vacating the Board’s precedent in E-F-H-L- ultra vires.

Third, the Board’s decision refers to numerous Board precedent decisions standing for the principles elucidated concerning the need for taking oral testimony and for a meaningful evidentiary hearing in adjudicating asylum applications. See e.g., Matter of Fefe, 20 I&N Dec. 116, 118 (BIA 1989); Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439, 445 (BIA 1987); Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264, 266 (BIA 2010); cf. Matter of Ruiz, 20 I&N Dec. 91, 93 (BIA 1989) (holding that in absentia proceedings should have been reopened once the alien established reasonable cause for his failure to appear, because he retained the right to present his asylum claim at a full evidentiary hearing, regardless of whether prima facie eligibility for relief had been shown).Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888, 890−91 (BIA 2012);

Matter of A-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 1106 (BIA 1998). No matter what the Attorney General’s vacation of the Board’s E-F-H-L- precedent is read to mean, the AG fails to indicate that any of these other Board precedents governing evidentiary hearings are disturbed or no longer in effect and they remain in force.

What is more, the Board’s decision recognized that numerous federal courts of appeal nationwide have endorsed and upheld the statutory and regulatory promise of a full and fair evidentiary hearing. See e.g., Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548, 555−56 (8th Cir. 2010); Hoxha v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 210, 214, 217−18 (1st Cir. 2006); Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 688 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Sankoh v. Mukasey, 539 F.3d 456, 467 (7th Cir. 2008); Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2006); Mekhoukh v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 118, 129 & n.14 (1st Cir. 2004); cf. Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883, 889−93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that an alien’s Fifth Amendment due process right to a full and fair hearing, which includes the opportunity to present evidence and testify on one’s behalf, was violated where the Immigration Judge denied relief solely on an adverse credibility finding after refusing to allow the alien to testify to the contents of his applications). Notably, the AG’s decision vacating E-F-H-L- does not trigger Brand X authority such that the rulings of these federal courts are supplanted or no longer control administrative hearings taking place within the jurisdiction of those courts.

Accordingly, for reasons of statutory, regulatory, and administrative precedential authority, and reasons of federal acquiescence, the AG’s vacation of Matter of E-F-H-L has no impact on the right to an evidentiary hearing on an asylum application. By the AG’s own admission in the case vacated, upon remand, the respondent had withdrawn his asylum application with prejudice in favor of administrative closure to permit an I-130 petition to be adjudicated. Thus, the AG’s ruling vacating E-F-H-L- cannot stand for any principled holding with respect to the right to an evidentiary hearing in asylum cases.

In fact, the IJ’s order of administrative closure of the removal hearing, while allowing USCIS to engage in a timely adjudication of a petition that ultimately might confer lawful status on the respondent, had the mutually beneficial effect of freeing up the court’s time to attend to its heavily backlogged docket. Upon recalendaring in the instant case, the respondent may wish to challenge his previous “withdrawal with prejudice” and seek to re-raise his asylum claim on due process grounds.

Moreover, in light of the AG’s decision, respondents in general would be well-advised to exercise their statutory and regulatory rights to a full evidentiary hearing in their asylum claims, notwithstanding the potential availability of other forms of relief. Likewise, attorneys would be well-advised to consider their obligations in relation to Matter of Lozada, before counseling respondents to withdraw viable applications. The AG’s decision sends a clear message that notwithstanding their best intentions, IJs intentions to fairly resolve removal hearings may be disrupted without notice.

Beyond inefficiently and ineffectively usurping the IJ’s authority to control his or her docket, it is unclear just what the AG intended to accomplish. We are left, perhaps, with much “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Shakespeare, Macbeth Act 5, scene 5.

IDEAS CONSULTATION and COACHING
Immigration Defense & Expert Advocacy Solutions

Empowering Successful Immigration Lawyers

www.loryrosenberg.com

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

I agree with Lory’s analysis.

Sessions doesn’t do anything without a reason.

We know that:

1) He falsely claims that asylum fraud is a primary contributing factor to the presence of 11 million undocumented individuals. (It isn’t! The vast bulk of the “11 million” were never in the asylum system. I didn’t do the math, but I doubt that there have been anything approaching 11 million asylum applications since the enactment of the “Refuge Act of 1980. While there no doubt have been documented instances of asylum fraud, they would account for only an infinitesimally small portion of the 11 million — mostly law-abiding and productive — undocumented residents trashed by Sessions. Moreover, those engaged in asylum fraud often are eventually exposed and removed and/or jailed).

2) He appears to want to eliminate or severely limit administrative closing which has helped control and rationalize Immigration Court dockets.

3) He wants to dishonestly shift the blame for the backlog from the DOJ which is responsible for “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” over several Administrations to the private bar.

4) He is opposed to prosecutorial discretion and prioritization which are the foundation of all other functioning parts of the U.S. justice system.

5) He has no respect for immigrants (legal or undocumented), our Constitution, the law, or any judge who disagrees with his extreme right-wing xenophobic views.

All of this spells big trouble for the already failing U.S. Immigration Court System and lots of wasteful, additional litigation to vindicate migrants’ statutory and Constitutional rights.

Go New Due Process Army!

PWS

03-07-17

PROFESSOR CORI ALONSO-YODER ANALYZES SUPREME’S JENNINGS V. RODRIGUEZ

https://www.gwlr.org/jennings-v-rodriguez-against-the-backdrop-of-executive-enforcement-and-legislative-inaction-the-court-revisits-the-issue-of-prolonged-immigration-detention

Mar. 5, 2018

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (Alito, J.).
Response by Cori Alonso-Yoder
Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Oct. Term 2017)
Slip Opinion | New York Times | SCOTUSblog

Jennings v. Rodriguez: Against the Backdrop of Executive Enforcement and Legislative Inaction, the Court Revisits the Issue of Prolonged Immigration Detention

Today marks President Trump’s deadline to Congress for addressing the question of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. In the months since the Administration announced the end of the DACA program, the debate on immigration reform has expanded from the initial ultimatum to create a legislative alternative to the program, to new issues of restriction on current legal immigration, including the elimination of certain family-based categories and the repeal of the visa lottery system. After months of opportunity to address these questions, congressional efforts to reform immigration appear stalled beyond salvation, in no small part due to a clear lack of direction from the President himself. As a result, DACA seems destined to expire today due to inaction from leaders at the legislative and executive levels.

Onto this backdrop, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez¹ on February 27th. Writing for a five-to-three majority on issues related to immigration detention, Justice Samuel Alito reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision granting semiannual bond hearings to certain categories of immigrant detainees. Only Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined the Alito opinion in full, with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas declining to endorse the plurality’s view of a jurisdictional question in the case (for which Justice Thomas authored a concurrence). In the dissent, Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg signed onto Justice Breyer’s passionate and lengthy opinion arguing for bail provisions to be extended to these detainees.

At issue in Jennings are conditions of detention and related questions of bond eligibility for individuals falling within three statutory categories, all of whom have been detained longer than six months. Lead plaintiff, Alejandro Rodriguez, represents the class as a whole as well as the category of individuals detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes or engaged in terrorist activities). The class also includes individuals detained under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (asylum seekers), and under § 1225(b)(2)(A) (applicants for admission who are not clearly entitled to be admitted, otherwise known as “arriving aliens”).

In its opinion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s construction of §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) as requiring a six-month periodic review to save the statutory framework from constitutional nullification. Relying on the Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis² and the canon of constitutional avoidance, the lower court reasoned that a six-month bond review must be interpreted into the relevant provisions in order for the framework to survive constitutional scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court found this interpretation “implausible,” holding that the clear language of those statutory provisions is susceptible to only one interpretation that does not contemplate a periodic custody review, and that the canon of constitutional avoidance only applies where more than one plausible interpretation of the statute is available.³ The Court also distinguished its decision in Zadvydas by underscoring the ambiguity of the potential length of detention in the statute at issue in that case. By contrast, in Jennings the Court reasons that Congress left no room for similar interpretation in this case, having explicitly provided for conclusion of detention of these individuals only in certain circumstances clearly expressed in the relevant statutes.

The majority proceeds to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s construction of the detention statutes, but declines to reach the Fifth Amendment and Due Process arguments raised by the respondents. Instead, the Court remands the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings to consider the constitutional merits of those claims, while simultaneously suggesting that a class action may not be the appropriate vehicle for those individualized claims.

The opinion of the Court is striking because the dissenting justices feel no such compunction to reserve the constitutional questions. In fact, Justice Breyer’s opinion rests almost exclusively on Due Process and, to a lesser extent, Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, spending little time relative to the majority in interpreting the relevant statutory provisions. Instead, Justice Breyer points to numerous factors to argue why the majority’s reading of the detention statutes cannot survive constitutional scrutiny and must be reconstructed to include a bond provision. Among these factors, he notes the sheer number of individuals detained under §§ 1225 and 1226, the increasingly lengthy terms of their detention, and the high likelihood of success on the merits for many within these categories in their claims for immigration relief.

Regarding the number of detainees affected by this decision, the dissent notes that nearly 20,000 individuals, 7500 asylum seekers, and 12,220 noncitizens who have completed terms of confinement for criminal convictions, fall within two of the three categories of detainee considered by the Court. The dissenting opinion also cites the length of detentions at issue, noting that they are now considerably longer than six months, and distinguishing this from the short-term detention of immigrant detainees addressed by the Court in Demore v. Kim.⁴ In concluding that the respondents should have access to a more flexible opportunity to apply for bond, the dissent is also persuaded by statistics showing that nearly two-thirds of the asylum seekers and 40% of those detained following criminal confinement ultimately prevail in applications to remain in the United States.

Also present in the dissent, but not in the opinion of the Court, is limited reference to increased immigration enforcement by the Trump Administration. While the politics of enforcement are not met head on, Justice Breyer’s dissent alludes to current events by citing President Trump’s Executive Order⁵ directing parole of detainees only under certain limited circumstances.⁶

As the lower court is left to address the constitutional questions, the Breyer dissent proves instructive by reaching elements of those arguments that the Court declines to take up in its majority opinion. Among the issues previewed in the dissent that are likely to arise on remand is the Government’s assertion that many of the respondents in Jennings cannot claim the protection of the Fifth Amendment because “the law treats arriving aliens as if they had never entered the United States; hence they are not held within its territory.”⁷ The dissent roundly dismisses this interpretation as “of course, false,”⁸ but the question will become an increasingly important one for the courts to address, especially as Jennings continues its trajectory through the federal appellate courts.

Indeed, the unsettled nature of the Jennings decision foreshadows a future in which the courts are likely to wrestle with increased calls to address these issues of detention and enforcement. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) gives Customs and Border Protection Agents broad powers of search and seizure without a warrant to enforce immigration laws within a broad reach of an international border,⁹ generally held to reach within 100 miles of the U.S. interior.

In addition, the Trump Administration has signaled an intent to aggressively enforce the nation’s existing immigration laws, while also expanding the reaches of the law to further restrict legal immigration. Along with Executive Order No. 13,767, cited in the Jennings dissent, the Trump Administration also published Executive Order No. 13,768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”¹⁰ Taken together (and issued the same day within the first week of the new administration), these two Executive Orders enshrined the campaign promises of the new President to act aggressively and expansively to secure the border and enforce immigration law within the interior of the United States.

According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, these efforts have proven effective, with immigration officials charting an increase of 42% in administrative arrests.¹¹ Meanwhile, the immigration courts’ backlogs continue to grow, expanding from approximately 212,000 cases at the beginning of fiscal year 2006 with a median wait pending time of 198 days, to approximately 437,000 cases in fiscal year 2015 with a median pending time of 404 days.¹² These numbers reflect a judiciary crippled by backlog and increased enforcement even before the injection of the new administration’s revamped and expanded priorities for enforcement. In the current climate of legislative inaction, it is likely the courts will continue to be the explainers and problem solvers for a system desperately in need of reform. As with questions of immigration reform, the Jennings remand means that we are likely to be revisiting these issues again not long from now.

Ana Corina “Cori” Alonso-Yoder is the Practitioner-in-Residence and Clinical Professor of Law with the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law. Professor Alonso-Yoder’s commentary on immigration law and immigrants’ rights has been featured by ABC News, The Atlantic, Washington Monthly, and The National Law Journal & Legal Times among others.

Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15–1204, slip op. (U.S. Feb. 27, 2018).

533 U.S. 678 (2001) (requiring a custody review hearing after six months of detention in order to avoid unconstitutional indefinite detention where an individual cannot be removed from the United States).

Jennings, slip op. at 12–13.

538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003) (noting that the detention at issue in that case “lasts roughly a month and a half”).

Exec. Order No. 13,767, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793 (Jan. 30, 2017).

Jennings, slip op. at 25 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

Id. at 7.

Id.

8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) (2012).

Exec. Order No. 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 30, 2017).

Immigration & Customs Enf’t, ICE Impact in FY 2017 (2018), https://www.ice.gov/topics/fy2017.

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-17-438, Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges (2017).

Recommended Citation Cori Alonso-Yoder, Response, Jennings v. Rodriguez:Against the Backdrop of Executive Enforcement and Legislative Inaction, the Court Revisits the Issue of Prolonged Immigration Detention, Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Mar. 5, 2018), https://www.gwlr.org/jennings-v-rodriguez-against-the-backdrop-of-executive-enforcement-and-legislative-inaction-the-court-revisits-the-issue-of-prolonged-immigration-detention.

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

Thanks for a great article, Cori!

Here are links to previous posts on Jennings:

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2e8

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2cL

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-1wI

The third of these posts illustrates how Constitutionally required bond hearings change and save lives and how the majority’s short-shrifting of Constitutional Due Process could actually cost lives.

PWS

03-07-18

GONZO’S WORLD: WHILE PUTIN DISMANTLES US DEMOCRACY, GONZO ATTACKS CAL. – Gov. Brown Calls DOJ Suit “Political Stunt!”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-sanctuary-cities-suit_us_5a9ec5a4e4b0e9381c12c0e8

Elise Foley reports for HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will ramp up its fight against so-called “sanctuary” policies by filing a lawsuit on Tuesday against the state of California over its laws meant to protect undocumented immigrants.

The lawsuit, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions will formally announce on Wednesday, is the latest in a string of moves by the White House, Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to combat local efforts to limit police cooperation with deportation. Thus far, this has largely involved condemnations and threats, including the withholding of federal funds and prosecuting public officials.

Now, the administration is seeking to block three California laws by arguing that they violate the Constitution and federal law.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Sessions is expected to tell law enforcement officers during a speech on Wednesday, according to prepared remarks. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”

To make its case, the DOJ is in part pointing to a ruling on a very different state-level immigration law: Arizona’s SB 1070, which was meant to expand local police efforts to find and arrest undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration by striking down major provisions of that law in 2012.

The Trump administration plans to argue that California is similarly overstepping its authority, senior DOJ officials said Tuesday. The lawsuit will challenge three laws that DOJ officials say hurt the government’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement.

Supporters of the California laws and “sanctuary” policies in general argue that they make communities safer by allowing local police to work better with immigrant communities and focus time and resources on duties other than immigration matters. (“Sanctuary” policies differ widely from place to place and there is no set definition for the term.)

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) responded to Sessions’ suit Tuesday evening, calling it a “political stunt.”

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America,” he said in a statement. “Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”

. . . .

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

Read Elise’s full article at the above link.

So far, Gonzo hasn’t had much luck on his anti-Sanctuary Cities campaign. But, sooner or later, if he keeps filing suits, he’ll probably get a Federal Judge who agrees with at least part of his position.

The suit has little if anything to do with effective law enforcement and everything to do with right-wing politics. Strangely, for one who is so disdainful of lawyers and their functions in society, Gonzo’s regime has been essentially a “full employment for lawyers” boon. And, of course, “Chuckie” Cooper is on Gonzo’s personal retainer, trying, so far successfully, to keep him out of jail in the Russia investigation.

PWS

03-07-18

TAL @ CNN – When It Comes To DACA, DOJ Appears To Be Rewriting History – There Was Nothing “Discretionary” About Sessions’s Advice to DHS To Terminate Program!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/daca-decision-trump-win/index.html

Judge sides with Trump on DACA, but blasts White House, Congress for inaction

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration won a victory in court Monday on its plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but not before a federal judge criticized the White House and Congress for failing to work together.

The ruling is a relatively symbolic win after two other federal courts have already halted the President’s effort to end the program nationwide.

Still, the administration is hailing the ruling as evidence that it has the authority to terminate DACA, a program that protected young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation, as President Donald Trump decided in September.

In a 30-page opinion, Maryland District Judge Roger Titus rejected a challenge to the termination of DACA, saying the administration did in fact have a “reasonable” justification given it concluded the program was likely unlawful.

Previous judges have found the opposite — that there’s a plausible argument the government’s reasoning in this case was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Supreme Court last week declined the administration’s request to leapfrog the appellate courts and immediately consider the other judges’ rulings, meaning until a further court rules in what will likely be several months, the administration must continue renewing two-year DACA permits.

Titus began his opinion with an unusual lamentation of the partisan nature of politics in this country, criticizing Congress and the administrations’ inaction on a permanent solution for DACA participants.

“This case is yet another example of the damaging fallout that results from excessive political partisanship,” Titus wrote.

“The highly politicized debate surrounding the DACA program has thus far produced only rancor and accusations,” he added. “During the recent debate over the rescission of DACA, the program even turned into a bargaining chip that resulted in a brief shutdown of the entire federal government earlier this year.”

He added: “The result of this case is not one that this court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. This court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In a statement, Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley called the decision “good news” and criticized the rebukes from previous judges.

“The Department of Justice has long maintained that DHS acted within its lawful authority in making the discretionary decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner, and we welcome the good news today that the district court in Maryland strongly agrees,” O’Malley said. “Today’s decision also highlights a serious problem with the disturbing growth in the use of nationwide injunctions, which causes the Maryland court’s correct judgment in favor of the government to be undermined by the overbroad injunctions that have been entered by courts in other states.”

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

Contrary to the DOJ’s current claim, that the decision to terminate DACA was “discretionary,” Sessions has consistently taken the position that the DACA program was “illegal” and therefore the Administration had no choice but to terminate it. Here’s a copy of his letter to then Acting DHS Secretary Duke. No mention of “discretion” that I can find:

ag_letter_re_daca

Moreover, contrary to some of the Administration’s blabber, Judge Titus did not endorse Sessions’s view that DACA was illegal. Rather the Judge found:

Given the fate of DAPA, the legal advice provided by the Attorney General, and the threat of imminent litigation, it was reasonable for DHS to have concluded—right or wrong—that DACA was unlawful and should be wound down in an orderly manner. Therefore, its decision to rescind DACA cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Titus found that “reasonable legal minds may differ regarding [DACA’s & DAPA’s] lawfulness.” Indeed, Judge Titus clearly thought that the Administration had chosen to implement the wrong policy. He merely found that separation of powers prevented him from intervening to substitute his judgment for that of the Administration. Like virtually everyone else except Sessions, he viewed the situation of the DACA recipients as highly compelling and was critical of Congress and the Administration for failing to resolve it in favor of the DACA recipients.

Even when they supposedly “win,” Sessions and his DOJ minions seem tone-deaf to the “real messages” being sent by the Federal Judges who needlessly have been forced to rule on these cases that should never have happened had Congress taken appropriate actions to protect the Dreamers and the Administration exercised its power and judgment in a more humane manner.

PWS

03-06-18

US DISTRICT JUDGE ROGER W. TITUS IN MD REJECTS DACA CHALLENGE — Basically Finds Rescission Dumb But Legal, While Barring DHS From Using DACA Info In Removal Proceedings — Casa de Maryland v. DHS

Casa de Maryland v. DHS, D. MD., 03-05-18, Judge Roger W. Titus

While the Administration and right-leaning media are touting this as a “smashing victory” here’s what District Judge Titus really said:

The original Obama Administration DACA program was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on which reasonable minds can differ as to its legality.
The Trump Administration had discretion either to continue the DACA program or not as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
The decision by the Administration to phase out DACA was subject to judicial review and the plaintiffs had standing to challenge it.
The DHS’s decision to phase out DACA upon receiving an opinion from Attorney General Sessions that it might well be held illegal in a threatened court action was reasonable.
The sometimes ill-advised and inflammatory statements by President Trump were not relevant to the basis for termination of DACA.
Although Judge Titus personally would have chosen a different policy approach from that of the Administration, under Constitutional separation of powers that policy decision was vested in the Executive and Congress, not the Courts, and the Administration had acted reasonably in this case.
The DHS is estopped from using information gathered during the DACA application process against individuals in Removal Proceedings except if “the Government needs to make use of an individual Dreamer’s information for national security or some purpose implicating public safety or public interest, the Government may petition the Court for permission to do so on a case-by-case basis with in camera review.”

Judge Titus’s decision actually more or less undermines the Administration’s frequent claims that DACA was “illegal” and that the Administration had “no choice” but to terminate it. Rather, the court held that legitimate unresolved questions had been raised about the DACA program’s legality and that in the face of those questions the Administration’s choice to proceed with a phased termination rather than trying to defend DACA in court was reasonable.

Additionally, as I had predicted, the court was unwilling to allow DHS to use DACA information against the individuals in Removal Proceedings. While this aspect of the case was :”under the radar” in most reports, it could well be another major practical/legal roadblock to the Administration’s actually removing many DACA recipients even if the injunctions against DACA termination eventually are lifted.

Here’s a “KEY QUOTE” from Judge Titus’s decision:

“The result of this case is not one that this Court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for “Dreamers,” yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act. As Justice Gorsuch noted during his confirmation hearing, “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is probably a pretty bad judge, stretching for the policy results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In other words, the decision to rescind DACA was “dumb but legal.” Hardly the ringing endorsement that the Trumpsters claim. What this case actually did is to vindicate their right to make bad policy decisions. Ultimately, the remedy for that type of poor governance is at the ballot box.

Here’s the full decision in Casa de Maryland v. DHS so you can judge for yourself:

JudgeTitusDACAOp

PWS

03-06-18

TED HESSON @ POLITICO: Court Rulings Might Not Keep Dreamers From Losing Work Authorization

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/05/dreamers-disruption-immigration-court-orders-385096?cid=apn

Ted Hesson writes at Politico:

“Thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children could face disruptions in their ability to work, even though the Trump administration has for months been under a federal court order to renew protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The problem arises chiefly from the Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to prioritize those DACA renewals due to expire soonest. Instead, the applications are being processed in the order in which they were filed. Consequently, many so-called Dreamers who’ve applied to renew will see their DACA protections expire before DHS acts, increasing their risk of being fired from their jobs or, possibly, being arrested and deported.

“You can’t just say, ‘Don’t show up to work and we’ll kind of keep paying you,’ or ‘wink wink, nod nod,’” said Todd Schulte, president of the pro-immigration FWD.us. “I just think we should assume that a ton of these people are going to lose their jobs.”

DHS did not respond to a request to clarify its enforcement policy for people with recently expired DACA grants.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimates 13,090 people have grants that will expire in March. Of those, 4,470 had a renewal pending as of Jan. 31. USCIS, the division of DHS that administers DACA, makes an effort to process DACA renewals within 120 days, but it doesn’t always move that fast, according to Leon Rodriguez, director of USCIS from 2014 to 2017.

The need to process DACA renewals quickly was unforeseen last September, when President Donald Trump announced that he would sunset the Obama-era program. Trump halted DACA renewals in early October and set March 5 — Monday — as a deadline for Congress to take action to protect Dreamers. After that date, Dreamers would start losing DACA protections in large numbers.

But Congress didn’t act, at least partly because San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup largely mooted the March 5 deadline in early January when he ordered DHS to resume DACA renewals. A Brooklyn-based federal judge issued a similar ruling in mid-February. The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to intervene, but the high court declined, choosing instead to allow the matter proceed through the lower courts.

USCIS resumed DACA renewals in January, but that unplanned resumption has not proceeded smoothly. “When you have a lot of stopping and starting of activity,” said Rodriguez, “that poses some risk that something might be set up the wrong way and some group of people not be handled as expeditiously as they should,” he said.

“I think it is going to keep getting more chaotic,” Rodriguez said of the weeks ahead.

The agency’s refusal to pull out of the queue renewals that are due to expire soonest (as, for instance, airlines do at the check-in line for passengers whose planes will take off soonest) poses an enormous problem for those Dreamers who filed for renewal after Judge Alsup’s Jan. 9 order.

But another difficulty is that not many Dreamers took advantage of the court ruling, possibly because uncertainty over whether Alsup’s order would be overruled by the Supreme Court left them reluctant to pay the $495 renewal fee. The Supreme Court didn’t announce that it would let Alsup’s order stand until Feb. 26.

. . . .

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

Please go on over to Politico at the above link to read Ted’s complete analysis.

I suspect that there might be more legal challenges in the offing, from both the Dreamers and their employers. To date, the Government has pretty much “lost ’em all” when it comes to DACA, a trend that I see continuing at least in the lower Federal Courts where the litigation is likely to be confined for the foreseeable future.

In my view, the Administration’s unwise, callous, and legally questionable treatment of Dreamers to date is providing advocates for Dreamers with some “golden opportunities” to make some “good law” in the Dreamers’ behalf that hopefully can carry over into blocking some of the Administration’s other anti-immigrant initiatives. A good chance for the New Due Process Army to capture some valuable territory in the fight for truth, justice, Due Process, and the American way!

PWS

03-06-18

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: