INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION: Heidi Boas @ Wilkes Legal Speaks Out On The Devastating Effects Administration’s Attacks On Justice In U.S. Immigration Courts Have On Individuals, Lawyers, Judges, Court Staff, & Rational Law Enforcement By DHS

 

 

The Government Shutdown’s Devastating Impact
on Immigrants, Judges, and
U.S. Immigration Courts
by Heidi Boas, Immigration Attorney
Wilkes Legal, LLC
February 4, 2019
As the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, the recent thirty-five-day closure of the federal government had a devastating impact on countless individuals, including immigrants[1] and U.S. Citizens alike. It also placed an unmanageable burden on our nation’s immigration courts, thereby increasing the heavy caseload already carried by U.S. immigration judges.
According to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), immigration courts cancelled nearly 43,000 hearings by early January, nearly three weeks into the shutdown, and that number continued to grow by roughly 20,000 cancellations per week. By the time the shutdown ended on January 25, 2019, the total number of immigration court hearings cancelled had doubled to roughly 86,000.
Many immigrants have already been waiting years for their day in court, and for some the shutdown-related delays will have a profound negative impact on their prospects for remaining lawfully in the United States. As the President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) lamented in a recent letter to Congress, “individuals with pending cases can lose track of witnesses, their qualifying relatives can die or age-out and evidence already presented becomes stale.” For those applying for asylum, hearing delays can also cause emotional distress as applicants wait for the chance to be reunited with their family members overseas, many of whose lives are still in danger. Immigration court hearings cancelled due to the shutdown may be postponed until 2021 or 2022 or beyond, adding to the years-long wait that many immigrants have already had to endure.
Immigrants are not the only ones who felt the painful effects of the shutdown on our beleaguered U.S. immigration court system. In her recent appeal to Congress, the NAIJ President highlighted the “unmanageable burden” that the government shutdown placed on immigration judges and our nation’s immigration court system as a whole. Before the shutdown began, immigration courts already had an enormous backlog of nearly 810,000 active cases, and the shutdown only added to the strain on our overwhelmed and understaffed immigration court system by increasing the immigration court’s ever-growing backlog.
Ironically, the delays caused by the government shutdown frustrated the current administration’s efforts to aggressively pursue deportation against an increasing number of immigrants. In July 2018, Wilkes Legal highlightedAttorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision in Matter of Castro-Tum which signaled the Administration’s intent to actively pursue deportation against more than 330,000 individuals whose cases were in inactive status. Many of those cases that DHS re-calendared for court hearings were certainly delayed by the government shutdown, as well as those of many other immigrants whom DHS is seeking to deport.
The devastating impact of the government shutdown on immigrants, judges, and our immigration court system was highlighted by CNN, CBS News and the Associated Press. Hopefully, the recent end to the government shutdown will restore some degree of order to our immigration court system and allow those who have been waiting for years to finally have their day in court.
[1] Fortunately for many immigrants, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offices remained open for business and most of their work continued as usual during the shutdown, as USCIS relies on immigration application fees rather than Congressionally appropriated funding. Many immigrants with pending immigration court cases, however, felt the painful effects of the shutdown on a very personal level.
Visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or call our office at (301) 576-0491 to learn more about Wilkes Legal, LLC.

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

Thanks, Heidi, for reminding us of  how the Administration’s ongoing war against Due Process, fundamental fairness, courts, and our Government institutions adversely affects all of us, including DHS enforcement.

PWS

02-10-19

 

 

HEIDI BOAS @ WILKES LEGAL: Following A Colossal 14-Year Battle, The U.S. Asylum System Saved Rodi Alvarado’s Life – Can Jeff Sessions Undo This Critically Needed, Life-Saving Protection For Thousands Of Women & Children Like Rodi With A Single Stroke Of His Pen?

Issue Spotlight:
Will America Shut Its Doors to Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence?
by Heidi Boas, Immigration Attorney
Wilkes Legal, LLC
April 5, 2018
Will the U.S. continue to offer asylum to
immigrant survivors of domestic violence
like Rodi Alvarado Peña?
In January 2018, Wilkes Legal won asylum for an immigrant mother and her children who escaped over a decade of extreme physical, psychological, and sexual abuse that sent our client to the hospital and left one of her children with a permanent physical impairment. Because our client’s domestic partner was a high-ranking military officer in their home country, her pleas for help from government authorities fell on deaf ears, causing her to flee the country for her safety. In recent years, the United States has offered asylum protection to domestic violence survivors like this client. A recent move by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, could soon limit or end the ability of domestic violence survivors to receive asylum protection in the United States.
Domestic violence has long been a contentious issue in asylum law. More than two decades ago, advocates began a 14-year legal battle to win asylum for Rodi Alvarado Peña, a Guatemalan woman who suffered a decade of brutal violence at the hands of her husband. Even though Ms. Alvarado repeatedly sought help from the Guatemalan police and courts, the Guatemalan authorities refused to intervene and protect her. When Ms. Alvarado tried to escape from her husband, he tracked her down and beat her unconscious. Ms. Alvarado ultimately fled to the United States and became the subject of a controversial, high profile immigration court case, as multiple administrations considered whether to grant asylum to women whose countries fail to protect them from domestic violence. Ms. Alvarado ultimately received asylum in 2009, but her case did not establish legal precedent that could help other asylum-seekers fleeing domestic violence.
In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finally issued a precedential decision recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum. In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA granted asylum to a Guatemalan woman whose husband broke her nose, repeatedly raped her, and burned her with paint thinner. The BIA recognized “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” as a group that can qualify for asylum. This landmark case opened the doors to protection for other immigrant survivors of domestic violence whose countries fail to protect them from abuse.
While the United States has made great strides in offering protection to immigrant survivors of domestic violence, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently took a step that could potentially undo decades of forward progress. As attorney general, Sessions has the authority to refer immigration court cases to himself, overturn decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and set precedent. Last month, Sessions referred an immigration case to himself involving a survivor of domestic violence from El Salvador. If Sessions rules against this woman, he would begin reshaping asylum law for abuse survivors and could potentially shut the doors to countless victims seeking protection in the United States.
In the case under Sessions’ review, a Salvadoran women referred to as A.B. suffered years of domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband in El Salvador. Even though A.B. separated from her husband and eventually divorced him, her ex-husband returned three years after their separation and raped her. A.B. also testified to receiving threats from her ex-husband’s brother, who is a police officer, and his friend, who told the woman that her ex-husband would kill her and he would help dispose of her body. Although an Immigration Judge denied A.B.’s asylum case, the Board of Immigrant Appeals disagreed with the judge’s ruling and sent the case back to the judge to reconsider his decision. The Immigration Judge again refused to grant asylum to A.B., however, despite the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, due to other more recent decisions in his jurisdiction.
Now that Sessions has stepped in to review A.B.’s case, he has the authority to determine whether she should be granted asylum. If Sessions denies her asylum case, his decision could have a far-reaching impact, setting precedent that would make it more difficult for other immigrant survivors of domestic violence to qualify for asylum in the future. If Session limits asylum eligibility for these survivors, he will roll back decades of progress in asylum law and close the doors to immigrant victims of abuse who have nowhere else to turn.
Wilkes Legal stands with immigrant survivors of domestic violence and urges Sessions to uphold the BIA’s current precedent, keeping America’s doors open to victims of domestic abuse whose governments fail to protect them.
Visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or call our office at (301) 576-0491 to learn more about Wilkes Legal, LLC.

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

From his actions to date, Sessions appears to be up to no good. But, by now the “A-R-C-G-/R-A- principles” are deeply ingrained in U.S. protection law as interpreted by the Article III Federal Courts.

I predict that an attempt by Sessions to undo A-R-C-G- protections will be heavy-handed, blatantly biased, and thinly reasoned as have been all of his transparently biased reversals of established legal positions to date.

It’s therefore likely to suffer a fate of emphatic rejection by the Article IIIs much like what happened when Attorney General Michael Mukasey tried to undo years of established legal precedent about proof of crimes involving moral turpitude in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), rev’d & remanded, Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 550 (A.G. 2015).

I’m hardly a “Charter Member of the Mike Mukasey Fan Club.” His poor stewardship over the U.S. Immigration Court system is at least partially responsible for today’s inexcusable mess in our Immigration Courts.

Nevertheless, before becoming Attorney General, Mukasey was a well-respected U.S. District Judge. He’s 10X the lawyer as Sessions! Sessions’s lack of any discernible legal skills, integrity, humanity, and judgement probably bodes well for the “Good Guys” in the long run.

But, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be unnecessary and unconscionable suffering. Sessions is a bully at heart who relies on the fact that the majority of individuals in the U.S. Immigration Court system are unrepresented and therefore unable to defend themselves against his racist/xenophobic policies.

I’m proud to be one of the “Gang of Five” Appellate Immigration Judges (“Board Members” ) who dissented from the BIA’s original outrageously incorrect decision in Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 908 (BIA 1999), vacated,  Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 908 (A.G. 2001) that reversed a clearly correct grant of asylum to Rodi Alvarado. The other dissenters were Judges John Guendelsberger (who wrote the dissent), Lory Diana Rosenberg, Gustavo D. Villageliu, and Anthony C. Moscato.

Not coincidentally, all of us except for Judge Moscato were removed and “exiled” from the BIA during the “Ashcroft Purge of 2003” for the transgression of doing our jobs conscientiously and standing up for a correct interpretation of the asylum law. So much for the “facade of quasi-judicial independence at the BIA.” (Credit to Peter Levinson). And, that’s before the current “descent into the abyss” brought about by Sessions!

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court now!

PWS

04-05-18