"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.
WASHINGTON — Seattle’s immigration court will close down as the nation continues to grapple with managing the coronavirus pandemic, and several other large immigration courts will postpone certain hearings for immigrants who are not detained that often involve large groups.
The court in Seattle was temporarily shut down earlier this week over a report of a second-hand exposure to the virus and will remain shut until April 10. Seattle is among the areas hardest hit so far, with a cluster of deaths and dozens sickened. The number of cases in the U.S. was put at around 1,700 Friday, with about 50 deaths. But by some estimates, at least 14,000 people might be infected.
According to a statement obtained by The Associated Press from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which manages the immigration court system, other courts will remain open where the virus has struck, including Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Newark, New Jersey, and Sacramento, California. But “master calendar” dates for those who are not detained will be postponed. Those hearings can include dozens of people in a single courtroom.
“The agency continues to evaluate the dynamic situation nationwide and will make decisions for each location as more information becomes available,” according to the statement from EOIR, which is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
There are 68 immigration courts nationwide; the others will operate as scheduled but officials with EOIR said they are evaluating and will adjust as needed.
There have been no confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the immigration system, but it’s not clear how frequently tests are being performed, if at all.
———
Associated Press Writer Cedar Attanasio contributed to this report from El Paso, Texas.
*******************
I suppose some action is better than none.
But, let’s take a more rational and practical look at this. The regime’s own expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other public health experts have been all over the media this weekend with a straightforward message: This is going to get worse before it gets better, so take advance precautions.
There is a “zero percent” chance that those appearing in Immigration Court have had access to coronavirus testing. Consequently, there is no way of knowing who or how many might be infected.
We also know that a significant number of those appearing in Immigration Court will be seniors or those with pre-existing conditions.
Therefore, closing down the non-detained dockets at all Immigration Courts right now shouldbe a “no brainer.” There are few, if any, genuine “emergencies” on an out of control “non-detained docket” of over one million cases with hearing dates stretching into 2024 and beyond in some locations.
By moving too slowly, EOIR virtually guarantees that by the time it finally gets around to the inevitable, many individuals and their families, fearing EOIR’s often mindless penchant for “in absentia hearings,” will not get the news in time. They will have already traveled and made arrangements to stay near Immigration Courts. Also, a disproportionate number of those appearing in Immigration Court must rely on public transportation, another health risk in addition to the disruption or curtailing of service in many localities.
Thus, EOIR’s inadequate response, notably released late on Friday when attention was focused elsewhere, combined with the regime’s total lack of credibility on all things immigration, is likely to make things worse.
There are all sorts of reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court with competent, professional management focused on the public good. This is just the latest example of of how politicized, dysfunctional “courts” (that aren’t courts at all, as they are controlled by the prosecutor) hurt America and endanger all of us.
Mar. 11, 2020 letter from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Edward Markey to EOIR Director McHenry:
“…We therefore urge EOIR to require the posting of the CDC signage, in English and Spanish, as well as any other relevant languages, in courtrooms and waiting areas to raise awareness of COVID-19 and how to avoid transmitting and contracting it. In addition, we request answers to the following questions by March 18, 2020:
Why were immigration judges and immigration court administrators instructed to remove the CDC COVID-19 posters? What “authority” did they purportedly lack to place the posters?
Who told Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher Santoro to issue the directive? Who in “leadership” was Judge Santoro referring to in his email regarding the posters?
Did EOIR consult with qualified public health authorities before issuing its directive to remove the posters?
Why was the directive reversed? Did negative publicity play any role in the decision?
What steps is EOIR taking to protect immigration judges, support staff, immigrants, attorneys, and the public from the spread ofCOVID-19? A. Are sick employees and members of the public being told to go home? B. Are cleaning and disinfectant supplies being provided to all employees and to members of the public who come to the courts?
How is EOIR coordinating with the rest of the Department of Justice about how to respond to COVID-19? Is it receiving guidance from any other federal agencies, such as CDC?
In light of the public health concerns posed by COVID-19, will EOIR instruct immigration judges to allow immigrant respondents the opportunity to reschedule immigration court proceedings as necessary?”
“… we call on you to suspend all non-detained master calendar dockets for the duration of this public health crisis. Immigration Judges can use cancelled master calendar time to hear individual cases (including addressing the backlog of hundreds of thousands of long-pending cases scheduled for individual hearing) that do not involve unwarranted exposure to large numbers of people in our space-limited facilities. …”
************************************
Thanks, Dan.
As the situation deteriorates, America’s mismanaged “Clown Courts” 🤡🤡 continue to endanger the public while denying due process and wasting taxpayer money by having no contingency plans in place and failing to issue clear guidance to either their own employees or the public.
But, let the record show that they have plenty of time to develop unneeded and counterproductive “Immigration Judge dashboards,” tie up the system with frivolous litigation to “decertify” the NAIJ, and set up “TV pilot programs” to railroad kids through the Atlanta Immigration Court. All enforcement-related “gimmicks;” no time for due process or the public interest.
But, the record should also document the dereliction of duty by Congress and the Article IIIs for allowing this “clown show” to continue to inflict damage on the American public and our legal system.
I Speak To Professor Gabriela Leon-Perez’s Class @ VCU, Professor Perez on my left, Richmond Attorney Pablo Fantl on my right Feb. 20, 2020
From VCU News:
Immigration course provides VCU students with a better understanding of a national issue
The sociology course, taught by Gabriela León-Pérez, examines the history of immigration and how the current debate ties to the past.
Gabriela León-Pérez’s class, Immigration and American Society, provides students with a more nuanced understanding of the current immigration debate. (Getty Images)
Immigration has always been a controversial topic in the United States. In the late 19th century, over 2 million Irish immigrated to the U.S. Most were Catholic and that created conflict with the largely Protestant U.S. population. The first comprehensive immigration law, the U.S. Immigration Act of 1882, contained provisions specifically designed to discourage European immigrants.
“This is not the first time the country has had anti-immigration policies, but the scapegoat group has changed over time,” said Gabriela León-Pérez, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies immigration policy.
León-Pérez wanted to give her students an understanding of the current immigration debate so she developed a course called Immigration and American Society, which covers the history of immigration and immigration policy and examines where the current debate fits into the past.
“It presents students with a context on the state of immigration today,” León-Pérez said. “A lot of people have opinions about immigration but most of them are not based on facts.”
A class to cut through the noise
When designing the course, León-Pérez wanted to be able to address current events in the news. The course uses some textbooks, but it also incorporates podcasts and blogs. The goal is to have the discussion revolve around the current state of the immigration debate.
“It definitely evolves based on current events,” León-Pérez said. “The first time I taught it was 2018, and there have been a lot of changes since then.”
John Lees, a psychology major, believes the class has given him a better understanding of immigration history. The class specifically looks at the immigration policies of presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Lees believes he now has a well-rounded perspective on the subject.
Yessica Flores, who is majoring in psychology and sociology, signed up for the class because she hears a lot of information about the subject and knew a class would help her cut through the noise.
“We are living in a world where the media is everywhere; where false news is frequent news,” Flores said. “I enrolled in the course with hopes of becoming educated in this area to help educate, inform and encourage others to better understand the reality of immigration within American society.”
As part of the class, León-Pérez teaches students how to find accurate information about immigration. The students learn to access official government data and other reliable sources. (Kevin Morley, University Marketing)
At the start of the class, León-Pérez teaches students how to find accurate information about immigration. The students learn to access official government data and other reliable sources.
“I try to present both sides of the debate,” León-Pérez said. “I want the students to have a well-rounded understanding of immigration and the debate. I don’t want them to shut down a side of the debate.”
Many students, she has observed, only understand the immigration debate from a particular vantage point. The class is a “light bulb” moment for them, and they realize that immigration is a complicated and nuanced topic. In general, immigration often comes down to economics, León-Pérez said. People against immigration are worried that new residents will take jobs, but people who support immigration say immigrants will do the type of work that many residents will not. Immigrants are looking for opportunity.
“Immigrants tend to complement American workers,” León-Pérez said. “Immigrants tend to work at lower-skilled jobs.”
Protecting due process
León-Pérez brings in guest speakers to enhance the curriculum. In February, she invited retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt. In previous semesters, León-Pérez has invited an immigration attorney as a guest speaker. This time, she wanted students to get the perspective of the person on the other side of the bench.
Schmidt served as an immigration judge from 2003 until he retired in 2016. Before that, he served on the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals. Since retiring, he has been talking about the state of the immigration courts and the lack of due process given to asylum seekers.
“The immigration courts are going through an existential crisis,” Schmidt told the class.
He understands that people have different opinions about immigration, but the courts must follow a process that protects the due process rights of asylum seekers, he said. The court functions as a division of the Department of Justice and Schmidt believes it is not given the resources to function properly. Everyone within the justice system should share a common interest in seeing the courts functioning in a fair and equitable way, Schmidt said.
Retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt speaks to León-Pérez’s class. (Kevin Morley, University Marketing)
“The immigration court now is structured in such a way that it is nothing more than a whistle stop on the road to deportation,” he said.
Schmidt offered several suggestions to the students on ways to help people who are going through the immigration courts. Immigrants, unlike citizens, are not required to have an attorney. Many do not understand the immigration process. Schmidt said students could volunteer and help them navigate the complex immigration system in the United States.
“You can join the new due process army,” Schmidt said.
Flores said she has found the class to be informative, and has enjoyed the guest lecturers. The class has not necessarily changed her views about the subject but has motivated her to become more involved.
“I have always disliked the way the immigration cases have been handled, especially the ones involving immigrant children,” Flores said. “I must say that my feelings toward being more involved in promoting change and awareness have changed in the sense that I have developed a much greater interest in getting more involved in the form of a future career.”
Subscribe to VCU News
Subscribe to the VCU News newsletter at newsletter.vcu.edu and receive a selection of stories, videos, photos, news clips and event listings in your inbox every Monday and Thursday.
*****************************************
And, here’s some information about one of America’s most talented and innovative professors, Dr. Gabriela Leon-Perez, who brings her rich background and scholarly research combined with innovative “student-centered, real life” teaching methods to perhaps the most important and “undertaught” subject in undergraduate, secondary, elementary, and even adult education today! Her teaching incorporates fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, respect, and lots of self-direction by the students themselves.
Gabriela Leon-Perez Assistant Professor of Sociology Virginia Commonwealth University
2012 M.A. in Sociology, Texas A&M International University
Teaching Areas
Research Methods, Immigration, Health Disparities
Research Interests
International Migration, Internal Migration, Mexico-US Migration, Immigrant Health, Health Disparities
Biography
Gabriela León-Pérez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research focuses on Mexican internal and international migration, the experiences of immigrants in the United States, and health disparities.
The underlying goal of her research agenda is to clarify the role of social, structural, and contextual factors in creating health and social inequalities, as well as to identify resources that improve the outcomes of immigrants and other marginalized populations. In her most recent project, she investigated the health trajectories of return US migrants, internal migrants, and indigenous migrants from Mexico. Other on-going projects focus on Mexican skilled migration to the US and the effects of stress, legal status, and state immigrant policies on the health and well-being of immigrants. You can read more about her current work on her personal website.
Donato, Katharine M., Gabriela León-Pérez, Kenneth A. Wallston, and Sunil Kripalani. 2018. “Something Old, Something New: When Gender Matters in the Relationship Between Social Support and Health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 59(3):352-370.
Young, Maria-Elena, Gabriela León-Pérez, Christine R. Wells, and Steven P. Wallace. 2018. “More Inclusive States, Less Poverty Among Immigrants? An Examination of Poverty, Citizenship Stratification, and State Immigrant Policies.” Population Research and Policy Review 37(2):205-228.
************************
I’ll lay it on the line. If more Americans, and particularly more potential younger voters, had understood the true role of immigration and refugees in building America’s past and propelling us into an even greater future, and the dangers to them, their classmates, communities, friends, families, and colleagues posed by Trump’s race baiting “Build That Wall” and “Lock Her Up” chants – certainly pages out of the Third Reich and Jim Crow “playbooks,” – then the modest number of additional votes might well have been there to save lives (perhaps those of loved ones) and to preserve our democratic instiutions and justice system from the vicious and corrupt attacks being waged by the Trump regime, its allies, and its enablers.
We could be working together to build a better future for everyone in America, rather than engaged in a desperate struggle to save our nation and our world from authoritarianism, ignorance, wanton cruelty, and environmental and societal degradation. And, unfortunately, the “enablers” include those who don’t agree with Trump but failed to cast a vote for Clinton in the last election. Simple as that. Every vote counts. Elections have consequence. And, defeating Trump and his GOP in November could be our last clear chance to preserve America as a democratic republic!
Following the class, I did a Spanish language radio show with my good friend Pablo Fantl, Esquire, of Richmond, who was kind enough to translate for me.
Kevin Euceda, a 17-year-old Honduran boy, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border three years ago and was turned over to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until his request for asylum could be decided by immigration courts. During that period, he was required, as are all unaccompanied minors in custody, to meet with therapists to help him process what he had gone through.
In those sessions, Kevin was encouraged to speak freely and openly and was told that what he said would be kept confidential. So he poured out his story of a brutalized childhood, of how MS-13 gang members moved into the family shack after his grandmother died when he was 12, of how he was forced to run errands, sell drugs and, as he got older, take part in beating people up. When he was ordered to kill a stranger to cement his position in the gang, Kevin decided to run.
His therapists submitted pages of notes over several sessions to the file on him, as they were expected to do. But then, HHS officials — without the knowledge of the teen or the therapists — shared the notes with lawyers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who used them in immigration court to paint the young migrant as a dangerous gang member who should be denied asylum and sent back to Honduras. In sharing those therapy notes, the government did not break any laws. But it most assuredly broke its promise of confidentiality to Kevin, violated standard professional practices — the first therapist involved quit once she learned her notes had been shared — and offended a fundamental expectation that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in this country.
Kevin, whose story was detailed by the Washington Post, wasn’t the only unaccompanied minor to fall victim to such atrocious behavior, though how many have been affected is unknown. The government says it has changed that policy and no longer shares confidential therapy notes, but that’s not particularly reassuring coming from this administration. It adopted the policy once; it could easily do so again.
Last week, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Immigrants’ Mental Health Act of 2020 to ban the practice, which is a necessary preventive measure. The bill would also create a new training regimen to help border agents address mental health issues among migrants and require at least one mental health expert at each Customs and Border Patrol facility. Both of those steps are worth considering too.
That the government would so callously use statements elicited from unaccompanied minors in therapy sessions to undercut their asylum applications is part of the Trump administration’s broad and inhumane efforts to effectively shut off the U.S. as a destination for people seeking to exercise their right to ask for sanctuary. Jeff Sessions and his successor as attorney general, William Barr, have injected themselves into cases at an unprecedented rate to unilaterally change long-established practices and immigration court precedent.
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases. Advocates argue persuasively that the efforts have undermined due process rights and made the immigration courts more a tool of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies than a system for measuring migrant’s claims against the standards Congress wrote into federal law.
Of course, trampling legal rights and concepts of basic human decency have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement — witness, for example, its separation of more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents. Beyond the heartlessness of the separations, the Health and Human Services’ inspector general last week blasted the department for botching the process. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded detention — about 50,000 migrants are in federal custody on any given day, up from about 30,000 a decade ago — and forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to await processing in dangerous squalor on Mexico’s side of the border.
There are legitimate policy discussions to be had over how this government should handle immigration, asylum requests and broad comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.
****************
The LA Times is ”on top” of the grotesque perversion of the Immigration “Courts” under nativist zealot Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Trump toady Billy Barr to carry out a White Nationalist political agenda:
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases.
Who’a NOT “on top” of what’s happening: The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate, Chief Justice Roberts, a number of his Supremely Complicit colleagues, and a host of Court of Appeals Judges who allow this unconstitutional travesty to continue to mock the Fifth Amendment and the rule of Law, while abusing and threatening the lives of legal asylum seekers every day!
With 2.5 Branches of our Government led by anti-democracy zealots and cowards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our only remaining bulwark against tyranny! Capable as she is, she can’t do it all by herself!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!
Migrants are led back down Paso del Norte International Bridge in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, last month after the United States refused them entry. (Paul Ratje/AFP/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration may continue its “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while lower-court challenges continue, after the federal government warned that tens of thousands of immigrants amassed at the southern border could overwhelm the immigration system.
The justices reversed a decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ordered the policy be suspended Thursday on parts of the border. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only noted dissenter.
The Trump administration had warned the justices of a dire situation without their intervention.
“Substantial numbers of up to 25,000 returned aliens who are awaiting proceedings in Mexico will rush immediately to enter the United States,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a brief. “A surge of that magnitude would impose extraordinary burdens on the United States and damage our diplomatic relations with the government of Mexico.”
The experimental U.S. policy requires migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed. (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)
The program — officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP — is among the tools the Trump administration has used to curb mass migration from Central America and elsewhere across the southern U.S. border.
In the 13 months it has been in place, the government said, 60,000 migrants have been sent back into Mexico to await their U.S. asylum hearings, part of an effort to limit access to the United States and deter people from attempting the journey north.
The administration implemented the program last year, after more than 470,000 migrants — including parents and children — crossed into the United States illegally, with most quickly freed amid a massive immigration court backlog.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing immigration groups and individuals, called it an “unprecedented policy that fundamentally changed the nation’s asylum system, contrary to Congress’s design and the United States’ treaty obligations.”
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last month issued an injunction against the policy along the borders of California and Arizona, states within the court’s authority.
Judges William A. Fletcher and Richard A. Paez, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with a lower-court judge in California that MPP probably violated federal immigration law by ousting undocumented asylum seekers who should be allowed to apply for protection in the United States.
The judges also said the program probably violated the administration’s “non-refoulement” obligations under international and domestic law, which prohibit the government from sending people to countries where they face danger. The 57-page ruling cited asylum seekers who feared kidnapping, threats and violence in Mexico.
“There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined,” Fletcher wrote in the opinion. “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.”
Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that the panel should have adhered to a prior appeals court decision that allowed MPP to take effect.
The Supreme Court’s action marks another case in which the Trump administration has asked the high court to immediately intervene after an adverse ruling from a regional appeals court.
The court on a 5-to-4 vote in January allowed the administration to begin implementing new “wealth test” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States because they have used or might use public-assistance programs.
Maria Sacchetti contributed to this report
************************************
So much for human dignity, our Constitution, and the rule of law. How many will die because of the Supreme’s dereliction of duty before we finally get regime change? Of course, the Supremes haven’t shown much interest in voting rights and fair elections either.
The immigration policies executed by the Trump administration have been, to be succinct, f***ed up. That’s not even just me saying that. The people who have to execute his policies are saying it too.
The New York Times reports that a union of federal asylum workers has filed an amicus brief stating that a policy from the Trump Administration that diverts migrants to Guatemala is unlawful. The union, National CIS Council 119, represents 700 asylum and refugee officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The brief states that international treaty obligations are being violated as a result of having to deport migrants to a country where they will likely face prosecution. The Trump administration made a deal with Guatemala that allows the United States to deport migrants seeking asylum in the States to Guatemala. The union believes that these new rules are forcing them to violate the laws they were trained to uphold.
. . . .
********************************
Read the complete report at the link.
HEROES & ENABLERS — Judges Who Aid The Trump Regime’s Deadly Oppression Of The Most Vulnerable Among Us Will Eventually Hear The Voices Of Those They Abandoned & Dehumanized — Even From The Graves Of The Oppressed, History Will Pass Judgement On The Smugly Powerful Who Abuse The Weak!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
March 9, 2020
USCIS Asylum Officers are the “NDPA Heroes of the Week!”
So, one group of courageous civil servants is willing to put their careers on the line to defend the Constitution and the rights of the vulnerable. But, others in more protected positions, like, for example, Supreme Court Justices and some Court of Appeals Judges, are afraid to stand up to Trump and defend the rule of law and the humanity of those whose only “crime” is to trust in our legal protection system. The courage of one group contrasts with the willful ignorance and cowardly complicity of the other. What’s wrong with this picture?
At some point, there will be “regime change” in the Executive as well as the Senate. When that happens, our system needs a complete re-examination of the immigration scholarship, commitment to human rights, and the moral leadership of those we are giving lifetime appointments to the Federal Bench, particularly the Supremes.
Obviously, the system has failed when two current justices choose to use their power and privileged positions disingenuously to rail about the “bogus horrors” of nationwide injunctions, and thereby spur the regime on to even grater abuses, while papering over the real issue of the actual grotesque legal, constitutional, and human rights violations inflicted on migrants and others by a White Nationalist would-be authoritarian regime that would eventually do away with almost all of our legal rights.
In the future, perhaps we should consider elevating more Asylum Officers with law degrees and a record of fair adjudication and speaking truth to power to the Article III Judiciary, including the Supremes. There are younger members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who were forced by the regime into “early retirement” who could bring scholarship, fairness, practicality, and justice back to the Article IIIs. How about some pro bono lawyers, clinical professors, and NGO leaders who combine scholarship with real life experience and whose proven creativity and problem solving skills far exceed the pedestrian and wooden approaches we see all too often from today’s failing Article III Judiciary. Although their efforts are mocked, disrespected, and undermined by complicit Article III Judges, like the “J.R. Five,” these courageous “defenders of democracy and the rights of the weak” are the ones who are in fact keeping our legal system afloat in the face of Article III willful ignorance and complicity in tyranny.
And, we definitely need fewer corporate lawyers (except those who have extensive pro bono immigration/human rights experience), prosecutors, and right wing “think tankers” occupying the Federal bench.We have an oversupply of those folks on the bench right now, and our rights are suffering for it. It will take years, perhaps decades, to repair the damage they are causing and to bring the Federal Judicial system back into a proper balance.
These aren’t “liberal/conservative philosophical questions.” They are black and white questions of moral courage and the willingness to enforce Due Process and protect those whose lives are endangered by the Trump regime’s cruel and lawless programs and constant racially-inspired lies, naked bias, and misrepresentations. Sending folks back to dangerous countries without functioning asylum systems is wrong as a matter of law. Period. Making them “Remain in Mexico” is wrong. Period. A so-called “court system” run by a transparently biased, disingenuous, “uber enforcement” official like Billy Barr does not provide the “fair and impartial adjudications” required by Due Process. Period. Separating families and putting kids in cages and “kiddie gulags” is wrong. Period. Those initiating and carrying out those policies should be chastised and held accountable, not enabled. Period.
Actually, many courageous and scholarly U.S. District Judges have gotten these straightforward legal questions exactly right and promptly entered life-saving injunctions. A number of U.S. Immigration Judges have also courageously adhered to the rule of law in the face of excruciating and unethical pressure from DOJ politicos and their toadies to cut corners and railroad individuals out of the country without due process.
It’s the Supremes and too many Circuit Court Judges who who have “rolled over” for the regime’s cruel and inhuman nonsense. By doing so, they essentially “pull the rug” out from under those judges who have the encourage and integrity to “just say no” to the regime’s constant overreach. In doing so, the Federal Appellate Courts and the Supremes are actually engaging in undermining the system they serve and encouraging “worst practices” and even worse results. What truly reprehensible “role models” for upcoming lawyers. Fortunately, many newer lawyers are members of the New Due Process Army and are ignoring the poor and immoral examples of judicial spinelessness set by their supposed “elders.”
Life tenure protects the jobs and paychecks of Article III Judges. But, it won’t protect them from justified criticism and the ultimate judgement of history. Bashing the oppressed in behalf of those in power might seem like a good short-term strategy. After all, the deported, the abused, and the dead don’t normally get to “write history.”
But others are watching this travesty unfold and are pledged to “give a voice” to those silenced by the gross dereliction of legal duties and ignoring simple human decency and values by many with power who could have put an end to these obscene human rights abuses. Chief Justice Roger Taney might have been hailed by the White Supremacists of his age for his opinion in Dred Scott. But, he hasn’t “weathered the test of time” too well! Nor will Chief Justice Roberts and others who have been “going along to get along” with cruel and illegal abuses wantonly inflicted by the White Nationalist regime on the most needy and vulnerable among us.
Congrats and much appreciation from all of us in the New Due Process Army to USCIS Asylum Officers for your courage and integrity in the face of tyranny!
Due Process Forever; Complicity & Enabling Cruelty Never!
WITH CHARACTERISTIC bombast, the White House denounced a federal court ruling the other day that threatens the administration’s policy of shifting migrants across the border into Mexico while they await the outcome of their asylum claims. The ruling, said press secretary Stephanie Grisham, could “reignite the humanitarian and security crisis at the border.”Too late, Ms. Grisham. As a direct result of the administration’s policy, known as Remain in Mexico, a full-blown humanitarian and security crisis already has been raging at the border since last spring. But since the victims, violence and costs of that crisis happen to be just south of the border — sometimes nearly within view of it — U.S. officials have successfully averted their eyes. To the Trump administration, a crisis of its own making is out of sight and therefore must not exist.
Sadly, it does exist. Some 60,000 migrants, mainly from Central America, have been returned by U.S. officials to Mexico over the past year to await adjudication of their asylum claims. Many have given up. Those who remain, stranded in squalid shelters and tent camps along the frontier, are easy prey for Mexican crime cartels. More than 1,000 reported cases of kidnapping, rape torture and other violent crimes targeting migrants waiting in Mexico have been documented by Human Rights First, an advocacy group. Independent journalists have also confirmed such cases, often involving Mexican criminals who use the migrants as leverage for ransom demands aimed at their relatives at home or in the United States.
The mass victimization of asylum seekers runs afoul of U.S. law and this country’s treaty obligations, which prohibit subjecting asylum seekers to such risks. “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that [migrants returned to Mexico under the administration’s policy] risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum,” wrote Judge William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled against the policy but let it stand pending further appeals.
. . . .
*********************************
Read the complete editorial at the above link.
It’s great to be on the right aside of history here. But, it would be better to make history by getting essential “regime change” in November – across the board.
ABA President Judy Perry Martinez joined leaders from Kids in Need of Defense on Wednesday in condemning a new pilot program at the Houston Immigration Court that requires all cases involving unaccompanied immigrant children to be heard via video teleconference.
Under the program, the Trump administration calls for the testimony of unaccompanied children to be streamed from Houston to Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Sirce Owen, who will hear cases in Atlanta. The program will begin March 9 and last for about two months.
“What is about to happen in Houston is wrong,” Martinez said during a briefing on the program. “It will hurt children and is contrary to the American pursuit of justice. The American Bar Association opposes the policy, and we need action against it now.”
Martinez explained that the ABA Commission on Immigration has extensive experience with children in immigrant courts and created standards of care and conduct based on its experience. She said that among those standards is a strong opposition to video teleconferencing in immigration proceedings involving children.
She recalled visiting a children’s shelter during one of her trips to volunteer with the ABA’s South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project. She thought then about what runs through the mind of an unaccompanied child who just entered the United States and must go to court.
“For a child, it must be truly troubling, if not terrifying—especially for a child who doesn’t speak English, who doesn’t know what to expect in a U.S. courtroom and who may not have a lawyer or other trusted adult to guide him or her,” she said. “Imagine how much more bewildering that experience must be for a child in a courtroom with no judge in person, live there with them. Only a small TV screen.”
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the above link.
Ah, picking on children, rather than trying to insure Due Process. There’s a name for those who pick on the most vulnerable.
Brent Kendall and Alicia Caldwell report for the WSJ:
A federal appeals court for now agreed to narrow the effect of its recent ruling that blocked a Trump administration policy of returning immigrants at the southern U.S. border to Mexico while their requests for asylum are considered.
The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an order issued Wednesday, said it ruled correctly last week that the administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy is unlawful. But the court acknowledged the “intense and active controversy” over nationwide injunctions against administration policies and said it would limit its ruling for now to the two border states within its jurisdiction: Arizona and California.
. . .
The Ninth Circuit also said none of its ruling would go into effect until March 12, to give the Trump administration a week to ask the Supreme Court for an emergency stay to keep the policy in place every-where for the time being.
*******************
The plaintiffs have already “won” this case about the regime’s unlawful actions twice. But, they are yet to get any meaningful relief. Instead, folks continue to suffer and be irreparably harmed while the wheels of justice slowly grind.
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously Friday to suspend an order it issued earlier in the day to block a central pillar of the Trump administration’s policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. courts.
The three-judge panel told the government to file written arguments by the end of Monday and for the plaintiffs to respond by the end of Tuesday.
The Justice Department said at least 25,000 asylum seekers subject to the policy are currently waiting in Mexico and expressed “massive and irreparable national-security of public-safety concerns.”
Government attorneys said immigration lawyers had begun demanding that asylum seekers be allowed in the United States, with one insisting that 1,000 people be allowed to enter at one location.
“The Court’s reinstatement of the injunction causes the United States public and the government significant and irreparable harms — to border security, public safety, public health, and diplomatic relations,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
Customs and Border Protection had already begun to stop processing people under the policy.
ACLU attorney Judy Rabinovitz called the suspension of Friday’s order “a temporary step.”
“We will continue working to permanently end this unspeakably cruel policy,” she said.
. . . .
*************************
Read the full report at the link.
Remember what I said in my post yesterday: “But, hold the ‘victory dance.’” It’s not over till it’s over. And this one might not be over until the regime sends the last asylum seeker to death or into harm’s way, thereby achieving their “ultimate deterrent” at the expense of human lives and the rule of law.
Of course, the Government’s health, national security, and public safety concerns are phony as a three-dollar bill. But, that might or might not make any difference.
(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals should consider de novo the application of law to the facts of this case, including whether the deprivations that the respondent would be likely to encounter upon removal to Mexico would constitute “torture” within the meaning of the Department of Justice regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United States Nov. 20, 1994).
(2) To constitute “torture” under these regulations, an act must, among other things, “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5). “‘[T]orture’ does not cover ‘negligent acts’ or harm stemming from a lack of resources.” Matter of J-R-G-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 482, 484 (BIA 2018) (citing Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 299, 301 (BIA 2002)).
(3) To constitute “torture,” an act must also be motivated by “such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
***************************
Actually, contrary to Billy Barr’s unethical “precedent,” the BIA “panel” in this case consisting of (now retired) Appellate Immigration Judge Linda Wendtland got this one completely right, as did the Immigration Judge.
Admittedly, this respondent isn’t a particularly sympathetic character. But, that’s totally irrelevant in a CAT deferral of removal case, where protection is mandatory if the respondent faces torture with Government acquiescence.
Let’s just take a cursory look at the publicly available information on what happens to mentally ill individuals in Mexico.
The Nightmare That Is Mexico’s Mental Health System
Published by Ariel Jacoby on Friday, April 15, 2016 | Features
Though there are an estimated 10 million people with mental, visual, hearing or motor disabilities living in Mexico, the country’s mental health system is so dysfunctional that the unlucky patients under its care are colloquially referred to as “abandanodos” – abandoned ones.
It’s an accurate description for these lost souls. A 93-page report from Disability Rights International revealed the horrific living conditions at Mexican mental health facilities, which are a breeding ground for human rights violations and abuse of the handicapped patients that these institutions are meant to help. Many patients never received a clinical diagnosis of their condition and don’t have families to give them private care – these patients remain locked inside the hospitals indefinitely and become completely anonymous to the world.
Patients rock back and forth in urine soaked clothes or walk about soiled, feces-smeared floors without shoes. Bedsheets are an uncommon luxury; hygiene is an abstract concept in a Mexican mental hospital where some “patients and their caretakers could not fully explain how or why they were institutionalized” (New York Times). Without proper oversight and the absence of any sort of registry system, it is not uncommon for mentally ill children to literally disappear from Mexican mental health facilities with no record of their name, age, or families.
In this dismal hole of human despair, atrocities are ubiquitous and plentiful. Many of the patients in these institutions have been detained against their will for years and will likely languish inside the walls of these torture chambers until their death. Psychotropic drugs are excessively relied upon to treat patients and the more aggressive patients who don’t respond to medication can be subject to forced lobotomies, which need only the approval of the facility director. Eric Rosenthal, the director of Disability Rights International, found that 1/4 of the mental health facilities were keeping patients in restraints for extended periods of time – an act that violates Article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture.
The concept of human rights has no real meaning or significance in these unregulated, inhumane environments. The investigation conducted by DRI revealed the severity and frequency of human rights violations within the walls of such state-run facilities. In one institution, a terrified blind patient admitted to being raped by one of the staff members – a claim that was quickly dismissed by Mexican officials. In another facility, investigators discovered two young women who had been institutionalized at a young age, grew up in the hospital, and had been working as unpaid laborers for years. There exists no record of how or why these women were institutionalized and Mexican law requires no legal review to detain them indefinitely as modern-day slave laborers.
The director of Samuel Ramirez Hospital, one of the 31 state-run mental health facilities in Mexico, calls his own hospital “hell” and has voiced his belief that the mental health of every patient at his facility have been made worse by their institutionalization. He blames the lack of proper funding and a deficiency of properly trained personnel – at a different mental institution nearby, there are only two psychologists and one doctor to treat the 365 patients who have been institutionalized there.
The sad state of Mexico’s mental health system can be traced back to its government’s complex and deep-rooted political issues. Mexico’s budget for mental health makes up about 2.5% of its overall health spending. This is an improvement from the paltry 1.6% allocated to mental health a decade ago, but still significantly lower than the WHO’s recommendation of 10%. Without a significant electorate of mental health advocates, mental health lacks any real political sway in Mexico. Back in 2006, Mexico was among 96 countries who ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it is clear that not much has changed within the system itself.
Mexico isn’t Haiti or some other “poor country.” It’s the 15th largest economy in the world. The allocation of a paltry 2-3% of spending on mental health is an intentional embrace of torture by the Mexican Government that relates directly to the dehumanized place of the mentally ill in Mexican society. A Mexican national being deported from the U.S. with a criminal record would very likely receive the “worst of the worst” – not “negligently” but very intentionally. Clearly,. the torture and punishment of the mentally ill just because they are mentally ill is “any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” I give this respondent 90 days max until he’s tortured to death if returned to Mexico. The conditions requiring mandatory deferral of removal under CAT have clearly been met.
Judge Wendtland was right. Barr is “dead” wrong. But, Billy’s message to his subordinates is clear: Forget the law: deny, deny, deny!
The system is broken. Removal of the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and the end of the ability of unqualified immoral politicos like Billy Barr to interfere in the judicial system in derogation of Constitutional Due Process is essential to the survival of our democracy.
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 9th Cir., 02-28-20, published
PANEL:Ferdinand F. Fernandez, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY:Judge William A. Fletcher
DISSENTING OPINION:Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
In addition to likelihood of success on the merits, a court must consider the likelihood that the requesting party will
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 49
suffer irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest in determining whether a preliminary injunction is justified. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “When the government is a party, these last two factors merge.” Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)).
There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined. Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.
The balance of equities favors plaintiffs. On one side is the interest of the Government in continuing to follow the directives of the MPP. However, the strength of that interest is diminished by the likelihood, established above, that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1231(b). On the other side is the interest of the plaintiffs. The individual plaintiffs risk substantial harm, even death, so long as the directives of the MPP are followed, and the organizational plaintiffs are hindered in their ability to carry out their missions.
The public interest similarly favors the plaintiffs. We agree with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant:
On the one hand, the public has a “weighty” interest “in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982). But the public also has an interest in ensuring that “statutes enacted by [their] representatives”
50 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
are not imperiled by executive fiat. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1301 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers).
932 F.3d at 779 (alteration in original).
VII. Scope of the Injunction
The district court issued a preliminary injunction setting aside the MPP—that is, enjoining the Government “from continuing to implement or expand the ‘Migrant Protection Protocols’ as announced in the January 25, 2018 DHS policy memorandum and as explicated in further agency memoranda.” Innovation Law Lab, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 1130. Accepting for purposes of argument that some injunction should issue, the Government objects to its scope.
We recognize that nationwide injunctions have become increasingly controversial, but we begin by noting that it is something of a misnomer to call the district court’s order in this case a “nationwide injunction.” The MPP operates only at our southern border and directs the actions of government officials only in the four States along that border. Two of those states (California and Arizona) are in the Ninth Circuit. One of those states (New Mexico) is in the Tenth Circuit. One of those states (Texas) is in the Fifth Circuit. In practical effect, the district court’s injunction, while setting aside the MPP in its entirety, does not operate nationwide.
For two mutually reinforcing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the MPP.
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 51
First, plaintiffs have challenged the MPP under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Section 706(2)(A) of the APA provides that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . not in accordance with law.” We held, above, that the MPP is “not in accordance with” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Section 706(2)(A) directs that in a case where, as here, a reviewing court has found the agency action “unlawful,” the court “shall . . . set aside [the] agency action.” That is, in a case where § 706(2)(A) applies, there is a statutory directive—above and beyond the underlying statutory obligation asserted in the litigation—telling a reviewing court that its obligation is to “set aside” any unlawful agency action.
There is a presumption (often unstated) in APA cases that the offending agency action should be set aside in its entirety rather than only in limited geographical areas. “[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When a court determines that an agency’s action failed to follow Congress’s clear mandate the appropriate remedy is to vacate that action.” Cal. Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The ordinary practice is to vacate unlawful agency action.”); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. United States, 817 F.2d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“The APA requires us to vacate the agency’s decision if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .”).
52 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
Second, cases implicating immigration policy have a particularly strong claim for uniform relief. Federal law contemplates a “comprehensive and unified” immigration policy. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012). “In immigration matters, we have consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 932 F.3d at 779. We wrote in Regents of the University of California, 908 F.3d at 511, “A final principle is also relevant: the need for uniformity in immigration policy. . . . Allowing uneven application of nationwide immigration policy flies in the face of these requirements.” We wrote to the same effect in Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev’d on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018): “Because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give Plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.” The Fifth Circuit, one of only two other federal circuits with states along our southern border, has held that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in immigration cases. In sustaining a nationwide injunction in an immigration case, the Fifth Circuit wrote, “[T]he Constitution requires ‘an uniform Rule of Naturalization’; Congress has instructed that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly’; and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as ‘a comprehensive and unified system.’” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). In Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), we relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Texas to sustain the nationwide scope of a temporary restraining order in an immigration case. We wrote, “[W]e decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 53 constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform
immigration law and policy.” Id. at 1166–67. Conclusion
We conclude that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that it is inconsistent in part with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b). Because the MPP is invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with § 1225(b), it should be enjoined in its entirety. Because plaintiffs have successfully challenged the MPP under § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and because the MPP directly affects immigration into this country along our southern border, the issuance of a temporary injunction setting aside the MPP was not an abuse of discretion.
We lift the emergency stay imposed by the motions panel, and we firm the decision of the district court.
****************************
At last, a breath of justice in halting, at least temporarily, an outrageously illegal program that is also a grotesque violation of our national values and humanity. Unfortunately, it has already resulted in thousands of injustices and damaged many lives beyond repair. That’s something that a clueless shill for authoritarianism, wanton cruelty, and abrogation of the rule of law like dissenting Judge Fernandez might want to think about.
But, hold the “victory dance.” The regime will likely seek “rehearing en banc,” appealing to other enablers of human rights atrocities like Fernandez. And, if the regime fails there, they always can “short circuit” the legal system applicable to everyone else by having Solicitor General Francisco ask his GOP buddies on the Supremes, “The JR Five,” to give the regime a free pass. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, that type of “tilt” has already become more or less “business as usual” as the regime carries out its nativist, White Nationalist immigration agenda. Indeed, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have already announced their eagerness to carry the regime’s water for them by doing away with nationwide injunctions, even though they are the sole way for doing justice in immigration cases like this.
But, at least for today, we can all celebrate a battle won by the New Due Process Army in the ongoing war to restore our Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity.
But early one morning, she kissed her sleeping son goodbye. She had spent the night watching him in his bed. It was almost his 10th birthday.
“Fue el peor momento de mi vida,” Bárbara said. It was the worst moment of my life.
It had been nearly a year since Bárbara had been left for dead outside her clothing store, a victim of the Nicaraguan government’s bloody campaign to silence pro-democracy protests that rose up in 2018.
She knew she had to flee, but she didn’t think she could protect her son on the notorious migrant trail. She wasn’t willing to risk him.
So the 29-year-old entrepreneur escaped north alone, putting herself at the mercy of the U.S. asylum system — a system meant to protect the world’s most vulnerable.
RETURNED: PART I
The first in an occasional series in which the Union-Tribune explores the asylum system through the eyes of people who experience it firsthand, with drastically different outcomes.
The San Diego Union-Tribune is not fully identifying Bárbara or many of the witnesses interviewed in Nicaragua because of the danger that the government might retaliate against them or their families.
Bárbara is in Tijuana, one of tens of thousands of people waiting for a chance to argue for protection in the United States, part of a changing wave of migration that the Trump administration has labeled a crisis.
She exists in a constant state of uncertainty, and she realizes now just how much she underestimated the challenges that still lie ahead.
***********************
For Kate’s full article including the “original formatting” and all of the great pictures and graphics accompanying it, click on the above link that will take you to the original article on the San Diego Union-Tribune website!
Thanks, Kate, for so beautifully capturing the “heart and soul” of the refugee experience and why the Trump regime’s intentionally cruel, illegal, immoral, and dehumanizing policies are undermining our humanity as a nation and everything we should stand for. These are human lives at stake, not “numbers,” “beds,” or “apprehensions.” Success is measured in lives saved, and fair treatment of all, not “numbers turned back” or how we can “discourage” or “deter” others from seeking refuge. Our legal system should be fair and impartial, not a “weaponized tool” for nativist immigration enforcement policies. Indeed, it supposedly is there too protect all of us against such political overreach and abuses.
Interestingly, there was a time in the past when the GOP and the Reagan Administration went out of its way to help and give refuge to those Nicaraguans fleeing the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), one of the best, most effective, and most efficient pieces of immigration legislation ever passed, was a result of bipartisan support for providing permanent relief to Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans fleeing the mess in Central American that our Government played a significant role in creating. Some off those fleeing Cuba and Eastern Europe also were covered. Now, under the influence of Trump, neo-fascist Stephen Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist gang, this GOP-led regime simply turns its back on vulnerable refugees like Barbara, the human carnage resulting from Ortega’s misrule of Nicaragua.
Perhaps in the future, Kate will put it all together in a book. Hope so!
HERNANDEZ ET AL. v. MESA
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17–1678. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
Respondent, United States Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., shot and killed Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, in a tragic and disputed cross-border incident. Mesa was standing on U. S. soil when he fired the bullets that struck and killed Hernández, who was on Mexican soil, after having just run back across the border following entry onto U. S. territory. Agent Mesa contends that Hernández was part of an illegal border crossing attempt, while petitioners, Hernández’s parents, claim he was playing a game with his friends that involved running back and forth across the culvert sep- arating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The shooting drew international attention, and the Department of Justice investi- gated, concluded that Agent Mesa had not violated Customs and Bor- der Patrol policy or training, and declined to bring charges against him. The United States also denied Mexico’s request for Agent Mesa to be extradited to face criminal charges in Mexico.
Petitioners sued for damages in U. S. District Court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, alleging that Mesa violated Hernández’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court dismissed their claims, and the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. After this Court vacated that de- cision and remanded for further consideration in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed, refusing to rec- ognize a Bivens claim for a cross-border shooting.
Held: Bivens’ holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting. Pp. 4–20.
(a) In Bivens, the Court implied a Fourth Amendment claim for damages even though no federal statute authorized such a claim. The Court later extended Bivens’ reach to cover claims under the Fifth and
2
HERNANDEZ v. MESA Syllabus
Eighth Amendments. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228; Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14. But Bivens’ expansion has since become “a ‘disfa- vored’ judicial activity,” Abbasi, supra, at ___, and the Court has gen- erally expressed doubt about its authority to recognize causes of action not expressly created by Congress, see, e.g., Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___. When considering whether to extend Bivens, the Court uses a two-step inquiry that first asks whether the request in- volves a claim that arises in a “new context” or involves a “new cate- gory of defendants.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 68. If so, the Court then asks whether there are any “special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation” about granting the extension. Abbasi, supra, at ___. Pp. 4–8.
(b) Petitioners’ Bivens claims arise in a new context. Their claims are based on the same constitutional provisions as claims in cases in which damages remedies were previously recognized, but the con- text—a cross-border shooting—is significantly “different . . . from pre- vious Bivens cases.” Abbasi, supra, ___. It involves a “risk of disrup- tive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches.” Abbasi, supra, ___. Pp. 8–9.
(c) Multiple, related factors counsel hesitation before extending Bivens remedies into this new context. Pp. 9–19.
(1) The expansion of a Bivens remedy that impinges on foreign re- lations—an arena “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches . . . as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry,” Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 292—risks interfering with the Executive Branch’s “lead role in foreign policy,” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 524. A cross- border shooting affects the interests of two countries and, as happened here, may lead to disagreement. It is not for this Court to arbitrate between the United States and Mexico, which both have legitimate and important interests at stake and have sought to reconcile those inter- ests through diplomacy. Pp. 9–12.
(2) Another factor is the risk of undermining border security. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for pre- venting the illegal entry of dangerous persons and goods into the United States, and the conduct of their agents positioned at the border has a clear and strong connection to national security. This Court has not extended Bivens where doing so would interfere with the system of military discipline created by statute and regulation, see, e.g., Chap- pell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, and a similar consideration is applicable to the framework established by the political branches for addressing cases in which it is alleged that lethal force at the border was unlaw- fully employed by a border agent. Pp. 12–14.
(3) Moreover, Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages against federal officials for injury inflicted outside
Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus
S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is avail- able only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). And the Tor- ture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, cannot be used by an alien to sue a United States officer. When Con- gress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch of- ficials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. §2734. Congress’s decision not to allow suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not create a cause of action that extends across U. S. borders either. Pp. 14–18.
(4) These factors can all be condensed to the concern for respecting the separation of powers. The most important question is whether Congress or the courts should create a damages remedy. Here the an- swer is Congress. Congress’s failure to act does not compel the Court to step into its shoes. Pp. 19–20.
885 F. 3d 811, affirmed.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., andTHOMAS,GORSUCH,andKAVANAUGH,JJ.,joined. THOMAS,J.,fileda concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Key Quote From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court held that injured plaintiffs could pursue claims for damages against U. S. officers for conduct disregarding constitutional constraints. The in- stant suit, invoking Bivens, arose in tragic circumstances. In 2010, the complaint alleges, a Mexican teenager was playing with friends in a culvert along the United States- Mexico border. A U. S. Border Patrol agent, in violation of instructions controlling his office and situated on the U. S. side of the border, shot and killed the youth on the Mexican side. The boy’s parents sued the officer for damages in fed- eral court, alleging that a rogue federal law enforcement of- ficer’s unreasonable use of excessive force violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. At the time of the incident, it is uncontested, the officer did not know whether the boy he shot was a U. S. national or a citizen of another land. See Hernández v. Mesa, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5–6).
When the case first reached this Court, the Court re- manded it, instructing the Court of Appeals to resolve a threshold question: Is a Bivens remedy available to noncit- izens (here, the victim’s parents) when the U. S. officer acted stateside, but the impact of his alleged wrongdoing
2 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting
was suffered abroad? To that question, the sole issue now before this Court, I would answer “yes.” Rogue U. S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plain- tiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. for- eign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the applica- tion of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders. I would therefore hold that the plaintiffs’ complaint crosses the Bivens threshold.
* * **
Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated in- cident. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged that border agent fired 14 to 30 bullets across the border, killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing various incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by border and immigration officers); Brief for Border Network for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing indi- viduals killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800 complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97% of the complaints resulting in formal deci- sions, no action was taken. D. Martínez, G. Cantor, & W. Ewing, No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Re- sponding to Complaints of Abuse, American Immigration Council 1–8 (2014), americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/
14 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting
default/files/research/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf. Ac- cording to amici former Customs and Border Protection of- ficials, “the United States has not extradited a Border Pa- trol agent to stand trial in Mexico, and to [amici’s] knowledge has itself prosecuted only one agent in a cross- border shooting.” Brief for Former Officials of U. S. Cus- toms and Border Protection Agency as Amici Curiae 4. These amici warn that, “[w]ithout the possibility of civil li- ability, the unlikely prospect of discipline or criminal pros- ecution will not provide a meaningful deterrent to abuse at the border.” Ibid. In short, it is all too apparent that to redress injuries like the one suffered here, it is Bivens or nothing.
***
I resist the conclusion that “nothing” is the answer re- quired in this case. I would reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judg- ment and hold that plaintiffs can sue Mesa in federal court for violating their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
******************************************
This case is straightforward. Mesa a CBP Agent standing in the United States shot Hernandez, an unarmed 15-year-old Mexican standing in Mexico without justification. This violated Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Had the lower Federal Courts and the Supremes applied the law on “Constitutional torts” correctly, Mesa would have been found liable. The Government probably would have settled with the Hernandez family.
Instead, nearly of decade of unnecessary litigation ensued during which all three levels of the U.S. Court System failed the Hernandez family and distorted our system of justice. Dissenting Fifth Circuit Judge (now Ambassador) Ed Prado summed up this legal farce in a single powerful phrase: “[the majority has been] led astray from the familiar circumstances of this case by empty labels of national security, foreign affairs, and extra- territoriality.” For the record, Ambassador Prado is a lifelong Republican. I worked with him on immigration litigation during the Reagan Administration.
Hey, just “business as usual” for a GOP Supremes’ majority that has checked the Constitution and their humanity at the door in their haste to “deconstruct America” and reconstitute it as the White Nationalist authoritarian state that the Trump regime embodies. Heck, corporations and guns have more rights that dead Mexican kids and their families under the majority‘s view. “Not their kids” as I’ve noted before. I do suspect that if members of their own families were being shot and killed by CBP, we would have a different result in cases like this. But, out of sight, out of mind. Wow, think of the potential foreign relations nightmare of CBP Agents stopped killing unarmed Mexican kids from our side of the border!
Not to be outdone by the majority’s legal gibberish cloaking moral abdication, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas wrote separately to signal Trump that they would like to do away with Bivens entirely while in the process of rewriting the laws in Trump’s image. Apparently recognizing that the GOP has effectively stymied Congress and that Trump intends to inflict many more legal and Constitutional abuses on the unfortunate non-white population, they would like to eliminate all restraints on the regime’s constant violations of law and abuses of individual rights. Obviously, from their exalted and privileged positions above the Constitutional, legal, and societal chaos affecting less fortunate individuals under the Trump regime, they haven‘t fully thought through want happens when Trump or the next White Nationalist demagogue comes for them and there is neither a rule or law nor anyone left to enforce it in a fair an impartial manner.
I’m not the only one who understands the ugly truth about the future of all of our individual rights and the lives of nonwhite individuals (citizens or not) that the Trump majority on the Supremes are attempting to hide with their opaque, yet lethal, legal gobbledygook. Ian Millhiser over at Vox News also sees though the smokescreen at what’s really happening here: “The Supreme Court just held that a border guard who shot a child will face no consequences” https://apple.news/AWWSBpk_aR6uAlmxmQIvZkw
As we’re finding out anew every day, the law and fair, impartial, and courageous judging is for suckers!
The trauma Donald Trump’s administration caused to young children and parents separated at the US-Mexico border constitutes torture, according to evaluations of 26 children and adults by the group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).
The not-for-profit group’s report provides the first in-depth look at the psychological impact of family separation, which the US government continued despite warnings from the nation’s top medical bodies.
“As a clinician, nobody was prepared for this to happen on our soil,” the report co-author Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at PHR, told the Guardian. “It is beyond shocking that this could happen in the United States, by Americans, at the instruction and direct intention of US government officials.”
Advertisement
Hide
Legal experts have argued family separation constituted torture, but this is the first time a medical group has reached the determination.
PHR volunteer psychiatrists evaluated 17 adults and nine children who had been separated between 30 to 90 days. Most met the criteria for at least one mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder “consistent with, and likely linked to, the trauma of family separation”, according to the report.
Not only did the brutal family separation policy create trauma, it was intensified by the families’ previous exposure to violence on their journey to the US and in their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
All but two of the adults evaluated by PHR said they had received death threats in their home countries and 14 out of the 17 adults said they were targeted by drug cartels. All were fearful their child would be harmed or killed if they remained at home.
Almost all the children had been drugged, kidnapped, poisoned or threatened by gangs before they left. One mother told investigators she moved her daughter to different schools in El Salvador several times so gang members couldn’t find her and kill her.
In the face of these threats, parents tried to move within the country, change their phone numbers, meet extortion demands and go silent on social media. Ultimately, however, the report said: “Parents were confident that the journey to the United States would result in protection for their children.”
This is not what happened at the border.
The Trump administration instituted a policy in April 2018 that formally enabled the mass separation of children and parents at the US-Mexico border. Trump ended the policy in June 2018, but it has since been revealed that the administration separated thousands of families before and after the policy was in place.
There was also no system to reunite the families, according to an internal government watchdog. The Trump administration also ignored warnings from the nation’s leading medical organizations that family separation would traumatize children and adults.
How Trump’s immigration policies hurt people’s lives – in pictures
People who experience trauma, especially as children, have higher rates of medical conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. They also have an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and detrimental coping behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse.
“Something like that does not just resolve once you’re reunified with your parents, it’s something you carry with you possibly forever,” Mishori said.
One Honduran father described how badly his son reacted the four times a psychologist came to their apartment for treatment in the report: “Each time the son would refuse to cooperate and would throw things at the therapist … It appears his son was afraid of strangers, afraid they will take him away from his father.”
Kathryn Hampton, a senior officer in PHR’s asylum program, said the group PHR had assessed was small but represented separated families from different detention centers and foster homes across the country over a two-year period.
“This is a really disparate group of people and yet their stories are practically identical,” said Hampton. “So that’s very disturbing, to see that level of consistency.”
Amid the despair, PHR has seen an outpouring of support in money and volunteers. Hampton said since the beginning of 2018, its Asylum Network had more than doubled to 1,700 clinicians who provide free medical and psychological evaluations to asylum seekers. There were also three times as many medical school clinics partnering with the organization in that period.
Dr Stuart Lustig, a California-based psychiatrist and longtime volunteer, evaluated a seven-year-old girl from Guatemala. He said when he and the girl did a common evaluation tool called the Squiggle Test, she had one of the more inhibited reactions he had seen in 20 years.
“These kinds of separations were filled with uncertainty, there was no information about where people are going, so it is not surprising at all that these separations ended up being extremely traumatizing for kids and parents,” Lustig said.
In November, a federal court ordered the US to compensate for the trauma separated families faced at the hands of the government. Lustig said there were many treatment options for children who experienced this deep level of trauma in the US, but he and PHR were concerned about how these families would have access to them.
Lustig said: “Part of the work is simply building trust in humanity again.”
**************************
We are diminishing ourselves as a nation; but, in the end, it won’t stop human migration. While the purpose of torture is dehumanization and degradation of the “other,” torture actually increases the humanity of its victims while dehumanizing the torturers and their enablers.
It’s also worthy remembering the next time “Big Mac With Lies,” Nielsen, Kelly, ”Gonzo” Sessions and other noted torturers want to “clean up their images” and capitalize on their misdeeds by speaking to an organization to which you belong or attend. Remember who they REALLY are beneath their facades: unpunished perpetrators of “Crimes Against Humanity.”
