Immigration Detention – Page 91 – immigrationcourtside.com

POLITICS: SHUTDOWN COUNTDOWN: Legislators Say They Have A Deal – No Details!

Emily Cochrane & Glenn Thrush report for the NYT:

WASHINGTON — Top House and Senate negotiators said late Monday that they had reached an “agreement in principle” on border security that would avoid a second government shutdown that would begin this weekend. Lawmakers declined to offer details, but seemed confident that the agreement — if supported by leadership and signed by President Trump — could resolve an immigration dispute and allow the government to keep operating. It was unclear if Mr. Trump would go along with the deal, the specifics of which must still be worked by congressional staff members. The president has already accepted, reluctantly, far less money than he wanted for repairs and extensions of existing border barriers — and no new wall. Progress on the deal had been stalled by an impasse over Mr. Trump’s roundups and detention of undocumented immigrants. Yet, as the negotiations continued, but before the deal was announced, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the top member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said both he and Mr. Shelby thought it was preferable to find a resolution by the end of the night and not let the impasse languish. “We’re trying to be legislators,” he said. A specific point of contention has been the number of detention beds under the control of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Aides in both parties had warned that a final deal might leave the number of detention slots — or “interior beds” — unchanged, not reduced as Democrats want and not increased as Mr. Trump wants. House Democrats, urged on by immigration rights group, have pushed hard, hoping to leverage White House fears of another damaging shutdown into a softening of the president’s hard-line immigration policies that they say have torn apart families, wrenched productive citizens from the communities they have lived in for years and infused a heartlessness into official American immigration policy. The Democrats’ tool: limit the number of beds that ICE has to hold undocumented immigrants in custody to 16,500 from around 20,700. The Democrats’ ultimate goal is to cut the overall number of detention beds, including those occupied by asylum seekers and people caught at the border, from its current level of around 49,000 to 34,000, the number funded during the Obama administration, Democratic aides said. That, they say, would end sweeps and roundups, and force ICE to focus on pursuing hardened criminals. Last year, the Trump administration requested funding for 52,000. With their number, Democrats say they can seize the initiative on immigration from a president who has staked his political fortunes on the issue. “We started at zero on the wall, and we compromised a lot after that, and we are now asking them to change, too,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat of California and a member of the 17-member House and Senate conference committee tasked with hammering out a compromise. Mr. Trump was catching on. When Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, presented him with the Democrats’ demand, he rejected it quickly, according to two people briefed on the exchange. “These are people coming into our country that we are holding and we don’t want in our country,” the president told reporters at the White House late Monday. “That’s why they don’t want to give us what we call ‘the beds.’ It’s much more complicated than beds, but we call them from ‘the beds.’” In private, Republicans responded with a plan that would exempt many detained immigrants from the cap, including those people either charged with or convicted of crimes, including misdemeanor drug offenses and violent felonies. That, in turn, was rejected by Democrats. “You have ICE agents picking up mothers and fathers and children in their own neighborhoods. That’s why the beds issue is so much more important than the wall,” said Ms. Roybal-Allard, whose Los Angeles-area district is 85 percent Hispanic, the highest percentage of any district in the country. The number of beds occupied by detainees fluctuates over time, influenced by a variety of factors, including ICE enforcement policies and the flow of migrants at the border with Mexico. The rate of that flow is unpredictable and determined by factors such as the performance of the economies north and south of the border, crime, gang activity and the business practices of coyotes paid to transport migrants from Mexico and Central America to California and the Southwest. The number of monthly apprehensions of migrants at the border has averaged 25,000 to 40,000 for most of the past decade, but has risen to about 50,000 over the past several months, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Homeland Security. If ICE does not have enough room to place individuals and family members they detain, they must loosen their enforcement actions, creating a powerful motive for new migrants to enter the country illegally, Trump administration officials say. “You cannot have border security, without strong interior enforcement, whether there is a wall there or not,” said Matt Albence, the deputy director of ICE, on Monday in a conference call with reporters. Republicans closed ranks to blast the plan. “This is a poison pill that no administration, not this one, not the previous one, should ever accept,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said on the Senate floor. “Imagine the absurdity of this: House Democrats want to set a limit on how many criminal aliens our government can detain.” Earlier Monday, Democratic leadership aides said that there would be no deal without some concession on the bed issue — in part because immigrants rights groups and party liberals would revolt if they agreed to extend border barriers without getting something tangible in return. Last Friday, when word of a possible deal first leaked out, advocates for immigrants reached out to Democratic leadership offices, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, to say that they would oppose any deal that did not address their concerns about ICE. “For the last two years, we have been trying to limit the bad. We have taken a defensive approach, but now House Democrats have the power to start doing some good,” said Lorella Praeli, the deputy national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that has pressed the Democratic leaders, Ms. Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, to reject any deal that does not include steps to reduce aggressive immigration enforcement. “It’s time for them to show that they are fighting for us,” Ms. Praeli added. “It means you have to do something more than a floor speech or a tweet supporting immigrants. It’s time to actually do something.”

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

I hope it happens. But, as I always say, “the devil is in the details,” and we don’t have any yet. Stay tuned.

PWS

02-11-19

HEAR MY LATEST PODCAST ON “GOOD LAW/BAD LAW” WITH AARON J. FREIWALD!

Here’s the link:

http://www.law-podcast.com/

PWS

02-11-19

THE HILL: Nolan’s Take On Intelligence Report

Family Pictures

Nolan writes:

On January 29, 2019, Coats presented the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The assessment is based on the collective insights of the intelligence community.

Although Coats arguably contradicted President Donald Trump in some areas, such as the state of North Korea’s nuclear program, he supported Trump’s claim that the flood of migrants from Central America is causing a security crisis. The assessment includes migration from Central America as one of the threats to national security.

This is not the first time the intelligence community has identified migration from Central America as a security threat. The same finding was included in the Worldwide Threat Assessment that former DNI James R. Clapper’s presented to congress in 2016, which was during the Obama Administration.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/428316-intelligence-community-views-migration-from-central-america-as-threat-to

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

For a different take on the intelligence directors’ report and Congressional testimony see my recent post from WashPost. http://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/01/30/a-presidency-without-intelligence-is-a-threat-to-our-national-security-by-contrast-individuals-seeking-asylum-through-our-legal-system-our-southern-border-are-no-such-thing-none-of-the/

PWS

02-09-19

AOC & CO. ARE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ON INEFFECTIVE, INHUMANE, WASTEFUL, OFTEN ILLEGAL DHS POLICIES DRIVEN BY A WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA – But, They Might Be Better Served By Holding Their Fire For Meaningful Oversight & The Next Budget Cycle – Like It Or Not, DHS Is Here & Isn’t Going Anywhere & We Do Need An Orderly System For Controlling Migration & Processing Refugees At Our Border!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberals-urge-democrats-to-take-a-hard-line-on-border-11549323945

Kristina Peterson & Louise Radnofsky report for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—House Democratic leaders held firm through the five-week government shutdown that ended last month. Still, the party’s liberal wing is keeping up pressure on leadership as negotiations over a border-security deal heat up.

A group of liberal House Democrats and advocacy groups are urging Democrats in a bipartisan negotiating committee to refuse further funding for the Homeland Security Department, which oversees the border with Mexico. The group’s 17 lawmakers have less than two weeks to reach a deal before government funding expires again.

President Trump has said several times he is pessimistic lawmakers can reach a deal that he would accept, and he has threatened to take action to build his long-promised border wall on his own, including possibly declaring a national emergency.

Congressional leaders have been optimistic the group of House and Senate lawmakers can reach an agreement, but any bipartisan deal is unlikely to appease some in the party’s left wing.

A letter to House Democrats, written by freshman Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and signed by at least three others, criticizes Homeland Security for practices including prosecution and detention of immigrants.

The department and its frontline enforcement units—Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection—have become high-profile targets as they implement the Trump administration’s attempts to step up deportations and the zero-tolerance policy that last year resulted in family separations at the border.

“These agencies have promulgated an agenda driven by hate—not strategy,” the lawmakers wrote. They argue that the agencies’ ability to shift funds makes it impossible to prevent money from being used for policies that Democrats generally oppose.

Refusing funding for the agency housing the president’s top political priority isn’t going to draw Republican support, a House Democratic aide said, which the committee would need to produce a deal.

“It’s totally unrealistic,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), who is in the negotiating group, said of the Democratic letter. “That basically says you don’t want to secure the border.”

Democrats overall say they favor border security, just not Mr. Trump’s border wall, and immigration advocates said their task is to counter the president.

. . . .

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

Read the complete WSJ report from these “emerging stars on the immigration beat.”

There hasn’t been any meaningful oversight of DHS or the mess DOJ politicos have created at EOIR in two years. So, while there certainly should not be additional funding for DHS’s already overused and abused detention system, for now, Democrats should probably work with DHS as the “only game in town” on the Southern Border.

Over the next year, DHS and DOJ politicos should be required to testify and should be held accountable for the absolute, largely avoidable, chaos and inefficiency they have intentionally, incompetently, or maliciously created in immigration enforcement, our Immigration Courts, the refugee and asylum system, and the system for granting immigration benefits.

Then, based on the record, make rational, fact-based proposals for needed improvements in immigration enforcement, administration, and adjudication for the next budget cycle.

PWS

02-05-19

ANOTHER UGLY TRUMP MILESTONE: Administration’s “Malicious Incompetence” Jacks Immigration Court Backlog To 1.1 Million! — Even With 17% Increase In Judges, Trump & Sessions Incredibly DOUBLED Backlog In Under Two Years!

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/536/

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Figure 1. Immigration Court Workload, FY 2018

The Immigration Court backlog has jumped by 225,846 cases since the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This represents an overall growth rate of 49 percent since the beginning of FY 2017. Results compiled from the case-by-case records obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the court reveal that pending cases in the court’s active backlog have now reached 768,257—a new historic high.

In addition, recent decisions by the Attorney General just implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have ballooned the backlog further. With a stroke of a pen, the court removed 330,211 previously completed cases and put them back on the “pending” rolls. These cases were previously administratively closed and had been considered part of the court’s completed caseload[1].

When the pending backlog of cases now on the active docket is added to these newly created pending cases, the total climbs to a whopping 1,098,468 cases! This is more than double the number of cases pending at the beginning of FY 2017.

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

What does the pending case backlog mean as a practical matter? Even before the redefinition of cases counted as closed and cases considered pending, the backlog had reached 768,257 cases. With the rise in the number of immigration judges, case closures during FY 2018 rose 3.9 percent over FY 2016 levels, to 215,569. In FY 2017, however, closure rates had fallen below FY 2016 levels, but last year the court recovered this lost ground[2].

At these completion rates, the court would take 3.6 years to clear its backlog under the old definition if it did nothing but work on pending cases. This assumes that all new cases are placed on the back burner until the backlog is finished.

Now, assuming the court aims to schedule hearings eventually on all the newly defined “pending” cases, the backlog of over a million cases would take 5.1 years to work through at the current pace. This figure again assumes that the court sets aside newly arriving cases and concentrates exclusively on the backlog.

Table 1. Overview of Immigration Court Case Workload and Judges
as of end of FY 2018

	Number of Cases/Judges	Percent Change Since Beginning of FY 2017
New Cases for FY 2018	287,741	7.5%
Completed Cases for FY 2018	215,569	3.9%
Number of Immigration Judges	338/395*	17.0%
Pending Cases as of September 30, 2018:
On Active Docket	768,257	48.9%
Not Presently on Active Docket	330,211	na
Total	1,098,468	112.9%

* Immigration Judges on bench at the beginning and at the end of FY 2018; percent based on increase in judges who served full year.
** category did not exist at the beginning of FY 2017.

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

No single reason accounts for this ballooning backlog. It took years to build and new cases continue to outpace the number of cases completed. This is true even though the ranks of immigration judges since FY 2016 have grown by over 17 percent[3] while court filings during the same period have risen by a more modest 7.5 percent[4].

Clearly the changes the Attorney General has mandated have added to the court’s challenges. For one, the transfer of administratively closed cases to the pending workload makes digging out all the more daunting. At the same time, according to the judges, the new policy that does away with their ability to administratively close cases has reduced their tools for managing their dockets.

There have been other changes. Shifting scheduling priorities produces churning on cases to be heard next. Temporary reassignment and transfer of judges to border courts resulted in additional docket churn. Changing the legal standards to be applied under the Attorney General’s new rulings may also require judicial time to review and implement.

In the end, all these challenges remain and the court’s dockets remain jam-packed. Perhaps when dockets become overcrowded, the very volume of pending cases slows the court’s ability to handle this workload – as when congested highways slow to a crawl.

Footnotes

^[1] The court also recomputed its case completions for the past ten years and removed these from its newly computed completed case counts. Current case closures thus appear to have risen because counts in prior years are suppressed. Further, the extensive judicial resources used in hearing those earlier cases are also disregarded.

^[2] For consistency over time, this comparison is based upon the court’s longstanding definition, which TRAC continues to use, that includes administratively closed cases in each year’s count. Under this standard, numbers are: 207,546 (FY 2016), 204,749 (FY 2017), 215,569 (FY 2018).

^[3] The court reports that the numbers of immigration judges on its rolls at the end of the fiscal year were: 289 (FY 2016), 338 (FY 2017), and 395 (FY 2018). The 17 percent increase only considers judges who were on the payroll for the full FY 2018 year. See Table 1. For more on judge hires see: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download

^[4] New court cases based upon court records as of the end of FY 2018 were: 267,625 (FY 2016), 274,133 (FY 2017), and 287,741 (FY 2018). Due to delays in adding new cases to EOIR’s database, the latest counts may continue to rise when data input is complete. TRAC’s counts use the date of the notice to appear (NTA), rather than the court’s “input date” into its database. While the total number of cases across the FY 2016 – FY 2018 period reported by TRAC and recently published by EOIR are virtually the same, the year-by-year breakdown differs because of the court’s practice of postponing counting a case until it chooses to add them to its docket.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

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

This is truly “Kakistocracy in Action.” Remember these numbers are as of the end of FY 2018, September 30, 2018. Trump’s Shutdown added another 80,000 to 100,000 to the backlog. Combined with “normal mismanagement,” the backlog is probably over 1.3 million by now and growing daily.

Unfortunately, this isn’t going to stop until either Congress or the Article III courts step in, put an end to this travesty, and force due process, fairness, and administrative competence back into this dysfunctional national disgrace.

PWS

02-05-19

THE GIBSON REPORT 02-04-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

THE GIBSON REPORT 02-04-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

TOP UPDATES

USCIS Processing Delays Have Reached Crisis Levels Under the Trump Administration

AILA’s analysis of USCIS data reveals crisis-level delays in its processing of applications and petitions for immigration benefits under the Trump administration. This brief examines how current USCIS policies lengthen the delays and what steps USCIS and Congress can take to remedy this crisis. AILA Doc. No. 19012834

ICE told hundreds of immigrants to show up to court Thursday — for many, those hearings are fake

CBS: ICE is required to include court dates with court notices, per a Supreme Court decision last summer, but most don’t actually reflect scheduled hearings. The American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a “practice alert” on Tuesday evening, warning members “the next upcoming date on NTAs that appears to be fake is this Thursday.”

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

TRAC: The Immigration Court backlog has jumped by 225,846 cases since the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This represents an overall growth rate of 49 percent since the beginning of FY 2017.

Retired judge: Shut down this immigrant detention center

Houston Chronicle: Lumpkin has fewer than 1,200 locals plus up to 1,900 men delivered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Stewart from across the country, including Texas. The town has just one private immigration lawyer.

Prisons Across The U.S. Are Quietly Building Databases Of Incarcerated People’s Voice Prints

Intercept: In New York and other states across the country, authorities are acquiring technology to extract and digitize the voices of incarcerated people into unique biometric signatures, known as voice prints. Prison authorities have quietly enrolled hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people’s voice prints into large-scale biometric databases. Computer algorithms then draw on these databases to identify the voices taking part in a call and to search for other calls in which the voices of interest are detected. Some programs, like New York’s, even analyze the voices of call recipients outside prisons to track which outsiders speak to multiple prisoners regularly.

Immigrant rights attorneys and journalists denied entry into Mexico

LA Times: Two U.S. immigrant rights attorneys and two journalists who have worked closely with members of a migrant caravan in Tijuana said they had been denied entry into Mexico in recent days after their passports were flagged with alerts by an unknown government.

Migrants Say They Pay For Inclusion On ‘La Lista’ To Make Border Crossing

Appeal: Migrants near Brownsville, Texas say that if they don’t bribe Mexican officials they’re stuck at the bottom of a list of people seeking refuge in the U.S. via international bridges

‘A watershed moment’: Trump faces crossroads amid mounting threats on all sides

WaPo: Senate Republicans also are overwhelmingly resistant to declaring a national emergency, according to two senior GOP aides. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) privately cautioned Trump last week that doing so could divide the GOP and told the president that Congress might pass a resolution disapproving an emergency declaration.

ICE Failed to Hold Detention Center Contractors Accountable, Report Finds

NPR: The report detailed several of the most egregious cases, including contractors failing to notify ICE of sexual assaults and employee misconduct, using tear gas instead of approved pepper spray, and commingling detainees with serious criminal histories with those who might be at risk of sexual assault.

India Protests U.S. Detention of Students in Fake-University Sting

NYT: The American authorities said this past week that they had indicted eight people accused of exploiting the country’s student visa system. They were said to have helped foreign nationals illegally remain in the United States by enrolling them into the University of Farmington in Farmington Hills, Mich., which billed itself as a “nationally accredited business and STEM institution” with an innovative curriculum, flexible class schedules and a diverse student body. But the private university was being secretly operated by agents of the Department of Homeland Security to expose immigration fraud, according to federal prosecutors who announced charges in the case.

Federal prosecutors unseal indictments naming 19 people linked to Chinese ‘birth tourism’ schemes that helped thousands of aliens give birth in US to secure birthright citizenship for their children

USCIS: The indictments charge operators and clients of three “maternity house” or “birthing house” schemes that were dismantled in March 2015 when federal agents executed 35 search warrants, which resulted from international undercover operations.

Two young adults infiltrated an immigration detention center in Florida. This Sundance film shows what they found

Deseret News: In 2012, Saavedra and Martinez, two young adults in their early 20s, decided to turn themselves in to authorities to get inside the Broward Transitional Center, a for-profit immigration detention facility in Florida that houses 600 men and 100 women.

ICE confirms it is force-feeding detainees on hunger strike

WaPo: Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have confirmed they are force-feeding nine detainees who initiated a hunger strike at an El Paso detention center.

The Travel Ban at Two: Rocky Implementation Settles into Deeper Impacts

MPI: Monthly immigrant visa issuances to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen were down an average of 72 percent between FY 2017 and 2018 (see Figure 1).

OCA Mulls Rule Requiring Judicial Warrants for ICE Arrests in NY Courts

NY Law Journal: The Office of Court Administration, which oversees New York state courts, is considering making a rule that would prohibit federal immigration officers from arresting undocumented immigrants in state courthouses without a warrant signed by a federal judge.

Government Quietly Increases ICE Detention to 48,000 Beds During the Shutdown
AIC: ICE drastically expanded its network of immigration jails in the last month by a startling 7 percent.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Defense Department engaged in illegal discrimination against some soldiers, district court finds

ABA: A Seattle federal district court ruled Thursday that the federal government illegally discriminated against naturalized U.S. citizens in the U.S. Army by requiring security checks on them every two years, without individualized suspicion.

Acting AG Refers BIA Case to Himself and Invites Amicus Regarding “Particular Social Group” Membership

The Acting AG referred a BIA decision to himself for review whether an individual may establish persecution on account of membership in a “particular social group” based on membership in a family unit. Amicus briefs are due by 2/25/19. Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 494 (A.G. 2018) AILA Doc. No. 18120432

Acting AG Refers BIA Case to Himself and Invites Amicus Regarding Cancellation of Removal and Impact of Multiple DUIs

The Acting AG to review cancellation of removal eligibility and the impact of multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence with regards to “good moral character.” Amicus briefs due by 2/25/19. Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 495 (A.G. 2018) AILA Doc. No. 18120437

BIA Terminates Proceedings Over DHS Opposition Following Approval of U Visa

Unpublished BIA decision reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte over DHS opposition following approval of respondent’s application for U nonimmigrant status. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Singh, 1/18/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012838

BIA Orders Further Consideration of Request for Continuance for U Visa Applicant

Unpublished BIA decision remands for further consideration of request for continuance pending U visa application adjudication where respondent was no longer detained and IJ didn’t consider likelihood application would be granted. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Munoz-Pocasangre, 1/19/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012841

BIA Rescinds In Absentia Order Because NTA Did Not Specify Immigration Court

Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order because NTA did not specify the particular immigration court at which the respondent was required to appear. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ramos, 2/9/18) AILA Doc. No. 19020434

BIA Vacates Bond Decision Based on Allegations in Police Report

Unpublished BIA decision reverses IJ determination that respondent was danger to community, stating that it accords little weight to conduct described in police documents that is neither prosecuted criminally nor independently corroborated. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of A-B-L-, 1/23/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012940

BIA Finds DHS Failed to Properly Authenticate Form I-213

Unpublished BIA decision vacates finding that respondent was present without being admitted or paroled because DHS failed to properly authenticate the Form I-213 used to establish alienage. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Reyes, 1/26/18) AILA Doc. No. 19013033

BIA Finds Respondent Did Not Knowingly Waive Appeal

Unpublished BIA decision finds respondent did not knowingly waive right to appeal because IJ did not warn him failing to appeal would constitute an irrevocable waiver of the right. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Chaudhary, 1/18/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012839

BIA Finds LPR Who Involuntarily Reentered U.S. Without Inspection Was Not Seeking Admission

Unpublished BIA decision holds that returning LPR was not properly regarded as an applicant for admission because he was fleeing for his life from a drug cartel in Mexico when he illegally reentered the country. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of I-C-B-, 1/25/18)

BIA Holds Utah Sexual Battery Not a CIMT

Unpublished BIA decision holds that sexual battery under Utah Code section 76-9-702(3) is not a CIMT because it is a general intent offense for which no harm or evil intent is required. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of V-C-, 1/24/18) AILA Doc. No. 19013031

BIA Equitably Tolls Motion to Reopen Deadline

Unpublished BIA decision equitably tolls deadline for motion to reopen where respondent was suffering from undiagnosed medical condition while in detention and was unable to obtain record from immigration court. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of A-A-B-, 1/22/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012939

BIA Remands for Testimony on Amount of Loss to Victims of Fraud

Unpublished BIA decision holds that IJ should have permitted respondent to testify regarding amount of loss to the victims before finding that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(M)(i). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Mena, 2/7/18) AILA Doc. No. 19020103

BIA Rescinds In Absentia Order Against Respondent Who Recently Gave Birth

Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order upon finding that respondent giving birth via caesarean section 10 days prior constituted exceptional circumstances for her failure to appear. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Valencia Barragan, 2/5/18) AILA Doc. No. 19020102

BIA Vacates Denial of Bond Hearing to Respondent Mistakenly Designated as Arriving Alien

Unpublished BIA decision reversed determination that IJ lacked jurisdiction over bond hearing where respondent was apprehended after entering country and was mistakenly designated an arriving alien on the NTA. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of A-M-Y-, 2/2/18) AILA Doc. No. 19013140

BIA Finds Failure to Meet Filing Deadline Constitutes Ineffective Assistance On Its Face

Unpublished BIA decision holds that prior attorney’s failure to submit application by court-imposed deadline was ineffective assistance on its face, reopening proceedings despite failure to comply with Matter of Lozada. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Cortes-Reyes, 1/26/18) AILA Doc. No. 19013139

BIA Reopens and Terminates Proceedings Sua Sponte Following Reduction in Drug Sentence

Unpublished BIA decision reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte following reduction of respondent’s sentence for possession of cocaine to simple drug misdemeanor under Cal. Penal Code 1170.18(G). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Gonzalez, 2/2/18) AILA Doc. No. 19020100

BIA Finds Terrorizing Statute Not a CIMT

Unpublished BIA decision holds that terrorizing under Guam Code Ann. 19.60(a) is not a CIMT because the victim is not required to actually experience fear. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Eidaro, 1/19/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012938

CA6 Upholds Determination that Asylee Who Copied and Distributed Flyers Provided Material Support to Terrorist Organizations

The court affirmed USCIS adjustment denial and its finding that MeK and Fek between 1979 and 1981 were Iranian terrorist organizations and that copying and distributing flyers was material in that it was both “relevant” and “significant” to terrorism. (Hosseini v. Nielsen, 12/19/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012833

CA7 Affirms District Court Dismissal of APA and DJA Claims Based on Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability

The court found that in citing a valid statutory basis and offering a factual predicate, a consular officer’s visa rejection was facially legitimate and bona fide; it also held that plaintiffs made no affirmative showing that officer acted in bad faith. (Yafai v. Pompeo, 1/4/19) AILA Doc. No. 19012901

CA9 Panel Issued Amended Decision on “Crime of Domestic Violence” Conviction

The court issued an amended decision, where the panel concluded that a class one misdemeanor domestic violence assault under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203 and 13-3601 conviction was a “crime of domestic violence” under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(E). (Cornejo-Villagrana v. Whitaker, 12/27/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012836

CA9 Upholds BIA Controlled Substance Removability Finding and Remands to Determine Continuous Presence for Cancellation Claim

The court found that the BIA correctly determined that the Travel Act is divisible and that petitioner was removable based on his conviction for a controlled substance offense and remanded for consideration of the claim for cancellation of removal. (Myers v. Sessions, 9/25/18)

CA9 Denies Petition for Review Citing Bermudez-Cota After NTA Didn’t Specify Time/Date

The court denied petitioner’s petition for review, holding that a NTA that does not specify the time/date vests an IJ with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings, so long as a notice specifying this information is sent to the individual in a timely manner. (Karingithi v. Whitaker, 1/28/19) AILA Doc. No. 19012972

CA9 Denied Petition for Review After Applying Leal I and Leal II Standard and Finding Petitioner Removable For Two CIMTs

The court held the BIA did not commit any of the raised legal errors related to In re: Leal and Leal v. Holder by concluding that the petitioner’s conviction for reckless engagement was a crime involving moral turpitude. (Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 12/19/18) AILA Doc. No. 19012933

Ohio Attorneys Sue ICE Alleging Public, Humanitarian, and Bioethical Abuse

Attorneys David Malik and Anna Markovich submitted a FOIA request asking ICE for information about the people who have been deported, ICE’s policies related to racial and ethnic profiling, and ICE’s process for determining which individuals to deport. (Malik v. ICE, 1/9/19 AILA Doc. No. 19012832

USCIS Announces Online Case Status Feature for Asylum Applicants

USCIS announced that applicants who have a pending affirmative asylum application with USCIS can now check the status of their applications online at uscis.gov/casestatus. It will not cover defensive asylum applicants whose cases are pending in immigration court. AILA Doc. No. 19012804

DHS OIG Issues Report on ICE’s Failure to Fully Use Contracting Tools to Hold Detention Facility Contractors Accountable

DHS OIG’s report found ICE doesn’t adequately hold detention facility contractors accountable to performance standards and issues waivers seeking to exempt them from complying with certain standards instead of applying financial penalties for deficient conditions. AILA Doc. No. 19020104

DHS Releases Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols

CBP Releases Guidance on Migrant Protection Protocols

USCIS Releases Guidance for Implementing Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA and the Migrant Protection Protocols

EOIR Releases Addendum to LOP Cohort Analysis of Phase I: Detention Length with DHS Data

EOIR Releases Phase II Analysis of Its Legal Orientation Program Cohort

Announcements of ICE Enforcement Actions

ICE reports that it arrested 118 during a five-day period, from January 14-18, 2019, in New York City, Long Island, and the Hudson Valley. AILA Doc. No. 17041232

HHS Annual Update of Poverty Guidelines for 2019

Health and Human Services (HHS) notice providing the annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines to account for last calendar year’s increase in prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index, effective 1/11/19. (84 FR 1167, 2/1/19) AILA Doc. No. 19020107

Applicants Can Now Request Certificates of Citizenship Online

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that applicants can now complete and file Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, and Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 online.

RESOURCES

·         IDP is releasing a new practice advisory and issue-spotting checklist addressing conviction finality issues in light of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ August 2018 decision in Matter of J.M. Acosta.

·         Practice Alert: DHS Issuing NTAs with Fake Times and Dates

·         Practice Alert: Long-Pending I-765 and I-131 Applications at the NBC

·         AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force Provides Litigation Briefings

·         Ethical Considerations in Declining Representation

·         Crossing State Lines: A Practical Guide for Immigration Lawyers When Volunteering Their Services Out of State

·         Zero Protection: How U.S. Border Enforcement Harms Migrant Safety and Health

·         Matter of A-B-: Case Updates, Current Trends, and Suggested Strategies

·         Stopping Immigration Services Scams: A Tool for Advocates and Lawmakers

·         Filing DACA Applications in the Wake of Federal Court Rulings

·         Central Americans were Increasingly Winning Asylum Before President Trump Took Office

EVENTS

2/4/19 AILA CLE: Local Agency Practices In NY, NJ, & CT

2/5/19 Developments in Waivers: The I-601A, Removal Proceedings, and Beyond

2/6/19 Matter of A-B-: Case Updates, Current Trends, and Suggested Strategies

2/7/19 Basic Immigration Law 2019: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas

2/8/19 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Immigration Relief 2019

2/12/19 I-751 Petitions: How to Handle Delays and Changes in Circumstances

2/26/19 Naturalization Challenges and Strategies in the Trump Era

3/8/19 Asylum & Immigration Conference with the Federal Bar Association at NY Law School

3/12/19 AILA Spring Federal Court Litigation Conference

8/4/19 Legal, Cultural, & Historical Approach to Understanding the Complex and Controversial Issue Dominating Our National Dialogue

ImmProf

Monday, February 4, 2019

·         From the Bookshelves: Vanishing Frontiers: The Forces Driving Mexico and the United States Together Hardcover by Andrew Selee

·         Shoba Wadhia on the Two Year Anniversary of the Travel Ban

Sunday, February 3, 2019

·         Race in Our Politics: A Catalog of Campaign Materials — Immigration as a Racial Dog Whistle

·         University of Farmington? ICE set up a fake university. Hundreds enrolled.

·         The Travel Ban at Two: Rocky Implementation

·         Immigrants from New Origin Countries in the United States

·         “U.S.” Rapper Facing Removal

·         Federal prosecutors unseal indictments naming 19 people linked to Chinese ‘birth tourism’ schemes

·         SCOTUS Says Government Must Give Notice of Time and Place of Immigration Court Hearings, So Government Gives Times/Places for Nonexistent Hearings. Again.

·         Super Sunday: DHS Fights Super Scammers

·         THE BIG SLOWDOWN — AILA Policy Brief: USCIS Processing Delays Have Reached Crisis Levels Under the Trump Administration

·         At the Movies: The Invisibles

Saturday, February 2, 2019

·         Amanda Frost: The revival of denaturalisation under the Trump administration

·         Trump’s Former Undocumented Housekeeper to Join Congressman as State of the Union Guest

·         From the Bookshelves: Mexico The Good Neighbor: Contracts, Betrayal and Survival in the Cold War by Soledad Quartucci

·         Al Otro Lado Legal Director Nora Phillips Denied Entry to Mexico in Apparent Retaliation for Human Rights Work

Friday, February 1, 2019

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Growing the Resistance: A Call to Action for Transactional Lawyers in the Era of Trump by Gowri Krishna

Thursday, January 31, 2019

·         Detained Migrants Being Force Fed

·         Alleged Illegal Voters in Texas are Actually Citizens

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Health Justice for Immigrants by Medha D. Makhlouf

·         No-Stop Religious Services to Avoid Deportation in the Netherlands

·         Symposium: Immigration in the Trump Era, Southwestern Law School

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

·         Border Fencing To Prevent Another Kind of Migration Altogether

·         When Spouse’s Freedom Depends on ICE Agent’s Discretion

·         From the Bookshelves: Islands of Sovereignty: Haitian Migration and the Borders of Empire by Jeffrey S. Kahn

·         U.S. Government Shutdown Worsens Immigration Court Backlog

·         How immigration could help a shrinking American labor force

·         Immigration and Civil Rights in an Era of Trump by Kevin R. Johnson

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

·         Border Patrol Openings Hard to Fill

·         Call For Papers: Emerging Immprofs @ BYU June 7 & 8

Monday, January 28, 2019

·         Desert X: Roadtripping for Large-Scale Immigration Art

·         Message to Italy: Allow Minors to Land

If you would like to be added to the Weekly Briefing distribution list, please email egibson@nylag.org.

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

Check out Elizabeth’s first four items showing how Trump’s “malicious incompetence” is destroying the U.S. immigration system and harming people in a variety of ways.

PWS

02-05-19

“MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE” MORPHS INTO CONTEMPT FOR COURT AS ADMINISTRATION TELLS COURT & SEPARATED FAMILIES “GO POUND SAND” — They Just Don’t Care About Humanity!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/report-trump-admin-does-not-plan-to-reunite-families-separated-before-zero-tolerance_us_5c55c3c4e4b087104753e468

Angelina Chaplin reports for HuffPost:

On Friday, officials from the Trump administration said it would require too much effort to reunite the thousands of families it separated before implementing its “zero-tolerance” policy in April, according to a declaration filed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between the American Civil Liberties Union and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Last month, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services released a report stating that “thousands” more immigrant families had been separated than the government had previously disclosed. In the declaration submitted Friday, HHS officials said they don’t know the exact number of children who were taken from their parents before “zero tolerance” and that finding them would be too much of a “burden” since there was no formal tracking system in place.

“The Trump administration’s response is a shocking concession that it can’t easily find thousands of children it ripped from parents and doesn’t even think it’s worth the time to locate each of them,” said Lee Gelernt, the lead lawyer in the ACLU’s ongoing lawsuit against ICE, in a statement. “The administration also doesn’t dispute that separations are ongoing in significant numbers.”

HHS did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

The deputy director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jallyn Sualog, said that 100 ORR analysts would have to work eight hours each day for between seven and 15 months to “even begin reconciling” data on separated families. “In my judgment, ORR does not have the requisite staff for such a project,” Sualog wrote in the declaration.

Immigration advocates are appalled by the fact that the government didn’t bother to properly track separated families and that it is now shirking its responsibility to reunite parents and children.

“They are saying they just don’t care,” said Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women’s Refugee Commission. “It’s shocking frivolous om a human rights perspective for a government to behave this way.”

“I think the policy of taking the children away in the first place was cruel,” said Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer, “but to not even have a system to return the parents to the children just increases the magnitude of the cruelty.”

The government also failed to properly track the roughly 2,800 children that it separated from their parents under the “zero-tolerance” policy between April and June. The administration was required to reunite families as part of an ACLU lawsuit, an ongoing process that has at times required immigration advocates to search for deported parents on foot in remote, crime-ridden areas of Central America.

According to the inspector general’s report, 159 children who were separated under “zero tolerance” are still in ORR care, most of whose parents were deported and decided to keep their kids in the U.S. due to dangerous situations back home. If the government doesn’t allow those parents to re-apply for asylum in the U.S., families may remain permanently separated. Gelernt worries that before “zero tolerance” the government could have deported hundreds more parents who might not have had a say in their children’s futures.

In the declaration, Jonathan White, a commander with the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, said that most unaccompanied children are released to family sponsors and that in addition to logistical challenges, trying to reunite separated kids with their parents could be destabilizing and “would present grave child welfare concerns.”

But Gelernt says the government should not be making decisions on behalf of mothers and fathers. “[The administration] had no right to just give these kids away unless the parent was making an informed decision,” he said. “This is not a situation where the parents put the child up for adoption. This is a situation where the child was forcibly taken from the parents.”

On Feb. 21, Gelernt will argue in front of a federal judge in California that all families separated before “zero tolerance” should be part of the ACLU’s ongoing lawsuit and that the government has a responsibility to reunify these parents with their children. He is disappointed that the administration failed to act humanely towards immigrant families in its declaration.

“The [government] is saying it’s not legally required for them to [reunite families] and therefore they won’t do it,” he said. “But why not do it because it’s the right thing to do?”

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

Isn’t it time for the U.S. District Judge to start holding ICE and ORR officials in contempt of court? What about former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions who “masterminded” this cruel fiasco?

Can there be justice without any morality or accountability?

PWS

02-02-19

DENNIS ROMERO @ NBC NEWS WITH A MORE NUANCED LOOK AT A BORDER WALL — It’s Highly Effective At “Re-Routing” Migrants, But Causes More Deaths, Enriches Smugglers, & Is Ineffective Against Drug Smuggling — Bottom Line: “[E]ffective at deterring crowds of migrants that will ultimately be undeterred.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-san-diego-s-border-barrier-works-it-pushes-n965681

Dennis Romero reports for NBC News from San Diego:

When President Trump argues that the United States needs a wall along the southern border, he likes to point to San Diego’s success.

There, double and triple barriers fortify the westernmost stretch of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border as U.S. Border Patrol agents drive SUVs along frontage roads and hover overhead in helicopters.

The militarized border touching the communities of Imperial Beach, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa contributed to a 75 percent decline in crossings in the years immediately after fencing was installed in the 1990s, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

The decline mirrors a border-wide decrease.Apprehensions of those suspected of illegally crossing the entire Southwest border experienced an uptick in 2018 over 2017 to nearly 467,000 but remained at less than half their peak in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Border Patrol racked up 1 to 1.6 million apprehensions.

President Donald Trump, who’s in a protracted battle to secure congressional funding for his campaign promise to build a wall along the entire length of the Southern border, on Thursday pointed to San Diego’s Mexican neighbor, Tijuana, as an example of what can happen with and without a barrier.

Trump’s proposed wall, based on one of eight prototypes in San Diego, is yet to be authorized by Congress.

“If you go to Tijuana and you take down that wall, you will have so many people coming into our country that Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall,” he said from the Oval Office. “She will be begging for a wall. She will say, ‘Mr. President, please, please give us a wall.'”

While it seems unlikely the House speaker would ever beg for a wall, the president has a valid point about fencing’s impact on the border region. Although San Diego’s barrier may stem illegal crossings, its impact is more complicated than Trump’s statement that “walls work” suggests.

From the 1980s to the early 1990s the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector was overrun with people illegally crossing the border. Hundreds of migrants would gather on a Tijuana River levee known as “El Bordo” and, much like the climactic border crossing scene in 1987’s “Born in East L.A.,” rush the few Border Patrol agents brave enough to try to stop them.

In the 1980s, about 40 percent of the Southwest’s illegal border crossings took place at San Diego, said Victor Clark-Alfaro of San Diego State University’s Center for Latin American Studies. The peak year for border apprehensions in the San Diego sector was 1986, when 628,000 migrants were nabbed.

“Tijuana was like a fiesta,” Clark-Alfaro said. “On a single day on a weekend at El Bordo you could find about 1,000 migrants ready to cross to the U.S. side. There was liquor, marijuana, human smugglers, street vendors.”

The defunct bureaucracy known as the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, since replaced by three agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, built fencing along the border at San Diego in 1990, but it was no match for desperate Mexicans.

The migrants created a huge wave of south-of-the-border crossings into the U.S. that was addressed by Republican Pete Wilson, a onetime San Diego mayor who won re-election as California governor in 1994 based on a Trump-like platform of deterring illegal immigration.

“Bill Clinton had to respond,” said David Shirk, director of the University of San Diego’s master’s program in international relations.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton initiated Operation Gatekeeper, a crackdown at the border, and Congress followed up two years later with 14 miles of “triple-layered fence,” according to congressional records. Some of those first fences were made from Vietnam War-era landing mats intended for makeshift helicopter airstrips.

In 2006, Congress authorized “double-layered fencing” along at least 700 miles of border. The full length has yet to be covered with fencing because of delays in acquiring private property, often through court battles. But the San Diego sector received fresh fencing in the mid-1990s and again in the late-2000s.

Experts, many critical of Trump’s overall stand on border security, acknowledge the San Diego barriers, now made of steel bollards and surplus military landing mats, have more or less done their job. The sector went from being the top location for border crossings to a relative ghost town with 26,086 apprehensions in fiscal year 2017, according to the Border Patrol.

A migrant from Honduras passes a child to her father after he jumped the border fence to get into the U.S. side to San Diego, Calif., from Tijuana, Mexico on Jan. 3, 2019.Daniel Ochoa de Olza / AP file

The hardened border, however, pushed migrants to remote areas that have few man-made impediments and are often just World War II-style vehicle barriers known as Normandy fencing, Clark-Alfaro said. Arizona has become a hotbed of crossings, but migrants often die of dehydration. The mountains east of San Diego have also become a crossing zone, where migrants have died from hypothermia.

Some migrants head for the cold Pacific and end up dead or arrested.

“Our beach was invaded by people on pangas, boogie boards,” said Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina, adding that the fortified fencing “didn’t stop the tunnels” used by cartels to ship drugs into California and beyond.

The San Diego-area border security measures have also enticed cartels to dive deeper into smuggling because the barriers drive up prices for guides or coyotes, experts say. Prices have gone from as little as $75 in the 1990s to as much as $7,000 today, said San Diego State’s Clark-Alfaro.

“We’ve made it more profitable for human traffickers along the border,” added Shirk, of the University of San Diego.

However, narcotics continue to make it across the Southwest border, with seizures of heroin in the San Diego sector increasing 59 percentfrom 2016 to 2017, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The San Diego sector was the top target along the southwest border for heroin smuggling outside points of entry, the DEA said. Eighty-five percent of the synthetic opioid fentanyl that crossed in 2017 entered through the San Diego area, according to DEA data.

Experts argue that one of the biggest influences on border crossings has been the Mexican economy, which has improved enough that many workers would rather just stay home. In Tijuana, home to a booming appliance and TV manufacturing sector, thousands of jobs are up for grabs.

And many of the immigrants from that huge wave in the 1980s and 1990s settled in the United States rather than crossing back and forth for seasonal work, experts say. In effect, they were walled in by the increased border security and are now staying put.

The boosted federal presence along the border also includes an exponential increase in the number of Border Patrol agents since 1990 to more than 20,000 today. At least 85 percent are stationed along the border, according to Shirk’s research.

Much of that increase in personnel came in the years following 9/11, when the Department of Homeland Security was created and crossing the border legitimately became much less casual, Shirk said. Passports are now required for travel in both directions.

The new border-crossing population comes mostly from Central America, where migrants have formed caravans to travel north. People fleeing murderous gangs — some, like MS-13, were born in the U.S. — have mostly sought asylum in the United States legally, although the Border Patrol U.S. Customs and Border Protection says groups of Central Americans have recently tried to rush into the country illegally.

The bottom line on San Diego’s beefed up border, some of which is slated for replacement, is a mixed bag effective at deterring crowds of migrants that will ultimately be undeterred.

“It’s effective at re-routing people,” said John Fanestil, a Methodist minister who has offered communion on the United States side of the fence. “We made it harder to cross the border illegally — more deadly, more costly. But when circumstances are as extreme as they are in Central America, people will demonstrate great determination to cross the border.”

Dennis Romero

Dennis Romero writes for NBC News and is based in Los Angeles.

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

As we used to say at the Arlington Immigration Court, “Desperate people do desperate things.” Or, as I have said on “Courtside,” “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration.”

What would actually help:

Technology, intelligence, undercover resources to combat drug smuggling;
More appropriate and generous application of our existing refugee and asylum laws at the border and in or near the Northern Triangle;
More resources for processing asylum applications at the Ports of Entry;
Expanded legal immigration opportunities, particularly for needed workers, that would more accurately reflect market forces driving today’s “extralegal immigration system;”
Working more closely with the UNHCR, Mexico, and other countries in the Hemisphere to solve the humanitarian problems driving refugee flows.

Why not “get smart” instead of continuing to “play dumb” on migration issues?

PWS

02-02-19

MARIA SACCHETTI @ WASHPOST: CRUEL & UNUSUAL: DHS’s “New American Gulag” Is An Unconstitutional, Unaccountable, & Sometimes Deadly “(Bogus) Civil” Prison System For Migrants! — ICE Denials NOT Credible — 14,000 Violations In 2 1/2 Years Is NOT “Accountability!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/homeland-security-ig-questions-ices-oversight-of-detention-facilities/2019/02/01/baf8b828-263c-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html

Maria writes:

Public and private contractors running immigration jails violated federal detention standards thousands of times in recent years — including failing to report allegations of sexual assaults and staff misconduct to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — but were fined only twice, according to a report issued Friday.

The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general called on ICE to improve oversight of facilities that detain roughly half the 45,000 immigrant detainees held every day across the United States, and to do a better job holding federal contractors accountable for their health and safety.

ICE defended its oversight in a letter to the Inspector General that was included in the report, and said generally it can terminate contracts or relocate immigrants if it believes facilities are unsafe.

CONTENT FROM THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

Sustainability and closed-loop recycling systems must now become a global priority, from emerging nations to the world’s largest economies.Read More

ICE documented 14,003 violations from Oct. 1, 2015 through June 30 at 106 facilities nationwide, the report said. The fines assessed by the agency amountedto $3.9 million, or 0.13 percent of the more than $3 billion ICE paid to the contractors during that period.

One facility was fined after “a pattern of repeat deficiencies over a 3-year period, primarily related to health care and mental health standards,” the report said. Another fine followed a Labor Department order against the facility for failing to pay proper wages.

In other cases, the inspector general found, immigration officials granted waivers allowing some contractors to bypass detention standards or avoid punishment for violations. From September 2016 through July, 65 waivers were approved — most for indefinite time periods.

One waiver authorized a facility to use CS gas, or tear gas, even though it is 10 times as toxic as pepper spray.

Another allowed a facility to house detainees who hadserious criminal records alongwith others who had minor records or only immigration violations, a practice that is normally prohibited “to protect detainees who may be at risk of victimization or assault.”

The inspector general said immigration officials lacked formal policies to oversee waivers and that some officials “without clear authority” were granting them.

“Key officials admitted there are no policies, procedures, guidance documents, or instructions to explain how to review waiver requests,” the report said.

The inspector general issued a series of recommendations urging ICE to shore up its oversight of detention facilities and ensure paperwork is included in contracts that will make clear when the agency should impose penalties on contractors that fail to follow federal rules.

In a letter to the inspector general that was included in the report, ICE agreed to make improvements but countered that it has taken strong steps in the past to safeguard immigrant health and safety, even shutting down some facilities because of violations.

“ICE has a strong record of holding detention facilities accountable when deficiencies are identified,” spokesman Matthew Bourke said in a statement.

He said the waiver process in the inspector general’s report is a “rarely used mechanism.”

The report comes as the White House and Congress are preparing for a heated battle over detention funding, building a wall on the southern border and other aspects of President Trump’s immigration crackdown. This week, Democratic lawmakers unveiled a proposal to “significantly” reduce ICE detention beds, require more detention facility inspections, and limit ICE’s leeway to detain more immigrants than Congress allows.

As of Jan. 26, the agency wasdetaining an average of 45,670 immigrants a day this fiscal year, which is about 5,000 more than Congress has authorized in the budget.

The 106 facilities in the report housed an average of 25,000 immigrants a day as of fiscal year 2017. They are under ICE’s direct oversight. About 100 other facilities are run by the U.S. Marshals Service and are not included in the report.

ICE contractors are required to comply with detention standards that outline their responsibilities, the services they must provide to immigrants and what each facility must do to provide a “safe and secure detention environment for staff and detainees,” the report said.

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

No doubt in my mind that DHS is lying and covering up malfeasance, perhaps criminal activity.

Time for 1) some House oversight, 2) accountability for those at DHS and their contractors responsible for these abuses, and 3) Congressional action to phase out and strictly limit DHS’s grossly overused and under supervised detention function.

PWS

02-01-19

PAUL WALDMAN @ WASHPOST: Why True Bipartisan Immigration Reform In Our National Interest Will Require “Regime Change:” “[I]t’s highly unlikely that we’ll achieve such reform, even reform most Republicans could live with, without both houses of Congress and the White House in Democratic hands. But that will happen sooner or later. Then we’ll see if we can get closer to a solution that everyone can live with over the long run.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/31/never-mind-wall-theres-more-important-question-we-need-answer/

Waldman writes:

As immigration policy hangs over the ongoing conflict over whether the government is going to remain open, there’s something missing from this discussion, something so fundamental that it’s quite remarkable that we all seem to have forgotten to even ask about it. The president is demanding his border wall, Democrats are fighting against him, and occasionally we bring up issues like the fate of the Dreamers and those here under Temporary Protected Status.

But what nobody asks is this: What kind of immigration system do we actually want?

Not what might happen in the next negotiation or what each side would be willing to give up, but what does each side see as the ultimate goal they’re working toward? If they could look forward ten or twenty years and say “This is where we should get to,” what would that look like?

It’s a vital question, because whatever we’re doing at the moment should be guided by our long-term goals. Once we understand what those goals are, we can think more clearly about where we should go after we get this whole shutdown ridiculousness behind us. And we all ought to be able to agree that there is some future we’re trying to arrive at, a point at which we have a system that works to our satisfaction and immigration isn’t something we’re constantly at each other’s throats about.

That may not be possible, but I’ll start with what liberals would like to see. There are certainly disagreements not just on the left generally but among immigration advocates as well, but there is a basic vision one can identify.

The first thing they want, of course, is to take the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants who are in the country now and give them a path to citizenship. That’s something even some Republicans agree with, and if you put requirements like learning English and paying back taxes on it, support becomes nearly universal.

Second, liberals would like to see an expansion of the legal immigration system, which is a consistent source of frustration and a driver of illegal immigration. When it can take decades to get approved to move to the United States, of course many people are going to opt for the illegal route, even if it can be dangerous and uncertain. If the legal immigration works, people will go through it and not around it.

And if you have a well-functioning legal system, you can make illegal immigration less attractive, with things like an E-Verify process that makes it harder to find work if you’re undocumented. There may always be some kind of black market for workers, but if you’re simultaneously offering people a legal path — both toward permanent residency and with temporary work visas for people who are looking only to make some money and then return to their home countries — it will be much smaller problem.

So in the liberal vision, we might end up with about the same number of immigrants coming into the country as we have now, it’s just that the overwhelming majority would be coming legally. We’d have security at the border, but we wouldn’t need ICE breaking down doors and tearing parents from their children’s arms. We’d have a robust system to evaluate asylum claims so we wouldn’t have to be throwing people in cages. We certainly wouldn’t pretend that one day there will be no more demand in the labor market for immigrant workers.

There are many Republicans who could be okay with that future, even if it wasn’t exactly what they wanted. But the conservative vision is complicated. For years, we heard Republican politicians say, “I’m for legal immigration. I’m against illegal immigration.” They may not usually have been advocating significant increases in legal immigration, but it’s important to remember that the current venomous hostility toward immigrants was not always the standard Republican position. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were both far friendlier toward immigrants than Donald Trump is.

Conservatives might disagree with this characterization, but as I see it, their ultimate goal is a system in which coming into the country illegally is utterly impossible, but levels of legal immigration don’t change much. In other words, we still have immigration, but the flow slows to a trickle. And the Trump administration is making attempts to drastically reduce legal immigration. With the president’s enthusiastic support, domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller is driving a nationalist agenda that seeks to drastically reduce the inflow of immigrants to the country and even looks for every possible means to deport both legal and undocumented immigrants, even if they’ve been living here for years or decades.

That’s a somewhat extreme position even within the Republican Party, but it does reflect a discomfort with immigration that is common on the right. It’s the cultural problem, the fact that many people just don’t like having contact with people who don’t look like them or don’t speak the same language they do or eat the same foods they do. Trump very skillfully played to that discomfort by essentially telling voters he could wind back the clock to the time when they were young, before all this disconcerting change happened. His targets were the people who say “I don’t recognize my country anymore,” and when he said he would make America great again, “great again” meant “like things were when you were young.”

That’s a demand that can never be satisfied, even if it’s only a portion of the Republican electorate that really dreams of an America where there are almost no new immigrants and most of those who are already here just disappear. Unfortunately, that portion currently not only controls the White House but exercises a veto over any attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, because the rest of the GOP is so terrified of them.

Which is why it’s highly unlikely that we’ll achieve such reform, even reform most Republicans could live with, without both houses of Congress and the White House in Democratic hands. But that will happen sooner or later. Then we’ll see if we can get closer to a solution that everyone can live with over the long run.

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

Right on, Paul! You “nailed” it! Pretty much what I’ve been saying on “Courtside” all along!

However, the unlikelihood of achieving “comprehensive immigration reform” in the “Age of Trump” shouldn’t prevent the parties from working together in a bipartisan manner on “smaller fixes” such as that relating to child marriage suggested by Nolan Rappaport, posted earlier this week. See https://wp.me/p8eeJm-3Hu

Progress is progress, even by “small steps.”

PWS

02-01-19

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY: “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE!” — Also, ICE Intentionally Falsifies Court Hearing Dates — Where Is The Accountability?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/incompetence-plus-malice-add-up-to-trumps-losing-formula-on-immigration/

Bill Boyarsky writes for Truthdig:

From the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the immigration issue has defined his political profile. More than anything else, it has opened a window on his authoritarian mind, his disdain for the truth and for democratic institutions. Such contempt has revealed the dangers of Trumpism to much of a nation governed, often imperfectly, by the law. The way immigrants are locked up in detention centers without trial warns us of the possibility of a police state.

Last week, the president’s braggadocio crumbled in the face of facts and the strategic opposition of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She clearly saw beyond the façade as she took the measure of her opponent.

Trump’s signature combination of untruthfulness, ignorance and arrogance became evident to the country on Friday when maps appeared on cable television showing planes stacking up at airports, sending passengers into a state of exasperation that transcends partisan politics. Those deficiencies were further exposed when he, while putting an end to the protracted government shutdown, used his concession speech in the White House Rose Garden on Friday to rehash his lying attacks on immigrants.

Trump repeated his call for a wall, arguing that only a wall would stop the drug dealers and other criminals from coming across the southern border. But he pulled back from the “Build the Wall” promises that stirred nationalistic crowds at his rallies. “We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shiny [sic] sea—we never did,” he said, insisting that he had never proposed one.

On the contrary, as Linda Qiu and Michael Tackett wrote in The New York Times:

Dozens of times during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump promised to build a wall along the southwestern border, usually saying it would be 1,000 miles at varying heights and costs. At times the building materials changed. He mentioned concrete, steel and, at one point, even a wall that would have solar panels. But a wall and the unsupported pledge that Mexico would pay for it were foundational elements of his campaign, and Mr. Trump has continued to make similar assertions throughout his presidency.

Except on Friday. Qiu and Tackett also picked up that detail: “ … notable was something Mr. Trump did not say, namely that Mexico would pay for the wall. …”

As he had from the beginning of his presidential campaign, Trump trafficked in falsehoods Friday in the Rose Garden when he described the immigrants trying to cross the border into the United States as dangerous criminals.

Figures from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse(TRAC), a respected compiler of immigration statistics, refute his claim.

As of June 30, 2018, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had 44,435 immigrants in custody. Of these, four out of five had no criminal record or had committed only a minor offense, such as a traffic violation. Of the remainder, only 16 percent had committed crimes considered serious, which includes selling marijuana, now legal in many states. Of those eventually convicted of a crime, most were for illegal entry into the United States, a misdemeanor.

Another factor to consider is the incompetence of the way Trump administers his anti-immigrant policy. His former Attorney General Jeff Sessions drastically reduced the grounds for immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. Under his plan, dangers posed to immigrants by criminal gangs or domestic violence were no longer accepted as reasons for granting asylum—a devastating legislative blow to those fleeing gang-ridden Central American countries.

Other restrictions on asylum were also imposed. When immigrants present themselves to border officers and ask for sanctuary, they are arrested for illegal entry. They are then placed in detention, awaiting a hearing in immigration court, or are deported, although courts have ordered some released.

Sessions also ordered judges in immigration courts to speed up their hearings and decision-making protocols. He claimed this directive was aimed at reducing the backlog of cases awaiting hearing in immigration court that involve immigrants either in detention or freed through the legal intervention of immigrant advocates.

The backlog, TRAC said, totals 1,098,468—more than double the waiting list in January 2017 when Trump took office. It would take immigration courts more than five years to work their way through the backlog. This explains why so many immigrants are held in detention for years without a trial in onerous conditions, and why those freed from detention are in legal limbo, subject to being stopped, questioned and improperly arrested.

When Trump shut down the government, most immigration hearings were cancelled. That gave the president a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Rather than carry out his intent—hustling the immigrants out of the country—he has done the opposite and has increased the logjam.

In short, incompetence plus evil intentions have brought the country to this point.

Trump has been able to paper over his incompetence with bluster. The mass media has served as an accomplice. Too many stories focus on his performance. Sometimes, even his critics offer grudging admiration.

The shutdown ripped away the mask. Immigration was the central issue behind Trump’s closure of the federal government. His lies about immigration were exposed, as was his bungling execution of a cruel policy.

Bill Boyarsky

Political Correspondent

Bill Boyarsky is a political correspondent for Truthdig. He is a former lecturer in journalism at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Southern California. Boyarsky was city editor of….

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

Meanwhile, over at CBS News, Kate Smith continues her great coverage of the illegal and unethical behavior that has become the norm at DHS and which is enable and tolerated by an enfeebled politically dominated EOIR.

ICE agents told hundreds of immigrants to show up to court on Thursday or risk being deported. But lawyers say many of those hearings won’t happen because the dates ICE provided are fake.

Immigration attorneys in Chicago, Miami, Texas, and Virginia told CBS News their clients or their colleagues’ clients were issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for hearings scheduled Jan. 31. The attorneys learned the dates weren’t real when they called the courts to confirm. ICE is required to include court dates with court notices, per a Supreme Court decision last summer, but most don’t actually reflect scheduled hearings.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a “practice alert” on Tuesday evening, warning members “the next upcoming date on NTAs that appears to be fake is this Thursday.”

On Wednesday evening, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the body that oversees all the immigration courts, instructed all attorneys with a January 31 NTA “to confirm the time and date of any hearing.”

“There will be another episode of mass confusion in the immigration courts [Thursday] as a result of the DHS’s decision to issue Notice to Appear with fake immigration court dates,” Brian Casson, a Virginia-based immigration attorney, said in an email to CBS News.

In a statement Thursday morning, an ICE spokesperson said the agency was working with the Department of Justice “regarding the proper issuance of Notices to Appear.” The spokesperson said the government shutdown “delayed” that process, “resulting in an expected overflow of individuals appearing for immigration proceedings today/January 31.”

The fake notices stem from a Supreme Court ruling last summer. Prior to the decision, ICE officials used to send immigrants NTAs with date listed as “TBD” – or “to be determined.” The immigration court would issue the migrant an official hearing notice later, said Casson.

One effect of this: The NTAs could block an immigrant’s eligibility for “cancellation of removal,” a legal residency status granted to some undocumented immigrants after 10 uninterrupted years of living in the U.S. A NTA, even without a hearing date, would interrupt the 10-year “clock,” said Jeremy McKinney, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based immigration attorney, in a telephone interview with CBS News.

A Supreme Court ruling last summer — Pereira v. Sessions — banned the practice, requiring all appearance notices to use actual dates.

However, systems weren’t in place for ICE to see the court’s schedule, so ICE issued fake dates instead. Immigrants were instructed to appear on weekends, midnight, and dates that just didn’t exist, like Sept. 31, multiple attorneys told CBS News.

On October 31, hundreds of immigrants received phony NTAs. They showed up to court for non-existent hearings to find “extraordinarily long lines,” according the recent alert from the immigration lawyers’ organization.

“It was complete dysfunction and confusion,” said McKinney.

The problem became so pervasive that on Dec. 21, the Executive Office of Immigration Review issued a rare policy memo telling ICE agents and DHS that courts would “reject any NTA in which the date or time of the scheduled hearing is facially incorrect.”

Matthew Kriezelman, a Chicago-based immigration attorney, has four clients with hearings scheduled for tomorrow. After checking with the court earlier this week, he found out that two of those appearances weren’t real: administrators had no record of the hearings and told Kriezelman his clients would have to wait until the court itself sent them a hearing date.

Kriezelman’s clients are among the lucky ones; experts estimate less than half of immigrants have legal representation. That means hundreds won’t realize their Jan. 31 hearing date was phony and will show up anyway, said Kriezelman.

The court in Chicago handles all the immigration cases in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, meaning many immigrants could be traveling for hours on Thursday morning for a hearing that doesn’t actually exist, Kriezelman said.

When they show up, nobody will be able to assist — because of the extreme cold weather, the Chicago immigration court is scheduled to be closed on Thursday, Kriezelman said.

Failure to show up to an immigration hearing can result in immediate removal proceeding, making immigrant especially wary when they hear they don’t need to come into court after all, said Kriezelman.

“They feel like someone is screwing with them or playing a terrible joke,” Kriezelman said. “It’s really confusing for a lot of people, especially ones that are unrepresented.”

Read more CBS News immigration coverage: The country’s busiest border crossing will allow 20 people to claim asylum a day. They used to take up to 100

These Central Americans have a second chance at asylum after being “unlawfully” deported. First ICE needs to bring them back

Every congressperson along southern border opposes border wall funding

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

Bill and Kate must be “reading my mind.” Keep on exposing the truth about this cruel, dishonest, and incompetent Administration and all of the “ethics-free minions” who carry out often illegal orders! What goes around, comes around, folks.

Anybody and I mean anybody, could need a fair, impartial, and honest justice system at some point in life. Why are so many folks standing by and letting Trump and his toadies destroy it? Piece by piece, the most important foundations of our democracy are being destroyed right in plain daylight!

Also congrats to my good friend and long-time fellow member of the Beverley Hills Community United Methodist Church family Mike Tackett of the NY Times and his colleague Linda Qiu for their continuing outstanding coverage of the truth about Trump’s disingenuous, wasteful, and cruel immigration policies. You’re making a difference, Mike and Linda! Keep at it!

There was a time when dishonesty and falsely filling out official government documents (known as fraud or willful misrepresentation in some criminal law circles) would get a Government employee fired, prosecuted, or disciplined. Not any more. With our country headed by a grifter “Liar-in-Chief” “anything goes” unless you are a migrant, a minority, or a member of the LGBTQ community. In that case, expect “no mercy.”

Also remember that White Nationalist former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions disingenuously pontificated about “the rule of law,” called DHS “a partner of EOIR,” and referred to immigration attorneys as “dirty lawyers.” He tried to cover up his gross mismanagement and political manipulation of the Immigration Courts by falsely blaming migrants, their attorneys, and the Immigration Judges themselves for the mess he himself, and also to a large extent DHS, caused.

He also spread false narratives about “widespread asylum fraud” and made the demonstrably false claim that asylum applicants were somehow a “major cause” of 11 million (mostly hard-working and law-abiding) “illegals” as he liked to contemptuously call them in his racist lingo. I doubt that there have even been 11 million asylum applicants total since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980.

Certainly, the causes for our “extra-legal” immigration system go far beyond alleged asylum fraud (which, in fact, does exist on a much smaller scale and in my experience is generally effectively uncovered, investigated, and aggressively prosecuted by DHS). They are a direct result of outdated and misguided policies that failed to recognize legitimate market forces in creating legal immigration categories and a failure to fully carry out in a good faith manner our humanitarian obligations under the refugee laws and international conventions.

Fact is, even if restrictionists like Sessions won’t admit it, the vast majority of the 11 million undocumented individuals should have been screened and admitted under our legal immigration system. The U.S. Government created the problem; so far, they have lacked the honesty, leadership, and courage to fix it in a fair and humane way that will benefit both our country and the migrants, current and future. Immigrants are America. And, except for our Native American brothers and sisters, we are all immigrants!

That’s why we have the “New Due Process Army!” Enlist today, and help fight the forces of “malicious incompetence” everywhere and for as long as it takes to win the battle and vindicate the Constitutional right of everyone in American to enjoy the benefits of Due Process of law.

PWS

01-31-19

🤡”CLOWN COURT REPORT” — “ADR [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”] is the watchword” — Yeah, it’s hard times under the Big Top (particularly if you’re in search of elusive and officially maligned Constitutionally-required Due Process!)

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

🤡”CLOWN COURT REPORT” — “ADR [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”] is the watchword” — Yeah, it’s hard times under the Big Top (particularly if you’re in search of elusive and officially maligned Constitutionally-required Due Process!)

An inherently reliable, highly anonymous source deep within America’s most dysfunctional court system tells Courtside: “ADR is still the watchword. No telling how many cases are off calendar at this point.”

Origins of the term “Clown Court” 🤡 (it actually preceded the Trump Administration):

Once upon a time, when I was an Immigration Judge, I was assigned to do a 100-case Master Calendar by televideo to a court in another state. Slight problem: All of the files were in a third place. Another hitch: All of the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel’s files had been sent to the wrong office. In other words, no “government files” of any kind for 100 cases. Adding to the degree of difficulty: EOIR sent me a Spanish interpreter; but almost everyone on the calendar actually spoke French or a West African language (something clearly shown in the EOIR “computer system,” such as it was). I “finished” with this circus about 5 pm. But, none of my colleagues was around. They were in the conference room. I burst through the door and yelled “This is ——————— Clown Court.” Unfortunately, the then Chief Immigration Judge was making one of his rather infrequent visits to our Court. Needless to say, he wasn’t amused by my sudden outburst of unvarnished truth. Fortunately, he happened to be a long-time friend who owed his original hiring at the “Legacy INS” as well as several “up-ladder career moves” largely to me when I was the Deputy General Counsel/Acting General Counsel. So, I survived to “perform under the big top” another day. And remember, this was back when the Immigration Court was actually better managed by comparison with today’s intentional “man-made disaster.” Then, it was “quirky,” but not necessarily “beyond the pale.” It’s been straight downhill since. Every time we think it’s hit bottom, DOJ and EOIR management seem to dig a little deeper.

PWS

01-31-19

PROVING MY POINT: DOJ/EOIR “NO-SHOW” STATS LIE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO ASYLUM SEEKERS!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/01/30/asylum-seekers-show-up-for-court/

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick writes for Immigration Impact:

Immigration restrictionists have often repeated a bold and erroneous claim: that there is a serious problem of asylum seekers who come to the U.S. border and disappear once released from detention. But both fact-checkers and independent studies show this is not true. In reality, the vast majority of asylum seekers diligently attend all of their immigration court hearings.

Given that studies consistently show a high appearance rate for asylum seekers, why do some people keep getting this wrong? Boiled down to its simplest answer: the only government measurement on failures to appear in court has been unreliable for years.

If an immigrant fails to appear for a scheduled immigration court hearing, they may be issued an order of removal “in absentia” (or “while absent”). Each year, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) reports the total number of cases that were “completed” by immigration judges. The government report looks at cases that finished with a grant of relief from removal or an order of removal, as well as the percent of case completions which involved an order of removal for failure to appear.

In Fiscal Year 2017, there were 41,384 orders of removal for failure to appear issued out of 149,436 total cases completed. EOIR reported this as a 28 percent failure to appear rate. However, immigration court cases often require multiple hearings before they can be completed and, due to skyrocketing backlogs in the last decade, the average immigration court case takes almost three years to complete.

The government’s statistic counts failures to appear only against the number of cases that are fully completed. By doing this, it neglects to account for the many immigrants who appeared in court in ongoing cases that have not yet reached completion.

As a result, because tens of thousands of immigrants appeared in court in 2017 but did not have a case completed, EOIR’s number does not represent the rate at which immigrants missed court.

Since there are now more than 800,000 people in immigration court, the failure to include these incomplete cases is extremely misleading.

In addition, by only reviewing initial case completions, the statistic doesn’t consider cases where an immigrant missed court through no fault of their own (like in the event of an emergency) and then successfully overturned a removal order. According to an analysis from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), excluding cases where the immigrant successfully overturned a removal order for failure to appear “significantly impacts and reduces the calculated rates.”

From 2012 to 2017, over 1.25 million new cases were filed in immigration court, but only 151,000 removal orders were issued for failure to appear; 13.5 percent of the total. When looking only at 2017, cases in which an immigrant was ordered removed for failure to appear constituted just five percent of the 802,503 cases pending or completed in immigration court.

Despite the flaws with using the failure to appear rate as a proxy for the rate at which immigrants miss court proceedings, the government continues to use this number to make policy. This is a mistake; good policy can only be made based on good data.

Given this error, what is the actual rate at which immigrants fail to appear in court? Unfortunately, there is no exact answer for this. But a series of studies has made one thing clear: the vast majority of asylum-seekers attend all their immigration court hearings.

The Detaining Families report, for example, reviewed every case between 2001 and 2016 where a family was detained by ICE and then released. It determined that 86 percent of families had not missed a single court hearing. This number rose to 96 percent when a member of the family filed an application for asylum.

Other studies have come to similar conclusions. According to a review of immigration court records by TRAC, only 22.9 percent of the 167,219 women and children who entered the United States between 2014 and 2017 were ordered removed for failure to appear. Those who managed to obtain counsel were the most likely to appear for their hearings; only 2.3 percent of that group were ordered removed for failure to appear.

Even government studies show similar results. In 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a study analyzing the outcomes of every person encountered by Customs and Border Protection in 2014. Of the roughly 60,000 individuals who sought asylum at the border that year, only 14 percent had been issued an order of removal that ICE was not able to carry out—likely because the asylum-seeker failed to appear in court and fled.

As long-term studies show, when you actually track individual cases from start to finish, most asylum-seekers diligently appear in court. The government should make policy based on this reality and not their own flawed metrics.

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

Trump, Miller, Nielsen, Sessions, Whitaker, and the rest of the “Band of Sycophants” make immigration policy based on a false White Nationalist agenda incorporating intentional lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and racist myths.

Not only do the stats show that asylum applicants show up for Immigration Court, but the also show a high correlation between represented respondents and appearance.

Rather than disgracefully wasting money on all sorts of expensive, ineffective, and often illegal “gimmicks,” one of the best things the Government could do is work with NGOs, pro bono organizations, and the private bar to achieve “universal representation.” It’s much more “doable” and infinitely more effective than the “Wall folly.” The Government could also help facilitate more trained, non-attorney “accredited representatives” to increase Asylum Office and Immigration Court representation.

Instead, Jeff Sessions slandered and went out of his way to disrespect immigration lawyers and make their already difficult jobs next to impossible. And, Nielsen went out of her way to bar, that’s right, bar, attorneys from initial interviews under her inaptly named “Migrant Protection Protocols.” Those protocols also obviously are a thinly veiled attack on representation at the Immigration Court level.

The Trump Administration and its motley crew of corrupt political officials should be confronted with and held accountable for their tireless lies and White Nationalist distortions that endanger the lives and rights of migrants. Harm to one of the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! And, intentional and unnecessary harm to the most vulnerable is a staple of the Trump Administration!

PWS

01-31-19

SCOTT BIXBY @ THE DAILY BEAST: Trump Puts U.S. Immigration Courts Into Freefall – Judges & Experts Doubt It Can Be Fixed Without Major Due Process Enhancements — “Fixing the backlog without sacrificing undocumented immigrants’ right to due process—a prospect with which Trump has already publicly flirted—could require a wholesale reconfiguration of the immigration court system, Marks said, starting with removing it from the purview of the Department of Justice.”

https://apple.news/A8VLzlyN7QImERHmUEChNnA

Scott Bixby reports for The Daily Beast:

President Donald Trump’s record-long shutdown may be over, (for now), but immigration judges and attorneys worry that its disastrous effects on the immigration court system will last for years.

The 35-day government shutdown, ignited over Trump’s demands for congressional funding of his long-promised border wall, exacerbated the very immigration crisis the president claims the barrier would solve, halting nearly all immigration court cases and putting three in four immigration judges on furlough. Hearings on asylum cases, deportation, and appeals against orders of removal were delayed indefinitely, pending a “reset” upon the government’s re-opening that shuffled tens of thousands of cases to the back of the line.

The only way to solve the pileup, one prominent immigration judge told The Daily Beast, is a trade: Dump Trump’s demand for a 2,000-mile wall, and instead double the number of immigration judges to deal with cases.

“If we’ve got a million cases backlogged, we need a thousand judges,” said Judge Dana Leigh Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. The current roster of roughly 400 judges, she said, “is less than half of what we need.”

“We’re having a tsunami of retirements because working conditions have become so unbearable,” said Marks. “It is incredibly stressful, because we know that the consequences of our cases are literally life and death.”

The Department of Justice, which oversees the immigration court system, already had a crisis on its hands before the shutdown, Marks said, with a backlog of at least 800,000 cases in a system with too few judges and too little funding.

The swell of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, combined with the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants in the United States, had created a years-long backlog of pending immigration court cases. The number of pending immigration court cases grew by 84 percent since the end of 2013, according to the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, and jumped by 26 percent just since the end of 2016.

“They allowed the courts to get to the anemic state that we were in prior to the shutdown,” said Marks, who has served as an immigration judge for 33 years. With the cancellation of tens of thousands of immigration cases that will now be shuffled to the back of a years-long line, “the shutdown’s effects will last for years.”

That backlog—which doesn’t even include an estimated 300,000 closed “low-priority” cases that the Justice Department ordered reopened in May—is currently being pushed through a mere 60 immigration courts across the United States. The roughly 400 immigration judges who keep that system moving have been given the Sisyphean task of clearing their dockets, a mission that even the most industrious judges think may be unfeasible.

“Most of us are extremely pessimistic about the current state of our dockets,” said Marks, noting that immigration judges are optimally supposed to go through four three-hour hearings per day. “They’re booked in an unrealistically heavy-packed manner that will not mean that we can finish all of the cases that are set on a given day.”

In a bid to speed through the backlog, the Department of Justice announced in April that it would impose quotas on judges, requiring the completion of 700 immigration cases per year to earn a “satisfactory performance” rating, as well as less than 15 percent of their cases remanded to a higher court—meaning that judges have to both increase the speed of their proceedings while decreasing errors that could lead to an appeal.

“The purpose of implementing these metrics is to encourage efficient and effective case management while preserving immigration judge discretion and due process,” wrote then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions when the policy was announced.

That new policy, Marks said, would only increase the pressure on the judge to serve two competing masters: the Department of Justice quotas and due process.

“The quintessential skill of a judge is knowing how to schedule your dockets, and yet we’re being told for political reasons, for the optics, how to do so,” said Marks, who warned that forcing judges to speed along complex proceedings encourages future appeals based on questions of judicial motivation.

“These are not simple and straightforward” cases, said Marks, who once famously likened deportation proceedings to “doing death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.”

“An immigration judge is shifting through four or five different times that the story has been told to see whether it’s consistent or inconsistent… Political optics is at tension, if not in conflict, with a judge’s role to ensure that each case in front of us provides the individual with due process.”

Add in a shutdown, immigration attorneys told The Daily Beast, and an overburdened system risks collapsing into chaos.

“Each day that there’s a government shutdown, you’re setting yourself up to add months” before a hearing, said Michael Wildes, an immigration attorney who represented Melania Trump and her parents in their immigration proceedings. “There will be enormous delays. For undetained individuals with court dates… they will back up even more egregiously than they have.”

Unclogging the dockets may be impossible, said Jason Dzubow, a Washington D.C.-based immigration attorney specializing in asylum law, leaving clients with good cases waiting for years to have their day in court.

“It’s just gonna be way too complicated to give people any kind of priority—which then, of course, causes a huge chain reaction, because it’s already a big mess,” Dzubow said. “What are they going to tell their families?”

Fixing the backlog without sacrificing undocumented immigrants’ right to due process—a prospect with which Trump has already publicly flirted—could require a wholesale reconfiguration of the immigration court system, Marks said, starting with removing it from the purview of the Department of Justice.

“People feel like there’s a thumb on the scales… because of the historically close relationship between the prosecutors‚ the Department of Homeland Security and the judges,” said Marks. “Judges have become, in a way, the sacrificial lamb in this process, because so much pressure has been applied to us. If we don’t follow, it renders us subject to personal discipline or training for evaluations that we are performing poorly, which can affect our very ability to retain our jobs.”

Such a dynamic, Marks said, has “a tremendous chilling effect.”

“A political branch is not the proper administrator for a neutral legal system.”

But in the meantime, both judges and attorneys working in the clotted immigration system feel that the $5.7 billion Trump has demanded for his border wall would be put to better use in hiring more immigration judges.

“There is an enormous divide between the amount of traffic and judges,” said Wildes. “In many ways, immigration has been looked upon as a stepchild in our legal system, where people recognize that it’s only a civil matter rather than a criminal matter. It actually has greater import—particularly when someone is facing banishment from the country.”

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

Yup! Should be no surprise to readers of “Courtside.” In my experience, EOIR never really recovered from the mindless 2013 shutdown. Anybody with any real knowledge or who cared about our Government, our Constitution, and real immigration enforcement could have seen this coming “from a million miles away.” But, we’re saddled with a Kakistocracy — a “Clown Administration” if you will. 🤡

PWS

01-30-19

A PRESIDENCY WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE IS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY: By Contrast, Individuals Seeking Asylum Through Our Legal System @ Our Southern Border Are No Such Thing — “None of the [U.S. intelligence] officials said there is a security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where Trump has considered declaring a national emergency so that he can build a wall.”

James Hohmann from the “Daily 202” in today’s WashPost:

— Here are five of the main issues where the intelligence community leaders broke with Trump:

Coats “said that North Korea was ‘unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities,’ which the country’s leaders consider ‘critical to the regime’s survival.’ That assessment threw cold water on the White House’s more optimistic view that the United States and North Korea will achieve a lasting peace and that the regime will ultimately give up its nuclear weapons.’”
“None of the officials said there is a security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where Trump has considered declaring a national emergency so that he can build a wall.”
“Officials also warned that the Islamic State was capable of attacking the United States and painted a picture of a still-formidable organization. Trump has declared the group defeated and has said he wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as a result.”
“The officials assessed that the government of Iran was not trying to build a nuclear weapon, despite the Trump administration’s persistent claims that the country has been violating the terms of an international agreement forged during the Obama administration. Officials told lawmakers that Iran was in compliance with the agreement.”
“Officials also warned, as they did last year, about Russia’s intention to interfere with the U.S. political system. … Trump continues to equivocate on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf, contradicting the unanimous assessment of all the top intelligence officials currently serving.”

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

Here’s a more detailed story by Shane Harris from today’s Post setting forth just how “out to lunch” our “Intelligence professionals,” whom Trump himself appointed, think the President’s “threat assessment” is, specifically including, but not limited to, his “manufactured security crisis” at the Southern Border. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-officials-will-name-biggest-threats-facing-us-during-senate-hearing/2019/01/28/f08dc5cc-2340-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.5b8041d6dc0a

I’ve been saying on “Courtside” for some time that the real existential threat to our national security is Trump. While the Administration has undoubtedly completely screwed up our asylum system at the border and in the U.S. Immigration Courts that has almost nothing to do with “national security.”

It’s simply a matter of common sense: We know (or should know) almost exactly what the number oF arrivals is going to be, particularly when they travel in slow-moving “caravans” that easily can be tracked and anticipated. We certainly could “funnel” almost all of them into the legal screening system for asylum.

Get the Inspectors and Asylum Officers down there to do the screening, and the necessary Immigration Judges, ICE lawyers, and defense counsel to decide cases of those screened in! Take lower priority cases, most involving long-term residents who have been here and likely will continue to be here for years, off the overcrowded Immigration Court dockets!

This would allow processing of the “new influx” in a timely manner, with full due process, and without creating more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” in the Immigration Courts. It would also avoid the always ineffective, wasteful, and usually illegal “gimmicks” that the Administration has used to “game” the asylum system against applicants. And, certainly in this respect, getting more pro bono lawyers involved would be a much bigger help than more unneeded troops or Border Patrol Agents. Let the Border Patrol go back to their job of apprehending those border crossers who aren’t turning themselves in at or near the border to apply for asylum. Stop wasting resources and solve the problem!

Meanwhile, we should all be scared by Trump’s disregard of the prudent advice of his “national security and intelligence team.”

PWS

01-30-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Origins of the term “Clown Court” 🤡 (it actually preceded the Trump Administration):

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: