immigrationcourtside – Page 327 – immigrationcourtside.com

ABA JOURNAL: Superstar Reporter Lorelei Laird Exposes The Impending Disaster In The U.S. Immigration Courts! (I Am One Of Her Quoted Sources)

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/legal_logjam_immigration_court

Lorelei reports:

“In the fall of 2016, the Executive Office for Immigration Review was busy addressing these problems by hiring aggressively, spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said.

As of March, she said the agency had 301 seated judges and had requested authorization for a total of 399 judgeships. Those new judges are welcomed by legal and immigration groups—including the ABA, which called for more immigration judges with 2010’s Resolution 114B.

But that effort may be overwhelmed by changes under the Trump administration. Trump’s actions since taking office emphasize enforcement; his executive orders call for 10,000 more ICE agents and 5,000 more CBP officers, and they substantially reduce use of prosecutorial discretion. In his first months in office, there were several high-profile deportations of immigrants who had previously benefited from prosecutorial discretion and had little or no criminal record.

Although the DOJ eventually said immigration judges weren’t subject to the hiring freeze, it’s unclear whether immigration courts will be funded enough to handle all the additional cases. If not, Schmidt says, wait times will only worsen.

“If they really put a lot more people in proceedings, then it seems to me the backlog’s going to continue to grow,” he says. “How are they going to take on more work with the number of cases that are already there?”

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

This is just a small sample. Read Lorelei’s much lengthier and complete analysis of all of the problems, including interviews with a number of other experts and a cross-reference to the ABA’s previous work predicting just such a docket disaster at the above link.

In my view, the Trump Administration is aggravating the problem, rather than seeking to improve the delivery of due process. Given the nature of the system, they might get away with it for awhile. But, eventually, one way or another, these chickens are coming home to roost. And, when they do, it won’t be pretty for the Administration, for anyone involved with the U.S. Immigration Court system, and for the American system of justice.

PWS

03/27/17

THE HILL: Nolan Rappaport Says DHS Does Inadequate Job Of Tracking Unaccompanied Children!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/325942-maryland-immigrant-rape-case-shows-failure-of-us-policy-on

Nolan writes:

“CBP is required by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to transfer the custody of unaccompanied alien children from Central America to ORR within 72 hours of determining that they are unaccompanied alien children. ORR promptly places them in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interests while they wait for an immigration hearing to be scheduled.

They normally are not held at a secure facility unless they are charged with criminal actions, pose a threat of violence, or are flight risks.

Unaccompanied alien children are not eligible for many forms of relief. Asylum is the most common. The only other possibilities I am aware of are “special immigrant juvenile status,” which requires a finding by a state juvenile court that they have been abused, neglected, or abandoned; and “T nonimmigrant status” for victims of trafficking.

Many of the children who are released from custody abscond instead of returning for their hearings. Between July 18, 2014, and June 28, 2016, removal proceedings were initiated in 69,540 cases. Only 31,091 of them were completed. Of the total completed cases, 12,977 resulted in removal orders, and 11,528 (89 percent) of the removal orders were issued in absentia because the children had absconded.

The post-Trump immigration court handles fewer unaccompanied alien children cases. This will increase the amount of time unaccompanied alien children have to wait for hearings, which is likely to increase the number of children who abscond.

Also, they will have less incentive to return for their hearings. In the more liberal Obama era, immigration judges granted asylum in up to 71 percent of their asylum cases. This is not likely to continue in the post-Trump era.

The fact that many unaccompanied alien children abscond is disturbing. We know very little about them.”

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

Please read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill at the link.

I have a few thoughts. First, although at the end of my career I was not assigned to the juvenile docket, I handled many juvenile cases over my 13 year career at the Arlington Immigration Court.

Even when I was not responsible for the juvenile docket, “mis-assigned” juvenile cases appeared on my docket on a regular basis, probably a consequence of the “haste makes waste” prioritization of juveniles by the Obama Administration. I never had a significant problem with juveniles “absconding.”

Not surprisingly, this is borne out by the facts. Studies show that represented juveniles appear for their hearings about 95% of the time. That suggests that the real effort should be on working with the pro bono bar to ensure that juvenile cases are scheduled in a manner that promotes maximum representation at the first hearing. Presto, the largely imaginary problem with “absconding” juveniles disappears.

See this link to an American Immigration Council analysis:

Taking Attendance: New Data Finds Majority of Children Appear in Immigration Court | American Immigr

Second, in the small number of cases where juveniles did not appear, the problem was almost always with the Government system, not the juveniles. Indeed, the suggestion that children, some infants, other toddlers, “abscond” is prima facie absurd.

There are a number of reasons why juveniles might not appear: 1) in their haste to move these cases through the system, DHS often incorrectly transmits the U.S. address to the Immigration Court; 2) under pressure to fill “priority” dockets required by the Obama Administration, the Immigration Court, which still operates with a manual data entry system, sometimes sent the notice to a wrong address; and 3) almost all juveniles have to rely on adult “sponsors” to get them to court. Depending on the degree of understanding and responsibility on the part of the sponsor, this might or might not happen.

When the court appearance requirements are properly communicated and understood by the sponsor, and where the juvenile has realistic access to legal representation, there simply are not many “no show” issues. In Immigration Courts that put due process first, most no-shows are eventually reopened when the juvenile and the sponsor discover the problem and explain the failure to appear. Therefore, large numbers of “in absentia” juvenile cases suggests to me a problem with the system, and, perhaps, with particular Immigration Judges, rather than the juveniles.

Here’s a link to a L.A. Times article on in absentia orders for unaccompanied children.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-children-deported-20150306-story.html

Third, Nolan’s reference to the “liberal” Obama administration seems gratuitous. The Obama Administration did little of substance to help juveniles and, to my knowledge, most of the precedents issued by the BIA made it more difficult, rather than easier, for juveniles from the Northern Triangle to get relief.

Nevertheless, juveniles were able to succeed at a fairly high rate where they obtained competent representation, Immigration Judges fairly applied the generous standards for asylum, and also gave the children adequate time to pursue other forms of relief such as those mentioned by Nolan.

The nationwide asylum grant rate in the most recent year was approximately 47%, not 71%. The latter was just one of the courts with a higher rate. But, there were also courts like Atlanta, with a 2% rate who were not doing a fair job of asylum adjudication.

In any event, there is every reason to believe that most of the juveniles in the system had at least a “respectable” chance of success in remaining.

It’s possible that the Trump Administration will attempt to “game” to system to depress grant rates. Such conduct appears on its face to be both illegal and contrary to the generous standard for asylum established by the U.S. Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca.

To date, I am aware of no such overt attempt by the Administration to interfere with the fair adjudication of asylum claims. However, I do acknowledge that the general tone of the Executive Orders is xenophobic and disparaging to refugees and immigrants. At some point, the Article III Courts will decide whether or not the Administration is complying with the requirements of U.S. law and various international protection agreements.

Finally, I think that Nolan’s suggestion that unaccompanied children be sent to third countries for U.N. processing would be a violation of both the INA and the Wilberforce Act. While there is a provision in the INA for sending individuals who arrived in “safe third countries” back to those countries for asylum adjudication, to date it only applies to Canada and is limited in a way that would make it inapplicable to the Southern Border Central American cases.

The U.S. would do far better to acknowledge the legitimate fears that cause women and children to flee countries in the Northern Triangle. Dealing with the problems at their source, which is likely to be a long-term prospect, while providing at least some type of screening and temporary refuge short of asylum, would, in my view, be a much better and more humane solution to this chronic issue than the enforcement initiatives proposed by the Trump Administration.

PWS

03/27/17

James Hohmann In WashPost: How Trump Is Winning The War Even While Losing Some Key Battles — “Deconstruction Of The Administrative State” Moving At Full Throttle With No End In Sight! PLUS EXTRA BONUS: My Mini-Essay “On Gorsuch, Deference, & The Administrative State!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/03/27/daily-202-how-trump-s-presidency-is-succeeding/58d88409e9b69b72b2551039/?utm_term=.dbeab923d833

Hohmann writes:

“– Liberals mock Trump as ineffective at their own peril. Yes, it’s easy to joke about how Trump said during the campaign that he’d win so much people would get tired of winning. Both of his travel bans have been blocked – for now. An active FBI investigation into his associates is a big gray cloud over the White House. The president himself falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him. His first national security adviser registered as a foreign agent after being fired for not being honest about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. His attorney general, at best, misled Congress under oath.
— Despite the chaos and the growing credibility gap, Trump is systematically succeeding in his quest to “deconstruct the administrative state,” as his chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon puts it. He’s pursued the most aggressive regulatory rollback since Ronald Reagan, especially on environmental issues, with a series of bills and executive orders. He’s placed devoted ideologues into perches from which they can stop aggressively enforcing laws that conservatives don’t like. By not filling certain posts, he’s ensuring that certain government functions will simply not be performed. His budget proposal spotlighted his desire to make as much of the federal bureaucracy as possible wither on the vine.

— Trump has been using executive orders to tie the hands of rule makers. He put in place a regulatory freeze during his first hours, mandated that two regulations be repealed for every new one that goes on the books and ordered a top-to-bottom review of the government with an eye toward shrinking it.
Any day now, Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at undoing Obama’s Clean Power Plan and end a moratorium on federal-land coal mining. This would ensure that the U.S. does not meet its commitments under the Paris climate agreement.

The administration is also preparing new executive orders to re-examine all 14 U.S. free trade agreements, including NAFTA, and the president could start to sign some of them this week.

— Trump plans to unveil a new White House office today with sweeping authority to overhaul the federal bureaucracy and, potentially, privatize some government functions. “The Office of American Innovation, to be led by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, will operate as its own nimble power center within the West Wing and will report directly to Trump,” Ashley Parker and Philip Rucker report. “Viewed internally as a SWAT team of strategic consultants, the office will be staffed by former business executives and is designed to … create a lasting legacy for a president still searching for signature achievements. … Kushner’s team is being formalized just as the Trump administration is proposing sweeping budget cuts across many departments, and members said they would help find efficiencies.”

Kushner’s ambitions are grand: “At least to start, the team plans to focus its attention on re-imagining Veterans Affairs; modernizing the technology and data infrastructure of every federal department and agency; remodeling workforce-training programs; and developing ‘transformative projects’ under the banner of Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, such as providing broadband Internet service to every American. In some cases, the office could direct that government functions be privatized, or that existing contracts be awarded to new bidders.”

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

On Gorsuch, Deference, & The Administrative State

by Paul Wickham Schmidt

Hohmann’s points make quite a bit of sense to me — until he gets down to his rather remarkable conclusion that progressives should have invested more in a fight against Gorsuch. What? Just how would they have done that? The GOP has the votes to confirm, as they will do, and there is nothing the Dems can do to stop it, except to look feeble, petty, and out of touch in the attempt.

The confirmation hearings revealed nothing that was not already known. Gorsuch should be a reliable conservative vote on the Court, perhaps, but not necessarily, even more than Justice Scalia. Surprise!

We just had an election during which McConnell’s scheme to block the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supremes, the control of the Senate, and the ability of the next President to appoint a liberal (Hillary) or a conservative (Trump) as Scalia’s replacement were big issues. And, guess what? Whether Dems like it or not, the GOP won both the Presidency and the Senate and thereby the ability to appoint their man (in this case) as the next Justice.

What’s remarkable about that? It would have only been remarkable if President Trump had nominated someone less conservative than Judge Gorsuch. And, certainly, if Hillary had won and the Democrats won the Senate she could legitimately have chosen to resubmit Judge Garland or chosen an even more liberal candidate who would have duly been confirmed by the Democrats over the GOP’s objections. Elections have consequences, particularly when your party loses control of both of the political branches of Government.

I continue to suspect that while Justice Gorsuch will be very conservative, at some point in the future he will be persuaded to side with the so-called “liberal Justices” against some position that is key to the GOP — perhaps, the scope of Executive authority. At that point, the same GOP Senators who gushed on about his “judicial independence” will be screaming “betrayal,” while the Democrats will be congratulating him on “conscientiously following the law.”

Look at how Chief Justice Roberts went from poster boy for judicial conservatism to “dupe of the left” just by failing to veto Obamacare as the GOP had been counting on. All politicians want judges who exercise their “judicial independence” in a predictable way consistent with the political philosophy of the party that appointed them. Once on the bench, however, with lifetime tenure and only their judicial colleagues to answer to, few actually live up to all of the exceptions of their political appointers.

Moreover, I don’t agree with the supposedly “liberal” position that Executive Branch administrative judges (like I was) and bureaucrats (which I also was) should have the power to impose their views on legal issues, even if not particularly sound ones, on the Article III Judiciary. Chief Justice John Marshall must be turning over in his grave, while Thomas Jefferson dances on top of it, at this bizarre voluntary surrender of judicial authority known as “Chevron.”

There is always pressure on Executive Branch officials, be they administrative judges or just “regular agency bureaucrats,” to construe the law in ways that favor Executive policies and Executive power over the power and prerogatives of the other two branches of Government and often over the rights of individuals in the U.S.

Deciding difficult questions of law, where the answers are not clear, is what Article III Judges are paid to do, and what they are supposed to do under the Constitution! At one time, this is what they actually did! The pre-Chevron “Skidmore doctrine” already gave the Article III Judiciary adequate latitude to recognize the expertise of certain Executive Branch officials and to defer to their interpretation when it appeared to be the best one, or at least as good as any of the alternatives.

But, Chevron basically substituted the concept of “any plausible interpretation” for the “best interpretation.” That’s simply not the way an independent judiciary should function under the separation of powers established in our Constitution.

I say all of this as someone who spent the bulk of my professional career as a public servant within the “administrative state” and who, unlike the Bannons of the world, believes in the power of the Federal Government to do good things for the general population. But, I have also seen first-hand the weaknesses and biases of the Executive when it comes to interpreting the law.

Meaningful independent judicial oversight over the “administrative state,” which includes “de novo” (basically unrestricted) review of Executive legal decisions by the Article III Judiciary, is a requirement for fairness and due process under our Constitution.

Finally, the Dems should abandon Schumer’s ill-conceived idea of a “Gorsuch filibuster.” Of the minority of Americans who actually care about the Gorsuch confirmation, only a minority of those are opposed. In other words, the Dems are about to proceed on a futile parliamentary maneuver that really only speaks to a small number of voting Americans, who are already in their “base.” Absolutely no need to do that.

What is needed if the Dems don’t want another Gorsuch appointment is to start winning more elections, particularly in the U.S. Senate and for the Presidency the next time around. That will require more than feeble posturing, tilting at windmills, and some additional “Trump fails.”

The Democrats need some dynamic leadership (which currently is conspicuously absent) and some real, down to earth programs and proposals to solve America’s problems (something which I haven’t heard to date). What can the Dems do that the GOP can’t, and why should folks care?

Otherwise, the next nominee for the Supremes could be along the lines of Judge Jeannie or Judge Napolitano. And, the Dems will continue to be powerless to stop it.

PWS

03/27/17

WashPost: “Rural America” Isn’t As “White” As Most People (& Politicians) Think — “People Of Color” Are 20% — And, Even More Than Their White Counterparts, They Are Being Ignored By The Rest Of Us!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-a-big-part-of-rural-america-that-everyones-ignoring/2017/03/24/d06d24d0-1010-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html?utm_term=.62b8967c82ea

Mara Casey Tieken, an Assistant Professor of Education at Bates College, writes:

“Last year’s earthshaking election brought new attention to rural America. This attention is overdue — rural America has long been largely ignored by reporters, researchers and policymakers — and much of it is useful, as this increasingly urban-centric country tries to understand and reconnect with those living far from cities.

But so far, the narrative emerging about rural America has been woefully incomplete, because so much of the media coverage has focused on only one slice of it: rural white America. Some stories are clear about their scope: Their authors have intentionally chosen a particular geographic and racial population to explore and explain. Others are less obvious in their focus, though details — region of the country or photographs — soon make explicit what is merely implied or assumed. Either way, though, a particular racial narrative is being told.

There’s another rural America that exists beyond this rural white America. Nearly 10.3 million people, about one-fifth of rural residents, are people of color. Of this population, about 40 percent are African American, 35 percent are nonwhite Hispanic, and the remaining 25 percent are Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander or multiracial. And this rural America is expected to grow in the coming decades, as rural areas see a rapid increase in Latino immigration.
This rural America, much like rural white America, can be found from coast to coast. But these rural Americans tend to live in different places from rural whites: across the Mississippi Delta and the Deep South; throughout the Rio Grande Valley; on reservations and native lands in the Southwest, Great Plains and Northwest.

This rural America has a different history from rural white America: a history of forced migration, enslavement and conquest. This rural America receives even lower pay and fewer protections for its labor than does rural white America. And, as my own research shows, this rural America attends very different schools than rural white America, schools that receive far less funding and other resources.
In fact, the relationship between rural white communities and rural communities of color is much like the relationship between urban white communities and urban communities of color: separate and unequal.”

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

Actually, seems like rural communities of all ethnicities share some strong common interests. They need jobs, education, roads, and services which are essential but not necessarily “cost-effective” and therefore have to be underwritten largely by those in “blue states” and urban areas.

Hard to seen how any part of rural America rationally aligns with Trump & the GOP, the party of handouts for the rich, destruction of public education, dirty air, polluted water, money wasted on xenophobic immigration enforcement, big weapons, lousy to non-existent health care, Wall Street, and no realistic plans for job creation.

But, for much of American post-Civil-War history, politicians of both parties have been amazingly successful at enticing white rural America to ignore it’s logical community of interest with African American, Native American, and Hispanic rural residents and to instead vote to prop up an establishment whose genuine interest in helping rural America is ephemeral at best.

PWS

03/26/17

Adios Amigo! — Xenophobia Trumps Rationality, Humanity, As ICE Boots Law-Abiding Indiana Hispanic Businessman Whose Wife Voted For Trump — “Mixed Family” Learns The Hard Way They Aren’t Welcome In The Trump-Pence America!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/25/she-thought-trump-would-deport-bad-hombres-instead-hes-deporting-her-law-abiding-husband/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news:page/in-the-news&utm_term=.b30be44bad1e

Peter Holley reports in the WashPost:

“Stories such as Beristain’s — in which law-abiding parents are deported because of their immigration status — have inundated the news media in recent months. The Twitter account “Trump Regrets” has amassed nearly 260,000 followers by retweeting disappointed and angry Trump voters.

“Previously,” as The Post’s Samantha Schmidt and Sarah Larimer reported last month, “the Obama administration prioritized the deportation of people who were violent offenders or had ties to criminal gangs. Trump’s executive order on Jan. 25 expanded priorities to include any undocumented immigrants who had been convicted of a criminal offense.”

“Personally, I think the president should be giving him a handshake,” Flora said. “Either Trump was lying when he said we were only deporting bad guys, or Trump’s view of bad guys is so expansive it can literally include every single immigrant.”

Days after Beristain’s arrest, Flora said, he filed a “stay of removal” to prevent deportation, but it was rejected March 15.

“Once the case is finalized and done, there’s really no reason to keep him around in their eyes,” Flora said, referring to ICE. “They think, ‘Why take up jail space for no reason if all the legal options have been exhausted?’ ”

Flora said the decision to deport Beristain is a “wildly disproportionate” response when measured against the law he broke nearly two decades ago.

“If you asked 100 people to paint you a picture of a bad guy, no one would draw anyone remotely resembling Roberto,” he said.
Helen Beristain told the Tribune that — in their effort to get her husband U.S. citizenship — the couple has had 10 attorneys over the past 18 years. Many of those attorneys, she said, told them that they had no choice but to wait for immigration laws to change.

Instead of changing in the couple’s favor, the laws evolved to make her husband more vulnerable to deportation, a development the Beristains never expected. She told the Tribune that Trump’s deportation measures — the one’s she thought her family would be exempt from — are harming “regular people.”

“I understand when you’re a criminal and you do bad things, you shouldn’t be in the country,” Helen told the CBS TV affiliate WSBT. “But when you’re a good citizen and you support and you help and you pay taxes and you give jobs to people, you should be able to stay.”

“We were for Mr. Trump,” she added. “We were very happy he became the president. Whatever he says, he is right. But, like he said, the good people have a chance to become citizens of the United States.”

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

And, folks can thank restrictionist, white nationalist “fellow travelers” like then-Senator, now Attorney General Jeff Sessions, egged on by the likes of current Presidential Advisors Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, for blocking sensible immigration reform efforts in Congress. So, we’re spending taxpayer money and Government resources to make American a worse place by deporting members of the business community who have done nothing but good things for the country and those around them. You’d have to reside somewhere deep in the bowels of the “GOP Swamp” to make sense of this type of policy.

PWS

03/26/17

US Immigration Judge Samuel Cole (CHI) Grants Asylum To Singapore Dissident

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/25/us/ap-us-singapore-us-teen-asylum-seeker-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The AP reports in the NY Times:

“A blogger from Singapore who was jailed for his online posts blasting his government was granted asylum to remain in the United States, an immigration judge ruled.

Amos Yee, 18, has been detained by federal immigration authorities since December when he was taken into custody at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Attorneys said he could be released from a Wisconsin detention center as early as Monday.

Judge Samuel Cole issued a 13-page decision Friday, more than two weeks after Yee’s closed-door hearing on the asylum application.

“Yee has met his burden of showing that he suffered past persecution on account of his political opinion and has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Singapore,” Cole wrote.

Yee left Singapore with the intention of seeking asylum in the U.S. after being jailed for several weeks in 2015 and 2016. He was accused of hurting the religious feelings of Muslims and Christians in the multiethnic city-state. Yee is an atheist.

Many of his blog and social media posts criticized Singapore’s leaders. He created controversy in 2015 as the city-state was mourning the death of its first prime minister and he posted an expletive-laden video about Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew just after his death.

Such open criticism of political leaders is discouraged in Singapore. The case raised questions about free speech and censorship and has been closely watched abroad.

Cole said testimony during Yee’s hearing showed that while the Singapore government’s stated reason for punishing him involved religion, “its real purpose was to stifle Yee’s political speech.” He said Yee’s prison sentence was “unusually long and harsh” especially for his age.

Singapore’s government criticized the decision.”

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

Mr. Yee was successfully represented by Maryland immigration attorney Sandra Grossman of Grossman Law LLC.

As I have mentioned before in this blog, most fully litigated U.S. Immigration Court cases today, particularly those involving asylum or criminal law, involve exceptionally complex, and often sensitive, issues of law and fact which can’t be fairly resolved in a one to two hour time block. Yet, most of the Administration’s recent enforcement initiatives seem to assume that Immigration Court is an “assembly line” and that U.S. Immigration Judges are more or less “assembly line workers” who can be detailed to obscure locations on demand and perhaps required to work “night shifts” to keep the “deportation railroad running at full throttle.”

But, due process is not an assembly line operation. It usually takes time, expertise, careful scholarship, and detailed fact-finding for U.S. Immigration Judges to produce fair decisions that will pass muster upon judicial review in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. (I note that the Administration’s first, high-profile attempt to “ram” an immigration case — “Travel Ban 1.0” — through a Court of Appeals was spectacularly unsuccessful.)

These days, most individuals who are represented by competent counsel and reach the “Individual (Merits) Hearing” stage have at least some plausible defenses to removal. Indeed, a 2016 study by TRAC Immigration showed that more than half (57%) of the total dispositions in U.S. Immigration Court favored the individual. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/435/

And, this was during the Obama Administration which already was prioritizing so-called “serious criminals.” By expanding the “criminal alien” definition to include minor criminals and non-criminals, the Trump Administration will probably be taking on even more cases where it ultimately will fail to get a “final order of removal” unless concerted attempts are made to “game the system” to insure that individuals lose (for example, by denying individuals fair access to counsel or using prolonged detention in poor conditions as a device to persuade individuals to abandon their claims to remain in the US).

PWS

03/26/17

immigrationcourtsidePOLITICS: Somewhere Out In Ohio Yesterday Afternoon . . .

at about 3:45 PM EST, an already well-tanned man was sunning himself, dragging on a cigarette, enjoying a big glass of red wine, with tears of joy streaming down his face, his feet propped up, and thinking “YES, there is justice in this world!”

MATT FLEGENHEIMER and THOMAS KAPLAN write in the NY Times that Speaker Paul Ryan is now in “damage control mode” after he and President Trump were “stiffed” by their own party (no Trumpster, you can’t blame this on the Dems, who were kept “locked in the hallway” while this circus was going on, probably having to check Fox News to see what time the vote was scheduled), suffering a stunning, but well-deserved, defeat on their horrible bill to “repeal and replace Obamacare:”

“The episode not only demonstrated an inability to honor a longstanding pledge that powered Republicans through a string of election cycles. It was also a remarkable setback for Mr. Ryan as the body’s principal arm-twister, in his first major test as the speaker under a Republican president.

In January, he coasted to re-election with almost unanimous party support, prompting allies to gloat that he had tamed the hard-line House Freedom Caucus far more deftly than his predecessor, John A. Boehner.

By Friday, his bill had at once alienated those archconservatives and more moderate members who abandoned the legislation as Mr. Ryan and Mr. Trump began caving to demands of the far right, to little effect.

“We were a 10-year opposition party, where being against things was easy to do,” Mr. Ryan said at a sheepish news conference shortly after the bill was pulled, adding with uncharacteristic candor that Republicans were not yet prepared to be a “governing party.”

“We will get there,” Mr. Ryan said, “but we weren’t there today.”

His job will not get easier. With disparate coalitions in his conference, outside groups like the political arm of the Heritage Foundation pushing lawmakers to pursue conservative purity, and a less-than-popular president whom some members have appeared more willing to buck recently, there are few establishment forces helping Mr. Ryan keep the peace.”

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

PWS

03/25/17

Supremes To Hear OA In Immigrant’s Ineffective Assistance/Prejudice Case On Tues. March 28!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raw-deal-for-immigrant-at-us-supreme-court_us_58d55dabe4b0c0980ac0e5a2

Manny Vaargas, Senior Counsel at the Immigrant Defense Project writes:

“Mr. Lee is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reopen his criminal case to allow him to withdraw his ill-advised guilty plea. The government’s lawyers agree that Mr. Lee was incorrectly advised. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Mr. Lee has lived in the United States now for 35 years and faces deportation to a country that he has not been in since he was a small child, the government argues that Mr. Lee was not prejudiced by the incorrect advice. The government claims that no one in Mr. Lee’s shoes facing the evidence of guilt he allegedly faced could have rationally chosen to decline to plead guilty and risk a longer prison sentence if convicted after trial.

The government’s position completely ignores how important avoiding deportation can be to individuals like Mr. Lee with deep ties to this country. Indeed, showing just how paramount a concern avoiding deportation was and continues to be for Mr. Lee, he did not submit to deportation after completing his one year prison sentence, and instead has remained in federal custody for a total of seven years while fighting for permission to withdraw his plea. This is significantly longer than the three to five year term that he had been told he risked if his case had gone to trial and he lost. What more compelling evidence can there be of how important avoiding deportation can be to someone like Mr. Lee with deep roots in the United States?

Moreover, the government’s position ignores that there is a real possibility that someone like Mr. Lee, had he declined to plead guilty to the charged offense, might have been able to negotiate a different plea that would not have triggered mandatory deportation. Defense lawyers, aware or advised about relevant immigration law, often are able to work out alternative dispositions that satisfy prosecutors and avoid disproportionate immigration penalties in cases such as his. Or, failing that, Mr. Lee might have exercised his right to a trial and defeated the distribution charge.

The Supreme Court will hear argument in Mr. Lee’s case on Tuesday (March 28). All Mr. Lee asks of the Court is that it reopen his criminal case so that it can be resolved properly and fairly based on correct information regarding the critical immigration implications for him of different possible dispositions of his case. To give due respect to the Constitution’s important right to effective counsel, the Court should grant this modest request given the clearly inadequate counsel Mr. Lee received and the undeniable prejudice he has suffered as a result.”

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

The case is Lee v. U.S.

PWS

03/25/17

Oral Argument Set For May 8 In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump — 4th Cir. Grants Gov’s Request to Expedite!

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202781955190/Fourth-Circuit-Expedites-Travel-Ban-Case-Sets-May-8-Hearing?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=0&slreturn=20170225010630

The National Law Journal reports:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed Thursday to expedite a challenge to President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order, setting oral arguments in the case for May 8 at the court in Richmond.
The government appealed a Maryland U.S. district court’s order last week that blocked a portion of the president’s March 6 executive order restricting travel from six majority-Muslim countries. On Wednesday, the Justice Department requested the court expedite the briefing schedule for the appeal, arguing that lower courts and the Ninth Circuit all expedited litigation surrounding both the March 6 executive order and the first order, now revoked, which was issued Jan. 28.
The government had also indicated in its request to expedite the process that it intends to file a motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. According to the court’s schedule, the government plans to file that motion Friday. The plaintiff’s response will be due March 31, with the government’s reply due April 5.
The government said the issue is “of national importance” and has national security implications, making it worthy of a speedy schedule. According to the filing, the plaintiffs disagreed with the government’s proposed schedule, and requested a May 10 deadline for their briefs. The Fourth Circuit originally issued a briefing schedule requiring the government to file its opening brief April 26, with the briefing completed by June 9.”

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

PWS

03/25/17

Trump Wins One In Virginia!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politics/virginia-federal-judge-revised-travel-ban/

CNN reports:

“(CNN)A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of the Trump administration Friday, declining to join other federal courts that halted the President’s revised travel ban last week.

Two federal judges — one in Maryland and one in Hawaii — have blocked implementation of the core provisions of the travel ban, and it remains on hold nationwide. Drawing on a litany of then-candidate Donald Trump’s statements about Muslims during the presidential campaign, both of the judges concluded that the new executive order likely violates the establishment clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims.

But Virginia-based US District Judge Anthony Trenga was not persuaded that Trump’s past statements automatically mean the revised executive order is unlawful, especially given the changes it made from the first version.
“This court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent,” Trenga explained. “And while the President and his advisers have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 (the first executive order) that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2 (the revised ban) the court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority.”
The practical effect of Trenga’s decision is limited at this point because the travel ban is already frozen nationwide, but it adds another judicial voice in support of the legality of the executive order as it makes its way through further proceedings in federal appellate courts.
Trump’s new travel ban blocked: What you need to know
“The substantive revisions reflected in EO-2 have reduced the probative value of the President’s statements to the point that it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate purpose of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that purpose,” Trenga added.
The Justice Department championed the news.”

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

Not much immediate impact here, because TRO’s from Federal cases in Hawaii and Maryland remain in effect. But, Judge Trenga’s legal analysis will certainly be helpful to the Government moving forward.

PWS

03/25/17

BREAKING: NQRFPT! — Trumpcare Tanks! — Prez Tells Ryan To “Pull” Doomed Bill!

NQRFPT = “Not Quite Ready For Prime Time” a term sometimes used to describe certain cases on the Arlington Immigration Court docket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-leaders-prepare-to-vote-friday-on-health-care-reform/2017/03/24/736f1cd6-1081-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_housevote715a:homepage/story&utm_term=.e92b3451c27c

The WashPost reports:

“House Republican leaders abruptly pulled a Republican rewrite of the nation’s health-care system from consideration on Friday, a dramatic acknowledgment that they are so far unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“We just pulled it,” President Trump told the Washington Post in a telephone interview.

The decision came a day after Trump delivered an ultimatum to lawmakers — and represented multiple failures for the new president and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).

The decision means the Affordable Care Act remains in place, at least for now, and a major GOP campaign promise goes unfulfilled. It also casts doubt on the GOP’s ability to govern and to advance other high-stakes agenda items, including tax reform and infrastructure spending. Ryan is still without a signature achievement as speaker — and the defeat undermines Trump’s image as a skilled dealmaker willing to strike compromises to push his agenda forward.

“I don’t blame Paul,” Trump said, referring to Ryan.”

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

Read this article from Vox News about how Speaker Ryan “conned” the “Great Conner” into “going all in” on this terrible piece of proposed legislation which directly violated a number of Trump’s specific campaign promises (not that truthfulness has ever been much of a concern for Trump). Additionally, and perhaps not surprisingly, Trump was somewhat handicapped during negotiations by the fact that according to “those in the know” he never even read the bill he was touting. After all, “why sweat the details?”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/24/15039664/paul-ryan-donald-trump-ahca

NWS President’s Trump’s statement that he “didn’t blame” Ryan, if I were “Speaker Paul,” I’d watch my back (and, perhaps, also my front). The President is not widely known as a “good loser.” To paraphrase one of my college buddies who grew up in South Philly, “Nobody cops a sneaky on DT and gets away with it.”

PWS

03/24/17

WashPost OPINION: David Cole Lays Out The Case For Rejecting “Travel Ban 2.0” — Why Judges Should Look Behind The Language OF The EO To Determine “Intent”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/judges-shouldnt-ignore-what-we-all-know-trumps-travel-ban-is-really-about/2017/03/22/4ad23ce2-0f21-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html?utm_term=.e93e1d53f89f

Cole writes:

“So does the immigration or the establishment-clause test govern? The answer should depend on the nature of the government’s action. Deference is proper when the political branches draw customary and “bona fide” immigration lines, especially when there is no suggestion of an improper purpose. It makes sense to defer to immigration decisions based on family ties or adherence to visa conditions, because it is next to impossible to regulate immigration without drawing such lines. But the Trump administration has advanced no reason immigration law should be a tool for denigrating religion.

Establishing religion has never been a proper goal of immigration law — or any law. Targeting Islam violates the rights of Americans, whatever form it takes; there is no justification for giving the government a pass because it is regulating the border. When Trump signed the first travel ban, he said, “We all know what that means.” We do, indeed. And judges, no less than the rest of us, must not blind themselves to what “we all know.”

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

Curmudgeonly Observation Of The Day

As noted in his op-ed, Professor Cole wears “many hats,” one of which is as the attorney for the plaintiffs in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, currently pending on appeal by the Government in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

I’m not saying that there is anything unethical or improper about Cole writing this article. Attorneys seem to do it all the time, although more often from the private than from the Governmental side. As long as the judge hasn’t entered a “gag order,”(very rare in civil litigation like this) it’s perfectly legit.

It’s probably just me being an “old guy” and having spent two decades toiling away on appellate and trial benches at the administrative level (certainly not the exalted level of the U.S. District Court or the Fourth Circuit). Nevertheless, as I indicated in my recent blogs about extra-judicial statements by Trump and his advisors, I continue to think it is a “bad practice” for parties and attorneys with pending cases to take the argument “out of court and into the media.”

In my judicial career I presided over a number of so-called “high profile” cases. As a judge, I never appreciated seeing articles or statements in the press by the attorneys of record or parties while the matter was pending before me (or “us” in the case of the BIA).

To me, it always seemed to indicate a curious desire by the party to have the case tried in a forum “other than the one I was presiding over.” That didn’t necessarily warm my heart or increase my respect for the party.

Of course, as I judge I had to “get over it” (in the words of my esteemed former colleague, now retired, Judge Wayne R. Iskra) along with lots of other annoying “peripheral stuff” to treat the parties fairly and make a just decision on the law and facts. But, I always wondered: “Why even put that seemingly unnecessary ‘hurdle’ in front of me.”

Sure, nothing takes the place of “real life” reflections from those involved in big cases. That’s what “after the fact” articles, press conferences, law review pieces, books, and even movies are for. But, I think that it is most prudent for those actively involved in pending litigation to let their statements and filings in court speak for them. Surely, there are others in academia and the NGO community who could have written the same article that Cole did based on what is already in the public record.

PWS

03/24/17

NY Times: What Does It REALLY Take To Get A U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa?

From listening to some members of the Administration, nonimmigrant visas for visitors, students, professors, businessmen, and tech workers are being handed out like candy abroad. But, those of us who have actually practiced immigration law for a living at one time or another know the hard truth: getting a U.S. nonimmigrant visa for a client can be a long, detailed, and often frustrating process.

I left private practice 22 years ago. But, even then, getting a business visa for a client in India, Pakistan, or the Philippines, to name just a few consulates, could be a major project. I can remember being on our basement dial phone at 3:00 AM with my files and papers spread across an ironing board as I tried to negotiate what “additional evidence” might be necessary for my business client to establish his or her bona fides, during the one-hour period that many consulates halfway around the world allocated to speak with attorneys about visa cases. And this was after the INS had approved a visa petition. I’m sure it has only gotten more difficult and exacting since then.

Here is a good step-by-step guide to the visa issuing process by Ron Nixon and Jasmine C. Lee in the NY Times. And, this is just for a “typical” visa. In countries where terrorism is a threat, this would only be the beginning of the inquiry.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/16/us/visa-process-united-states.html?emc=edit_nn_20170324&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=79213886&te=1&_r=0

PWS

03/24/17

NY TIMES EDITORIAL: The “Art Of The Shame” Makes America Less Safe!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/opinion/president-trumps-reckless-shame-game.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_ty_20170323&nl=opinion-today&nl_art=0&nlid=79213886&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0&referer=

“President Trump’s Homeland Security Department turned its immigration purge — and assault on the Constitution — up a notch this week. It posted the first of what it says will be weekly online reports identifying state and local law enforcement agencies that decline its requests to keep immigrants in jail to give federal agents time to pick them up.

The idea is to name and shame these agencies, accusing them of recklessly loosing dangerous aliens onto the streets. The report, on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website, trumpets itself as a “Public Safety Advisory.” It includes a grim warning from the acting ICE director, Thomas Homan, about the agency’s requests, called detainers: “When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect the public safety and carry out its mission.”

The accusation is dishonest. The report is a sham. And the claim of protecting public safety is ridiculous — dangerously so.

When local authorities decline to honor ICE detainers, they can have any number of good reasons for doing so. A likely one is the Fourth Amendment, which forbids imprisoning anyone without justification. If a police department is about to release someone who posts bail, it can’t prolong the detention — in essence, arrest that person again — just because ICE asks it to. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the local police cannot be forced to honor a detainer in violation of the Constitution. That is, without an arrest warrant from a judge. Which an ICE detainer is not.
Beyond the constitutional problems lies an argument about public safety, which also finds the Trump administration on the wrong side of the facts, in service of a campaign of fear. Mr. Trump has been trying to make Americans fear unauthorized immigrants. He has succeeded in making these immigrants terrified of him, having declared open season on the undocumented, in effect making every one of 11 million people a priority for deportation. Nobody — not parents of citizen children, not students, not those with clean records and deep American roots — is above suspicion or safe from arrest.

. . . .

By attacking them in this way, the administration puts local law enforcement agencies in a terrible position. Honoring a detainer puts them at risk of a federal lawsuit. Not honoring one puts them in the cross hairs of the xenophobic Mr. Trump. His indiscriminate search for immigrants to deport keeps ICE from focusing on real public safety threats. It antagonizes local agencies that want to do policing the right way. It emboldens corrupt local jurisdictions that engage in racial profiling and other abuses. And it makes immigrants fear and shun the protection of law enforcement.

The result: Everybody is afraid. And everybody is less safe.”

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

Read the complete editorial at the above link.

PWS

03/23/17

DOJ’s Travel Ban Litigating Strategy Discussed — The Rush Appears To Be “Off!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/23/trump-said-dangerous-people-might-be-pouring-in-without-his-travel-ban-but-hes-not-rushing-to-restore-it/?utm_term=.91d750428250

Matt Zapotosky reports in the Washington Post:

“Legal analysts and opponents say the Justice Department is likely pursuing a more methodical, strategic approach in hopes of a long-term victory — although in the process, the administration is hurting its case that the order is needed for urgent national security.

“If they don’t try to move the case as quickly as possible,” said Leon Fresco, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in President Barack Obama’s Justice Department, “it does undermine the security rationale.”

Trump’s new travel order — which suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and blocked the issuance of new visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Somalia and Syria for 90 days — was supposed to take effect March 16, but U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii blocked the administration from enforcing the critical sections of it. Early the next day, a federal judge in Maryland issued a similar ruling — leaving the administration with two different cases, in two different appellate circuits, that they would need to get overturned before they could begin carrying out the president’s directive. All roads seemed to lead to the Supreme Court.
But now it seems all but certain that the president’s revised entry ban will stay suspended at least into April, and possibly longer.

Lawyers for the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal in the Maryland case a day after the judge there ruled, but — unlike last time — they did not ask the higher court to immediately set aside the freeze on the new ban. They said they will do so Friday, but those challenging the ban will have a week to respond, and the Justice Department will then be allowed to file more written arguments by April 5.

The Trump administration has been content to let the court battle play out even more slowly in Hawaii, not elevating the dispute beyond a lower-court judge. The Justice Department has not filed a notice of its intent to appeal the ruling, and the next hearing in that case is set for March 29. Justice Department lawyers wrote Thursday that they would appeal to a higher court if that hearing doesn’t resolve in their favor. The courts will ultimately have to decide important questions, including how much authority they have to weigh in on the president’s national security determinations, whether Trump’s order was meant to discriminate against Muslims, and whether and how the president’s and his advisers’ own comments can be used against them.

There could be strategic reasons for pumping the brakes. Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, said the Justice Department might be hoping for a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, of which Maryland is a part, before they bring a case before the 9th Circuit, of which Hawaii is a part. A three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit unanimously rejected the administration’s bid to restore Trump’s first entry ban after it was frozen. The 4th Circuit on Thursday scheduled oral argument in its case for May 8.

And the Justice Department could be playing an even longer game, hoping that by the time the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch will have joined the justices and brought to an end what many see as a 4-to-4 split along ideological lines, said Jonathan E. Meyer, a former deputy general counsel in the Department of Homeland Security under Obama who now works in private practice at Sheppard Mullin.”

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

Even assuming that the Supremes eventually take the case, by no means a “gimme,” it probably would not be heard by the Court until some time in 2018 with a decision perhaps months after the argument. During that time, it is highly likely that the Travel Ban will remain enjoined.

From a government standpoint, it’s always prudent to 1) think carefully before taking on issues that can be litigated in U.S. District Courts which have authority to issue nationwide injunctions which require only a preliminary showing and are very difficult to “undo” (by contrast, “Removal Cases” usually can only be litigated in Circuit Courts of Appeal, which, although higher on the “judicial totem pole” than USDCs, lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions in connection with such individual case judicial review); and 2) always have “Plan B.” Here, “Plan B” might be the more stringent requirements for screening and issuing visas from countries where terrorist activity has taken place set forth in Secretary of State Tillerson’s recent instructions discussed in my previous blog:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-xN

PWS

03/23/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: