"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Judge Garland & Secretary Mayorkas continue to abuse asylum seekers at the Southern Border & in the U.S. Albrecht Dürer, Public Domain, via Wikimedia CommonsKevin Sieff Latin American Correspondent, Washington Post
MATAMOROS, Mexico — Carolina had memorized the date, but she triple-checked her documents just to make sure. For months, her life had revolved around the court hearing at which she could finally make her asylum claim.
Like tens of thousands of asylum seekers who reached the U.S. border during the Trump administration, the 36-year-old from Honduras had been sent to wait in Mexico for her immigration hearing. She was told to return to the border on her court date.
So on Feb. 26, 2020, she woke up early and put on her best blouse. She said a short prayer. But not long after her bus left for Laredo, Tex., gunmen stopped the vehicle. They kidnapped Carolina and her 15-year-old daughter, took them to a stash house packed with other kidnapped migrants and demanded thousands of dollars in ransom.
By the time they were released a few days later, Carolina had missed her day in court.
Her asylum case, it turned out, had been closed in absentia because she hadn’t shown up. Of the 68,000 asylum cases processed under the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy also know as “Remain in Mexico,” 28,000 were closed for the same reason: Because asylum seekers didn’t present themselves.
. . . .
“MPP deprived people of due process and fundamental fairness,” she said. “In order to restore access to asylum in a meaningful way, the Biden administration needs to reopen cases for people ordered removed under MPP and allow them to pursue their claims safely from within the United States.”
************************************
Read Kevin’s full article at the link.
The last statement, from Haiyun Damon-Feng, the director of the Adelante Pro Bono Project and assistant director of the William H. Gates Public Service Law Program at the University of Washington School of Law, sums it up. It’s not rocket science! It’s basic “Con Law 101” with some common sense and human decency thrown in! It’s also an essential part of the Biden Administration fulfilling basic campaign promises! Folks like Damon-Feng are the ones who should be running this system, solving the problems, and reconstructing the legal asylum system!
In what kind of “court” system are kidnapped individuals, some of them minors and children, further penalized and the Government allowed to get away with not keeping accurate addresses of individuals in their process and of knowingly sending them into danger zones? The victims remain in limbo and suffering while the perpetrators of these illegal outages — both current and former government officials — have not been held accountable. This is a national disgrace compounded by the fact that neither Judge Garland nor Secretary Mayorkas have taken corrective actions. Nor have they cleaned out the deadwood from their own legally and morally bankrupt systems and put competent individuals in charge!
Qualified Immigration Judges and competent administrators at the DOJ and DHS could have started solving these problems beginning the day after the inauguration. That 100 days into the Biden Administration this system is still operating illegally and taking a human toll is both a betrayal of campaign promises and an abuse of humanity! It’s also horrible and clearly illegal policy!
How does an Administration that is actively engaged in “Dred Scottifying” people of color at the border and in their wholly owned Immigration “Courts” — actually modern day “Star Chambers” — have any “legitimate voice” on racial justice in America?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!
With respect to the new evidence that Cuesta Rojas presented to the BIA regarding corroboration, the BIA stated in summary fashion in its opinion that “the newly submitted evidence does not address or resolve the credibility concerns raised by the Immigration Judge,” and then added that it declined to “remand [the] proceedings to the Immigration Court for further consideration” of that evidence.
At oral argument before us, the government represented that, in the event we were to vacate and remand the agency’s
continue[] to be a common government method for controlling independent public expression and political activity.”
– 28 –
decision even without addressing these findings regarding corroboration as such, the evidence concerning corroboration just described that the BIA appeared not to consider in depth would be treated as part of the record for the IJ to review. And we understand, in consequence, that the documents in question — which purport to corroborate two attacks that resulted in injuries to Cuesta Rojas, his political activity in Cuba, and the concern it drew from Cuban authorities — will be given such weight as it may warrant.
In light of that representation, and the fact that our ruling as to the discrepancies finding suffices to require us to vacate and remand, see Mukamusoni, 390 F.3d at 122 (explaining that it is error to treat an asylum applicant’s testimony as if it were “weaker than it actually was” and to then “demand[] a higher level of corroboration” on that mistaken basis than otherwise would be required); see also Mboowa, 795 F.3d at 229 (explaining that “[i]n the ordinary course we do not . . . attempt to read the tea leaves” in the event that a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed); Castañeda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 17, 25-26 (1st Cir. 2007) (en banc) (similar),7 we need
Cf. also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (“The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (similar).
7
– 29 –
not resolve the aspects of Cuesta Rojas’s petition for review that concern the IJ and the BIA’s corroboration findings. Rather, consistent with the government’s representation about what the record will consist of on remand, we remand those matters to be decided by the agency in a manner consistent with this opinion, and on the understanding that the new evidence that Cuesta Rojas supplied that the BIA appeared not to evaluate in depth will be given the weight that is warranted.
IV.
We grant the petition for review, vacate the decisions of the IJ and BIA denying Cuesta Rojas’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2) 8th Cir. — BIA Bobbles “No Brainer” In Absentia Reopening By Ignoring Evidence!
This court concludes that the BIA abused its discretion by applying a heightened evidentiary standard and disregarding record evidence in concluding Petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of delivery of the NOH. In determining whether a noncitizen has overcome the presumption of delivery by regular mail, the agency considers (1) the noncitizen’s affidavit; (2) affidavits from family members or others with personal knowledge of whether notice was received; (3) the noncitizen’s due diligence, after learning of the in absentia order, in seeking to redress the situation; (4) prior applications for relief, demonstrating the noncitizen had an incentive to appear, and any prima facie evidence in the record or the respondent’s motion of statutory eligibility for relief; (5) previous attendance at immigration hearings, if applicable; and (6) any other evidence indicating possible nonreceipt of notice. See Diaz, 824 F.3d at 760 (citing Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 674 (BIA 2008)); see also Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740, 744-45 (8th Cir. 2004) (while a strong presumption of effective delivery is appropriate where service is made by certified mail, a weaker presumption and lesser evidentiary requirements are appropriate where service is by regular mail). Petitioners provided two affidavits, sought to redress the situation by moving to reopen proceedings shortly after the order of removal was entered, applied for relief and protection for removal, had no occasion to appear for any prior immigration hearings, and regularly
-3-
attended immigration appointments both before and after the removal order was entered. Considering this evidence, this court concludes that remand is necessary so that the agency may consider all relevant evidence Petitioners proffered—both favorable and unfavorable—under the weaker evidentiary standard applied in cases where notice has been delivered by regular mail.
The petition for review is granted, the decision of the BIA is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
_________________
**************************
Ah, haste makes waste. Been saying it for years! It also harms and potentially kills☠️⚰️🪦 vulnerable individuals seeking fairness and undermines the credibility of our entire justice system. Other than that, what’s the problem?
It’s really nice that the 1st and 8th Circuits cared enough and took the time to do a proper judicial analyses of these cases, to make up for the BIA’s shortcomings. But, frankly, that’s not the way the system should work!
Obviously, constant remands and “churning” of cases wrongly decided at several levels of EOIR is one of many self-created problems fueling the astounding 1.3 million case backlog. And, to state the obvious, that unnecessary backlog and the lack of effective expert judicial guidance on applying asylum law fairly and efficiently is actively hampering the Biden Administration’s efforts to re-establish the rule of law at the border after four years of unmitigated disaster and dismemberment of our asylum legal system by the defeated regime. It’s just a variation on “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” which was on steroids at EOIR under the Trump regime.
And, most respondents, particularly unrepresented ones, can’t count on this type of careful, searching analysis from Article III Circuit Courts. Unhappily, many Circuit decisions simply “paper over”EOIR’s errors by hiding behind the deferential “standard of review” as an excuse to rubber stamp the BIA without a thorough examination of the merits. For starters, this whole system of supposedly fair and impartial expert judges actually controlled by Executive Branch politicos doing the bidding of DHS Enforcement is clearly unconstitutional under Fifth Amendment due process as currently constituted and “operated” (using that term lightly) under EOIR.
As I predicted, it hasn’t taken long for Judge Garland’s name to become associated with some really bad jurisprudence and boneheaded defenses stemming from the broken DOJ. And, this is just the beginning!
Sure, most of us are going to “cut him a break” on these travesties that actually originated during the Trump regime. But, “the pipeline” and volume is such that if Judge Garland doesn’t “pull the plug” on EOIR and OIL soon, he will “own” this ongoing disparagement of American justice — lock, stock, and barrel! The chance to make a “favorable first impression” evaporates rapidly, in government as well as the private sector.
And, patience runs thin when you are being beat up and your clients treated unfairly by a “star chamber” ☠️ under the control of someone who should know better.👨🏻⚖️ Much better!
EOIR must be put out of its misery, as well as the misery and irreparable harm it causes humanity. 🏴☠️ Sooner, rather than later! Come on, Judge G — step up to the plate before it’s too late! ⚾️
fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, former executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel — Judge Slavin is a member of the Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesGW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina VeraDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)MeYilun Cheng Writer PHOTO: Twitter
From “For Undocumented Immigrants, a Shot at Lawful Residency Requires Risking It All” by Yilun Cheng in Borderless Magazine:
. . . .
The risk has become even higher in recent years as the Trump administration filled the immigration court system with hardline judges, according to Paul Schmidt, a former judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia. For years, legal groups have urged the government to hire judges from diverse backgrounds to guarantee fairness in the courts, but the situation has only deteriorated in recent years, Schmidt said.
. . . .
“The Obama administration was just negligent,” Schmidt said, suspecting that former president Barack Obama left dozens of vacant immigration judgeships when he left the White House. “The new administration got a chance to fill those positions with a far-right judiciary.”
. . . .
“It’s very much a law enforcement-oriented and not a due process-oriented judiciary,” Schmidt said. “It’s just a bad time to be an individual with a case in the immigration court right now, with a bunch of unsympathetic judges, political hacks pulling the strings, and inconsistent COVID policies.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Yilun’s full article at the link.
In the article, my friend and Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Denise Slavin gives an excellent description of how “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” operates in a bogus “court” system run by political hacks with enforcement (and in the defeated “regime” racist) motivations.
“Ready to try” cases, many of which could be granted or should be closed, are shuffled off to the end of the docket, some without any notice on the day of trial when the respondent, his or her lawyer, and often witnesses who have taken the day from work arrive only to find out that their case has been “orbited” into the “outer space” of the EOIR backlog.
Meanwhile, cases of individuals who haven’t had time to get lawyers or been granted the preparation time required by due process are put at the front of the docket to make denial of their cases easier for “judges” who have been told that they are basically functionaries of DHS enforcement. Sometimes, the very same lawyers who have had their years-old prepared cases arbitrarily reset to oblivion are then improperly pressured and required to go forward with cases they haven’t had a chance to properly prepare or document.
Often, individuals whose cases are improperly “accelerated” recieve inadequate notice, resulting in carelessly issued, illegal “in absentia” orders that could result in improper removal or at least require heroic efforts by lawyers to get the case reopened and restored to the docket. Meanwhile, the bogus “no-show” statistics caused by the Government’s improper actions are used to build an intentionally false narrative that asylum seekers don’t show at their hearings.
The truth, of course, is the exact opposite: When given a chance to get competent representation and when the system is explained to them in understandable terms, asylum seekers show up for the overwhelming majority of their hearings, regardless of the ultimate result of their cases.
As cogently studied and stated by highly-respected “practical scholar” Professor Ingrid Eagly of UCLA Law and her colleague UCLA empirical researcher Steven Shafer, in a recent published study:
Contrary to claims that all immigrants abscond, our data-driven analysis reveals that 88% of all immigrants in immigration court with completed or pending removal cases over the past eleven years attended all of their court hearings. If we limit our analysis to only nondetained cases, we still find a high compliance rate: 83% of all respondents in completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings since 2008. Moreover, we reveal that 15% of those who were ordered deported in absentia since 2008 successfully reopened their cases and had their in absentia orders rescinded. Digging deeper, we identify three factors associated with in absentia removal: having a lawyer, applying for relief from removal (such as asylum), and court jurisdiction.
I’d be willing to bet that at least an equal number of individuals with in absentia orders are illegally deported because they aren’t knowledgeable enough to reopen their cases, or their reopening motions are wrongfully denied but they lack to resources to pursue appeals, which often involve prolonged periods of dangerous and abusive detention.
Obviously, an Administration actually interested in solving problems (presumably “Team Garland”) would “can the false narratives and bogus enforcement gimmicks” and concentrate on getting asylum seekers represented and increasing and raising the quality of judicial review of detention decisions. The regime’s immigration kakistocracy, of course, has moved in exactly the opposite direction.
Cooperation and coordination with the private, often pro bono, bar, essential to any well-functioning court system, has become non-existent. In fact, it is actively discouraged by DOJ politicos and their “management toadies” at EOIR, who often have mischaracterized the private bar as “the enemy” or out to “game” the system. Perversely, of course, the exact opposite is true. The regime’s immigration kakistocracy has tried over and over to use illegal methods and bogus narratives to illegally and unconstitutionally “game” the system against legitimate asylum seekers and their hard-working attorneys (actually, the only “players” in this sorry game trying to uphold “good government” and the rule of law.)
As a result, the only way for the private bar to be heard is by suing in the “real” Article III Federal Courts. This has resulted in a string of injunctions and TROs against EOIR and DHS misconduct, illegal regulations, and unlawful policies throughout the country, further adding to the chaos and inconsistencies. It also has clogged the Federal Courts with unnecessary litigation and frivolous, often disingenuous or unethical, “defenses to the indefensible” by DOJ lawyers.
This is how a dysfunctional “court system” that actually is a veneer for out of control enforcement and institutionalized racist xenophobia builds backlog. The corrupt “leaders” of this dysfunctional and unconstitutional mess then blame their victims for the delays caused by gross Government mismanagement. In turn, they use this “bogus scenario” to justify further unconstitutional restrictions of immigrants’ rights, due process, and judicial independence.
It’s a “scam” of the highest order! One that actually harms ☠️ and kills ⚰️ people, harasses lawyers, undermines the rule of law, and wastes taxpayer resources. One that has brought disgrace upon the DOJ and undermines the entire U.S. Justice system🏴☠️. One that Judge Garland and his incoming team at the DOJ must immediately end and totally reform, while holding accountable those responsible for this gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, waste, and abuse.
This is not “normal Government” or a question of “differing philosophies.” It’s outright fraud, intentional illegality, abuse of Government resources, and instititutionalized racism. It must be treated as such by the Biden Administration.
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
Matter of NIVELO CARDENAS, 28 I&N Dec. 68 (BIA 2020)
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in the Matter of NIVELO CARDENAS, 28 I&N Dec. 68 (BIA 2020)
(1) Where an alien who has been personally served with a notice to appear advising him of the requirement to notify the Immigration Court of his correct address fails to do so and is ordered removed in absentia for failure to appear for the scheduled hearing, reopening of the proceedings to rescind his order of removal based on a lack of proper notice is not warranted under section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) (2018).
(2) The respondent’s failure to update his address for over 18 years indicates a lack of due diligence and may properly be found to undermine the veracity of his claim that he has taken actions to maintain his rights in the underlying removal proceedings.
I call this the “good enough for Government work” approach. So, if the Government is basically allowed to get away with minimal compliance with address notice, one would expect an equally lenient approach for foreign nationals, who, after all, have far less control over the system and far fewer resources than the Government. No way!
When an individual apparently writes a “b” instead of an “h” (notice any similarity?) in a U.S. Street address, it’s “tough noogies.” That’s even where there is some evidence to suggest that the DHS actually had the correct address somewhere in their files. Normally, it would be standard practice for an Immigration Judge to check the address with DHS before entering an in abstentia order. Additionally, the BIA surmised that the some unknown individual at the incorrect address must have received and rejected the letter.
That’s not to mention the practical reality that even if the respondent had corrected his address using the proper form, there is little chance of it actually getting in the Court’s file in a timely manner. I used to marvel at the piles of unfiled address change forms I witnessed at various times during my EOIR career.
I’d also bet that it would have taken less time and effort to reopen this case and give this respondent a merits hearing than it took to deny the MTR, have it appealed to the BIA, and make it a precedent. There was a time when EOIR actually viewed its function as providing due process hearings. Now, the idea is to use as many gimmicks as possible to avoid fear hearings and produce numbers.
In other words, Billy the Bigot’s BIA will do whatever is necessary to assist their “partners” (actually “superiors”) at DHS to rack up removal orders. Because, foreign nationals are “numbers” and “stats,” not humans. And if you can do it “in absentia” — that is without any real hearing at all — so much the better.
The absence of a checked alien classification box on a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) does not, by itself, render the notice to appear fatally deficient or otherwise preclude an Immigration Judge from exercising jurisdiction over removal proceedings, and it is therefore not a basis to terminate the proceedings of an alien who has been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols. Matter of J.J. Rodriguez, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020), followed.
The lesson of this case: The DHS intentionally puts superfluous information on its form NTA so it doesn’t make any difference whether they fill it in or not. The BIA is there to “fill in the blanks” and help their DHS buddies rack up maximo removals, preferably without in person hearings because it’s faster and helps fulfill “quotas,” under the Let ‘Em Die in Mexico Program (a/k/a “jokingly” as the “Migrant ‘Protection’ Protocols” (“MPP”) — which, of course, serve to intentionally endanger and discourage, not protect, asylum seekers).
This follows Matter of J.J. Rodriguezwhere the BIA found that the DHS wasn’t required to put a usable mailing address for the respondent on the NTA. I can only imagine what would have happened in the Arlington Immigration Court if a respondent had given me “Fairfax County, Virginia, USA” as his one and only address! The former is actually probably a “better” address than “Known Domicile, Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico” which was used in this case. What a farce! But, of course, it’s not very funny when it’s your life, or that of a loved one or client that is going down the tubes☠️.
There actually is an old legal axiom of construing problems against the drafter of a document, particularly when the drafter is in a more powerful position than the recipient. It even has a fancy legal name: Contra proferentem. But, today’s EOIR follows a much simpler maxim: The respondent always loses, particularly in precedent decisions.
I suppose at some point the BIA will be called upon to enter an in absentia removal order in a case where the NTA is blank except for the respondent’s name. I have no doubt, however, that they will be “up to the job.”
To his credit, Judge Edward Kelly entered a brief “concurring opinion” specifically noting that the statutory or constitutional authority for the so-called MPP was not at issue. In plain terms, that means, thanks in large measure to a complicit Supremes’ majority, even if that program, certainly a illegal and unconstitutional hoax, were later found to be unconstitutional, it would be far too late for those already removed, extorted, kidnapped, maimed, tortured, sickened 🤮, or dead ⚰️ thereunder. But, of course, the BIA, like Trump himself, will take no responsibility for any of the deadly fallout of their actions.
Great way to run a government! But, it’s the “New America” under Trump. Most of those in a position to stop the abuse merely shrug their shoulders, look the other way, and plug their ears so as not to have their serenity and complicity, as well as their paychecks, bothered by the screams and fruitless pleas of the abused. Except, of course, for true sadists ☠️ like Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist cronies 🏴☠️ who actually “get off” on the death, ⚰️ torture, abuse, and suffering of “others” they believe to be of “inferior stock” and therefore deserving of dehumanization and death⚰️.
Apparently, the “Tower Rumor Mill” @ EOIR HQ says that Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher Santoro will soon be replaced by a permanent Chief Immigration Judge hand selected from among DOJ political hacks by none other than one of the American taxpayers’ most highly paid, unelected White Nationalists, White House Advisor Stephen Miller. The name of Gene Hamilton, like Miller an uber restrictionist former sidekick of “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, still kicking around the DOJ, has been bandied about. However, other parts of the “rumor mill” have expressed skepticism about whether Hamilton really wants the job. He might be able to score more “kills” from his current job, whatever it is.
Stay tuned! In the absence of a functioning Congress or a courageous Federal Judiciary, the “killing fields”⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️👎 are just getting rolling @ EOIR. Under the Trump regime, EOIR is now on a breakneck pace to write one of the most dismal, disgusting🤮, and disturbing 😰chapters in modern American legal history involving a catastrophic failure of integrity, courage, and humanity spanning all three rapidly disintegrating branches of our flailing democracy.
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”
Friends,
Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:
An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.
On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.
Here are some key takeaways from the data:
Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.
Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.
Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.
Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.
The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.
EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.
Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696
EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.
Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.
During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.
Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.
Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.
89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.
Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.
Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.
In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.
Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.
Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.
Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.
Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.
Thanks for helping us share these!
Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.
***********************
Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.
Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”
Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”
How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!
I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).
Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!
Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan testified Tuesday that 90 percent of asylum-seekers tracked under a recently instituted program skipped the hearings in which their cases were to be adjudicated.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, McAleenan explained that his department is hampered in its efforts to deter illegal immigration by U.S. laws that allow asylum-seekers to remain on U.S. soil under their own recognizance for months or even years while awaiting a hearing that the vast majority of them simply skip.
“Out of those 7,000 cases, 90 received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent,” McAleenan told Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), referring to the results of a recent DHS pilot program that tracks family units applying for asylum.
“90 percent did not show up?” Graham asked.
“Correct. That is a recent sample from families crossing the border,” McAleenan replied.
https://apple.news/A3pp8Hb9QSA2ZwNpyJnHmPQ
Here’s the truth as compiled by the nonpartisan TRAC on the basis of a case-by-case examination of actual court records:
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The latest case-by-case records from the Immigration Courts indicate that as of the end of May 2019 one or more removal hearings had already been held for nearly 47,000 newly arriving families seeking refuge in this country. Of these, almost six out of every seven families released from custody had shown up for their initial court hearing. For those who are represented, more than 99 percent had appeared at every hearing. Thus, court records directly contradict the widely quoted claim that “90 Percent of Recent Asylum Seekers Skipped Their Hearings.”
These findings were based upon a detailed analysis of court hearing records conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. With rare exception virtually every family attended their court hearings when they had representation. Appearance rates at the initial hearing were 99.9 percent. One reason for these higher rates for represented families is that it is an attorney’s responsibility to keep on top of when and where their client’s hearing is scheduled, and communicate these details to them. Thus, even if the court’s notification system fails, the family still finds out where and when to appear for their hearing.
Under our current system, there is no legal requirement that immigrants actually receive notice, let alone timely notice, of their hearing. Given many problems in court records on attendance that TRAC found, and in the system for notifying families of the place and time of their hearings, these appearance rates were remarkably high. TRAC’s examination of court records also showed that there were nearly ten thousand “phantom” family cases on the court’s books. These were cases entered into the Immigration Court’s database system but with little information apart from a case sequence number. The date of the notice’s filing, charges alleged, and particulars on the family were all blank.
Most courts showed patterns very similar to national appearance rates — with represented families’ appearance rates close to 100 percent, and unrepresented families somewhat lower. Full details by nationality and court are available at:
In addition, a number of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through May 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563 trac@syr.edu https://trac.syr.edu
———————————————————————————
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
_____________________________________
Obviously, if McAleenan and the Administration were serious about court appearances, rather than spreading lies and creating chaos, they would work with the pro bono bar and NGOs to establish a universal representation program for asylum seekers. That would achieve nearly 100% compliance with hearing notices while promoting the rule of law and Constitutional Due Process. Not to mention that they should be investing in “quality control” in the issuance of the hearing notices, which all too often are erroneously addressed or improperly served.
Lawyers and improved notice as well as more professional adjudications that actually comply with the generous legal standards for asylum established by Congress and the Supreme Court would be much smarter and better investments than detention, more enforcement officers, bogus in absentia hearings (most based on defective notices), attempting to force asylum seekers to apply or wait in dangerous third countries without functioning asylum systems, and smearing lawful asylum applicants in support of totally unwarranted changes in the law.
Additionally, with lawyers and fair, impartial, and properly trained independent judges, many more of these asylum cases could be granted in short order, thus helping eliminate largely self-created Immigration Court backlogs and unnecessary appeals that burden the system as a result of the Administration’s constant malfeasance (a/k/a “malicious incompetence” resulting in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”).
In the meantime, McAleenan’s lies, distortions, and misrepresentations under oath should certainly be grounds for a Congressional investigation into why he retains his current position and why DHS is using taxpayer money to falsify data to support a bogus attack on lawful asylum seekers.
Also interesting, but not surprising, that EOIR has 10,000 “phantom family cases” in its system.
Nick Miroff Reporter, Washington PostMaria Sacchetti Reporter, Washington Post
Nick Miroff & Maria Sacchetti report in WashPost:
President Trump said in a tweet Monday night that U.S. immigration agents are planning to make mass arrests starting “next week,” an apparent reference to a plan in preparation for months that aims to round up thousands of migrant parents and children in a blitz operation across major U.S. cities.
“Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States,” Trump wrote, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They will be removed as fast as they come in.”
Large-scale ICE enforcement operations are typically kept secret to avoid tipping off targets. In 2018, Trump and other senior officials threatened the mayor of Oakland, Calif., with criminal prosecution for alerting city residents that immigration raids were in the works.
Trump and his senior immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, have been prodding Homeland Security officials to arrest and remove thousands of family members whose deportation orders were expedited by the Justice Department this year as part of a plan known as the “rocket docket.”
In April, acting ICE director Ronald Vitiello and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen were ousted after they hesitated to go forward with the plan, expressing concerns about its preparation, effectiveness and the risk of public outrage from images of migrant children being taken into custody or separated from their families.
Vitiello was replaced at ICE by former FBI and Border Patrol official Mark Morgan, who had impressed the president with statements on cable television in favor of harsh immigration enforcement measures.In his first two weeks on the job at ICE, Morgan has said publicly that he plans to beef up interior enforcement and go after families with deportation orders, insisting that the rulings must be carried out to uphold the integrity of the country’s legal system.
“Our next challenge is going to be interior enforcement,” Morgan told reporters June 4 in Washington. “We will be going after individuals who have gone through due process and who have received final orders of deportation.
“That will include families,” he said, adding that ICE agents will treat the parents and children they arrest “with compassion and humanity.”
U.S. officials with knowledge of the preparations have said in recent days that the operation was not imminent, and ICE officials said late Monday night that they were not aware that the president planned to divulge their enforcement plans on Twitter.
Executing a large-scale operation of the type under discussion requires hundreds — and perhaps thousands — of U.S. agents and supporting law enforcement personnel, as well as weeks of intelligence gathering and planning to verify addresses and locations of individuals targeted for arrest.
The president’s claim that ICE would be deporting “millions” also was at odds with the reality of the agency’s staffing and budgetary challenges. ICE arrests in the U.S. interior have been declining in recent months because so many agents are busy managing the record surge of migrant families across the southern border with Mexico.
The family arrest plan has been considered even more sensitive than a typical operation because children are involved, and Homeland Security officials retain significant concerns that families will be inadvertently separated by the operation, especially because parents in some households have deportation orders but their children — some of whom are U.S. citizens — might not. Should adults be arrested without their children because they are at school, day care, summer camp or a friend’s house, it is possible parents could be deported while their children are left behind.
Supporters of the plan, including Miller, Morgan and ICE Deputy Director Matthew Albence, have argued forcefully that a dramatic and highly publicized operation of this type will send a message to families that are in defiance of deportation orders and could act as a deterrent.
In this file photo from 2015, a man is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Los Angeles. New raids could target a large number of immigrants in major cities. (John Moore/Getty Images)
According to Homeland Security officials, nearly all unauthorized migrants who came to the United States in 2017 in family groups remain present in the country. Some of those families are awaiting adjudication of asylum claims, but administration officials say a growing number are skipping out on court hearings while hoping to live and work in the United States as long as possible.
Publicizing a future law enforcement operation is unheard of at ICE. Trump administration officials blasted Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf last year for warning immigrants about an impending raid, saying she endangered agents’ safety.
“The Oakland mayor’s decision to publicize her suspicions about ICE operations further increased that risk for my officers and alerted criminal aliens — making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda with the very federal laws that ICE is sworn to uphold,” then-ICE Deputy Director Thomas D. Homan said at the time.
Homan later retired, but last week Trump said Homan would return to public service as his “border czar.” On Fox News, Homan later called that announcement “kind of premature” and said he had not decided whether to accept the job.
Schaaf responded late Monday to the president’s tweet teasing the looming ICE roundups.
“If you continue to threaten, target and terrorize families in my community . . . and if we receive credible information . . . you already know what our values are in Oakland — and we will unapologetically stand up for those values,” she wrote.
******************************
The pain, terror, racism, and disregard for human rights is real. But, the ability to summarily remove the “millions” of our fellow humans Trump claims as his objective might be limited by both reality (lack of resources) and the law.
Many of those with so-called “final orders” were tried “in absentia.” Many of those never received legal notice of their hearings. (All reputable studies show that asylum applicants who actually understand the system, have fair access to pro bono lawyers, and receive legally sufficient hearing notices appear at rates close to 100% of the time, even if they lose their cases).
If that is the case, and they can get lawyers, they can file a “motion to reopen” for lack of legal notice and receive a statutory stay of removal while both the Immigration Judge, and if denied, the Board of Immigration Appeals rule on the motion. And, the Immigration Courts are totally screwed up and backlogged due to Trump’s and the DOJ’s “malicious incompetence.” So, good luck with that.
Large numbers of deportees would also further destabilize the already “failed states” of the Northern Triangle thus insuring a continuing outward flow. Indeed, some of those deported might well “head north” again — only this time they won’t be dumb enough to entrust themselves to the U.S. legal system.
They will just disappear into the interior where their chances of being found again are probably less than their chances of being harmed in the Northern Triangle. No amount of authoritarian militarization of our internal police force is going to locate and remove 10-11 million people, most of them residing quietly and productively in our communities throughout America.
But, Trump has never been about results. (Nor has DHS for that matter). He’s all about White Nationalist hatred, racism, and appealing to a “base” that long ago abandoned the rest of America (the majority of us) and human values.
And let’s not forget the responsibility of Congress and the Article III Courts who for years have mostly overlooked the glaring Constitutional defects and clear incompetence and bias evident in the Immigration Court system as administered by the Department of Justice. It has taken the Article IIIs’ complicity in a legally defective system to produce these so-called “final orders” in the first place.
Every dead kid, broken family, and new forced gang recruit should be on their collective consciences. And, the primary result of the “New Reign of Terror” will undoubtedly be fear of cooperating with local police in solving crimes, thus making ethnic Americans “perfect victims” who have been abandoned by those who are failing in their legal duties to insure “equal justice for all.”
2020 might be our last chance to save our country and humanity. Don’t blow it! Who knows, the life you save might be your own!
Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker, 6th Cir., 12-18-18, Published
PANEL: GUY, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: JUDGE JANE B. STRANCH
KEY QUOTE:
On the other hand, importing Pereira’s holding on the stop-time rule into the jurisdictional context would have unusually broad implications. According to the Government, “almost 100 percent” of NTAs issued during the three years preceding Pereira did not include the time and date of the proceeding. Id. at 2111.
Pereira’s emphatically “narrow” framing, id. at 2110, 2113, counsels in favor of distinguishing between the two contexts. Pereira confronted a specific question: “If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled ‘notice to appear,’ but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule?” Id. at 2110. Hernandez-Perez’s case does not present the same narrow question; no one disputes that he satisfies the ten-year requirement regardless of when the stop- time rule was triggered. We find persuasive the Board’s reasoning that, “[h]ad the Court intended to issue a holding as expansive as the one advanced . . ., presumably it would not have specifically referred to the question before it as being ‘narrow.’” Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 443.
No. 18-3137 Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker Page 10
Other components of Pereira counsel against applying its NTA rule in the context of jurisdiction. Like the BIA, we find it significant that, in Pereira, “the Court did not purport to invalidate the alien’s underlying removal proceedings or suggest that proceedings should be terminated.” Id.; see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (requiring courts to examine their own jurisdiction even if the parties “have disclaimed or have not presented” theissue). If Pereira’s holding applied to jurisdiction, there also would not have been jurisdiction in in Pereira itself. But the Court took up, decided, and remanded Pereira without even hinting at the possibility of a jurisdictional flaw.
We agree with the Board that Pereira is an imperfect fit in the jurisdictional context and it does not mandate a different conclusion than the one already reached by this court and all our sister circuits. See Herrera-Orozco, 603 F. App’x at 473–74 (collecting cases). We therefore conclude that jurisdiction vests with the immigration court where, as here, the mandatory information about the time of the hearing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), is provided in a Notice of Hearing issued after the NTA.
********************************************
Points of interest;
The 6th Circuit is the first circuit to rule on Bermudez-Cota;
The court noted that approximately 100% of the cases commenced by ICE over the past three years did not contain the specific notice of date. time and place of hearing set forth in the statute;
Even assuming that Bermudez is upheld, the way in which cases have been processed by DHS and EOIR has made tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals eligible for “Cancellation of Removal;”
What does this say about the management competency of both agencies?
Contrary to the drift of the BIA and the 6th Circuit, initial proper notice of time, place, and date of hearing is critically important;
Whereas “Notices to Appear” are sometimes served in person, the subsequent “Notice of Hearing” by EOIR never is — this significantly increases the chances for improper “in absentia” hearings based on faulty notice from EOIR;
Most notices in Immigration Court are served manually by regular U.S. Mail, an incredibly error-fraught process given the state of disorder in the Immigration Courts (which has been mindlessly ramped up under Sessions’s gross mismanagement);
Thus, failing to provide accurate initial notice actually greatly increases the chances of improper in absentia orders and actual removals if an individual is picked up and can’t figure out how to file a “Motion to Reopen and Rescind” the in absentia order;
Would you be able to do that?” Would most Article III judges (particularly if operating in a different language, from ICE Detention, with no lawyer)?
Although “winning” on the “big issue,” the DHS actually lost this case; it was remanded because the BIA screwed up in denying the respondent’s Motion to Reopen;
As one of my former colleagues pointed out to me recently, if the BIA is wrong in Bermudez-Cota, it could potentially invalidate not only almost every removal order and pending removal proceeding, but most affirmative grants of relief by Immigration Judges;
So, maybe this is a case where the practical consequences will shape the legal interpretation;
But, then, there’s always the issue of retroactivity — could an invalidation of Bermudez be applied “prospectively only” to new and pending proceedings or in some other manner that did not disrupt “settled expectations;”
Historical Trivia: I wrote Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 413, 413 (B.I.A. 1996) (en banc) which was extensively discussed by the 6th Circuit.
“I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”
Starting in the summer of 2014, the United States began experiencing an unprecedented influx of Central American families who were fleeing violence and seeking humanitarian assistance and safety. Most of these families were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In response, the Obama Administration ordered immigration judges to rapidly adjudicate these cases, often at the cost of
due process. Large numbers of families, unable to obtain legal representation and navigate a complex immigration system, were deported by the federal government, often back to the violence they had fled. Essential to the government’s efforts was the use of in absentia removal orders issued to families upon their missing an immigration court hearing.
In response to the unmet legal needs of this population, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project
(ASAP) at the Urban Justice Center and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) began representing families ordered removed in absentia. In almost every case, ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the underlying in absentia order and reopened the case. Concurrently, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, these organizations obtained previously unreleased immigration court data that reveal key metrics regarding legal representation rates and the use of in absentia removals. Client interviews and data from the FOIA together reveal a startling trend—the government ordered the removal of high numbers of unrepresented families through in absentia orders despite many of those families having passed a credible fear interview with an asylum officer.
This report highlights the high rate of unrepresented families, discusses the obstacles families face in attending their hearings, explains how the immigration system fails families seeking asylum, and provides policy recommendations for how the Administration and Congress can address these shortcomings.
The findings in this report are based on an analysis of the FOIA results regarding representation and removal of 29,808 families from July 2014 to November 2016, as well as the results of the 46 cases in which ASAP and CLINIC provided representation. These findings include the following:
• 22,270 asylum applicants, or 75 percent of the 29,808 families who entered the United States between July 2014 and November 2016, did not have legal representation.
• In 24,862 cases, or 83 percent of the 29,808 families, an immigration judge ordered a family removed. Of those ordered removed, in 21,041 cases, or 85 percent, the order was issued in absentia, i.e. the judge entered the order without the presence of a parent in the court room. Thus, immigration judges ordered the families removed without their having presented their claims for asylum or other defenses to removal.
ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the in absentia orders of 44 of their 46 clients (96 percent), with either an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreeing to rescind the in absentia order and reopen the case.
Contrary to the narrative that families purposely abscond from immigration court, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients all had legitimate reasons for being unable to attend their hearings, including lack of notice, incorrect government information, serious medical problems, language barriers,
and severe trauma or disabilities. Importantly, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients represented nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who had received removal orders from 15 different immigration courts. Most of these families were alerted to their removal orders by prior pro bono counsel who represented them while they were in detention, and who then connected them with ASAP and CLINIC’s services. The other families sought general information about asylum from ASAP and CLINIC, leading them to realize they had missed a hearing. Once families became aware of their in absentia removal orders, they overwhelmingly sought to reopen their cases to seek asylum.
ASAP and CLINIC’s high success rate suggests the federal government is deporting large numbers of families without providing them a fair opportunity to plead their cases in immigration court.While ASAP and CLINIC’s data runs through the end of the Obama Administration, in absentia removal orders continue to be issued in immigration courts throughout the country.In order to limit the deportation of families with strong asylum claims and other avenues for immigration relief, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Congress should implement a variety of legislative and administrative changes that would remedy many of the problems identified in this report. These much-needed changes include improving communication between agencies, providing clearer guidance to families, and updating existing immigration court and enforcement practices.
*****************************************
This report’s findings certainly match my experience in the Arlington Immigration Court that:
The “no-show” rate for represented asylum seekers was pretty close to 0%.
More than 95% of “in absentia” orders for juveniles eventually were reopened, usually because of defective notice by DHS and/or EOIR.
Almost no unrepresented individuals understood the difference between the “DHS Check-In on Prosperity Avenue” and appearance at the Arlington Immigration Court in Crystal City. Clearly, it had never been explained to them in understandable fashion upon release from custody.
I also have no doubt that the very achievable recommendations for improvements in this report could be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of today’s cruel, ineffective, policies of militarizing the border, building the “New American Gulag,” prosecuting asylum seekers as criminals, and attempting to curtail important legal and Constitutional rights.
