🤯☠️ 🤮 👎🏽 WHILE TALKING A “GOOD GAME” ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ALLOWS MISOGYNY TO RULE @ EOIR — Why Does It Take A Conservative 11th Circuit To Get VAWA Right??? 🤯

Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210445.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-vawa-extreme-cruelty-chevron-ruiz-v-atty-gen#

“Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. … For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. We therefore GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Anabella Trujillo! And listen to the oral argument here.]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Not only did the supposedly “expert” BIA get the standard completely wrong, but Garland’s OIL continued to throw up specious arguments defending the BIA’s abusive treatment of women!

When you start with “No,” and then “reason” backwards to get there, bad things happen. Frankly, the Biden Administration was elected to “clean house” 🧹 at EOIR and to bring systemic due process, expertise, best practices, and impartiality to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration tribunals — with literally millions of lives and the future of democracy at stake! Why haven’t they done it? How do they continue to get away with it?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-20-23

⚖️9TH CIR. SLAMS IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY FOR DEFICIENT FOIA RESPONSE ON DEATH OF TRANSGENDER ASYLUM APPLICANT IN “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)!

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/12/20-17416.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-foia-transgender-law-center-v-ice#

“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Irene Lax, Kimberly A. Evans and R. Andrew Free!]

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

As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):

2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).

This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law to immigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-22

⚠️The Saga of Surveillance Capitalism Continues: LexisNexis’s Contract With ICE Foretells a Bleak Era of Data Policing Immigrants, Intercept Writes

Sophia Barba 04/07/2021

On April 2, 2021, The Intercept published a damning article revealing that the oft-used legal research giant, LexisNexis, has contracted with ICE to provide the agency access to its massive data bank.

According to Sam Biddle from The Intercept, “[LexisNexis] also caters to the immensely lucrative ‘risk’ industry, providing, it says, 10,000 different data points on hundreds of millions of people to companies like financial institutions and insurance companies who want to, say, flag individuals with a history of fraud. LexisNexis Risk Solutions is also marketed to law enforcement agencies, offering ‘advanced analytics to generate quality investigative leads, produce actionable intelligence and drive informed decisions’ — in other words, to find and arrest people.”

The unholy marriage between the research tool-turned-Palantir and ICE is not a new development. Several years ago, LexisNexis had already begun courting ICE with similar data-exchange deals along with the other legal research titan, WestLaw. Prior talks had prompted members of the legal community to express obvious displeasure for the ethical dilemma that was being forced upon them. Most notably, Sarah Lamdan, professor and librarian at CUNY School of Law, published an authoritative article in the N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change that provided insight into the developing relationship between ICE and both legal research companies. This article came at the cusp of what is now an incredibly normalized occurrence. You know, a private company that offers an essential tool branches out into the lucrative data surveillance industry, you’ve probably seen it before.

It is impossible for most people to hear about these partnerships without getting a bad taste in their mouth. Unfortunately, our society’s dependence on tech has left us largely unable to divest or otherwise eschew these tools with much success. This dependence is the reason many of these companies don’t even try to hide how incestuous their relationships to government agencies like ICE really are.

The Intercept article should be read and taken as a clarion call to action for immigration advocates. The playing field is being skewed in favor of an omniscient government, leaving attorneys and those they represent more eggshells to avoid as they tread lightly around unseen information landmines. The façade of neutrality touted by Big Data and Big Tech is being torn down by the very companies who worked so hard to create it. What’s worse, the tech industry itself is the outfit that created the narrative that the internet, and all that comes with it, is a strictly neutral medium existing between the two groups allegedly existing in perpetual struggle: the masses and the government. (Don’t believe me? Don’t worry, someone already wrote an article about it here) This news should encourage more fervent use of alternative channels of informational support among those who represent non-citizens. Likewise, more collaborative efforts should also be made to place organized pressure on brazen unions such as that of LexisNexis and ICE. As it stands, it may even be advisable for many of us in the legal community to return to antiquated means of record-keeping and information-gathering if one can help it. After all, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t after you!

Some more interesting reading, some already linked above:

LEXISNEXIS TO PROVIDE GIANT DATABASE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION TO ICE, The Intercept

LAWYERS AND SCHOLARS TO LEXISNEXIS, THOMSON REUTERS: STOP HELPING ICE DEPORT PEOPLE, The Intercept

THOMSON REUTERS DEFENDS ITS WORK FOR ICE, PROVIDING “IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION OF ALIENS”, The Intercept

LexisNexis Page Advertising its ‘Risk Solution’ Services

How ICE Picks Its Targets in the Surveillance Age, The New York Times Magazine

ICE investigators used a private utility database covering millions to pursue immigration violations, The Washington Post

Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists, NBC News

A notice posted on the General Services Administration government website that foretells what the data may be used for

WHEN WESTLAW FUELS ICE SURVEILLANCE: LEGAL ETHICS IN THE ERA OF BIG DATA POLICING, by Sarah Lamdan published in the N.Y.U Review of Law and Social Change

THE MYTH OF PLATFORM NEUTRALITY, by Anupam Chander and Vivek Krishnamurthy for the Georgetown Law Technology Review

🏴‍☠️KAKISTOCRACY DEATH ⚰️ WATCH: New NDPA Suits Challenge EOIR/DHS Scheme To Implement Grauleiter Miller’s 🤮☠️ Neo-Nazi “Kill Asylum” Regs In Regime’s Final Days! — The Disrespect For The Rule Of Law & Contempt For Humanity Run Deep At Flailing, Failed Agencies!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/lawsuits-challenge-massive-end-of-asylum-rule

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Lawsuits Challenge Massive “End of Asylum” Rule

1. Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS et al. – “[T]he Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP filed suit today challenging the mammoth asylum rule in the Northern District of California on behalf of organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., CLINIC, and CAIR Coalition. The complaint challenges all substantive and procedural merits related issues (it does not challenge the changes to credible fear).” – Blaine Bookey, Legal Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law

2. Human Rights First v. Wolf – “Human Rights First, alongside counsel at Williams & Connolly, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s sweeping new anti-refugee regulation, which will gut protections for those seeking asylum and make it virtually impossible for refugees to secure asylum in the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States federal district court in Washington, D.C., asks the court to intervene and stop the government from enforcing the rule, which is scheduled to take effect on January 11, 2021.

“This rule seeks to end asylum in the United States as we know it. Over the past four years, this administration has employed an array of tools in the hope of dismantling the legal protections Congress provided for refugees and asylum seekers,” said Hardy Vieux, Human Rights First’s senior vice president, legal. “Human Rights First is heading back to federal court to dash that hope. And to affirm that Congress sought to protect people fleeing persecution, not demonize them incessantly, even in the waning days of an administration long consumed with denying protection to those most in need of it. This holiday season, and every season, we shall continue to exalt the rule of law.”

Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. challenges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s rule, rammed through in the waning days of the Trump administration. The complaint in Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. can be found here.

Human Rights First, an organizational plaintiff in the suit, argues that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act, international law, and the United States Constitution. In its complaint, Human Rights First argues, “If allowed to stand, the rule will eviscerate the ability of noncitizens fleeing persecution to obtain asylum and related relief in the United States. The United States will instead send refugees back to countries where they face persecution, torture, and possible death—the very outcome Congress expressly designed the INA to avoid.”

The rule, which fundamentally rewrites United States asylum law, will illegally render the majority of asylum seekers ineligible for asylum while tilting every phase of the asylum process in favor of denial and deportation. The rule also upends the procedures for asylum adjudication, further limiting procedural protections for refugees seeking protection in the United States.

The United States government is attempting to make it impossible for our asylum-seeking clients to secure protection. Many of Human Rights First’s clients who have already been granted asylum would, under the rule, be denied protection. One Human Rights First asylum-seeking client stated, “[I]t really disappoints me to learn that the United States, a country [I] have looked up to as a beacon of freedom, is trying to put people like me in harm’s way. I fear for my safety.”

Through this lawsuit, Human Rights First is standing up for the rights of asylum seekers like our clients. Human Rights First’s comments this past summer opposing the draft rule are here.

Human Rights First provides pro bono legal representation for refugees seeking asylum in the United States, in partnership with volunteer lawyers at many of the nation’s leading law firms. Our refugee clients have fled persecution in Cameroon, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Honduras, Iraq, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries where their lives and freedom are at risk.’

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

Thanks to all the NDPA heroes involved in this effort!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

PWS

12-22-20

🇺🇸🗽⚖️BATTLING THE KAKISTOCRACY: Fearless Knightess 🛡⚔️Of The Round Table Judge Polly Webber Evicerates FLRA’S Corrupt Silencing Of Immigration Judges — “DOJ is trying to silence NAIJ from letting the world know that atrocities are at work behind the wall surrounding the Immigration Court!”

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/polly-a-webber-muzzling-america-s-immigration-judges-is-a-travesty&source=gmail-imap&ust=1606421065000000&usg=AOvVaw3hYQvSKRmJ7U2inPKx49Sf

Polly A. Webber: Muzzling America’s Immigration Judges is a Travesty

Polly A. Webber, Nov. 19, 2020 – Muzzling America’s Immigration Judges is a Travesty

“It can’t be much of a surprise that I should have deep insight and strong feelings about the current state of our Immigration Courts, after more than forty years working in immigration law, twenty-one of them as an Immigration Judge appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995. Having retired in 2016, the issues I noted have become radically more pronounced and dire.

What do children in cages, refugee camps in Mexico, TV judges, lengthy delays and erratic scheduling have in common? They are all a part of the new look of the Trump Immigration Court, a shift in style and substance that is extraordinarily dismaying in many of its aspects. The Immigration Court is not an independent judicial tribunal. It is housed in a small agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ). Because of that placement, the Court has been plagued by a conflicted, dual identity, aspiring to be an independent tribunal while housed in law enforcement. It was only a matter of time before this politicized enforcement branch infected the Court.

Immigration Judges were recognized in 1979 as a collective bargaining unit called the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). Why did the judges feel a need to seek the protection of a labor organization? Quite simply, almost none of the people managing the huge bureaucracy of the Court actually spend any time in courtrooms. These high-level policy makers often have no practical knowledge of how the Court functions, and this defect has persisted through multiple political administrations. The DOJ issues policy and practice memoranda that bind judges without consulting them about their practical impact. Thus, a need arose for collective bargaining to assure input from the judges who implement these edicts.

On November 2nd, in an action by DOJ to decertify NAIJ, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), remanded the action back to the Regional Director for a final decision, finding that Immigration Judges influence policy and are thus managers. That notion is laughable. Applying established law to a particular case is not influencing policy. Virtually every decision the judges make is subject to review and reversal by higher courts. Generally, judges are under the thumb of DOJ, ignored or ridiculed by leadership. It has gotten far worse for my colleagues after I left at the end of 2016.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Polly’s article the link!

Given the grotesque level of malicious incompetence from DOJ and their EOIR toadies, it’s no wonder they want to suppress the truth about the ugly mess in the Immigration Courts. The Falls Church Clown Show 🤡 is coming to an end!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-20-20

BAD NEWS FOR BIGOTLAND: Even As Billy The Bigot Blatantly Bashes The “Categorical Approach,” 10th Cir. Blasts Billy’s Biased BIA’s Bogus Blowing Of Same To Illegally Deport Under CO Controlled Substances Law!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

10th-Johnson-drugs19-9550

From: Dan Kowalski

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 4:16 PM
To: ICLINIC@LIST.MSU.EDU; Immigration Law Professors List
Subject: [immprof] FW: victory in Johnson v. Barr – Colorado possession statute overbroad and indivisble!!!

team,

a huge victory today for one of our clients, and hopefully many other folks in our community.

in Johnson v. Barr, the 10th circuit ruled that the Colorado statute of possession of a controlled substance is overboard as to the federal schedule and indivisible as to the particular controlled substance within a schedule.

the court honed in on the categorical approach, looking first to the plain language of the statute, the penalties assigned under the statute, its unpublished decision in Arellano, and persuasive state case law in deciding in our favor.

-this means that no conviction for possession of a schedule I or II CS can support the CS grounds of inadmissibility or deportability. this will hopefully help countless people who were found inadmissible, deportable, subject to mandatory detention, and ineligible for relief to seek redress of those legal errors.

-by extension, this decision is likely to apply to simply possession of a schedule III-V because it is also overbroad and structured nearly identically to the possession statute at issue in Johnson. moreover, due to legislative change last year classifying all PCS of schedule I-V CS as a DM1 offense starting in 2020, all future PCS offenses are likely also overbroad and indivisible.

this is definitely a day to celebrate. we will see whether the govt seeks rehearing or cert.

keep loving, keep fighting.

h

—

Hans Meyer

The Meyer Law Office, P.C.

—

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to immprof+unsubscribe@lists.ucla.edu.

Hans Meyer ESQ
Meyer Law
Denver, CO

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

Congratulations, Hans!

As noted by Hans, this decision could have “big-time” impact and result in numerous motions to reopen and “redos.” It’s just another example of how the gimmicks and misinterpretations used and encouraged by the Trump regime as part of their “haste makes waste” deport everyone policies actually create backlogs and waste resources while doing grave injustices.

America needs an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court with real expert judges, with a commitment to human rights and due process, dedicated to seeing that individual results are fair and just, rather than carrying out a perverted, race and hate driven nativist political agenda to maximize deportations in disregard of the law.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-02-20

IT TOOK MANY YEARS AND LOTS OF EFFORT, BUT RESPONDENTS FINALLY WON ONE @ THE BIA — ON STALKING — Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

Sanchez3924

Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

BIA HEADNOTE:

The offense of stalking in violation of section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is not “a crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2012). Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 71 (BIA 2012), overruled.

PANEL: BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES PAULEY, GUENDELSBERGER, MALPHRUS

OPINION BY: JUGE JOHN GUENDELSBERGER

DISSENTING OPINION: JUDGE GARRY D. MALPHRUS

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Although the DHS appears to concede that stalking under section 646.9 is “overbroad” relative to the definition we outlined in Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, it asserts that we should broaden the definition of a “crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act to meet contemporary standards. Specifically, it argues that we should redefine the term “stalking” in the Act based on its commonly understood meaning, either in 2012 when we decided Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, or based on the common elements of State and Federal stalking statutes in 2017.

We recognize that the common elements of stalking have evolved since section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) was added to the Act in 1996, in that a number of States have broadened the term “stalking” to cover threats of nonphysical harm in an effort to afford greater protections to their citizens against stalkers. However, we are constrained to define offenses “based on the ‘generic, contemporary meaning’ of the statutory words at the time the

statute was enacted.” Matter of Cardiel, 25 I&N Dec. 12, 17 (BIA 2009) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598 (1990)); see also Matter of Alvarado, 26 I&N Dec. 895, 897 (BIA 2016). The DHS relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272, 2281 (2016), which declined “to wind the clock back” to consider the common law in discerning whether the provision at issue reached reckless acts. But that case also looked to the legislative history and the “state-law backdrop” that existed at the time the statute was enacted. Id. at 2280–82. We are therefore unpersuaded to broaden the definition of the term “stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E) of the Act to encompass the most contemporary understanding of that offense.

Upon reconsideration, we conclude that the offense of stalking in violation of section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is not “a crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. We will therefore overrule our decision in Matter of Sanchez-Lopez and vacate all prior orders in this case to the extent they hold to the contrary. Accordingly, because the respondent is not removable, his appeal will be sustained and the removal proceedings will be terminated.

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

The legal landscape has changed since we published our decision inMatter of Sanchez-Lopez. This case illustrates the limitations of applying the categorical approach imposed by the Supreme Court in Descamps andMathis to provisions of the immigration laws enacted by Congress for the purpose of removing aliens convicted of serious criminal conduct. See Matter of Chairez, 27 I&N Dec. 21, 25–26 (BIA 2017) (Malphrus, concurring). Under this approach, only if section 646.9 is divisible can we look to the respondent’s conviction records to determine if his conduct involved an intent to cause the victim to fear death or bodily injury, as many such stalking cases do. Because of this strict categorical approach, many statutes that have since broadened the scope of protection for stalking victims may not qualify as a categorical match to section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. As a result, in California and many other States, an alien who was criminally convicted of stalking an innocent victim will not be removable under the Act, even though the record makes clear that he or she committed “a crime of stalking.” It is highly unlikely that Congress intended this result.

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

I liked the comment from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community: “It only took about 6 years and several trips up and down the administrative and judicial food chain.”

My point (that I make over and over) is that there is NO WAY that an unrepresented respondent (particularly in DHS detention where most respondents convicted of crimes end up) could have achieved this result. That means that unrepresented individuals are wrongfully deported by DHS every day.

The Immigration Court system already is failing in its duty to guarantee fairness and due process to all respondents. Outrageously, instead of doing what he should do — working to insure maximum representation and raising the quality of Immigration Judge and BIA decisions to insure Due Process — Jeff Sessions is doing just the opposite!

He’s putting “haste makes waste quotas” on Immigration Judges; encouraging judges to deny continuances needed to obtain counsel and adequately prepare defenses; locating Immigration Courts in detention centers which intentionally lack both public access and ready availability of pro bono counsel; using coercive, substandard detention and family separation to deter individuals from pursuing potentially successful claims and defenses; further skewing the law against asylum seekers; and suspending the essential “Legal Orientation Program” which helps unrepresented individuals in detention understand their rights and what will happen in Immigration Court before their first appearance before a judge.

PWS

04-20-18

VICTORY ON THE WESTERN FRONT: “Western Brigade Of The NDPA” (A/K/A Pangea Legal Services) wins Key Bond Battle! — “An immigration court should not serve to merely justify an immigrant’s deportation, but rather it should be there to serve justice. . . . We hope Floricel’s case serves as a lesson for all immigration judges across the United States.”

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50b1609de4b054abacd5ab6c/t/5aab2aac758d467bf8761e84/1521167020690/Habeas+Order,+Floricel+Liborio+Ramos+v.+Sessions,+2018.03.13.pdf

Powered by Translate

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR WORK

GET INVOLVED

DONATE

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER FREEING FLORICEL LIBORIO SHOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO ALL IMMIGRATION JUDGES ACROSS THE U.S.

March 15, 2018
by Pangea Team

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, Pangea client, Floricel Liborio Ramos, was freed from immigration detention after substantial litigation, multiple appeals, and requests for her release. Today, on her first day free after 11 months, Floricel came out to speak in gratitude for the massive community love and support she received throughout her detention. We hope that her case can set a positive example for judges and courts across the United States. Read the Federal District Court’s order here.

Community members from Faith in Action, RISE, California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance, the Immigrant Liberation Movement, and others out in support of Floricel’s hearing at the Federal District Court in Northern California (San Francisco, March 13, 2017)

Federal District Court’s Order Freeing Floricel Liborio Should Serve as a Lesson to All Immigration Judges Across the U.S.

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE THE MOMENTOUS REUNITING OF FLORICEL LIBORIO RAMOS WITH HER FAMILY AFTER ORDER BY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JON S. TIGAR REQUIRING HER RELEASE. THE ORDER SHOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO IMMIGRATION JUDGES THAT THEY CANNOT DENY BOND TO IMMIGRANTS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A DUI.

WHAT: Press conference in celebration of Floricel’s returning home to her children after over 11 months in immigration custody

WHERE: Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94111

WHEN: 11:30am on Thursday, March 15, 2018

WHO: Floricel, immigrant rights activists, faith leaders and other supporters

San Francisco, CA- Immigrant rights activists hold press conference at SF Federal District Court Building welcoming Floricel Liborio Ramos after she was released on Wednesday following a District Court order granting her immediate release from the West County Detention Facility. Ms. Liborio Ramos detention comes to a celebrated closure after District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that the Government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Liborio Ramos poses a threat to the community.

Judge Tigar found Immigration Judge Burch had erred when she unfairly ruled that Floricel was a danger to the community given her previous DUIs, “The IJ’s decision not to release Liborio Ramos rests firmly on Liborio Ramos’s two DUI convictions.[…] while an immigrant’s criminal history is relevant, ‘criminal history alone will not always be sufficient to justify denial of bond on the basis of dangerousness.’”

“[T]wo non-violent [DUI] misdemeanors in which no one was injured, in light of the other facts in this record, simply do not justify indefinite detention,” Judge Tigar’s ruling continued. In a few days, Ms. Liborio Ramos would have been detained for nearly a year, more than the longest sentence she could have served under California law for a misdemeanor DUI.

“We’re seeing undocumented immigrants punished twice by the immigration courts,” claimed Jehan Laner Romero, Ms. Liborio Ramos’ attorney at Pangea Legal Services. “This was the case with Floricel, who was complying with the criminal court order for her prior DUI conviction.”

Community supporters of Ms. Liborio have much to celebrate after 8 months of arduous efforts to support her case by packing the courtroom during her hearings, holding rallies and uplifting their support for Floricel. Immigration Judge Valerie A. Burch had denied her bond on two different occasions, even though the Government failed to sustain its burden to prove Ms. Liborio Ramos was a danger to the community. To many, this only highlights the unjust practices of some immigration courts — and the importance of higher courts and community members to hold immigration judges accountable. “An immigration court should not serve to merely justify an immigrant’s deportation, but rather it should be there to serve justice,” said Blanca Vazquez, one of the organizers supporting Ms. Liborio Ramos’ case with the Immigrant Liberation Movement. “We hope Floricel’s case serves as a lesson for all immigration judges across the United States.”

Floricel speaks at press conference before the court that ordered her release (San Francisco, March 15, 2018)

0 Likes

Share

Newer

Older

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE RODGER P. HARRIS REPORTEDLY STANDS TALL FOR DUE PROCESS AS NEW COURT SUIT ALLEGES THAT HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE IMMIGRATION BENCH IN CHARLOTTE, N.C. ARE SCOFFLAWS WHO FAIL TO HOLD LEGALLY REQUIRED BOND HEARINGS!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2018/01/18/lawsuit-challenges-immigration-judges-who-refuse-to-hold-bond-hearings-palacios-v-sessions.aspx?Redirected=true

From LexisNexis Immigration Community online:

“Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Judges Who Refuse to Hold Bond Hearings: Palacios v. Sessions

AIC, Jan. 17, 2018 –

“The government cannot lock people up without giving them access to prompt bond hearings and an opportunity to show that they should be released for the months or years that it takes to adjudicate their removal cases. This lawsuit challenges the actions of immigration judges in Charlotte, North Carolina who have done just that: refused to conduct bond hearings for people who properly file bond motions with the Charlotte Immigration Court. The case was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by the American Immigration Council, the CAIR Coalition, and Cauley Forsythe Law Group.”

Complaint

Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification”

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

Go on over to LexisNexis Immigration Community at the link for the complete story.

Check out paragraph 6 of the Complaint which contrasts the conduct of Judge Harris, who holds bond hearing in accordance with the law and established procedures, and the alleged conduct of his judicial colleagues in Charlotte.

Not surprising to me! Judge Harris was my colleague for years at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington Virginia where he had a reputation for scrupulously following the law and providing full due process to all who came before him. Just like a U.S. Immigration Judge is supposed to do.

On the other hand, prior to Judge Harris’s arrival, the Charlotte Immigration Court had a reputation among the private bar, commentators, and the press as a place where due process was often given short shrift, particularly in asylum cases.

Of course, these are merely allegations at this time. We’ll see what happens as the case progresses in Federal District Court.

While Sessions, McHenry, and the “Falls Church Crew” are screwing around with imaginary “goals and timetables’ — untethered to reality in a system with a 660,000 backlog and no real plan for resolving it — these are the real due process problems that are festering in the U.S. Immigration Courts and denying individuals their legal right to due process on a regular basis. Where’s the concern from “on high” with a court system that’s failing in its mission to provide due process to individuals under our Constitution? Obviously, the problem starts with a “Scofflaw Attorney General” who cares more about expediting removals and a White Nationalist immigration enforcement agenda than he does about the Constitution, Due Process, and the integrity of the U.S. Immigration Court system.

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

PWS

01-18-18

DECONSTRUCTION OF U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS CONTINUES: IJ Benchbook Latest Casualty — No Time For Law!

Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis and Heidi Altman at the Heartland Alliance sent in the following:

Heidi Altman, Director of Policy
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
Washington, DC Office
Tel: 312-718-5021
Email: haltman@heartlandalliance.org
From: Daniel Kowalski <dkowalski@allott.com<mailto:dkowalski@allott.com>>
Date: July 19, 2017 at 6:01:16 PM EDT
To: “immprof@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:immprof@lists.ucla.edu>” <immprof@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:immprof@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: [immprof] EOIR IJ Benchbook No Longer In Use (July 19, 2017) – AILA

EOIR IJ Benchbook No Longer In Use (July 19, 2017)
“EOIR confirmed that the EOIR Immigration Judge (IJ) Benchbook has been removed from EOIR’s webpage and is no longer being utilized. According to the agency, use of the IJ Benchbook was discontinued due to challenges in keeping the publication up to date with current case law.
Please note that AILALink<http://ailalink.aila.org/> now contains a copy of the IJ Benchbook as it appeared on the EOIR website as of April 27, 2017.”

Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

Even for EOIR this is extreme BS. No time to keep up on the law? Just like no time for Immigration Judge training.

Just another degradation in due process, uniformity, and training. Ridiculous!

PWS

07-20-17

FEDERAL JUDGE SANCTIONS KOBACH FOR MISCONDUCT IN KS VOTING RIGHTS CASE!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2017/06/24/kobach-sanctioned-for-39-deceptive-conduct-39-in-proof-of-citizenship-lawsuit-fish-v-kobach.aspx

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration:

“Fish v. Kobach, June 23, 2017 – “[D]efendant’s deceptive conduct and lack of candor warrant the imposition of sanctions. … [D]efendant made patently misleading representations to the court … The court cannot say that defendant flat-out lied in representing the content of the disputed documents. … “Most attorneys, of course, try to convey evidence in the best possible light for their clients. But there is a difference between putting evidence in the best possible light and blatantly misstating the evidence.” … When counsel’s false references in a brief indicate “that he has been either cavalier in regard to his approach to this case or bent upon misleading the court,” sanctions are appropriate. … [P]laintiffs are permitted to take the deposition of Secretary Kobach with respect to non-privileged information and evidence pertaining to the draft amendment and the photographed document. … The undersigned will preside over the deposition and contemporaneously resolve any disputes that arise.”

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

Go to the link for the full decision.

Gee, Kris, the rules in Federal Court apply even to guys like you!

PWS

06-24-17

US District Judge In Texas: DHS Detainers UNCONSTITIONAL!

The case is Santoyo v. USA. The judge is Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, W.D. Tex. Read a summary and get a copy of the complete decision from LexisNexis here:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.lexisnexis.com_legalnewsroom_immigration_b_immigration-2Dlaw-2Dblog_archive_2017_06_09_texas-2Djudge-2Ddetainers-2Dunconstitutional-2Dsantoyo-2Dv-2Dusa.aspx&d=DQMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=fVRNdU2VDNz5G-xkDmzIHJDayE6dAgl2QFOONWGizXo&m=eYmyVp_b4b6sgSLEWXliECUTA8OV1IM4Onh1TwuWXu4&s=xsuek2YuKGwZ6Og703o-8xGeMgkfm4ZNOovDmzDs6KU&e=

Sessions, Kelly, Abbott & Co. might be putting local jurisdictions “between a rock and a hard place” with their aggressive “anti-sanctuary” policies.

PWS

06-09-17

Two New Tools To Help You Understand/Practice Immigration Law: 1) USCIS “StatPack” & 2) Travel Ban Litigation Guide!

Nolan “Eagle Eyes” Rappaport kindly alerted me to this comprehensive source of USCIS immigration and citizenship data:

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data

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

Additionally, Dan “Mr. Blog” Kowalski over at Lexis was kind enough to send me this like to a nationwide “Travel Ban” Litigation Database from “Lawfare,” helpfully organized by Circuit:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lawfareblog.com_litigation-2Ddocuments-2Dresources-2Drelated-2Dtrump-2Dexecutive-2Dorder-2Dimmigration&d=DQIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=CeRQeXwCO1XABbcnui0VccohOAIcGihP TU6SjunQmI&m=8DFHNqD9Wh7TH2g60EeuBylX7190m96Q_YTMDTMs5P0&s=evpzDZD-Isv1nTFviIW1D-wNdPdmyJyu9fl1qEQXgf8&e=

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

Check both of these out! Thanks again to Nolan and Dan for their tireless efforts to promote an informed approach to immigration law and policy!

PWS

05-07-17

DR. NO? — DHS Appoints Restrictionist To “Ombudsman” Position!

https://thinkprogress.org/uscis-ombudsman-877d18a67d97

Dan Kowalski at LexisNexsis Immigration Community forwards the following item from Think Progress:

“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is set to announce the appointment of a controversial former leader of an anti-immigrant policy center to be its ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Monday, according to two sources aware of the news.

Between 2005 and 2015, Julie Kirchner worked first as its director of government relations then as executive director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization founded by an alleged white nationalist who advocates for stricter immigration. During her time at FAIR, the organization proposed efforts to end birthright citizenshipand reduce legal immigration levels. She left FAIR in 2015 to become an immigration adviser on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign.

Immigrant advocates are worried Kirchner’s role as ombudsman will give her direct access to include or exclude stakeholders with an immigration nexus who may shape her formal recommendations based on how the agency should exercise authority over policy implementation.

“The appointment of Kirchner to the position of CIS ombudsman is extremely troubling when you consider the fact that she spent 10 years working for FAIR, a group founded on racist principals that has spent decades demonizing and vilifying immigrants,” Heidi Beirich, the director of SPLC’s Intelligence Project, told ThinkProgress in an email.

USCIS public affairs officer Katie Tichacek told ThinkProgress the agency “does not comment on potential personnel announcements. The two people who confirmed information of Kirchner’s appointment were one current DHS employee and one former DHS employee.

Congress created the role of the USCIS ombudsman under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 as an “impartial and independent perspective” to the agency housed within DHS, according to a DHS agency website. Among tasks like meeting with external stakeholders, ombudsman are responsible for resolving problems with pending immigration cases, sharing feedback on emerging trends in migration patterns, and issuing formal recommendations and proposals to address concerns. They cannot make or change USCIS decisions.

In her 2016 annual report to Congress, former USCIS Ombudsman Maria M. Odom said engaging with external stakeholders was “integral to our full understanding of the issues and their impact on the USCIS customer.”

January Contreras, a former USCIS ombudsman between 2009 and 2012 described her role as a DHS “watchdog.” She now works as the CEO of Arizona Legal Women and Youth’s Services (ALWAYS), which provides pro bono legal services for trafficking survivors and young people.

During her time, Contreras met with a wide variety of people that spanned the immigration spectrum, including human resource and vice presidents looking to expand high-tech visas, undocumented immigrants, and former refugees who pointed out which processes they had trouble with.

“[The role] is someone who is listening outside the DHS bubble,” Contreras told ThinkProgress Friday. “My job, when I was the ombudsman, was to listen to people who were dissatisfied at what was going on at the DHS. Sometimes people would bring complaints, sometimes they would bring ideas, sometimes they were long-simmering issues and sometimes they were rather new issues.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has labeled FAIR as a hate group, pointing to a series of racist memos written by the organization’s founder John Tanton warning of a “Latin onslaught.” In the past, Tanton and other supporters promoted radical population control measures like sterilizing Third World women and making wider use of an abortion pill. FAIR has received $1.5 million from the pro-eugenics organization Pioneer Fund. Tanton also founded NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), two organizations that consulted Trump or senior administration officials during his campaign.

“At the end of the day, the ombudsman is still accountable to Congress to improve services, not restrict services,” Contreras said. “So in fact if there’s an ombudsman in place interested only in restricting immigration I hope that Congress will have some conversations, whether privately or publicly, to make sure they’re doing the job they’re hired to do.”

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

Wishful thinking on Contreras’s part, I’m afraid. With the GOP firmly in control of the political branches of Government, and Secretary Kelly proving to be a “shill” for Sessions and the restrictionists, I wouldn’t bet on any meaningful oversight of the Ombudsman position.

Quite to the contrary, I expect the Ombudsman to become an extension of the VOICE program for “victims of crime” or, perhaps, a conduit for anonymous “tips” on how to locate individuals who potentially are removable from the U.S.

PWS

04-30-17

IMMIGRATION COURT REPORT: “ADR” In Full Swing Again At EOIR — Detailed U.S. Immigration Judges Twiddle Thumbs As Home Dockets Suffer!

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” a phenomenon that occurs when political officials at the DOJ direct EOIR to “reprioritize” existing U.S. Immigration Court dockets to meet politically-driven enforcement goals. Results in U.S. Immigration Judges being reassigned from regularly scheduled largely “ready for trial” pending cases to “priority cases” that often are NQRFPT. Therefore almost nothing gets completed, but the court staff is overburdened and the private bar and individual respondents as well as the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel see already prepared cases reassigned to new judges who don’t have time to hear them or “orbited” to spots at the end of the docket several years from now. Results in growing backlogs even with more judges employed in the system.

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

As reported in LexisNexis Immigration https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2017/03/27/eoir-posts-new-hearing-location-details.aspx?Redirected=true EOIR has announced several rounds of details of U.S. Immigration Judges to “detained locations” as part of its “implementation of President Trump’s January 25th Executive Orders.” Julia Edwards Ainsley previously reported on this development in Reuters http://wp.me/p8eeJm-vF.

However, according to several sources, once at the “detail court” these judges often have precious little to do.

To paraphrase some familiar with the system, “The only ‘surge’ happening here is a surge of judges. There’s no surge of cases.” But, you can bet that there was a “surge in frustration” from those whose previously scheduled cases were rescheduled to accommodate these unneeded details.

Just another “keystone cops” episode at DOJ? Tempting analysis, but not so funny when you consider that human lives and futures are being affected. Also, transferring busy judges from already jam-packed dockets to do little or nothing at the border to keep the “political bosses” satisfied wastes the taxpayers’ money and undermines the credibility of the Immigration Court. That’s bad for everyone.

Most Immigration Judges I know are 1) busy all the time (unlike many other judges, Immigration Judges are expected to schedule cases eight hours/day, every work day of the week except for four hours/week of “administrative time” for case preparation, decision writing, and continuing education); 2) fanatic about wanting to complete the cases on their daily dockets.

Consequently, I doubt that any sitting Immigration Judge would have thought it was a good idea to cancel or reassign their regular dockets to do a minute number of cases as a detailed judge.

Moreover, because the Immigration Court is not “automated,” detailed Immigration Judges who have extra time have no access to pending motions that are piling up in their chambers during details. So, unlike the “home court” where a judge often can find “chambers work” to do during unanticipated “down time,” on detail “down time” is just that — wasted time.

Finally, there is the obvious question. What is a supposedly impartial, due process oriented court system doing mindlessly carrying out the President’s Executive Order on immigration enforcement to the derogation of its own already-pending cases? We need an independent Article I United States Immigration Court!

PWS

03/28/17

Tag: LexisNexis

🤯☠️ 🤮 👎🏽 WHILE TALKING A “GOOD GAME” ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ALLOWS MISOGYNY TO RULE @ EOIR — Why Does It Take A Conservative 11th Circuit To Get VAWA Right??? 🤯

Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

⚖️9TH CIR. SLAMS IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY FOR DEFICIENT FOIA RESPONSE ON DEATH OF TRANSGENDER ASYLUM APPLICANT IN “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)!

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

⚠️The Saga of Surveillance Capitalism Continues: LexisNexis’s Contract With ICE Foretells a Bleak Era of Data Policing Immigrants, Intercept Writes

🏴‍☠️KAKISTOCRACY DEATH ⚰️ WATCH: New NDPA Suits Challenge EOIR/DHS Scheme To Implement Grauleiter Miller’s 🤮☠️ Neo-Nazi “Kill Asylum” Regs In Regime’s Final Days! — The Disrespect For The Rule Of Law & Contempt For Humanity Run Deep At Flailing, Failed Agencies!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

Due Process Forever!

BAD NEWS FOR BIGOTLAND: Even As Billy The Bigot Blatantly Bashes The “Categorical Approach,” 10th Cir. Blasts Billy’s Biased BIA’s Bogus Blowing Of Same To Illegally Deport Under CO Controlled Substances Law!

Due Process Forever!

IT TOOK MANY YEARS AND LOTS OF EFFORT, BUT RESPONDENTS FINALLY WON ONE @ THE BIA — ON STALKING — Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER FREEING FLORICEL LIBORIO SHOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO ALL IMMIGRATION JUDGES ACROSS THE U.S.

Federal District Court’s Order Freeing Floricel Liborio Should Serve as a Lesson to All Immigration Judges Across the U.S.

SANTA CLARA OFFICE

SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE RODGER P. HARRIS REPORTEDLY STANDS TALL FOR DUE PROCESS AS NEW COURT SUIT ALLEGES THAT HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE IMMIGRATION BENCH IN CHARLOTTE, N.C. ARE SCOFFLAWS WHO FAIL TO HOLD LEGALLY REQUIRED BOND HEARINGS!

“Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Judges Who Refuse to Hold Bond Hearings: Palacios v. Sessions

Complaint

Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification”

DECONSTRUCTION OF U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS CONTINUES: IJ Benchbook Latest Casualty — No Time For Law!

FEDERAL JUDGE SANCTIONS KOBACH FOR MISCONDUCT IN KS VOTING RIGHTS CASE!

US District Judge In Texas: DHS Detainers UNCONSTITIONAL!

Two New Tools To Help You Understand/Practice Immigration Law: 1) USCIS “StatPack” & 2) Travel Ban Litigation Guide!

DR. NO? — DHS Appoints Restrictionist To “Ombudsman” Position!

IMMIGRATION COURT REPORT: “ADR” In Full Swing Again At EOIR — Detailed U.S. Immigration Judges Twiddle Thumbs As Home Dockets Suffer!

Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER FREEING FLORICEL LIBORIO SHOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO ALL IMMIGRATION JUDGES ACROSS THE U.S.

Federal District Court’s Order Freeing Floricel Liborio Should Serve as a Lesson to All Immigration Judges Across the U.S.

Related posts:

“Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Judges Who Refuse to Hold Bond Hearings: Palacios v. Sessions

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: