Matter of M-S- – immigrationcourtside.com

DUE PROCESS WINS IN THE WEST: Split 9th Cir. Slams DOJ’s Vile/Unethical “No Due Process Due” Argument — Orders Bond Hearings For Asylum Applicants Who Passed Credible Fear — Padilla v. ICE — Round Table Amicus Brief Helps Save Due Process!

Padilla v. ICE, 9th Cir., 03-27-20, published

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

SUMMARY* Immigration

Affirming in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a class of noncitizens who were detained and found to have a credible fear of persecution, the panel affirmed the injunction insofar as it concluded that plaintiffs have a due process right to bond hearings, but remanded for further findings and reconsideration with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.

The district court certified a nationwide class of all detained asylum seekers who were subject to expedited removal proceedings, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, but were not provided a bond hearing with a record of hearing within seven days of requesting a hearing. Part A of the district court’s modified preliminary injunction provided: 1) bond hearings must take place within seven days of a class member’s request, or the member must be released; 2) the burden of proof is on the government to show why the

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

4 PADILLA V. ICE

member should not be released; and 3) the government must produce recordings or verbatim transcripts of the hearings, as well as written decisions. Part B concluded that the class is constitutionally entitled to bond hearings. A motions panel of this court previously denied the government’s request to stay Part B, but granted the stay as to Part A.

The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim, explaining that immigration detention violates the Due Process Clause unless a special justification outweighs the constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that other processes—seeking parole from detention or filing habeas petitions—were insufficient to satisfy due process. The panel further rejected the government’s suggestion that noncitizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause, observing the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of entry—he or she is entitled to due process.

The panel next concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its irreparable harm analysis, noting substandard physical conditions and medical care in detention, lack of access to attorneys and evidence, separation from family, and re-traumatization. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of the equities and public interest favors plaintiffs, explaining that the district court weighed: 1) plaintiffs’ deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and its attendant harms; 2) the fact that it is always in the public interest to prevent constitutional violations; and 3) the

PADILLA V. ICE 5

government’s interest in the efficient administration of immigration law.

As to Part A of the injunction, the panel concluded that the record was insufficient to support the requirement of hearings within seven days, and that the district court made insufficient findings as to the burdens that Part A may impose on immigration courts. The panel also noted that the number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings may have dramatically increased since the entry of the injunction. Thus, the panel remanded to the district court for further factual development of the preliminary injunction factors as to Part A.

The panel also rejected the government’s argument that the district court lacked authority to grant injunction relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which provides: “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of [8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” Examining the relevant precedent, statutory scheme, and legislative history, the panel concluded that here, where the class is composed of individual noncitizens, each of whom is in removal proceedings and facing an immediate violation of their rights, and where the district court has jurisdiction over each individual member of that class, classwide injunctive relief is consistent with congressional intent.

Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction as to the nationwide class. However, the panel directed that, on

6 PADILLA V. ICE

remand, the district court must also revisit the nationwide scope.

Dissenting, Judge Bade wrote that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief in this case, concluding that the majority’s opinion does not square with the plain text of § 1252(f)(1), is inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court cases, and needlessly creates a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit. Judge Bade further wrote that, even if the district court had jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief, the preliminary injunction is overbroad and exceeds what the constitution demands. Judge Bade would vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings with instructions to dismiss the claims for classwide injunctive relief.

PANEL: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Michael Daly Hawkins and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

OPNION BY: Chief Judge Sydney R. Thomas

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bridget S. Bade

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY OPINION:

The government also suggests that non-citizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause. As we have discussed, this position is precluded by Zadvydas and its progeny. The government relies on inapposite cases that address the peculiar constitutional status of noncitizens apprehended at a port-of-entry, but permitted to temporarily enter the United States under specific conditions. See, e.g., Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (“Mezei”), 345 U.S. 206, 208–09, 213–15 (1953) (noncitizen excluded while still aboard his ship, but then detained at Ellis Island pending final exclusion proceedings gained no additional procedural rights with respect to removal by virtue of his “temporary transfer from ship to shore” pursuant to a statute that “meticulously specified that such shelter ashore ‘shall not be considered a landing’”); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958) (noncitizen paroled into the United States while waiting for a determination of her admissibility was not “within the United States” “by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee”); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925) (noncitizen excluded at Ellis Island but detained instead of being deported immediately due to suspension of deportations during World War I “was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line”).

Indeed, these cases, by carving out exceptions not applicable here, confirm the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of his or her entry—he or she is entitled to due process. See, e.g., Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (“[A]liens who have once passed

PADILLA V. ICE 25

through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”); Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 187 (explaining that “immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission . . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality,” and recognizing, “[i]n the latter instance . . . additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely ‘on the threshold of initial entry’” (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212)); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the entry fiction is best seen . . .as a fairly narrow doctrine that primarily determines the procedures that the executive branch must follow before turning an immigrant away” because “[o]therwise, the doctrine would allow any number of abuses to be deemed constitutionally permissible merely by labelling certain ‘persons’ as non-persons”). We thus conclude that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clause.

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

First, and foremost, let’s give a big vote of appreciation to the All-Star Team at Wilmer Cutler who represented our Round Table on this:

Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Rebecca Arriaga Herche, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jamil Aslam, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

This team is it’s own “Special Forces Brigade” of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”)!

WOW! Persons are “persons” under the Constitution even when they have brown skins and are asylum seekers! How “rad” can you get! What a blow to “business as usual” for the regime and their “Dred Scottification” program of dehumanizing and making non-persons out of migrants and other vulnerable minorities!

Too bad that the Supremes and other Circuit Courts have too often advanced “Dred Scottification,” hiding behind transparently bogus and contrived “national emergencies” and the doctrine of judicial dereliction of duty otherwise known as “Chevron deference.” I guess that’s why the regime has the contempt for both the law and the Article III Courts to press such legally, morally, and Constitutionally “bankrupt” arguments as they did in this case. Never know when you’ll get a “thumbs up” from those who sometimes don’t view oaths of office and their obligations to their fellow humans with enough seriousness!

Significantly, the panel found that “plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that they are constitutionally entitled to individualized bond hearings before a “neutral decisionmaker.” However, in doing so they “papered over” the obvious fact that the constitutional requirement of a “neutral decisionmaker” cannot be fulfilled as long as Billy Barr or other politicos control the Immigration Courts!

Indeed, the panel decision was a strong rebuke of Barr’s atrocious, unethical, scofflaw decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) purporting to unilaterally change the rules to eliminate bond for those who had passed “credible fear.” Fact is that no individual appearing in today’s Immigration Courts has access to the constitutionally-required “neutral decisionmaker” because Barr retains the ability to simply unilaterally change any result that doesn’t match his White Nationalist nativist agenda and can hire and fire the so-called “judges” at will.

Indeed, under Barr’s totally illegal and professionally insulting “production quotas,” I’m not sure that the “judges” on the “deportation assembly line” even get “production credit” for bond decisions because they aren’t “final orders of removal.” However, denial of bond is actually an important “whistle stop” on the “deportation express.” Those kept in the “New American Gulag” have difficulty finding attorneys and the systematic mistreatment they receive in detention helps to demoralize them and coerce them into giving up claims or waiving appeals.

When are the Article IIIs finally going to stop “beating around the bush” and hold this whole mess to be unconstitutional, as it most clearly is?

In some ways, the panel’s decision reminds me of one of my own long-ago concurring/dissenting opinion in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799, 810 (BIA 1999) (en banc) (“Joseph II”):

However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.

Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in custody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.

The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to pre-vail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.

The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.

In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.

Concern for Due Process and fundamental fairness have intentionally been eradicated in the Immigration “Courts” by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. It’s past time for this constitutional mockery to be put out of its misery (and the unending misery it causes for the humans coming before it) once and for all!

As my late BIA colleague Judge Fred W. Vacca once said, albeit in a different context, “It’s time to put an end to this pathetic imitation of an adjudication.” Fred and I didn’t always agree. In fact, we disagreed much of the time. But, he did know when it was finally time to “stop the nonsense,” even when some of our colleagues just kept the system churning long past the point of reason and sanity.

And, folks, that was back in the days when the BIA actually functioned more or less like an “independent appellate court” until the Ashcroft purge of ’03 forever ended that noble vision. Like the rest of the system and those who enable it to keep churning lives as if they were mere water under the bridge, the BIA and the rest of the Immigration “Courts” have now become a national disgrace — a blot on our national conscience. Human beings seeking justice are neither “numbers” to be achieved for “satisfactory ratings,” nor “enforcement problems” to be exterminated without Due Process.

Dehumanization of the “other”and stripping them of legal and human rights is a key part of fascism. It’s what allowed German judges and most of German society to “look the other way” or actively aid in the holocaust. It has no place in our justice system — now or ever!

Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!

PWS

03-28-20

9TH CIR. DEALS TRUMP & BARR ANOTHER SETBACK ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OF HOLDING ASYLUM APPLICANTS WITHOUT BOND – But, Court Vacated District Judge’s “7 Day Rule” For Bond Hearings For Asylum Seekers!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/454208-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-administration-on-indefinite

Jacqueline Thomsen reports for The Hill:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled against the Trump administration’s policy allowing for the indefinite detention of certain asylum-seekers, saying a lower court ruling temporarily blocking it can remain in place.

In the ruling, the judges said the Department of Justice did not make a “persuasive showing that it will suffer irreparable harm if it is required to provide bond hearings pending the outcome of this appeal in the same way it had done for several years.”

However, the appeals court did not allow a district judge’s order requiring the government to release some asylum-seekers within a certain amount of time after immigration proceedings begin, saying it “would impose short-term hardship for the government and its immigration system.”

Barr first issued the order earlier this year, determining that asylum-seekers who pass a “credible fear” test and go on to full deportation proceedings aren’t entitled to bond hearings.

But Judge Marsh Pechman, a Clinton appointee in federal court in Seattle, ruled earlier this month that policy is unconstitutional and blocked it from being enforced.

The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit — Carter appointees Judges Mary Schroeder and William Canby as well as Judge Morgan Christen, an Obama appointee — declined to place a stay on Pechman’s ruling.

“The government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its underlying argument that the government may indefinitely detain the plaintiffs without affording bond hearings at all,” Monday’s order reads.

Pechman had also ruled earlier this year that the Trump administration must take several steps in regard to asylum-seekers who are detained during immigration proceedings, including that certain migrants should be released if they are not granted a hearing within seven days of those proceedings beginning.

But the judges said that lawyers for the Trump administration showed that those requirements would be “too burdensome,” and temporarily halted the order as the full appeal of Pechman’s ruling plays out.

The appeals court is set to rule on the policies further, and Monday’s order asked that arguments be scheduled in the case for October of this year.

The Trump administration was critical of Pechman’s ruling against Barr’s asylum policy, with White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham saying in a statement that the order is “at war with the rule of law.”

On Monday officials said they were pleased the panel partially granted the government’s request.

“Unfortunately, in the same decision, the Ninth Circuit also allowed a radical decision from a district judge to go into effect during the pendency of the government’s appeal, which had held unconstitutional a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” said Deputy Press Secretary Steven Groves in a statement. “Based on the unprecedented theory that illegal aliens who recently entered the country have a constitutional right to be released on bond into the United States, the district court struck down a statute passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress during the Clinton administration specifically requiring certain aliens to be detained pending their asylum proceedings.”

He said the administration expected to ultimately prevail in the appeal.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling comes as the Trump administration seeks to implement tighter restrictions on asylum.

Trump officials announced last week that they would not accept asylum claims from migrants who pass through another country while traveling to the U.S.’s southern border, with limited exceptions. That rule is currently being challenged in a pair of federal courts.

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

Notwithstanding the blather from new White House mouthpiece Grisham, this ruling was very predictable given the 9^thCircuit’s prior decisions and the clear arbitrariness under the Due Process clause of indefinite, potentially life threatening, detention of those legally seeking asylum under our laws without reference to the facts or a chance or any type of independent review. Barr’s decision in Matter of M-S-, at issue here, was widely criticized on Constitutional, practical, and ethical grounds even before Judge Pechman enjoined it.

PWS

07-23-19

CONSTITUTIONAL SCOFFLAW BARR “OUTED” AGAIN: U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman (WD WA) Rips AG’s Unconstitutional Denial Of Bonds To Asylum Seekers – Finds Matter of M-S- Unlawful!

https://apple.news/AVi9zCrsgS2y4pg6ZqHWJ6A

Vanessa Romo reports for NPR:

A Seattle federal judge ruled Tuesday that asylum-seeking migrants detained for being in the U.S. illegally have the right to a bond hearing in immigration court rather than being held until their cases are complete.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said it is unconstitutional to indefinitely detain migrants who fled to the U.S. seeking asylum protections.

The decision reverses an April directivefrom Attorney General William Barr ordering immigration judges not to release migrants on bail after an applicant successfully establishes “a credible fear of persecution or torture” in the home country — a policy that has been in place since 2005.

“The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue,” Pechman wrote.

In her ruling, Pechman also took issue with an aspect of Barr’s policy that left open the possibility that migrants, still awaiting a hearing, could be re-detained by ICE after being released on bond.

“The Government’s unwillingness to unconditionally assert that Plaintiffs will not be re-detained means that the specter of re-detention looms and these Plaintiffs and many members of their class face the real and imminent threat of bondless and indefinite detention …,” she said.

The ruling comes amid a widespread shortage of immigration judges that has caused massive delays in processing hearings. The most recent dataavailable from The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse shows a total of 424 judges nationwide face a backlog of 892,517 cases on the courts’ active dockets as of the end of April.

“The three largest immigration courts were so under-resourced that hearing dates were being scheduled as far out as August 2023 in New York City, October 2022 in Los Angeles, and April 2022 in San Francisco,” TRAC reports

Pechman also modified a preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. The new injunction requires the government to ensure bond hearings are held within seven days after they are requested by eligible asylum-seekers. If the government exceeds that limit, the undocumented immigrant must be released.

Immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, sued to block the policy, which was set to take effect this month.

In a statement, Matt Adams, legal director of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said: “The court reaffirmed what has been settled for decades: that asylum seekers who enter this country have a right to be free from arbitrary detention.”

Michael Tan, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, added: “Try as it may, the administration cannot circumvent the Constitution in its effort to deter and punish asylum-seekers applying for protection.”

The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling quickly.

Copyright 2019 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.

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

Go to the NPR website for a full copy of Judge Pechman’s decision in Padilla v. ICE.

So, while the 9^thCircuit is bopping along violating human rights by enabling Trump’s absurdly illegal “Kill ‘Em in Mexico Program,” as a result of a three-judge panel who tanked on their oaths of office, Judge Pechman and some others at the “retail level” of the Federal Judiciary are still on the job and upholding our Constitution against the all-out assault led by Barr on behalf of Trump.

It’s also worth remembering that the U.S. Attorney General is supposed to uphold the Constitution and protect individual rights, rather than serving as tool of racist White Nationalist extremism as Sessions and Barr have done. Already in shambles and a disgraceful ethical morass, there won’t be anything left of the “Justice” Department by the time Barr’s toxic tenure ends.

Bill Barr is a national disgrace and an affront to American justice. But, hey, it’s the Trump Adminisration, so what else is new?

PWS

07-03-19

NAIJ PRESIDENT HON. A. ASHLEY TABADDOR BLASTS BARR’S INTERFERENCE IN THE BOND SYSTEM FOR ASYLUM APPLICANTS!

https://apple.news/ABEcuPRD5QP20VeTp4Xv5jA

Tess Bonn @ The Hill

Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Tess writes:

Immigration judge calls Barr’s move to deny asylum-seekers bond hearings ‘highly problematic’

Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor called the Justice Department’s latest move to deny asylum-seekers bond hearings “highly problematic,” saying courts should not be used as a political tool by law enforcement.

“This in terms of the procedure that has been used is highly problematic,” Tabaddor, who is the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told Hill.TV’s Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball in an appearance on “Rising.”

“It is allowing the chief prosecutor of the United States to step in, in the middle of judicial proceedings and rewrite the law,” she continued.

Tabaddor added that Barr’s move is another example of why the immigrant court system should function independently of the Justice Department.

“It yet highlights again why immigration court proceedings should really be removed from the Justice Department and be outside of the purview of the political usage of the court as an extension of law enforcement,” she told Hill.TV.

Attorney General William Barr last week issued a new order directing immigration judges not to release asylum-seekers and detain them indefinitely while they await their court hearings.

Barr’s decision reverses a 2005 order, which said certain migrants who passed a “credible fear” interview could stay in the U.S. and seek release on bond until their case is heard in court. But Barr wrote that only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to release asylum seekers.

The change comes amid an ongoing legal battle over the Trump administration’s policy that requires asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims make their way through the immigration court system.

Earlier this month, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the policy, saying it failed to protect migrants from danger. Days later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took action allowing the Trump administration to temporarily resume returning asylum-seekers to Mexico as it considers the administration’s appeal to the injunction.

Trump’s program of returning migrants to Mexico was initially launched in January, and the program is part of the administration’s crackdown on the recent influx of migrants at the southern border.

During a recent visit to the border, Trump said the U.S. is being overwhelmed by Central American migrants seeking asylum.

“We can’t take you anymore. I’m sorry. Can’t happen, so turn around,” Trump said, referring to the migrants.

—Tess Bonn

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

Undoubtedly, the participation of Chief Trump Cheerleader and immigration enforcement advocate Bill Barr creates an “appearance of bias.” Indeed, it’s more than an “appearance;” it’s actual bias. So, his interference in the quasi-judicial process is unethical.

The only real question is why Barr, like his predecessor Sessions and their predecessors, is allowed to get away with violating clear standards of ethical conduct. Why don’t “real” Article III Courts fulfill their constitutional role by vacating both the decisions and any case in which an Immigration Judge relies on these invalid attempts to influence and control the quasi-judicial decision-making process for the benefit of a party — the DHS?

PWS

04-24-19

FOR THOSE WITH SIRIUSXM RADIO ACCESS: Listen To My Commentary On Matter of M-S- On The Dan Abrams Show On “POTUS Channel” For April 17, 2019 — Available “On Demand” On The SiriusXM App!

About Dan’s Show “”The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” on “POTUS Channel” on SiriusXM —

NEWS RELEASE
Dan Abrams, ABC News’ Chief Legal Analyst and Host of A&E’s “Live PD,” to Anchor Weekday Show Exclusively for SiriusXM
10/25/2018
“The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” will premiere on SiriusXM P.O.T.U.S. channel on October 29 NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Today SiriusXM announced that Dan Abrams will host an exclusive SiriusXM radio show starting October 29. “The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” will air live on weekdays on P.O.T.U.S. channel 124 at 2:00 p.m. ET.
On his new show, Abrams will analyze the biggest news stories of the day from a legal perspective. With so much of today’s breaking political news having a legal component, Abrams will delve into the issues with a team of specialists, including former federal prosecutors and other high-prole experts. The program will also feature one- on-one interviews with top newsmakers, panel discussions, and listener calls.
The addition of Dan Abrams to SiriusXM P.O.T.U.S. further positions the channel as a top source for political news, analysis, and discussion.
“The legal side of news stories is more important and prominent than ever,” said Abrams. “I’m thrilled to have this opportunity on SiriusXM to really dig in and separate the legal realities from the wishful spin for listeners and people calling in to the show.”
“Dan is the perfect voice to add to our great P.O.T.U.S. lineup,” said Megan Liberman, Senior Vice President of News, Talk, and Entertainment at SiriusXM. “There has never been a more critical time to address the intersection of law and politics, and I can’t think of anyone better to lead that conversation.”
1

Over the course of his career, Abrams has established himself as one of the nation’s top legal analysts, rst covering the O.J. Simpson trial for Court TV and NBC News. Now the Chief Legal Analyst for ABC News, Abrams is well known for his shrewd analysis of legal issues ranging from high-prole criminal trials to the Mueller investigations and the Supreme Court.
Abrams is also the host of A&E’s Live PD, the highest rated live show on all of cable among adults 18-49 and 25-54.
As a media entrepreneur, he created the inuential website Mediaite.com, which chronicles the intersection of media and politics, and founded the popular OTT and linear network Law&Crime, among other projects. His work has been acknowledged with numerous Emmy and Edward R. Murrow Awards, and he has covered nearly every major national legal story of the past two decades. The Duke University and Columbia Law School graduate also recently penned the New York Times bestselling book Lincoln’s Last Trial.
Below is the new SiriusXM P.O.T.U.S. lineup of top non-partisan political news and analysis programs:
The Morning Brieng with Tim Farley, 6:00 – 9:00 a.m. ET The Michael Smerconish Program, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ET Let’s Get After It with Chris Cuomo, 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. ET The Dan Abrams Show, 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Press Pool with Julie Mason, 3:00 – 6:00 p.m.
The Big Picture with Olivier Knox, 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
In addition to listening to “The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” on channel 124, SiriusXM subscribers with streaming access can hear the program on a wide variety of connected devices including smart TVs, Amazon Alexa devices, Apple TV, Sony PlayStation, Roku, Sonos speakers and more. Go
to www.SiriusXM.com/AtHome to learn more.
About SiriusXM

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

Check it out on your Sirius XM App, POTUS Channel, On Demand!

PWS

04-18-19

AILA BLASTS BARR’S M-S- DECISION STRIPPING IMMIGRATION JUDGES OF BOND AUTHORITY FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS WHO HAVE ESTABLISHED A “CREDIBLE FEAR” OF PERSECUTION — “Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border can be processed in an orderly way while also being provided with thorough and fair review of their asylum cases. To accomplish that, the immigration courts must be allowed to operate as courts, not puppets of the Attorney General.”

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/aila-ag-aims-to-detain-asylum-seekers-intruding

AILA: AG Aims to Detain Asylum Seekers, Intruding Further on Immigration Court Independence

AILA Doc. No. 19041734 | Dated April 17, 2019

CONTACTS:

George Tzamaras
202-507-7649
gtzamaras@aila.org Belle Woods
202-507-7675
bwoods@aila.org

WASHINGTON, DC – On April 16, 2019, Attorney General William Barr issued a decision in Matter of M-S- in which he determined that asylum seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution and will be placed in removal proceedings are not eligible for an individualized determination of their custody status before the immigration court.

AILA Treasurer Jeremy McKinney stated, “With this decision, the Attorney General is unilaterally depriving asylum seekers of their right to a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge despite the fact they have passed a credible fear interview administered by a USCIS asylum officer. By overturning Matter of X-K, which provided for an independent review of the government’s justification to detain someone, the Attorney General is sweeping aside 14 years of standing Board of Immigration Appeals precedent that the courts and DHS have long implemented. This is a devastating blow to those seeking protection from persecution at the U.S. border, since far more will be held in detention. This decision further expands mandatory and prolonged detention of people who are neither dangerous nor flight risks, practices which are constitutionally suspect and a waste of taxpayer money. This administration is using detention as a sword against both due process and the humanitarian principles our nation was founded upon.”

AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson added, “While Matter of M-S- will not take effect for 90 days, the impact of Attorney General Barr’s decision, along with the other decisions issued by his immediate predecessors on asylum and the nation’s immigration courts, cannot be overstated. With full control over the immigration court system, the Attorney General is not only rewriting asylum and detention law but also stripping judges of the most basic operational authorities and judicial independence. Asylum seekers arriving at the southern border can be processed in an orderly way while also being provided with thorough and fair review of their asylum cases. To accomplish that, the immigration courts must be allowed to operate as courts, not puppets of the Attorney General. Without delay Congress should create an Article One immigration court system, separate from the Department of Justice to counteract the political machinations of the administration.”

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19041734.

CONTACTS:
George Tzamaras 202-507-7649 gtzamaras@aila.org	Belle Woods 202-507-7675 bwoods@aila.org

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

There is no end to this Administration’s campaign of unrelenting cruelty toward asylum seekers. Even lack of ability to carry out their morbid fascination with creating the “New American Gulag” —- this time targeting individuals who actually have established a “credible fear” of persecution — doesn’t deter their inhumanity. It’s likely to face Constitutional obstacles, at least in the lower Federal Courts.

AILA gets it right. It would be possible to fairly process asylum seekers with additional trained Asylum Officers (not Border Patrol Officers masquerading as Asylum Officers) through an independent Article I Immigration Court System committed to fairly and efficiently applying asylum laws. Lawyers are an essential part of the equation.

We should stop confusing families seeking asylum with “security threats.” Indeed, the obsession with those who present no real threat to our country actually detracts from efforts to combat real threats — drug smugglers and human traffickers. Those require undercover and anti-smuggling investigative techniques that have little to do with individuals and families turning themselves in at or near the border to apply for asylum or building physical barriers (although a modest building program could be part of a rational border security package).

True “Border Security” doesn’t require harsh, demeaning, or unfair treatment of asylum seekers, nor does it involve huge walls or more immigration prisons. A fairly administered asylum system along with targeting of smugglers and other criminals and more attention to the root causes of the migration would actually enhance real border security along with Due Process and adherence to the rule of law.

PWS

04-18-19

BARR EXPANDS “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” — Indefinite Detention Without Bond Hearings For Those Who Establish Credible Fear Of Persecution — DHS Detention Capacity Already Outstripped, Requiring 90 Day Delay In Implementing!

Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019)

matter_m-s-_27_in_dec._509_a.g._2019_002

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) Matter of X-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005), was wrongly decided and is overruled.
(2) An alien who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond. Such an alien must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude, unless he is granted parole.

KEY QUOTE:

Because Matter of X-K- declared a sizable population of aliens to be eligible for bond, DHS indicates that my overruling that decision will have “an immediate and significant impact on [its] detention operations.” DHS Br. 23 n.16. DHS accordingly requests that I delay the effective date of this decision “so that DHS may conduct necessary operational planning.” Id. Federal circuit courts have discretion to delay the effective dates of their decisions, see Fed. R. App. P. 41(b), and I conclude that I have similar discretion. I will delay the effective date of this decision for 90 days so that DHS may conduct the necessary operational planning for additional detention and parole decisions.

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

Short Takes:

An increase in mandatory detention is sure to mean more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”); as more detained cases are moved to the front of the docket, they will displace lower priority (but “ready to try”) non-detained cases which will be “shuffled off to Buffalo” thus increasing the already overwhelming backlog; as more Immigration Judges are sent to detention facilities near the border, they will “leave behind” already full dockets creating even more chaos in an already dysfunctional system;
Expanding mandatory detention raises the stakes even higher in the pending litigation on whether mandatory prehearing detention without recourse to individualized bond determinations by Immigration Judges violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment — See Rodriguez v. Marin, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/11/27/our-gang-in-action-9th-cir-remands-jennings-v-rodriguez-keeps-injunction-in-effect-hints-that-administration-scofflaws-could-be-in-for-another-big-loss-will-we-see-th/
Obviously, planning for the result they asked for (and these days were almost certain to get from the AG) wasn’t part of the DHS program.

PWS

04-16-19

Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

About Dan’s Show “”The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law” on “POTUS Channel” on SiriusXM —

Related posts:

AILA: AG Aims to Detain Asylum Seekers, Intruding Further on Immigration Court Independence

Related posts:

Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019)

Related posts: