"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Children catch bubbles Aug. 17 at a free barbecue organized by the Lewiston School Department to mark the end of its summer outreach program that provided numerous services for students and families. It also gave the School Department the opportunity to connect with students and parents, hand out schedules, sign students up and make connections before the start of school. Russ Dillingham/Sun Journal
With just a week to go before the first day of school, staff from Freeport schools headed to a local hotel to meet their newest students.
The 67 students, all from asylum-seeking families, had just moved to the Casco Bay Inn from the Portland Expo, where nearly 200 people had been staying in the temporary shelter before it closed. The families all decided to send their kids to Freeport schools instead of busing them to Portland to attend classes, said Jean Skorapa, superintendent of Regional School Unit 5 in Freeport.
“Our first goal is to get them enrolled and in a class,” she said. “That piece is done. Now we look at how to best serve their needs.”
The scramble to welcome new students and connect them with the services they need is becoming a familiar challenge in Freeport and other Maine communities where the families are settling.
For the past several years, school districts in southern Maine have had to make quick adjustments as they enroll dozens of students from asylum-seeking families, many of whom come from African countries and speak little or no English when they arrive. To meet their needs, they’ve had to hire more teachers for English learners, add social workers and support staff, and make sure translation services are in place to communicate with parents.
“For us, this is a new experience,” said Steve Bussiere, assistant superintendent in Sanford, where 38 students enrolled in May when their families arrived in the city. There will be 55 students from asylum-seeking families in Sanford schools this year, he said.
School leaders say the work can be challenging and puts a significant strain on resources, but it’s also a privilege to welcome new students into the community.
“We’ve had new Mainers with us over the past year and a half. They’ve made us a more well-rounded, diverse district,” Skorapa said. “They’re a wonderful addition to our school community and we welcome them with open arms and are thrilled to have them with us.”
. . . .
************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Congrats to educational and political leaders in Maine for making the system work as it should! Immigrants becoming Mainers and settling down there is making a positive difference! Seems like the Feds, not to mention other states and localities, could use some of this same positive approach and enlightened, courageous leadership.
The Portland’s Press Herald’s Editorial Board echoed this view in an editorial published yesterday:
Our View: To invest in immigrant pupils is to invest in the future
A big effort by Maine schools to accommodate English language learners will have a big return for their communities.
A new experience.
That’s how Steve Bussiere, assistant superintendent in Sanford, described Sanford schools’ addressing the needs of 55 new students from asylum-seeking families this coming school year.
It’s a new experience for the kids, too, and thanks to thoughtful, time-intensive efforts by Bussiere’s colleagues and other schools around Maine – hiring additional teachers to teach English to English language learners, hiring more social workers and more support staff and refining translation services so that school staff and administrators can communicate with new pupils’ parents – it can be a good experience.
The focus on multilingual learners requires a serious effort and will make a serious difference to our state.
Thankfully, the Maine Legislature expressed its understanding of that fact in July, including $3.5 million for the support of English language learners – via the English Language Learner Hardship Fund – in the special supplemental budget.
This valuable funding becomes available to schools at the end of October. Portland’s public schools will receive more than $784,000; Lewiston, $631,000; South Portland, $302,000; Biddeford, $192,000, Brunswick, $150,000; Saco, $110,000; Freeport, $109,000, and Westbrook, $93,000.
In Freeport, arrangements have been made for 67 new students who recently moved with their families from the temporary shelter at the Portland Expo to the Casco Bay Inn. Jean Skorapa, superintendent of Regional School Unit 5 in Freeport, struck a crystal-clear and exceedingly warm note earlier this week – sounding like many other Maine educators on the same subject in recent years.
“We’ve had new Mainers with us over the past year and a half. They’ve made us a more well-rounded, diverse district,” Skorapa said. “They’re a wonderful addition to our school community and we welcome them with open arms and are thrilled to have them with us.”
In other school districts, efforts such as these have been up and running for a while. According to our reporting Monday, Lewiston schools work with students who speak a total of 38 languages. The school district there has a multilingual center that works with families and offers vital help with paperwork and orientation. Portland has been supporting new students from asylum-seeking families for years; in July, we reported that one-third of the district’s roughly 6,500 students were multilingual.
The numbers make it clear as day: The downside risk of underfunding English language learning is now way too steep for these parts of Maine to run. Yes, there’s a moral imperative here; it is also a legal requirement of our public schools. We trust that, on the strength of existing work in this realm, the practice of funding multilingual learning education becomes just that – a practice. Rep. Michael Brennan, D-Portland, House chair of the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee, expressed his commitment to continue funding the program “in the coming years.”
Appropriate investment in these students fosters a sense of belonging, reduces the risk of pernicious, hard-to-close learning gaps and, as students find themselves better and better equipped to support their families locally, has wide-reaching benefits. To say nothing of what it means for school graduates of the future. On top of that, successive studies have shown that the teaching techniques that assist English language learners assist all students.
That’s not to say there won’t be hurdles to overcome. In recent days, tense and ugly anti-immigrant rallies in Manhattan, Staten Island and Woburn, Massachusetts, laid bare the style of racist, isolationist thinking that continues to oppose even the most commonsense steps towards integration and inclusion.
Our schools need more support, and they need it to be specific. The calls for increased attention to the new members of the student body need to be sustained in their volume and their clarity. It makes sense, at every level, to seize this opportunity to enrich our classrooms and our communities.
Kids are our future. It’s definitely worth the effort!
A Helping Hand.jpg Image depicts a child coming to the aid of another in need. Once we have climbed it is essential for the sake of humanity that we help others do the same. It is knowing that we all could use, and have used, a helping hand. Safiyyah Scoggins – PVisions1111 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 White Nationalist Xenophobes like Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, & Ducey have abandoned Traditional Judeo-Christian values in favor of neo-fascism. But, the rest of us should hold true to our “better angels.”
WASHINGTON — On Aug. 18, 2022, a records department employee at the California Correctional Center emailed federal immigration authorities a list of people they believed could be subject to deportation. The list noted that most of those named were born outside the U.S. or had an unknown birthplace. But 12 people were listed as having been born in this country.
That email was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and shared with The Times. The advocacy group says California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff routinely assume people in their custody are deportable immigrants — even when their own records indicate they are U.S. citizens or immigrants who should not be deported — and report those individuals to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while denying them rehabilitation opportunities.
The records stem from a public records request filed last year by the ACLU NorCal, which sought communications between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR, and ICE. The ACLU and other advocacy groups said they analyzed about 2,500 uniquerecords from August and September 2022, during which the agency transferred more than 200 people from CDCR facilities to immigration custody.
The groups detailed the results in a report to be published Tuesday that they say describes the practices employed by the CDCR in cooperation with ICE and provides examples of alleged actions by department staff that are discriminatory, including against immigrants.
“In their zeal to collude with ICE, CDCR is not only targeting people who have served their time and are set to return home for detention and deportation but is also sweeping up U.S. citizens and Green Card holders, relying on racist assumptions and ignoring their own records,” the report states.
Advocate and Attorney Making Progressive Policy Accessible and Irresistible
Advocate and Attorney Making Progressive Policy Accessible and Irresistible
1d •
1d •
The following post is the final part of my 2017 Black Immigration Primer! I delve into the impact of former President Donald Trump’s early executive orders on Black immigrants, the consequences of which are still being felt today.
It seems like ages since 45 (the former President of the U.S.) issued a volley of executive orders affecting various areas of our lives. Here, I want to talk about the two versions of the Travel Ban (a.k.a. the #MuslimBan) and how they target Black immigrants, Muslim immigrants, and Black Muslim immigrants. The travel bans live at the intersection of anti-Blackness and Islamophobia.
First, some terms and their definitions. Anti-Blackness (also known as anti-Black racism) is what it sounds like: systems, policies, beliefs, and behaviors that are “resistant or antagonistic to Black people or their values or objectives.” We often see anti-Blackness in other communities of color. Some argue that assimilation into American culture is predicated on embracing anti-Blackness (in order to succeed in America, one must separate oneself from Black people and violently oppose Black people’s success). Islamophobia is a “dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.” It’s important that anti-Blackness and Islamophobia are not merely individual beliefs; they encompass power of the systemic kind. Anti-Blackness and Islamophobia result in harmful, deadly policies and wars.
It’s safe to say that 45 and his administration are a number of things (misogynistic, racist, unethical, evil, and so forth) but they are also distinctly anti-Black and Islamophobic. 45 and his minions’ embrace of anti-Blackness and Islamophobia produced two Travel Bans that harmed hundreds of people. Let’s discuss them in turn. Read more on my blog!
It’s going to take more than $1 million in “security assistance” to a HBUC and $100k to victims’ families to cover up the far right GOP’s responsibility for promoting racism and hate crimes in America. And, the war on immigrants of color is a key part of the racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny that has found a home in the far right of today’s GOP!
Indeed, as I have pointed out on many occasions, MAGA’s hate-fueled campaign to eliminate individual rights in America started with Trump’s lies and distortions targeting migrants of color from Mexico and elsewhere! That’s why Dems’ overall failure to engage with the GOP on immigration, and to vigorously and proudly defend migrants’ rights, has such tragic implications for American democracy!
This brief represents the views of two groups of amici curiae. See Corporate
Disclosure Statement for names of amici curiae. The first group is comprised of thirty-two immigration law scholars and clinical professors. These amici teach immigration law and/or provide clinical instruction in law school clinics that provide representation to asylum seekers and noncitizens seeking relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158. As such, amici are knowledgeable of the particular legal requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158 and have a special interest in the proper administration and interpretation of the nation’s immigration laws, particularly asylum and withholding of removal.
The second group is comprised of forty-one former immigration judges (“IJs”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) members who have collectively presided over thousands of removal proceedings and have interest in this case based on their many years of dedicated service administering the immigration laws of the United States. Based on this experience, amici believe that withholding of removal
1 Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici notes that all parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici further certifies that no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part, no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of the brief, and no person, other than amici, their members, or counsel has contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
is the means whereby Congress provided for the United States to meet its international treaty obligation of “nonrefoulement” under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Withholding of removal is a vital legal tool upon which IJs rely to ensure that noncitizens appearing before them are not removed to countries for which they have proven it to be more likely than not that they have experienced (or will experience) persecution on account of a protected ground — an extremely high burden to meet. This relief is mandatory where the noncitizen’s burden of proof is met and does not lead to permanent status or derivative status for immediate family members, in contrast to asylum, which is a discretionary form of relief that grants a permanent status and derivative status for immediate family members.
Amici contend that the more lenient “a reason” standard, as applied to the nexus between the protected ground and the persecution for withholding (as opposed to the “at least one central reason” standard for asylum) requires IJs to order withholding in cases where evidence of nexus may be insufficient for a discretionary grant of asylum. Such an interpretation would provide greater protection from violating the international treaty obligation of nonrefoulement. The instant case, where Petitioner is ineligible for asylum but may be protected from severe future persecution by withholding of removal, presents exactly the context in which Congress intended for the lesser “a reason” nexus standard to apply. Addressing this question here provides an opportunity for this Court to affirm Congress’s clear
intent, expressed in the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C), to establish protection against nonrefoulement for this noncitizen and many others who, for any number of reasons, are ineligible for the discretionary relief of asylum.
Alex Nowrasteh Vice President for Economic & Social Policy Studies Cato Institute
Tea writes:
Editor’s Note – August 2023
Dear Reader,
America is built on the drive and determination of immigrants. Even though immigration is one of America’s founding principles, it remains one of the most hotly contested social and political issues of modern times. This ongoing debate is fueled by a number of negative myths about immigrants that have taken root in society.
This month, we are committed to busting the common political, economic, and demographic myths about immigration. We examine how these myths have taken root in our society, how they spread, and what can be done to change the narrative on immigration.
For this month’s issue, we spoke with Alex Nowrasteh, the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Alex is one of the leading voices when it comes to immigration policy.
Hope you gain new insights,
Téa
Watch “Tea’s Coffee” where she interviews Alex Nowratseh here:
Alex says there are three things we can do to combat the myths and lies being spread by the nativist/restrictionists:
Recognize the humanity of immigrants and their legal rights under our laws;
Emphasize that immigrants compliment, rather than compete with, us;
Point out that the “border chaos” is largely the result of bad laws and failed deterrence policies rather than the fault of immigrants.
By contrast, you can spot the bogus restrictionist/nativist myths a mile way because they:
Dehumanize immigrants by falsely reducing them to “statistics, numbers, apprehensions, beds, costs, graphs, and charts;”
Make the bogus claim that our economy is a “zero sum game” where every additional immigrant means “less of the pie” for you or me — a claim which is demonstrably false because people and immigration are what have allowed us historically to expand our economy so there potentially will be more for everyone (provided that those at the top don’t grab a disproportionate share for themselves);
Promote the myth of “just get in line” when there in reality is no line for most to get in because of the unduly restrictive nature of our laws and their poor administration by successive Administrations. They ignore the reality that robust migration is here to stay. The real choice is whether or not we want realistic laws and policies that recognize and harness that reality or instead continue to reward smugglers, enrich jailers, and force millions of migrants into the “extralegal” underground economy where they can not contribute fully economically or politically.
Haley Sweatband Edwards Nation Editor Time Magazine PHOTO: Pulitzer
As another “myth debunker,” Time’s Haley Sweetland Edwards, said:
These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
“And the winner was . . . .” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
“Governments must act rationally!” Certainly, neither Trump nor any of the GOP clowns 🤡 seeking to be him are “rational actors” on immigration, the economy, infrastructure, education, individual rights, or anything else of importance to our nation. Indeed, the ignorance, indecency, irrationality, and bias exhibited during the so-called “GOP debate” was beyond appalling, despite the media’s pathetic attempts to “normalize” idiocy. Six folks afraid to say “hypothetically” that they would vote for someone OTHER than a convicted felon who made totally baseless claims that he won the 2020 election! Gimmie a break! (I’m certainly not the only one impressed by the disturbingly low quality of the GOP “field.” See, e.g.,https://www.huffpost.com/entry/larry-hogan-gop-candidates-trump-conviction-question_n_64e82302e4b0a2a9abc4bdc0).
Tea Ivanovic — an amazing immigrant entrepreneur and inspirational leader who is on Forbes’s list of “30 under 30” — is a stellar example of how immigrants of all types — from those at the border to those in boardrooms — make America better! See, e.g.,
Melissa Del Bosque writes in the Border Chronicle:
. . . .
While this might seem uniquely cruel, Abbott is closely following the authoritarian playbook of Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, and current European thought leader for MAGA Republicans. Donald Trump calls Orbán a friend, and White supremacist Tucker Carlson spent a week covering him for his former show on Fox, later making a “documentary” about Hungary called Hungary vs. Soros: Fight for Civilization. For the last two years, the right-wing Conservative Political Action Conference, founded in the U.S., has held a “Woke Free Zone” conference in Budapest.
By studying Orbán’s crackdown on asylum seekers and its progression over the last several years, you can see exactly where Abbott’s Texas is headed (and DeSantis’s Florida, for that matter).
In a speech in July 2022, Orbán argued that European and non-European people should not mix. Europeans “do not want to become peoples of mixed-race,” he said. After the speech, one of Orbán’s longtime advisers quit in protest. “I don’t know how you didn’t notice that you were presenting a pure Nazi text worthy of Goebbels,” his adviser wrote in her public resignation letter. Orbán’s speech was widely condemned in Europe, and it further alienated him from other Western leaders.
But in Texas, just days after his speech “worthy of Goebbels,” Orbán was welcomed with a standing ovation at the CPAC conference in Dallas, where he touted his “zero migration” and Judeo-Christian nationalism. “The globalists can all go to hell,” he boasted. “I have come to Texas.”
On the same CPAC stage that day, Abbott followed with similar xenophobic talking points. He bragged about Operation Lone Star and encouraged conference-goers to donate to a state-run website to pay for bussing migrants out of Texas. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick echoed Orbán’s White Christian nationalism: “The framers did not write the Constitution,” he said. “God wrote the Constitution. We are a Christian nation.”
. . . .
Unsurprisingly, Orbán’s cruel tactics against asylum seekers, which have included kidnappings and beatings, do not deter people from coming. They are fleeing wars, after all. But Orbán has used his poisonous populism to solidify his power, just as Abbott and DeSantis are trying to do. It began with asylum seekers in 2015, but now in Hungary there is no independent media or judiciary, and the LGBTQ community and immigrants have become targets for persecution as the prime minister has consolidated his control over the government. Antisemitism is also on the rise.
This is the playbook that MAGA Republicans are following in Texas, Florida, and elsewhere. We already know how it ends. Orbán’s “illiberal democracy,” which is being lionized by Trump, Abbott, and others, is nothing new. In fact, it’s very old. It’s called fascism.
Opinion | Asylum seekers are not ‘gaming the system’
August 20, 2023 at 5:16 p.m. ET
To say that people seeking asylum in the United States are “gaming the system,” as Fareed Zakaria did in his Aug. 14 op-ed, “Immigration can be fixed. Why aren’t we fixing it?,” not only was dehumanizing but also dismissed the very real and traumatic conditions that force people and their families to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their homes and embark on a journey in search of protection and safety.
Calling on people to claim asylum in their home countries revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the asylum ban and asylum itself. Access to asylum in the United States remains critical because many of the countries that individuals are fleeing from and through cannot or will not protect them from violence.
The U.S. government’s asylum ban is exacerbating dangerous circumstances for all asylum seekers. Women, girls and other survivors of gender-based violence seeking asylum are being denied refuge and forced to remain in conditions along our border that increase their susceptibility to the same kinds of violence and threats to their lives that forced them to flee in the first place.
Asylum is a legal and human right for all people, born of our own recognition that every human being has the right to seek a life of safety and dignity. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. The United States has an obligation to uphold its own laws and live up to its promise as a welcoming nation.
Casey Carter Swegman, Falls Church
The writer is director of public policy at the Tahirih Justice Center.
********************
The legal right to seek asylum in the U.S. or at our border is clear! Getting the USG to respect it and the media to accurately report on abusive, illegal attempts to limit it, not so much! Thanks, Casey, for speaking truth and “taking it to” purveyors of White Nationalist myths like Zakaria!
Rather than urging fixing the legal asylum system to work in a fair, generous, timely, and humane manner — something that should be well within the Government’s capabilities and clearly in the national interest — folks like Zakaria, who should know better, have taken to victim shaming and blaming. The current law gives the Government plenty of tools to deal with frivolous claims to asylum.
That our Government lacks the will and expertise to implement and staff the current system in a manner that would fairly and reasonably “separate the wheat from the chaff” is NOT the fault of those seeking asylum and their dedicated, hard-working, long-suffering advocates. Indeed, asylum and human rights advocates appear to be the only folks interested in insuring Constitutional due process and upholding the rule of law!
I don’t dispute that our immigration system needs a legislative overhaul. But, that must NOT come at the expense of asylum seekers, refugees, and others who need and are deserving of our protection!
AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?” IMAGE: tvtropesJennifer Scarborough, Esquire Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: FirmHamed Aleaziz Staff Writer LA Times
Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.
Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.
The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.
Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.
Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.
“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.
Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.
“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.
But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.
In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.
“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”
The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.
Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.
More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.
By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.
One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.
The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.
“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”
“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the complete report at the link.
Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).
As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!
That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!
Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!
When I first came across Cochrane International, the company that built the floating barrier deployed in Eagle Pass, Texas, I watched a demonstration the company gave with detached bemusement. I was at a gun range just outside San Antonio. It was 2017, three months after Donald Trump had been sworn in and the last day of that year’s Border Security Expo, the annual gathering of Department of Homeland Security’s top brass and hundreds of companies from the border industry. Among industry insiders, the optimism was high. With Trump’s wall rhetoric at a fever pitch, the money was in the bank.
All around me, all morning, Border Patrol agents were blasting away body-shaped cutouts in a gun competition. My ears were ringing, thanks in part to the concussion grenade I had launched—under the direction of an agent, but with great ineptitude—into an empty field as part of another hands-on demonstration. The first two days of the expo had been in the much-posher San Antonio convention center, where companies displayed their sophisticated camera systems, biometrics, and drones in a large exhibition hall. But here on the gun range we seemed to be on its raw edge.
So when a red truck with a camo-painted trailer showed up and announced its demonstration, it wasn’t too much of a surprise. The blasting bullets still echoed all around as if they would never cease. Two men jumped out of the truck wearing red shirts and khaki pants. They frantically ran around the camo trailer, like mice scurrying around a piece of cheese trying to figure out the proper angle of attack. Then the demo began. One of the men got back in the truck, and as it lurched forward, coiling razor wire began to spill out of its rear end as if it were having a bowel movement. As the truck moved forward, more and more of Cochrane’s Rapid Deployment Barrier spilled out until it extended the length of a football field or more. It was like a microwavable insta-wall, fast-food border enforcement.
Little did I know that six years later, this same company, Cochrane, would give us the floating barrier, with its wrecking ball–sized buoys connected side by side with circular saws. The floating barrier, as the Texas Standard put it, is the “centerpiece of Operation Lone Star,” Texas governor Greg Abbott’s $4.5 billion border enforcement plan. For this barrier, which has now been linked to the deaths of at least two people, the Texas Department of Public Safety awarded Cochrane an $850,000 contract.
. . . . .
When I first saw Cochrane back in 2017 among the ear-ringing gunfire on the last day of the Border Security Expo, I had a feeling I might see them again. No matter how ludicrous the rapid barrier deployment camo truck seemed to me then, there was, indeed, plenty of money to be made.
********************
Money and profit over humanity, common sense, and the rule of law. Read the full article at the link.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.
The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.
The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3
ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.
As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.
The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.
4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND
The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.
COUNSEL
David A. Schlesinger
(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina
Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.
Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
OPINION
KOH, Circuit Judge:
********************************
Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!
I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.
There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?
This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”
Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!
(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is “acting in an official capacity,” meaning acting under color of law, is covered by the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity is not covered. Matter of O-F-A-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020), followed.
(2) The key consideration in determining if an official’s torturous conduct was undertaken “in an official capacity” for purposes of CAT eligibility is whether the official was able to engage in the conduct because of his or her government position, or whether the official could have done so without connection to the government.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esquire, Lawrence, Massachusetts
SCHMIDT, RETIRED JUDGE OF THE ROUND TABLE, DISSENTING:
I dissent.
A far fairer, more logical, efficient, and uniformity-promoting solution is staring us in the face: An applicant who credibly establishes torture by a public official or officials should be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the torture was inflicted “under color of law.” The DHS should then be required to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the official was acting in another capacity if it wishes to contest that presumption.
The information and evidence that might overcome a logical presumption that government officials act “under color of law” is much more likely to be available to the DHS than to the applicant. This is particularly true in the many cases where CAT applicants are detained, unrepresented, or both.
This rebuttable presumption would also, as a practical matter, close the gap between our interpretation and the rule in the Ninth Circuit which wisely recognizes no exceptions when torture is inflicted by government officials. See, e.g., Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 362 (9th Cir. 2017).
In adjudicating claims from individuals who have already suffered torture at the hands of government officials we must err on the side of protection, not rejection. The panel’s mushy guidance amounts to no practical guidance at all. It will certainly result in conflicting results, increased trial times and backlogs, arbitrary denials, and violations of due process. More backlog-promoting, avoidable Circuit Court remands are sure to follow.
U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.
The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.
When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.
This approach would have been a great step forward if it wasn’t paired with a counter measure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure an appointment at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.
. . . .
If proponents of a secure border are serious about lowering border crossing numbers and decreasing unauthorized migration, they should support Mr. Biden’s attempts to create new legal pathways. Instead, a coalition of Republican attorneys general is challenging the president’s parole program. In Congress, Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the same parole authority that allowed Afghans to temporarily resettle in the United States. There have been no challenges to the use of the parole authority to bring Ukrainians to the United States.
These actions reveal that our current fight over the border is not about the number of people trying to come here — it is about which should be allowed to come. American voters may not have strong opinions about the future of the asylum system or the legal pathways being created, but voters of both parties dislike the chaos and human suffering that have subsumed this issue for the past 10 years. Over a million American citizens have signed up to sponsor migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
At a moment of record global displacement, we can’t keep waiting for Congress to modernize our immigration laws. Safe legal pathways are good for the people who use our immigration system. Mr. Biden has taken some critical steps to give migrants better options, but with no hope of congressional action in the near future, more is needed.
Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.
****************************
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
Much of what Andrea says echoes what I have said over and over on Courtside and has been repeatedly recommended by experts, who are then largely ignored by the Biden Administration.
As I have argued before, the “low hanging fruit” here would be EOIR reform: A new BIA of “practical scholars;” better IJs with proven asylum and human rights experience; ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling On Steroids” (which drives many poor policy and legal decisions); and getting some dynamic, fearless, expert leadership on human rights and immigration at the DOJ — which is either the driver or the facilitator of many of the problems at the border, depending on how you look at it.
We can also see how Garland’s lackluster performance on immigration affects other areas of justice such as civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights, to name a few of the most obvious ones. Nobody at today’s DOJ appears to possess the “big picture” knowledge and experience to “connect the dots” on these critical issues.
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” Failure doesn’t seem to bother Garland. Maybe it should! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration community on the latest screwups from the Article IIIs:
“Mario Fonseca-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Fonseca-Fonseca sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof. … Today, we clarify that prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen were granted. As the BIA previously explained, a noncitizen “demonstrates prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1308 (B.I.A. 2000) (en banc). Because the BIA applied the wrong standard in denying Fonseca-Fonseca’s motion to reopen, we remand to the agency to adjudicate his motions under the proper standard.”
[Hats off to Andrew J. S. Newcomb and Elias Mendoza!]
“This appeal requires us to decide how to apply the categorical approach to a conspiracy crime—a question of first impression in our Circuit. The United States seeks to revoke Lisette Lopez’s naturalization on the ground that she committed a crime of moral turpitude within five years of applying for citizenship and willfully concealed or misrepresented during the application process the fact that she had committed a crime. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government on the ground that Lopez had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. Because the crime to which Lopez pleaded guilty—conspiring to launder money—did not categorically involve moral turpitude, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
[Hats way off to the indefatigable Matthew Hoppock! An audio recording of the oral argument is here.]
******************************
3) Sue sponte reopening (5th Cir)
“Mancia would like to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation can be adjudicated according to the still-extant substantive NACARA standards. … She contends that nothing in NACARA limits the Board’s general discretionary power to reopen sua sponte a case in which it has rendered a decision. Indeed, that inherent discretion is codified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). So, she reasons, even though the special and more petitioner-friendly reopening avenue of section 203(c) closed to her in 1998, there is no reason why she cannot ask the Board to grant reopening under its discretionary authority, subject to all the limits that otherwise apply to that authority. … We agree with Mancia. The Board’s reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h) — requiring filing of section 203(c) reopening requests with the Immigration Court — is misplaced because that requirement only applies to “any motion to reopen filed pursuant to the special rules of section 309(g) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203(c) of NACARA.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(h)(1). Mancia’s motion to reopen is no such motion. And nothing in NACARA requires those seeking relief under its provisions to do so by filing a section 203(c) motion. The government points to no statute, rule, or precedent to the contrary. And we see no reason why NACARA should be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant Mancia’s petition by vacating the Board’s rejection of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board’s sua sponte authority and remanding for further consideration of that motion consistent with this opinion.”
Unnecessary mistakes such as this, including ones like USA v. Lopez, above, which carry over into naturalization and other areas, could largely be avoided if Garland heeded expert advice and appointed a BIA of all expert judges. That would be those with universally respected comprehensive knowledge of immigration and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process, and a demonstrated focus on fair results — NOT the current “any reason to deny, let’s just go with the DHS flow” attitude that infects all too much of the BIA’s decision-making these days.
There is also some irresponsible performance going on at OIL where they are defending flawed results that expert advocates would or should know are unjust and in many cases just flat out wrong or misguided!
The above things are supposed to be “easy fixes” for Dem Administrations. Instead, the EOIR/DOJ continues to a large extent as it did under Trump — with serious adverse human, legal, and future consequences for American democracy.
If you can’t or won’t fix that which you control, what good are you? That’s the question that Dems should be asking about Garland’s indifferent performance on human rights, racial justice, and immigration — all inextricably related whether he and his lieutenants want to admit it or not!
Commentary: During turbulent times, Maine invests in its people
During the latest legislative session, much was done to ensure that prosperity is within reach of all Maine citizens and residents.
BY LUISA S. DEPREZ AND LISA MILLER SPECIAL TO THE PRESS HERALD
The times in which we live are, and have been, difficult. Turbulence confronts us at every corner, upon every turn. Around us things are constantly changing – economically, politically, medically, socially. There is too often too little upon which to rely to attain and maintain a degree of certainty in one’s life.
As we emerge from the COVID pandemic, we find its effects lingering in large workforce and societal shifts: lost jobs, lost day care, essential care workers leaving the workforce, older workers retiring early or moving into part-time work to stay afloat, small businesses closing, women leaving jobs to care for young, sick and elderly family members, people moving to and from communities, and rents and housing prices skyrocketing. These effects persist; regaining some degree of stability will take time.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Luisa S. Deprez is professor emerita of sociology and the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine. Lisa Miller is a former legislator who served on the Health and Human Services and Appropriations and Financial Affairs committees. They are members of the Maine chapter of the national Scholars Strategy Network, which brings together scholars across the country to address public challenges and their policy implications.
Yet we now see a glimmer of hope, a light at the end of the tunnel. Definite improvements in the overall economy are emerging: unemployment rates are at a historic low, housing starts are increasing, the manufacturing sector has seen an increase in orders for the past few months, consumer confidence has risen dramatically, and inflationary pressures are subsiding.
Maine’s policymakers are now tasked with ensuring that Mainers share in that rebound – that families and communities can build new pathways to prosperity and well-being. Enhancing and promoting prosperity must be the primary concern of policymakers and elected officials.
Classic views of “prosperity” usually refer to economic success and building wealth. But broader definitions of prosperity include becoming or remaining strong and healthy and flourishing. In other words, thriving. Yes, individual initiative and responsibility is critical to building prosperity, but the assurance to do so is rarely achievable in the absence of government support. Nor is success sustained without such support.
Policymakers and state officials know this well, as seen in recent bills and initiatives that emerged from this past legislative session:
• Workers can take paid family leave to combat illness or care for a loved one.
• New child tax credits provide additional support to low-income families.
• Older Mainers will receive financial support for medical costs and property tax bills.
• Child care gets a boost through improved wages and broader subsidies.
• More affordable-housing initiatives were funded.
• A new business incentive program was created.
• A workforce training tax credit will help employers grow the skill level of Maine workers.
• Additional support for emergency food and shelter was funded.
These achievements should be celebrated as they will certainly contribute greatly to the rebound necessary for individuals, communities, and the state to regain some of the losses.
But there was much left undone to build prosperity for everyone. The Wabanaki nations are still denied rights and protections; immigrants continue to be denied access to MaineCare; health care costs are even more burdensome for an increasing number of Mainers; pay disparities by gender and race remain; agricultural workers continue to be exempt from basic labor laws; workers with low salaries remain ineligible for overtime, and corporate loopholes and tax-avoidance prevail, leaving communities to carry the load for citizen and community investments.
During this legislative session, many organizations and individuals lobbied tirelessly to ensure that prosperity is within reach of all Maine citizens and residents. Both Gov. Janet Mills and the Legislature responded with investment of tax dollars to help everyday people stay in their jobs or seek new ones, become healthier, and be more productive.
Political and moral philosopher J.S. Mill would argue that “societies tend to flourish when individuals have a wide scope for directing the course of their own lives.” Many of the bills passed by the Maine Legislature do just that. But more needs to come. We are not done.
************************
Governance for the common good is what it’s supposed to be all about!
“A federal judge has determined the government was unjustified in its fight to keep a woman locked up in an Aurora immigrant detention center while her deportation case proceeded. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney ordered the federal government last September to hold a hearing to determine whether Brenda Viruel Arias should be released from custody. Sweeney found the circumstances of Viruel Arias’ 14-month confinement required a bond hearing to avoid infringing on her constitutional right to due process. Shortly afterward, an immigration judge permitted Viruel Arias’ release after the government failed to prove she should remain behind bars. Viruel Arias’ lawyers then requested $22,601 in attorney fees from the government. Under federal law, victorious parties in civil cases against the government may receive attorney fees if, among other things, the government’s position was not “substantially justified.” On July 12, Sweeny agreed the government was not substantially justified in resisting a release hearing for Viruel Arias. In recent years, she observed, federal judges in Colorado have been sympathetic to non-citizens’ claims of unconstitutional confinement where the detention has exceeded one year. The government, as a party those cases, was aware of the judiciary’s attitude toward prolonged detention. “(T)hey do not justify why they did not follow a clear legal trend,” Sweeney wrote.”
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Sweeney’s decision: “At bottom, Respondents were not substantially justified in their pre-litigation and litigation practices because they disregarded a clear legal trend in the District and their own agency policies in the underlying action.”
Similar to the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration is wasting taxpayer money on cruel, unnecessary, expensive, illegal detention, and then squandering even more money on the arguably frivolous, and clearly mindless, defense thereof! Somebody should be asking Garland why?
