THE TRUTH IS OUT, THANKS TO MICHELLE MENDEZ @ CLINIC: Practice Pointers on Matter of Castillo-Perez & “Takeaways” From FOIA Trove On In Absentias!

She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”

Friends,

Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:

Practice Pointer: Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019)

FOIA Disclosures on In Absentia Removal Numbers Based on Legal Representation

An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.

On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.

Here are some key takeaways from the data:

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.

Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.

Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.

The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.

During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.

Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.

89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.

In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.

Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.

Thanks for helping us share these!

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.

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

Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.

Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”

Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”

How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!

I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).

Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!

Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-29-20

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

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

NEW FROM “THE ROUND TABLE WHERE DUE PROCESS REIGNS:” Velasco-Lopez v. Decker, 2d Cir., Issue: Shifting the Burden to ICE in Bond Hearings

Many, many thanks to pro bono superheroes CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA and SOUVIK SAHA and all of our other great friends over at WILMER CUTLER for once again “making us look smart!”

Here’s the full brief:

Velasco-Lopez, CA2, Amicus

And here’s a summary of our argument excerpted from our brief:

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici have filed substantially similar briefs in other cases involving burden of proof issues in proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, no party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief. Only amici or their counsel contributed money to prepare or submit this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
2

A complete list of amici is included in this brief’s addendum.

Case 19-2284, Document 93, 02/11/2020, 2776030, Page13 of 55

Such restraint violates the Due Process Clause “unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow nonpunitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Yet, federal law provides far greater protections to criminal defendants than it does to noncitizens in civil proceedings—even though the distinctions between criminal and non-criminal proceedings mean very little to a person sitting behind bars.

Accordingly, noncitizens already face significant hurdles in detention proceedings brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At issue in this appeal is whether another, even higher and more fundamental, barrier to due process can be erected in this Circuit: do noncitizens bear the burden of justifying their freedom from detention? For noncitizens, the answer to this question is no mere technicality—it can mean the difference between freedom and confinement. This burden’s allocation, therefore, “reflects the value society places on individual liberty.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).

Given their collective experience in adjudicating immigration bond hearings, amici are particularly well-suited to address the monumental question in this case. To that end, amici wish to share the following observations for this Court’s benefit:

-2-

Case 19-2284, Document 93, 02/11/2020, 2776030, Page14 of 55

First, noncitizens already enjoy fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. We contrast the procedural rules for detaining criminal defendants and noncitizens to underscore the challenges that noncitizens face in immigration bond hearings, and to highlight the need for a presumption against detention as one of the last remaining bulwarks to protect noncitizens’ liberty.

Second, detention of noncitizens consumes the government’s already- limited administrative and judicial resources. Amici highlight the staggering costs that are associated with immigration detention, as well as the strain on immigration courts resulting from the unnecessary detention of noncitizens.

Third, contrary to the government’s position, placing the burden of proof on the government would not generate fiscal or administrative hardship. Amici advance that position with confidence because the government previously shouldered that exact burden over a fifteen-year period. Several of the amici served as Immigration Judges within that period and found that this older system did not cause additional costs or administrative hurdles.

Fourth, in amici’s experience, detaining noncitizens actually increases the burden on the immigration court system. While in detention, noncitizens face significant challenges in adequately preparing their cases. Further, the Executive Branch now utilizes “performance metrics” to encourage Immigration Judges to accelerate the fact-finding process in detention proceedings. With less time for

-3-

Case 19-2284, Document 93, 02/11/2020, 2776030, Page15 of 55

individualized fact-finding, noncitizens will have even less opportunity to marshal the facts needed to satisfy the burden to avoid detention. Reallocating the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings, therefore, would reduce costs.

Fifth, and finally, amici offer alternatives to noncitizen detention that would inject much-needed resources to the immigration court system. The government’s aversion to such alternatives rest on a single statistic suggesting that the vast majority of noncitizens abscond upon release on bond. That statistic, however, is misleading and inconsistent with other available data, and bears little resemblance to the reality that amici encountered in years of adjudicating immigration cases.

Together, these observations should lead this Court to conclude that due process requires the government to make some sort of individualized showing before it may place noncitizens under lock and key.

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

Once again it’s an amazing honor and privilege to join my wonderful sisters and brothers in our continuing team effort to restore and enhance Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-13-20

LATEST JOUSTING NEWS FROM THE ROUND TABLE – Amicus Brief Filed With Supremes In Pereida v. Barr (Categorical Approach) With Lots Of Help From Our Pro Bono Heroes @ PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

Here’s the full brief:

Pereida-Supremes-Amicus-19-438 Amici Brief Former US Immigration Judges

Here’s a summary of our argument:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This brief presents the view of former IJs and BIA members on an issue of vital importance to the functioning of our immigration system: how requiring IJs to assess inconclusive conviction records to determine whether a prior criminal conviction disqualifies a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal is contrary to longstanding application of the categorical approach, will create further delays in an already overburdened immigration system, and will deprive IJs of their discretionary power.

Mr. Pereida is correct that inconclusive state conviction records cannot satisfy the categorical approach’s requirement that the state conviction necessarily establishes federal predicate offenses. Affirming this interpretation of the categorical approach will promote the expeditious and fair adjudication of the hundreds of thousands of cases pending in immigration courts.

7

The Government incorrectly asserts that when the conviction record is inconclusive as to whether a conviction was for a disqualifying offense, a noncitizen does not carry his or her burden of proof to show statutory eligibility for relief. That argument is faulty because it would require IJs to conduct an inquiry, which the Government wrongly argues is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (“INA”) burden of proof allocation, focusing on the facts underlying the conviction. Moreover, rather than aid IJs in resolving cases, the Government’s position would impede the application of the modified categorical approach by forcing IJs to delay the proceedings. IJs will be forced to wait for the noncitizen to obtain and present criminal records that may not even exist or be obtainable and then examine those criminal records to make factual determinations the categorical approach is meant to avoid. The Government’s novel gloss on the modified categorical approach is antithetical to the analysis IJs have employed for decades and would preclude the exercise of discretion essential to the functioning of immigration courts.

Contrary to the Government’s contention, the modified categorical approach does not involve a separate factual inquiry. The requisite analysis is a legal one: whether the conviction rests upon nothing more than the minimum conduct necessary for a conviction. Deviating from the categorical approach’s sole focus on a direct and uncomplicated comparison between state and federal offenses, as the Government would require, threatens to disturb the uniformity of outcomes in similar circumstances that the categorical approach safeguards. Mr. Pereida’s interpretation of

8

the categorical approach would avoid this undesirable outcome.

For the reasons explained in the balance of this brief, Mr. Pereida’s solution is the correct one. Section I provides a real-world overview of how removal proceedings operate, focusing on the typical sequence of immigration court proceedings, how criminal records are introduced and considered, and the limited ability of noncitizens (many of whom are detained during such proceedings) to procure relevant records. Section II discusses the administrability of the categorical approach and its modified variant, highlighting the benefits of the approach, how Mr. Pereida’s position is in harmony with the way in which IJs apply the approach to reach just results, and how the Government’s interpretation would impede the workings of immigration courts. Finally, Section III explains how the Government’s position would curtail IJs’ discretionary power to analyze the facts of each case to reach a just result.

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

Many, many, many thanks to David G. Keyko, Counsel of Record, Robert L. Sills, Matthew F. Putorti, Stephanie S. Gomez, Jihyun Park and the rest of the amazing pro bono team over at Pillsbury for their outstanding and timely research and writing.

And, as always, it’s a privilege and an honor to be listed with the rest of my friends and colleagues on our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-07-20

DUE PROCESS MOVES FORWARD IN NY: Universal Representation In Immigration Court Bill Introduced!

Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:47 PM
Subject: [NY Asylum] New York introduces right to universal representation legislation

Hi all,

Apologies for the cross-post but we are very excited to announce that today New York introduced a bill that will create a statutory right to counsel for individuals facing deportation and live/are present in New York. The campaign is in the beginning stages and we know that we have a lot of educating and other ground-laying work ahead of us, but we also want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that it took, both in our State and nationally, to get us to a point in the conversation where drafting and introducing this bill became possible.

The Access to Representation Act to create a statutory right to counsel for immigrants facing deportation in New York. You can see the press release HERE and read a summary of the bill HERE.

In solidarity,

Camille

—

Camille J. Mackler, Esq.

Director of Immigration Legal Policy

She/Her/Hers

The New York Immigration Coalition

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

It’s a beginning. And, something that won’t require action from the screwed-up Feds. The New Due Process Army keeps fighting for American justice, for everyone in America, in the age of Trump!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-17-20

KEEP UP TO DATE WITH ALL OF THE REGIME’S LATEST ANTI-IMMIGRANT SCHEMES, GIMMICKS, & SHENANIGANS – THE GIBSON REPORT – 01-06-20 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

TOP UPDATES

Trump administration to begin collecting DNA from detained immigrants

The Verge: The United States government will begin collecting the DNA of detained immigrants through pilot programs this week, according to a privacy impact assessment that was published today by the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigration Judges Asylum Grants & Denials in FY 2018-2019

A&J: Of note is the asylum grants and denials for the 6 Immigration Judges who AG William Barr hand-picked for the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2019: 2 of the 6 new BIA members–Hunsucker and Cassidy–denied all their asylum cases in FY 2019.

10 US immigration issues to watch in 2020

PRI: Last year, the Trump administration rolled out several policies that restricted access to asylum, as well as employment-based and family-based immigration pathways. With a presidential election on the horizon, 2020 could bring even more restrictions. Here’s what we’re watching.

U.S. implements plan to send Mexican asylum seekers to Guatemala

Reuters: Mexicans seeking asylum in the United States could be sent to Guatemala under a bilateral agreement signed by the Central American nation last year, according to documents sent to U.S. asylum officers in recent days and seen by Reuters.

US starts sending asylum seekers across Arizona border

AP: Authorities are expanding a program known as Remain in Mexico that requires tens of thousands of asylum seekers to wait out their immigration court hearings in Mexico. Until this week, the government was driving some asylum seekers from Nogales, Arizona, to El Paso, Texas, so they could be returned to Juarez. Now, asylum-seekers will have to find their own way through dangerous Mexican border roads.

U.S. Stops Dozens of Iranian-Americans Returning From Canada

NYT: More than 60 people were held for additional questioning in Washington State, according to advocacy groups and accounts from travelers.

To Produce Citizenship Data, Homeland Security To Share Records With Census

NPR: DHS quietly announced the data-sharing agreement in a regulatory document posted on its website on Dec. 27. It marks the latest development in the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to carry out the executive order President Trump issued in July after courts blocked the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Net Migration between the U.S. and Abroad Added 595,000 to National Population Between 2018 and 2019

Census: Net international migration added 595,000 to the U.S. population between 2018 and 2019, the lowest level this decade. This is a notable drop from this decade’s high of 1,047,000 between 2015 and 2016.

Think unauthorized immigrants don’t pay taxes? Here are four ways they do

DMN: Nowrasteh said that upwards of 75% of unauthorized immigrants file taxes with the federal government.

Trump’s Tent Cities Are on the Verge of Killing Immigrant Children

Slate: The camp facility where people are sort of constrained physically has somewhere between 2,600 and 3,000 people in it at any given day, and it’s growing. But the total number of people who’ve been returned to Mexico under MPP is closer to 68,000. So only a small fraction of the people who need legal services are even visible at this point.

DHS reviews how DMV laws affect immigration enforcement

AP: The acting secretary of Homeland Security is taking aim at new laws in New York and New Jersey that allow immigrants to get driver’s licenses without proof they are in the U.S. legally, and restrict data sharing with federal authorities.

How the White House Is Trying—and Failing—to Keep States from Resettling Refugees

New Yorker: So far, not a single state or locale has said it would end refugee resettlement. Of the thirty-one consent letters that have been signed by governors, a third have come from red states such as Utah, Arizona, Iowa, and Indiana.

After Cabinet opposed Mexican cartel policy, Trump forged ahead

Reuters: The recommendations, which some of the sources described as unanimous, have not been reported previously. They were driven in part by concerns that such designations could harm U.S.-Mexico ties, potentially jeopardizing Mexico’s cooperation with Trump’s efforts to halt illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the border, said two sources, including a senior administration official.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Pencil-ONLY on I-589 Passport-Size Photos

Listservs: While EAD instructions allow felt-tip pens for writing on the back of photos, asylum instructions currently require pencil ONLY. People are receiving rejection notices for I-589s with writing on the photos in anything other than pencil.

Matter of SALAD, 27 I&N Dec. 733 (BIA 2020)

The offense of making terroristic threats in violation of section 609.713, subdivision 1, of the Minnesota Statutes is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

USCIS and EOIR Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Bars to Asylum Eligibility

Posted 1/2/2020

USCIS and EOIR joint notice of proposed rulemaking that would add seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum. Comments are due 1/21/20. (84 FR 69640, 12/19/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19121901

EOIR Suspends Operations at the Louisville Immigration Court Due to Building Conditions

Posted 1/6/2020

EOIR announced that there is no projected reopening date for the Louisville Immigration Court and cases have been cancelled through March 31, 2020.

AILA Doc. No. 19081631

ACTIONS

Call for Examples: USCIS Rejection of Forms I-589 Due to Claimed Incompleteness

DHS Proposed Rule on Employment Authorization for Asylum ApplicantsComments are due 1/13/20.

USCIS and EOIR Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Bars to Asylum EligibilityComments are due 1/21/20.

RESOURCES

ILRC: A New Remedy for Liberians: The Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (LRIF)

Know Your Rights: What to Do If You Are Detained at a Port of Entry (LPR)

From withholding money to precluding women from working, financial abuse is an insidious manifestation of domestic violence and equally as dangerous.

The Need for Transparency

EVENTS

1/7/20 2nd Circuit Hearing on DHS Public Charge Rule

1/15/20 NY Counts 2020 State Convening

1/16/20 Taxes and Immigration, a Complex Combination

1/16/20 Resilience 2.0: Next Steps Lawyers Can Take to Make Bouncing Back Part of the Culture

1/23/20 Event and Report on Statelessness in the United States

1/23/20 Debrief on Mississippi Raid: Lessons Learned and Improving Responses

2/6/20 Basic Immigration Law 2020: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas

2/7/20 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Forms of Immigration Relief 2020

2/28/20 5^th Annual New York Asylum and Immigration Law Conference

7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020

ImmProf

Monday, January 6, 2020

Multicultural Golden Globe News

Trump Administration Clamping Down on Iranians Seeking to Return to the US?

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Teaching About Border Militias: A Follow Up

Legal challenge to EO burdening state refugee resettlement

Saturday, January 4, 2020

DHS to share administrative records on citizenship with census bureau

Your Playlist: Gaby Moreno and Van Dyke Parks (with Jackson Browne)

10 US immigration issues to watch in 2020

Friday, January 3, 2020

Asylum Seekers Must Get Selves from Nogales to Juárez

Prosecutor, DACA Recipient Awaits Word on DACA’s (and His) Future

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Chicken of the Sea: A book by and for children

Books by and about Latinos in 2019

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Photos of the year

Film ‘Knives Out’ sparks question of how to tell immigration stories

Happy New Year! Trump administration seeks review of state DMV laws on immigration enforcement

US Adoptees from South Korea making heritage journeys

Happy New Year!

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Reminder: Unauthorized immigrants pay taxes. Here are four ways they do

High Level DHS Official Says Hate Crime Suspect Lacked ‘American Values’ As Dad Was Once Undocumented Immigrant

US Census Bureau: Net International Migration Projected to Fall to Lowest Levels This Decade

Mexican Women Fighting Domestic Violence

Monday, December 30, 2019

AALS: Immigration Programming

Nolan Rappaport (The Hill): Removal of DACA recipients has begun: It didn’t take a crystal ball to see DACA would not end well

New Path to Citizenship for Liberians

Hispanic voters being overlooked in Democratic presidential campaign

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

Thanks, Elizabeth!

PWS

01-08-20

NDPA NEWS: THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES: An Impressive Body Of Work Advancing & Defending Due Process!

Our fearless leader, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase reports on the list of Amicus Briefs we have filed since the summer of 2017:

1. BIA Matter of Negusie (7/10/2017) 7 White & Case

2. AG Matter of Castro-Tum (2/16/2018) 14 Akin Gump

3. 9th Cir. CJLG v. Sessions (3/15/2018) 11 Simpson Thacher

4. 10th Cir. Matumona v. Sessions (3/21/2018) 11 Sidley Austin

5. AG Matter of A-B- (4/27/2018) 16 Gibson Dunn

6. 5th Cir. Canterero v. Sessions (5/23/2018) 13 Sidley Austin

7. 9th Cir. Rodriguez v. Sessions (7/27/2018) 20 Wilmer Hale

8. BIA Matter of M-J- (8/07/2018) 20 Gibson Dunn

9. 4th Cir. N.H. v. Whitaker (2/14/2019) 27 Gibson Dunn

10. 10th Cir. Matumona v. Whitaker (2/19/2019) 24 Sidley Austin

11. 1st Cir. OLDB v. Barr (3/11/2019) 27 Gibson Dunn

12. 2d Cir. Orellana v. Barr (4/09/2019) 26 NYU Law School

13. 2d Cir. Kadria v. Barr (4/05/2019) 25 NYU Law School

14. 2d Cir. Banegas-Gomez v. Barr 26 NYU Law School

15. 2d Cir. Pastor v. Barr (4/10/2019) 26 NYU Law School

16. 3d Cir. Giudice v. Att’y Gen.(2 briefs) 26 NYU Law School

17. 1st Cir. De Pena Paniagua v. Barr (4/22/2019)29 Gibson Dunn

18. 9th Cir. Karingithi v. Barr (4/25/19) Boston College Law School

19. 1st Cir. Pontes v. Barr (4/25/2019) Boston College Law School

20. 10th Cir. Zavala-Ramirez v. Barr (5/01/2019) Boston College Law School

21. 10th Cir. Lopez-Munoz v. Barr (5/01/2019) Boston College Law School

22. Sup. Ct. Barton v. Barr (7/03/2019) 27 Pillsbury Winthrop

23. N.D. Ca. East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr 24 Covington

24. 9th Cir. Padilla v. ICE (9/04/2019) 29 Wilmer Cutler

25. 5th Cir. Sorev v. Barr (9/25/2019) 30 White & Case

26. 1st Cir. Boutriq v. Barr (9/25/2019) 31 Harvard Law School

27. 3d Cir. Ramirez-Perez v. Att’y Gen. (10/03/19) 31 Harvard Law School

28. 3d Cir. Nkomo v. Att’y Gen. (10/07/2019) 30 Boston College Law School

29. 9th Cir. Martinez-Mejia v. Barr (10/25/2019) 23 Texas A&M Law School

30. 4th Cir. Quintero v. Barr (11/04/2019) 27 Akin Gump

31. 3d Cir. Campos-Tapia v. Barr (11/25/19) 30 Texas A&M Law School

32. 2d Cir. Guasco v. Barr (12/11/2019) 31 Harvard Law School

33. Sup. Ct. Nasrallah v. Barr (12/16/2019) 33 Gibson Dunn

34. 1st Cir. Doe v. Tompkins (12/23/2019) 34 Jerome Mayer-Cantu, Esq.

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

Great work! Proud and honored to be a member of the Round Table!

And, of course, special appreciation and a big shout out to all of of those wonderful firms, lawyers, institutions, and organizations listed above who have “given us a voice” by providing beyond outstanding pro bono representation!

PWS

01-07-20

ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES CONTINUES TO HELP THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY SUCCEED: This Time It’s An Amicus Brief In Support Of Respondent’s Successful Cert. Petition In Pereida v. Barr

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/breaking-news-supreme-court-grants-review-in-criminal-removal-case.html

Dean Kevin R. Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf Blog:

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Grants Review in Criminal Removal Case

By Immigration Prof

Share

The Supreme Court has accepted another criminal removal case for review. Today, t he Court granted cert in Pereida v. Barr. The issue in the case is whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The complaint in petitioner’s state criminal case alleged that he “use[d] a fraudulent Social Security card to obtain employment.” Petitioner pleaded no contest to the charge. The Board of Immigration Appeals found Pereida ineligible for cancellation for removal and the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review.

KJ

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

Many thanks to the pro bono team at Orrick for “helping us to help others.”

I’m proud to be a member of the Round Table and am deeply grateful for the efforts of Judges Jeffrey Chase, Lory Rosenberg, John Gossart, Carol King, and others who got this group organized and “up and running” and who keep track of all the (almost daily) requests for our assistance.

I can’t help wondering what would happen if we had an Administration that worked cooperatively with the available resources to solve problems, honored expertise, promoted justice, resisted evil, and made Due Process for all a reality!

Instead, we have an ugly, cruel group of racist inspired neo-fascists and their tone-deaf supporters actively working against our laws, our Constitution, and the best interests of our country. In other words, a kakistocracy that has institutionalized “malicious incompetence.”

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence Never!”

PWS

12-19-18

WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? — 9th CIRCUIT JUDGES ASSIST REGIME’S AGENTS IN COMMITTING “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” MERE YARDS FROM THE BORDER! — NDPA Leader Jodi Goodwin, Esquire, Speaks Out: “I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me. I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.”

Jodi Goodwin, Esquire
Immigration Attorney
Harlingen, TX

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/remain-in-mexico-policy-immigrant-kids_n_5deeb143e4b00563b8560c69

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

A few times a week, attorney Jodi Goodwin walks across the bridge from Brownsville, Texas, to a refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico, to meet with asylum-seekers. Her clients are among the more than 2,500 immigrants crammed into tents while they wait for U.S. immigration hearings ― often stuck for months in dirty and dangerous conditions.

The forced return to Mexico of migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. is one of President Donald Trump’s most inhumane immigration policies, yet it hasn’t received nearly the attention that his family separation and prolonged detention practices have.

Since January, under Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” initiative ― also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) ― the U.S. government has sent at least 54,000 immigrants to wait for their court dates in Mexican border towns. Instead of staying with relatives in the U.S., families are sleeping in tents for up to eight months, in unprotected areas where infections spread within crowded quarters and cartel kidnappings are commonplace. Family separation ended a year ago. But Trump’s mistreatment of asylum-seekers continues in a different form.

Some parents are so desperate that they’ve resorted to sending their children across the bridge alone, since unaccompanied kids who arrive at the border cannot be turned away under MPP. Since October, at least 135 children have crossed back into the U.S. by themselves after being sent to wait in Mexico with their parents, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In Mexico, many of these migrants don’t have access to lawyers and are forced to plead their cases in makeshift tent courts set up along the U.S. border where overwhelmed judges conduct hearings via video teleconference. The courts have limited public access ― lawyers and translators say that they have been barred from attending hearings. Migrants’ advocates argue that the tent courts violate due process, and immigrant rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the use of videoconferencing.

Goodwin, who has 42 clients, said there is a serious shortage of lawyers willing to represent immigrants staying in another country where crime is rife. She spoke with HuffPost about why the Remain in Mexico policy is even more traumatic than separating thousands of families and why it hasn’t sparked public outrage.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Jodi Goodwin (center) at the refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico.

HuffPost: Immigrant parents forced to wait in Mexico are making the heart-wrenching choice to send their kids to the U.S. alone. What are the conditions like at the camp in Matamoros?

Jodi Goodwin: It smells like urine and feces. There’s not enough sanitation. There’s 10 port-a-potties for thousands of people. Up until recently, there was no potable water available at all. People were bathing in the Rio Grande river, getting sick and, in some cases, drowning. People were seriously dehydrated.

The camp sounds completely unfitting for any human being, let alone children.

It’s a horrific situation to put families in. It’s great to live in a tent for the weekend when you’re going to the lake. It’s not great to live in a tent for months at a time where you don’t have basic necessities.

Are kids getting sick?

The kids are sick every day. I’ve seen all kinds of respiratory illnesses and digestive illnesses. I’ve seen chronic illnesses like epilepsy. I saw a baby that appeared to have sepsis who was forced to wait on the bridge for more than three hours before being taken to a hospital.

And what about the kidnappings? Have you heard of families being taken by cartel members who then try and extort an immigrant’s U.S. relatives for money?

About half of the people I’ve spoken to in Mexico have been kidnapped. The cartel knows if they can grab an immigrant, they’re likely to be able to work out a ransom. If they don’t, then they just kill them.

Any specific examples?

I dealt with one case where a mom from El Salvador and her 4-year-old son were kidnapped within an hour of being sent back to Mexico under MPP. They were taken for eight days before her brother in the U.S. paid the kidnappers $7,000.

The lady was terrified. She was sleep-deprived, food-deprived and water-deprived. She said that the people who had kidnapped her were extremely violent and hit her kid. They were drinking alcohol and raping people at a stash house where several other people were being held.

LOREN ELLIOTT / REUTERS

Migrants, most of them asylum-seekers sent back to Mexico from the U.S. under the “Remain in Mexico” program, occupy a makeshift encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, on Oc. 28, 2019.

The last time we spoke, you were on the frontlines of family separation, visiting detention centers where mothers were hysterically crying after being ripped apart from their children. How does the trauma of MPP compare, particularly for parents who are sending their kids across the border alone?

It’s way worse. I can’t with any confidence say that they will ever see their children again.

Why not?

I knew there were legal ways to get out of family separation. We were able to talk with our clients and didn’t have to go off to another country. And for those parents who got through their interviews or their court hearings, we were able to get them back with their kids.

With MPP, the assault is not only on human rights but also on due process within the court systems, which has completely hijacked the ability to be able to fix things. The parents can’t even get into the country to try to reunify with their kids.

Nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents under Trump’s zero-tolerance policy. Do you think a similar number of families will be ripped apart because of Remain in Mexico?

It could be more. Over 55,000 people have been sent back to Mexico. I’ve talked to so many parents who have sent their kids across. It’s a heart-wrenching decision process that they go through. How do you give up your baby?

It reminds me of Jewish parents who were captives in Nazi Germany and had to convince their kids to get on a different train or go in a different line to save their own lives.

Have you witnessed these separations firsthand?

In November I saw a little boy and his 4-year-old sister sent across the bridge with an older child, who was about 14 years old. The teenager carried the baby boy, who still had a pacifier in his mouth, and the girl was holding onto the older kid’s belt loop.

I was standing on the bridge between Matamoros and the U.S. and I turned around to look down at the bank of the Rio Grande river. Every single parent who has sent their kid to cross tells me the same thing: As soon as they say goodbye and hug their kids, they run to the bank to watch them. [Her voice breaks] I knew there was somebody probably standing on that bank hoping those kids made it across.

Do you still think about those kids?

Oh yeah. The green binky that the little baby was sucking on is knitted in my mind.

VERONICA CARDENAS / REUTERS

The Mexican National Guard patrols an encampment where asylum-seekers live as their tents are relocated from the plaza to near the banks of the Rio Grande in Matamoros on Dec. 7, 2019.

You’ve been working hundreds of hours a month to try and help people stranded in Matamoros. This work must take a toll on you personally.

I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me.

I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.

Family separation resulted in massive outcry from the public, which eventually pressured the government to end the zero-tolerance policy. Why is MPP not getting the same attention?

There is no public outrage because it’s not happening on our soil. It’s happening literally 10 feet from the turnstile to come to the U.S. But because it’s out of sight and out of mind, there is no outrage. What ended family separation was public outrage. It had nothing to do with lawsuits. It had everything to do with shame, shame, shame.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

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

I’m with you, Jodi! Thanks for your dedication to justice for the most vulnerable!

What’s wrong with this scenario: life-tenured Federal Judges who won’t stand up for the rule of law, Due Process, and Equal Protection in the face of an arrogantly and overtly lawless White Nationalist Regime; DOJ and other U.S. Government lawyers who defend immoral and disingenuous positions in Federal Court, often, as in the Census Case and the DACA Case using pretextual rationales and knowingly false information; dehumanization, with overwhelming racial and religious overtones, of those who deserve our protection and rely on our sense of fairness; undercutting, mistreating and humiliating the brave lawyers like Jodi who are standing up for justice in the face of tyranny; GOP legislators who are lawyers defending Trump’s mockery of the Constitution, human decency, and the rule of law and knowingly and defiantly spreading Putin’s false narratives.

Obviously, there has been a severe failure in our legal and ethical education programs and our criteria for Federal Judicial selections, particularly at the higher levels, and particularly with respect to the critical characteristic of courage. Too many “go alongs to get alongs!” I can only hope that our republic survives long enough to reform and correct these existential defects that now threaten to bring us all down.

Where’s the accountability? Where’s the outrage? Where’s our humanity?

We should also remember that many asylum seekers from Africa, who face extreme danger in Mexico, are also being targeted (“shithole countries?”) and abused as part of the Regime’s judicially-enabled, racially driven, anti-asylum, anti-rule-of-law antics at the Southern Border. https://apple.news/AyYSWSXNfSdOm63skxWaUTQ

Also, morally corrupt Trump Regime officials continued to tout “Crimes Against Humanity” as an acceptable approach to border enforcement and “reducing apprehensions!” Will machine gun turrets be next on their list? Will Article III Judges give that their “A-OK?”

We’re actually paying Article III Federal Judges who are knowingly and intentionally furthering “Crimes Against Humanity.” Totally outrageous!

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

12-10-19

EXPOSING INJUSTICE IN AMERICA: Roundtable’s Judge Ilyce Shugall Speaks Out In LA Times Against EOIR’s Latest Scheme To Dump On Kids & Other Vulnerable Individuals In Immigration Court!

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=701a3c3e-57e1-4459-b332-658b33df0a30&v=sdk

Ilyce writes:

In immigration court — and forced to go it alone

A new Justice Department directive prohibits volunteers from assisting people who don’t have lawyers in immigration court.

By Ilyce Shugall

TheJustice Department recently issued a policy memo that would limit the access of noncitizens to legal assistance in immigration courts, the latest in a series of attacks on immigrants. As it is, people appearing in immigration court do not have a right to government-appointed counsel. Instead, they have to hire and pay for a private lawyer themselves or be fortunate enough to find a pro bono lawyer.

Because of the huge volume of cases in immigration court, there are simply not enough pro bono lawyers to represent the thousands of adults and children in removal proceedings. To fill this gap, nonprofits like the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco, where I work, provide limited-scope legal services by appearing as “friend of the court,” or amicus curiae, in immigration court.

In this role, these volunteers provide free legal information, help noncitizens identify what immigration benefits they may be eligible for, assist in filling out and filing immigration forms and other papers, and help them speak to the judge in open court.

Such assistance is crucial for vulnerable individuals, including unaccompanied children, trafficking and other crime victims and individuals who have serious mental health disabilities. These individuals, who have often gone through severe trauma, are entirely unable to navigate the complex immigration system alone.

By helping them, even in a limited capacity, the friends of the court also help the courts in processing cases. This work is more important now than ever with immigration judges handling more cases in less time under the administration’s new performance quotas.

The new memo, issued by the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, would redefine the role of friends of the court and prohibit anyone in that role from speaking on behalf of unrepresented individuals in open court.

The memo purports to be protecting immigrants from confusion and clarifying that friends of the court cannot play an advocacy role in immigration court. But the new directive was not created to protect immigrants. Volunteers with nonprofit organizations that do this work are already well trained to explain their limited role so that there is no blurring of lines between full-scope legal representation and help from a friend of the court.

The implementation of the memo will harm thousands of unrepresented noncitizens who face deportation every day. It will limit their access to information and assistance. And it will prevent them from having volunteers speak for them in court. Without this option, many won’t be able to ask the court important questions about their cases, articulate their requests, and present claims for immigration relief.

The immigration courts have long valued this kind of volunteer assistance. Nearly 30 years ago, the Bar Assn. of San Francisco started a friend of the court program at the request of the San Francisco Immigration Court. As a former volunteer in that program and then as an immigration judge in that court, I saw how big a difference this work makes for the administration of the court.

The friend-of-the-court volunteer can inform immigrants about their rights, responsibilities, and eligibility for immigration benefits before they speak to the judge. That can make court hearings far more efficient because judges rarely have time to explain the complex process or provide answers to all follow-up questions during a hearing.

The current administration has made every effort to deprive humane aid to people seeking safety in this country. Now it’s senselessly eroding due process for the most vulnerable by clamping down on the assistance they need. This new tactic exacerbates the lack of fairness that is endemic in the immigration court system.

Ilyce Shugall is director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

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

We should all be 1) outraged, and 2) ashamed that this is happening in America, every day, in 2019. Instead, each grotesque new attack by the regime on our humanity and justice system just passes as “another day at the office” in Trump’s America — largely “under the radar screen,” particularly because the hapless victims are often deported. Out of sight, out of mind!

Thanks for speaking out, Ilyce! You are a continuing inspiration to all of us! Just another example of the great work being done by members of our “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” and the rest of the “New Due Process Army.”

While, tragically, EOIR as an organization has abandoned its former “Due Process vision” and become a weapon of the repressive White Nationalist regime, those who once served continue to fight for Due Process and fundamental fairness for all.

And, there is the lingering question of whatever happened to the Article III Circuit Courts of Appeals who are supposed to be reviewing the work of the Immigration Courts to insure that they operate in a legal, fair, and Constitutional manner? Seems like too many Article III Appellate Judges have taken a permanent holiday from their responsibilities to insure that justice is done. Maybe all future personal litigation involving Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices and their families should be required to take place in the Immigration Courts, with the opposing party allowed to select the “judge,” make the rules, and change the results as they please.

Oh, and they also should be required to represent themselves and be given no understanding of what the issues really are and how they system “works.” Then, maybe we’d see some Court of Appeals Judges getting out of the ivory tower and taking their Constitutional responsibilities seriously!

Due Process Forever.

PWS

12-05-19

CONGRATS TO PROFESSOR MICHELE PISTONE! – NDPA LEADER WINS PRESTIGIOUS KAPLAN AWARD & GRANT FOR VIISTA PROJECT TO MAKE LOW COST LEGAL SERVICES FROM HIGHLY TRAINED & CERTIFIED “NONATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVES” AVAILABLE TO THOUSANDS MORE MIGRANTS IN NEED!

From: Tara Magner [mailto:tara.magner@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:13 AM

Dear Friends:

Please join me in congratulating our dear friend and wonderful colleague Michele Pistone on winning the JM Kaplan Innovation Prize for her project, VIISTA. Michele has been developing this idea for a few years now, with the thoughtful contributions of many on this list. It is wonderful to see her work recognized and even more exciting to imagine how VIISTA will vastly expand high-quality, low cost legal services for immigrants.

Here is the text from the Kaplan announcement, but please go to this link and watch the video, too. It is inspiring.

https://www.jmkfund.org/awardee/michele-pistone/

Congrats Michele! Best — Tara

MICHELE PISTONE

VIISTA

PENNSYLVANIA

Project Overview

Immigrants in America face a profound justice gap: six out of ten confront the immigration system without a lawyer. And that carries dire consequences: the Vera Institute of Justice found that immigrants with legal representation had an 1,100% increase in successful immigration court outcomes compared to unrepresented cases—leaving far fewer families torn apart by deportation orders. Unlike criminal proceedings in which defendants have the right to representation, immigrants are not entitled to court-appointed lawyers. And in a vast number of cases, immigration attorneys are out of reach due to access or cost constraints. As a bold solution, the Villanova University Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA) program will offer the first university-based, online certificate program to train non-lawyers to assist immigrants. VIISTA seeks to revolutionize immigration law by educating a new category of legal advocates, much like the role nurse practitioners play in health care. Under existing regulations, graduates will be eligible to apply to become Department of Justice “accredited representatives” who can provide low-cost representation. VIISTA’s scalable and affordable platform will build a nationwide pipeline for hundreds, if not thousands, of passionate advocates fighting to advance immigrants’ rights.

FIVE QUESTIONS

1What needs does VIISTA address and how?

Unlike criminal proceedings in which defendants have constitutional rights to representation, immigrants are not entitled to court appointed lawyers. Six out of ten immigrants confront the immigration system without a lawyer. Even child migrants are not granted free representation. The consequences are substantial: the Vera Institute found that immigrants are 12 times more likely to obtain available relief when they have an advocate. Lack of advocacy disrupts families and communities in life-altering ways. With each deportation order, families are separated, employers lose employees, and communities lose valued neighbors and friends. It is understood within the immigrant-serving community that we need more immigrant advocates. Most look to lawyers for the solution. However, they are out of reach for poor migrants. The problem requires an innovative approach. VIISTA represents a bold new solution.

2Tell us about a moment that inspired your project.

Every time I walk into an immigration court I feel angry and ashamed. Angry and ashamed that we have an immigration legal system designed for failure. A system that is not primarily designed to focus on truth or justice. But that is primarily designed—like a shoddy assembly line —to push the product through. In this case the product is immigration cases—just get them out the door; send them back home. I believe that immigrants confronting the immigration system deserve justice. That belief drives me every day as I work to establish the first university-based, comprehensive, online, scalable, and affordable immigration-focused education. VIISTA will create a nationwide pipeline of advocate champions committed to securing justice for immigrants.

3What is the biggest challenge you face?

I have three broad challenges: First, how to build a vibrant, cohesive, online community? Prospective and pilot students want to study in community, share resources, post questions to mentors, and form study groups, and to feel part of a community of like-minded advocates for immigrant justice. Second, how to scale the educational program without losing its teaching effectiveness? The need for advocates is huge, but immigrant allies need education so they can meaningfully help. At scale, VIISTA is a bridge that links two growing needs. And third, how best to evaluate the impact of the program, set goals, develop benchmarks, and collect data?

4What other leaders have informed your work?

I am blessed to have been and continue to be informed by many leaders in the immigration field. Many of the largest national organizations working with immigrants are helping me to build the curriculum, including Catholic Relief Services, Immigrant Justice Corps, and Kids in Need of Defense (KIND).

5What is the exponential impact you think the Prize can have for your idea?

The Prize will help me to scale VIISTA. My goal is to graduate 10,000 immigrant advocates over the next ten years. And, it is realistic. Then, if every one of those new immigrant advocates helped just one immigrant family each month, they would help 660,000 immigrant families over ten years. And, the impact could be even greater than that because this program could be a model for using non-lawyers to provide legal services in other areas of law as well, like housing, evictions, simple divorces, and veteran’s affairs. Just like the medical field provided space for nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

Learn more about VIISTA:

https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html

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

I was privileged to have assisted in some small ways my good friend Michele with some of the early planning and development of this amazing program, including early “brainstorming sessions” and a video appearance before one of her first classes.

Suppose our Government “immigration bureaucracy” were led by brilliant, humane, yet practical individuals like Michele instead of the White Nationalist kakistocracy now in charge! Even the current, concededly broken, system could be made fairer, more efficient, and more functional with real leaders, out to solve pressing problems rather than intentionally aggravate them, instead of the “malicious incompetents” foisted on us by the Trump Administration.

Representation is perhaps the biggest single positive factor in immigration proceedings. Represented individuals understand the system, appear for nearly 100% of hearings, are released from detention more often, and succeed in their claims at multiples of those who are unrepresented. Those who truly have no defense are much more likely to accept results when competently represented by those who can realistically advise them as to their chances of success and their realistic alternatives in language they can understand. Courts at all levels are aided when competent representatives sharpen and present the legal issues for adjudication. (Although non-attorney representatives can’t appear in Article III Courts, they can certainly work with pro bono attorneys in a “paralegal capacity” to assist and facilitate such representation when necessary.)

In an Administration that trusted and honored its prosecutors’ judgement and expertise, representatives could work with Assistant Chief Counsel and the Immigration Courts to reduce the number of unnecessarily backlogged cases on the dockets.

A smart, humane Administration would “can” all of the expensive, inhumane, time wasting, and often illegal “gonzo enforcement” gimmicks and instead put the time and money toward working with states, localities, NGOs, and other private entities to achieve at least something approaching universal representation. Without minimizing the need for Article I Immigration Courts and other legislative reforms, an enlightened Administration, committed to due process and responsible enforcement, could drastically reduce Immigration Court backlogs, advance the delivery of justice, and improve conditions for everyone involved, including the Assistant Chief Counsel and the Immigration Judges who suffer many of the effects of this Administration’s “malicious incompetence” along with migrants, their families, and their representatives.

Congrats again, Michele! You’re amazing, and a spectacular role model for what America could and should be in a better future under wiser, honest leaders committed to our Constitution and human values!

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

11-15-19

WELCOME TO A NEW BRIGADE OF THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY: Justice Action Center! — Litigate, Litigate, Litigate — Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Karen Tumlin
Founder
Justice Action Center

Karen Tumlin, Founder

Karen Tumlin is a nationally recognized impact litigator focusing on immigrants’ rights. She successfully litigated numerous cases of national significance, including a challenge to the Trump Administration’s effort to end the DACA program and the Muslim Ban, as well as the constitutional challenge to Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. She formerly served as the Director of Legal Strategy and Legal Director for the National Immigration Law Center, where she built a legal department of over 15 staff who developed and led cases of national impact.

Contact Karen: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org

https://justiceactioncenter.org/

A Brief Description of JAC

Justice Action Center is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. There is tremendous unmet need in the litigation landscape for immigrant communities. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to bear to address unmet needs in currently underserved areas. There is also untapped potential in how litigation can be combined with digital strategies to empower clients and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants. Communications content around litigation that focuses primarily on putting forward legal voices to talk about immigrants does not have the same authentic voice as putting forward immigrants as the protagonists. JAC will focus on the creation of original content that amplifies immigrant voices. We believe that real change will come only when a larger base of supporters are activated on immigration issues—only then will courthouse wins pave the way for lasting change. JAC will partner with direct service providers and organizers to leverage the power of the existing landscape of immigrants’ rights organizations and also to fill in holes where impact litigation should be brought (but currently isn’t), or where communications and digital expertise could help reshape the narrative around immigration and immigrants.

The Problem

Urgent, Unmet Legal Need in the Immigrants’ Rights Field

Impact litigation has been an essential tool in blunting the Trump administration’s abuses against immigrants—but capacities are stretched thin and deployed unevenly. As a result, important civil rights abuses are going unchallenged.

Lawsuits attract media attention at key moments, but little planning is done to drive the narrative. Deliberate, client-driven communications plans are needed to maximize these moments to engage new audiences on immigration

Unequal Treatment

Precious impact litigation resources are currently being spread unevenly. While there is a deep bench of attorneys ready to take on high-profile issues, such as the termination of DACA or the latest asylum ban, other issues appear to have no legal advocacy. Examples include the massive worksite raids in underserved states such as Ohio and Texas or the severe abuses immigrants face in the nation’s vast detention system.

Underrepresented in Digital Media

There is a paucity of original, immigrant-centered digital content. The nation’s narrative no longer has to be set only by policymakers—it can be shaped by everyday people, including immigrants. We have not harnessed the power of the current digital landscape to promote pro-immigrant messages and engage new audiences.

JAC’s Solutions

1. Litigate on topics and in locations of unmet need.

2. Create original, immigrant-centered content designed to activate new audiences

3. Partner with direct services providers and organizers to elevate movement impact.

Get Involved

You can be part of helping build Justice Action Center.

Donate to Justice Action Center’s first year now.

Donate

Home
About

Who
Donate
Contact Us

Subscribe for JAC Updates

First Name

Last Name

Email (required) *

Constant Contact Use.

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

Welcome Karen and the JAC to the fight for Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency! Nothing less than the survival of our nation, and perhaps civilization, is at stake here!

The litigation angle is so critically important to this all-out war! The Federal Appellate Courts, and particularly the Supremes, have been largely complicit in Trump’s White Nationalist attack on the Rule of Law. There is no excuse whatsoever for the continuing unconstitutional outrages against individuals being committed by a biased Immigration Court System unlawfully controlled by biased and corrupt politicos.

Would a Federal Appellate Court Judge or a Supreme Court Justice agree to be tried for his or her life in a “court” before “judges” controlled by their prosecutor? Of course not! So why is it “Constitutionally OK” for asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals to be “tried” (often without lawyers or even “in absentia”) by “judges” controlled by Trump, Barr, and indirectly McAleenan? Why it “Constitutionally OK” for individuals whose only “crime” is asserting their legal rights to be detained indefinitely (sometimes until death) in conditions that would be held unconstitutional in an eyeblink if applied to convicted criminals?

Think I’m making this up? Check out he dissent by Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) in Barr v. East Side Sanctuary Covenant. There, seven of her spineless colleagues didn’t even bother to justify their decision lifting a lower court stay of a grotesque attack by the Trump Administration on the legal rights (and lives) of asylum seekers that violated the Constitution, a host of statutes and regulations, and international standards. Not only that, but it also enables a lawless Solicitor General to continue to cynically “short-circuit” the legal system and go directly to what Trump and his followers (contemptuously, but apparently correctly) believe to be a thoroughly compromised Supreme Court. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/11/supreme-tank-complicit-court-ends-u-s-asylum-protections-by-7-2-vote-endorses-trumps-white-nationalist-racist-attack-on-human-rights-eradication-of-refugee-act-of-1980/

These consequences aren’t “academic.” Innocent individuals, including children, will die, be tortured, or have their lives ruined by the Supremes’ abdication of duty and abandonment of human decency. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/20/profile-in-judicial-cowardice-article-iiis-dereliction-of-duty-leaves-brave-asylum-applicants-and-their-courageous-attorneys-defenseless-against-racist-onslaught-by-trump-administration/.

Undoubtedly energized by this exercise in “Supreme Complicity,” the Trump Administration has released a dizzying barrage of new attacks on the legal rights and humanity of migrants of all types, from asylum seekers to green card holders and immigrant visa applicants, in the weeks following East Side Sanctuary.

Or, check out this dissenting statement of Eleventh Circuit Judge Adelberto Jose Jordan in Diaz-Rivas v. U.S. Att’y Gen.:

In my view, Ms. Diaz-Rivas’ statistics—showing that from 2014 through 2016 asylum applicants outside of Atlanta’s immigration court were approximately 23 times more likely to succeed than asylum applicants in Atlanta—are disquieting and merit further inquiry by the BIA. See City of Miami, 614 F.2d at 1339. If these statistics pertained to a federal district court, the Administrative Office would begin an investigation in a heartbeat.

So what’s the result of the Eleventh Circuit majority’s cowardly abandonment of the Fifth Amendment? In a spectacular “in your face” move undoubtedly meant to play on the spineless response of the Eleventh Circuit to the “Asylum Free Zone” created in the Atlanta Immigration Court, Billy Barr actually promoted two of the Atlanta judges with the highest asylum denial rates, renowned for their rude and disrespectful treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers, to the Board of Immigration Appeals as part of his “court packing scheme” to promote worst practices and anti-asylum bias.

In other words, as a consequence of the Eleventh Circuit’s spineless complicity in the face of clear Due Process violations, these unqualified judges have now been empowered to abuse and refuse asylum applicants from coast to coast. Judicial corruption and complicity has real human life consequences for those trying to just survive below the “radar screen” of exalted overprivileged Ivory Tower Federal Appellate Judges.

The Ninth Circuit’s illegal “greenlighting” of the deadly “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” program in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan is another egregious example of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges abandoning their oaths of office (and writing complete legal gibberish, to boot).https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/05/07/fractured-9th-gives-go-ahead-to-remain-in-mexico-program-immigration-law-lab-v-mcaleenan/.

Every time an Appellate Judge signs off on a removal order produced without a fair and impartial adjudication in the unconstitutional Immigration Courts he or she is violating their oath of office. We’ve had enough! Why have life-tenured judges if they won’t stand up for our individual rights? It’s time to put an end to this cowardly judicial complicity in violation of our fundamental Constitutional rights (not to mention a host of statutory and regulatory violations that go unchecked in Immigration Courts every day).

That’s where the “5 C’s” come into play: Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

At the same time, make an historical record of those judges who “stood small” in the face of Trump’s vicious and corrupt assault on our Constitution and our democratic institutions, not to mention the lives and well-being of vulnerable migrants!

PWS

10-05-19

HOW LOW CAN THEY GO? — Scofflaw Administration Denies Required Legal Representation To Kids! — “‘Our government is engaged in premeditated, deliberate acts of cruelty against children,’ said Jonathan Ryan, the executive director at the migrant advocacy and legal aid group Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education (RAICES).”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-aid-immigrant-children-shelters_n_5d72c98be4b0fde50c2657ed

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

The Trump administration is failing to fund legal services for detained immigrant children ― some under 5 years old ― in three shelters, HuffPost has learned. That violates federal law and could have life-threatening consequences for the minors, immigration lawyers say.

In July, HuffPost reported that the administration was not providing legal services to children in a now-closed temporary facility in Carrizo Springs, Texas, which held a few hundred immigrants, even though federal law and a court settlement require the government to inform detained migrant kids of their legal rights and to ensure access to counsel “to the greatest extent practicable.”

At the time, the government acknowledged that it was not paying for legal aid in the shelter, which a spokesperson chalked up to budgetary issues that would soon be resolved.

The government now claims it is funding legal aid for immigrant minors in all shelters. But multiple legal aid attorneys told HuffPost that’s not true. These lawyers said they are working for free, without the government money they usually receive for their services.

Legal service organizations confirmed that the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for sheltering kids detained at the border without their parents, is not paying for legal aid in two recently opened shelters. One in Phoenix houses children under 5 years old, and another in Modesto, California, holds teenage mothers and their children. There is also no legal service contract in place for a separate shelter in Phoenix that is being reopened and is expected to start detaining up to 420 children as early as next week, according to Golden McCarthy, the children’s program director at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, which provides aid to detained children in Arizona.

Without legal help, immigrant kids must go through complex legal proceedings on their own and may more easily be deported back to violent situations in their home countries.

“The stakes are literally life and death,” said Jennifer Podkul, an interim vice president at Kids In Need of Defense (KIND), which provides services to the Modesto shelter. “If a kid does not know how to tell their story to an adjudicator, our government runs the risk of sending a child back to their death.”

. . . .

Some immigration advocates told HuffPost they saw the lack of legal aid funding as part of a larger attempt to strip immigrants of their basic rights.

“Our government is engaged in premeditated, deliberate acts of cruelty against children,” said Jonathan Ryan, the executive director at the migrant advocacy and legal aid group Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education (RAICES). “I don’t think one has to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that the government is attempting to systematically dismantle every framework of support for any immigrant in this country.”

KIND and the Florence Project are trying to meet the children’s needs in Modesto and Phoenix, but it’s a struggle without additional government funding. It can take KIND’s lawyers an entire day to travel to and from the Modesto shelter, where the organization is providing pro bono services, and KIND lacks the money to hire additional staff, Annand said. They alternate trips to the shelter with lawyers from another legal service organization to make the work more manageable, but it’s not a permanent solution, especially if the number of detained kids grows.

In Phoenix, McCarthy said the Florence Project would ideally hire a full-time team of six people to service a shelter with hundreds of kids, but that’s not possible without government funding. Instead, she will have to ask existing staff to take on the additional work, which again is not a sustainable solution.

McCarthy hopes the government will come through with a contract, but worries about the long-term consequences if ORR does not fund legal aid.

“I think that children will inevitably go into court by themselves,” she said. “If a child doesn’t have parents or a legal guardian moving through the process with them, then they are really doing it on their own. That’s concerning.”

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

Read Angelina’s complete article at the link.

“Premeditated, deliberate acts of cruelty against children.” So, what else is new from this scofflaw, White Nationalist, racist Administration and its bureaucratic toadies and enablers?

PWS

09-07-19

FOUR TODDLERS RESCUED BY PRO BONO LAWYERS FROM DEADLY SITUATION IN CBP CUSTODY — Putrid, Unsanitary, Repressive Conditions Causing Lifetime Harm To Other Traumatized Kids — But, Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Wants You To Know That She’s Not Taking Responsibility For The Humanitarian Disaster Intentionally Engineered On Her Watch!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/four-severely-ill-migrant-babies-hospitalized-after-lawyers-visited-border-patrol-facility_n_5d0d3bbce4b07ae90d9cfe4f

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

Four toddlers were so severely ill and neglected at a U.S. Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas, that lawyers forced the government to hospitalize them last week.

The children, all under age 3 with teenage mothers or guardians, were feverish, coughing, vomiting and had diarrhea, immigration attorneys told HuffPost on Friday. Some of the toddlers and infants were refusing to eat or drink. One 2-year-old’s eyes were rolled back in her head, and she was “completely unresponsive” and limp, according to Toby Gialluca, a Florida-based attorney.

She described seeing terror in the children’s eyes.

“It’s just a cold, fearful look that you should never see in a child of that age,” Gialluca said. “You look at them and you think, ‘What have you seen?’”

Another mother at the same facility had a premature baby, who was “listless” and wrapped in a dirty towel, as HuffPost previously reported.

The lawyers feared that if they had not shown up at the facility, the sick kids would have received zero medical attention and potentially died. The Trump administration has come under fire for its treatment ― and its alleged neglect ― of migrants who have been crossing the southern border in record numbers. The result is overcrowded facilities, slow medical care and in some instances, deaths.

Immigration authorities say they’re overwhelmed; activists say they’re not trying hard enough.

“It’s intentional disregard for the well-being of children,” Gialluca said. “The guards continue to dehumanize these people and treat them worse than we would treat animals.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

The Associated Press reported this week that children in border facilities don’t have adequate access to food, water, soap or showers. On Tuesday, a Justice Department attorney argued in court that the government should not have to provide detained children with soap, toothbrushes or beds.

The AP report is based on interviews a group of lawyers conducted with hundreds of children in three Texas-based Border Patrol stations last week as part of the Flores settlement ― an agreement that outlines conditions for detained children. The lawyers say children are also being held in these facilities for longer than the 72-hour limit the settlement specifies, and in some cases up to three weeks.

Lawyers are particularly concerned about the spread of illness inside Border Patrol facilities, which can sometimes turn fatal. Five children have died in Border Patrol custody since December, some of whom were initially diagnosed with a common cold or the flu. The processing center in McAllen, known as Ursula, recently quarantined three dozen migrants who were sick after a 16-year-old died of the flu at the same facility.

Children and their parents told lawyers that in some cases they didn’t have any access to medical treatment in Border Patrol facilities despite being visibly ill. Gialluca spoke with one 16-year-old mother whose toddler had the flu, but was told by a guard the child “wasn’t sick enough to see a doctor.” She said others also reported being denied medical attention despite having critically sick babies.

Medical experts say that because children have less developed immune and respiratory systems, their symptoms can escalate quickly if they aren’t properly treated.

Dr. Julie Linton, the co-chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics, previously told HuffPost that children can’t recover from illnesses in Border Patrol facilities. These centers are described as “hieleras” ― Spanish for iceboxes ― because of their freezing temperatures, and migrants describe sleeping on floors under bright lights that shine 24/7, with nothing but Mylar blankets to keep warm.

Gialluca met one 16-year-old mother whose 8-month-old baby was sick with the flu and forced to sleep outside for four days at the McAllen Border Patrol station. The mother said the guards took the clothing off the baby’s back, leaving her in a diaper, and forced them to sleep on concrete without a blanket.

A sick 2-year-old girl was shivering in a T-shirt and had shallow breathing, according to Mike Fassio, a Seattle-based immigration attorney who visited Ursula.

“I was very, very concerned,” he said, adding lawyers spoke with immigrants in a room outside of the facility. “When she left us, I knew she was going back to a place that was cold, crowded and unsanitary.” Fassio noted that guards referred to the children as “bodies.”

Some children were so exhausted they fell asleep during the interviews, said Clara Long, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch who spoke with kids at a facility in Clint, Texas. Long met a 3-year-old boy who was dirty with matted hair and was being taken care of by his 11-year-old brother. She said that more than 10 sick children were being quarantined in cells.

While the group of roughly eight lawyers and interpreters at Ursula were supposed to be interviewing children about conditions in the facilities, they also ended up asking guards and government officials to bring kids to the hospital because they were so worried about their state. Gialluca added that she and her colleagues interviewed only a small portion of migrants in the facility, which is the largest processing center in the U.S. and can hold up to 1,000 people. She believes the number of migrants in need of hospitalization is likely much higher.

Government officials have blamed horrific conditions at detention facilities on the fact that Congress has not yet passed an emergency funding package that would include almost $3 billion to help care for unaccompanied migrant children. But Gialluca says border officials shouldn’t need more resources to treat immigrants like human beings.

“Money isn’t keeping guards from allowing people to access toilets,” she said. “Money isn’t causing guards to take clothing and medicine away from children.”

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

Here’s Another report from Nicole Goodkind at Newsweek on the “malicious incompetence” and intentional misallocation of resources by Trump and his DHS sycophants that is willfully endangering kids’ lives as part of a cheap White Nationalist political stunt:

8-YEAR-OLD MIGRANTS BEING FORCED TO CARE FOR TODDLERS IN DETENTION CAMPS

A team of lawyers conducted 60 interviews with migrant children being held in an El Paso, Texas, detention camp and found conditions to be dismal.

Fifteen of those in the holding center had the flu and 10 more are quarantined with illness, according to the lawyers, who first gave the data to the Associated Press. Three infants are being detained alongside their teenage mothers, and many children are under the age of 12.

“A Border Patrol agent came in our room with a 2-year-old boy and asked us, ‘Who wants to take care of this little boy?’ Another girl said she would take care of him, but she lost interest after a few hours and so I started taking care of him yesterday,” one teenaged girl told the lawyers in an interview. The boy was not wearing a diaper and his shirt was covered in mucus, she said.

Law professor Warren Binford, who aided in the interviews, said she witnessed an 8-year-old girl caring for a 4-year-old child who was very dirty, the girl was unable to get the boy to take a shower. She also described the children she interviewed as sleep-deprived, often falling asleep while speaking with her.

“In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of inhumanity,” said Holly Cooper, co-director of the University of California, Davis’ Immigration Law Clinic, to the AP.

The lawyers were inspecting the facility as part of the Flores agreement, which resulted from a landmark 1985 case that established that facilities where minor migrants are held must be kept “safe and sanitary.”

A representative of the Trump administration, the Justice Department’s Sarah Fabian, argued Tuesday that safe and sanitary conditions don’t necessarily have to include toothbrushes, soap or towels for children.

Nicole Goodkind is a political reporter at Newsweek. You can reach her on Twitter @NicoleGoodkind or by email, N.Goodkind@newsweek.com.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS MAJOR ICE RAIDS FOR SUNDAY

U.S. immigration authorities plan to raid Miami, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles and other cities. They intend to arrest up to 2,000 families, three U.S. officials with knowledge of the plans told The Washington Post. The orders reportedly come directly from President Donald Trump.

On Monday, the president tweeted: “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in.”

Officials told The Washington Post that the Department of Homeland Security agency plans to hold families in hotel rooms until they are deported. Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan is allegedly targeting families that have completely dropped out of the court process, but has warned that the operation could lead to further cases of families being separated.

Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel Moore confirmed the raids on Friday, saying that about 140 families in southern California will be targeted in pre-dawn raids early next week. The chief also made clear that the raids are done on a federal level and that the police department will not be involved.

On Thursday, Carla Provost, chief of the United States Border Patrol argued that the Department of Homeland Security was not receiving enough money to properly care for migrants on the southern border, and that was leading to terrible conditions in detention centers. On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to $4.6 billion in emergency funds for what the Trump administration has referred to as a “border crisis.”

Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro questioned how the agency could afford mass raids while asking for more money Friday. “The Trump Administration says it needs more money (supplemental bill) for the situation at the border yet they may be starting massive immigration raids next week. So how do you have the money for that if you’re running out of money ICE?” he tweeted.

“These potential raids are a disgusting political ploy to stoke fear and rile up Trump’s base for 2020,” wrote Sandra Cordero, Director of Families Belong Together, an immigration advocacy group, in a statement. “Past raids have left children alone and afraid in empty homes, praying they won’t be left to care for younger siblings by themselves, with no idea if they’ll see their parents again. This is yet another flagrant disregard for the welfare of children on behalf of a cruel administration bent on fomenting fear and creating chaos.”

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

Come on, Carla, cut the BS and butt covering. The “mix” of arrivals at the Southern Border began to shift to refugee families from the Northern Triangle back in the summer of 2014. So, CBP and DHS have had five years to prepare for this “change” which is actually “old news.”

More “old news” is the increased flow of asylum seekers with kids which began back before Thanksgiving. Plenty of time for CBP and DHS to bring back retired asylum officers and adjudicators and reassign other adjudicative personnel to the border to insure prompt, orderly, safe, and efficient processing of asylum applicants at ports of entry, thus eliminating the incentive (or necessity) for folks to turn themselves in after crossing the border between ports.

Also, plenty of time to work with NGOs, pro bono groups, states, and communities to insure representation and proper placement of family groups in various locations throughout the country without panic or “dumping.”

Another bogus claim spread by Trump, Provost, and the rest of the sycophants: that the prevalence of kids among new asylum arrivals is somehow totally a response to the Flores settlement (which actually has been in effect for decades).

Undoubtedly, with the Trump Administration’s active assistance, unscrupulous smugglers and coyotes are encouraging some folks to bring children as the only way to have a shot at fair processing under the tilted U.S. asylum system promoted by Trump. Indeed, as I have observed before, the Trump Administrations has consistently been a “best friend” to gangs, smugglers, traffickers, cartels, and druggies seeking to “jack up” profits by further exploiting the human misery caused by the Trump Administration’s “maliciously incompetent “ approach to immigration, effective law enforcement, and humanity generally. https://apple.news/AFQw_eqcHSZCYxUznmP0wpQ

Undoubtedly, some of these unscrupulous individuals are telling families to travel with kids. But, the truth is that according to the UNHCR, over one-half of today’s refugees are children. https://www.unhcr.org/children-49c3646c1e8.html.

So, the prevalence of children among new arrivals should properly been seen as part of a sad worldwide trend that Trump and his cronies disgustingly have done everything possible to encourage, exploit, and aggravate. It most certainly is not primarily caused by the Flores settlement or by giving soap, toothbrushes, blankets, or medical care to children being abused in the “DHS Gulag” administered in part by disingenuous folks like Provost.

Any honest observer of what’s going on knows that the majority of the asylum applications that passed credible fear probably could have been granted (or given protection under the Convention Against Torture — “CAT”) by the Asylum Office without even going to Immigration Court under the proper generous interpretation of our asylum laws, an honest interpretation of CAT that reflects the true conditions in the Northern Triangle, and a very “doable” change in procedures.

Only dishonest fools in the Trump Administration (and a few from the Obama Administration) would maintain that gender isn’t a social group subject to widespread persecution in the Northern Triangle, deny that gangs have assumed the role of quasi-governmental entities thus making most of the harm they inflict on resisters “political persecution,” and make the beyond ludicrous claim that the corrupt failed states of the Northern Triangle have either the ability or much real interest in protecting those subject to persecution.

And, Carla, why aren’t you out there today registering a public protest of the waste of time and funds in ICE going after families with ridiculously inappropriate “raids” when every resource could and should be focused instead on providing humanitarian assistance to asylum seekers arriving at the Southern Border?

This racist-inspired “Sunday Morning Reign of Terror” directed at U.S. ethnic communities is specifically designed to return helpless families to the very dangerous countries from which they originally fled! Thus, Trump and his phony DHS are intentionally feeding “fresh meat” to gangs and cartels and insuring that the cycle of northward migration, no matter how dangerous, will continue until everyone who needs to leave its either gone or dead (the latter apparently the “solution” favored by Provost, Trump, Morgan, McAleenan, Miller, and others).

Provost, McAleenan, Morgan, and their co-conspirators are all participants in a cynical scheme to intentionally “crash” the asylum system, rather than competently administering it. They are intentionally endangering the lives of children and other vulnerable asylum seekers, many entitled to legal protections, to promote, along with GOP restrictionists, totally bogus, dishonest, and completely unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions of the precious, life-saving right of refugees to seek asylum in the U.S.

It’s an unbelievably dishonest and cowardly scheme, and a complete breach of both oaths of office and public trust. It might be that those who long ago abandoned American values will lap up this insult to human values and human dignity.

But, there are plenty of us out here who know and understand exactly what you are doing. We will not only resist it, but will be historical witnesses to your cruel, inhuman, and unlawful schemes and gimmicks to “abuse and kill the innocent.” And, we’ll be keeping count.

PWS

06-22-19

DUE PROCESS: “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” Gets AILA Award For Due Process Advocacy!

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/aila-presents-the-roundtable-of-former-immigration

AILA Presents the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges with the 2019 Advocacy Award

AILA Doc. No. 19062032 | Dated June 19, 2019

CONTACTS:

George Tzamaras

202-507-7649

gtzamaras@aila.org
Belle Woods

202-507-7675

bwoods@aila.org

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) will recognize the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges, with the 2019 Advocacy Award for outstanding efforts in support of AILA’s advocacy agenda. The roundtable will accept the award this week during AILA’s Annual Conference in Orlando, FL.

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was formed in June 2017 when seven former Immigration Judges and BIA Members united for an amicus brief in Matter of Negusie. In the two years since, the group has grown to more than 30 members, dedicated to the principle of due process for all. Its members have served as amici in 14 cases before six different circuit courts, the Attorney General, and the BIA. The group has made its voice heard repeatedly in support of the rights of victims of domestic violence to asylum protection, and has also lent its arguments to the issue of children’s need for counsel in removal proceedings, the impact of remote detention in limiting access to counsel, and the case against indefinite detention of immigrants. The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges has submitted written testimony to Congress and has released numerous press statements. Its individual members regularly participate in teaching, training, and press events.

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19062032.

And here are Judge Chase’s “acceptance remarks” in behalf of our entire group:

Thank you; we are humbled and honored to receive this award. Due to the time constraints on our speeches, I don’t have time to either name all of the members of our group, or to thank all those to whom thanks is due. So I will do that in a blog post.

In terms of advocacy, we are all advocates – everyone in this room, all AILA members. The past experience of our group as former judges gives us more of a platform. But it is a special group, in that so many have chosen to spend their post-government careers or their retirement actively fighting to make a difference in these trying times.

In fighting to make that difference, we must all speak for those who have no voice, and must serve as the conscience in a time of amoral government actions. Those whom we advocate for had the courage and strength to not only escape tragedy and make their way to this country, but once here, to continue to fight for their legal rights against a government that makes no secret of its disdain for their existence. We owe it to them to use our knowledge and skills to aid them in this fight.

In conclusion, I will quote the response of one of our group members who isn’t here tonight upon learning of this award: “It’s nice to be recognized. Now let’s get back to work.”

Thank you all again.

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

Congrats to all of my 30+ wonderful colleagues in “The Roundtable.” It’s an honor to be part of this group. Also, many, many thanks to all of the firms and individual lawyers who have provided hundreds of hours of pro bono assistance to us so that we could have a “voice.” It’s been a real team effort!

PWS

06-21-19

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Here’s the full brief:

And here’s a summary of our argument excerpted from our brief:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the full brief:

Here’s a summary of our argument:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

NDPA NEWS: THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES: An Impressive Body Of Work Advancing & Defending Due Process!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

That’s where the “5 C’s” come into play: Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

At the same time, make an historical record of those judges who “stood small” in the face of Trump’s vicious and corrupt assault on our Constitution and our democratic institutions, not to mention the lives and well-being of vulnerable migrants!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: