😎HERE’S SOME GOOD NEWS👍: My Friend & NDPA Superhero 🦸‍♀️ Professor Michele Pistone @ Villanova Law Recognized By The Chronicle Of Higher Education For Her Innovative VIISTA Program That Trains Non-Attorneys To Provide Great Pro Bono Representation To Migrants In Immigration Court!

The Chronicle of Higher Education featured VIISTA. Here is the story:

Article Link: https://www.chronicle.com/article/most-asylum-seekers-have-no-legal-counsel-this-villanova-program-trains-non-lawyers-to-step-in

The Chronicle of Higher Education (Oct. 6, 2020)

Most Asylum Seekers Have No Legal Counsel. This Villanova Program Trains Non-Lawyers to Step In.

By Katherine Mangan

Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova University, stands in front of Pennsylvania’s

York County Prison, one of the largest immigration detention centers in her region. Pistone

has created a college course in which laypeople can learn to advocate for immigrants.

The contrast, for a young lawyer in a high-powered New York firm, couldn’t have been clearer. In 1991, Michele R. Pistone was part of a team of lawyers helping Donald J. Trump restructure his massive debts as his Atlantic City casinos hemorrhaged money. Pistone, who was 25 at the time, recalls walking into her client’s office with closing documents and being greeted by an entire floor-to-ceiling wall of framed magazine covers with his photo.

Fast-forward a few months to the pro bono assignment that would change the course of her career and inspire her to start a program at Villanova University aimed at expanding legal assistance to immigrants and asylum seekers.

Volunteering for a group now called Human Rights First, she represented a father and son who had fled Somalia during a bloody civil war. The father, a minister whose life had been threatened during the uprising, had been charged with alien smuggling since his son did not have a visa. If forced to return to his country, the elderly man faced the possibility he could be killed.

About six years after she won their case, the son, who had just earned U.S. citizenship, and his father gave her a colorful straw bag as a thank you. It is a constant reminder, she said, of the power and privilege she has as a lawyer. “It was so amazing to be in a position to save someone’s life.”

Pistone, who led lobbying efforts in the mid-90s in Washington, D.C., to protect asylum seekers, estimates that she has helped free more than 100 clients from detention, including former child soldiers, women who fled gender-based violence, and children who fled gang violence.

As a professor of law at Villanova, her focus now is on making sure that more refugees and asylum seekers, six out of 10 of whom confront the immigration system alone, get that help.

After a successful pilot that ended in May, she started a program this fall to certify students to become legal advocates for migrants and refugees. “Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates,” offered through the university’s College of Professional Studies, is described as the first university-based, fully online program to train immigrant advocates. That format, planned before the pandemic forced most courses online, allows easier access for working professionals, including those in rural areas, and keeps costs low.

Graduates can apply to become Department of Justice “accredited representatives,” non-lawyers who are authorized to provide inexpensive legal representation to migrant and refugee families. Accredited representatives, who must work or volunteer for a recognized group like a nonprofit or faith-based organization, can sign legal documents, accompany clients to interviews, and perform other duties a lawyer would handle in court.

In the United States, where deportation cases are civil proceedings, immigrants are not entitled to court-appointed lawyers the way they are in criminal proceedings.

Access to legal representation makes a huge difference, according to the Vera Institute of Justice. The nonprofit research and policy group found that immigrants are 12 times more likely to get available relief when they have an advocate.

“Tens of thousands of people each year go unrepresented, including asylum seekers, longtime legal residents, immigrant parents or spouses of U.S. citizens, and even children,” the Vera Institute notes. “They are left to defend themselves in an adversarial and notoriously complex system against the United States government, which is always represented by counsel.”

The Committee for Immigration Reform Implementation estimated in 2014 that at least one million of the unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. were eligible for legal relief and would be permitted to live in the U.S. if they had access to legal representation.

Few people facing the threat of deportation can afford to hire lawyers, and nationwide, there are only about 300 fully accredited representatives authorized to counsel clients in court, Pistone said. That’s where VIISTA hopes to make a difference.

The program is divided into three 14-week modules. The certificates students earn after completing each module authorize them to take on increasing levels of responsibility for representing immigrants. The first module, which prepares students to interview and be sensitive to the needs of immigrants, addresses why people migrate, the structure of government immigration systems, and cultural differences. The second and third focus on immigration law and train people to become partially or fully accredited representatives. Students can complete one, two, or three modules.

Among the students who completed all three modules in the pilot this spring is Eileen Doherty-Sil, an adjunct associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania who teaches about forced migration. It’s one thing, Doherty-Sil said, to teach about the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and quite another to represent a client who could face torture if returned to his home country.

The insights she gained in the program will enrich her teaching, she said. “Michele’s program gave us a really clear-eyed idea of what it looks like for someone to face a judge and say, ‘Please don’t send me back.’”

Without someone to advise him, an asylum seeker who fears he could be tortured or killed if he’s returned might instead say in court that his goal is to get a good job and be a good citizen. “They can’t possibly know that that’s the wrong thing to say,” Doherty-Sil said. Asylum is for refugees fleeing persecution, not for someone seeking a better life.

Pistone likens the development of specialized legal representatives to the growth of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the medical field. (The role is different from paralegals, who are trained to support lawyers within their offices but aren’t authorized to appear in court.)

The problem of representation became more acute as mounting tuition and shrinking job opportunities caused the number of law-school applications to tumble beginning in 2008-9. But even when people complained about a glut of lawyers, there never seemed to be enough people willing, or financially able, to represent the poorest clients.

“A lot of people in the legal academy think the solution to access to justice is lawyers, yet we’ve been trying for so long using lawyers,” Pistone said. The system, she said, is clearly broken. “It’s up to those of us in the system to come up with a viable, scalable solution.”

All three modules of the VIISTA program can be completed in 10 months, for a cost of under $4,000.

Pistone’s students have included teachers, social workers, and others who want to play a more active role in helping immigrants.

“I want to train 1,000 people a year,” Pistone said. “And if they each represented one client a month, that’s 12,000 families that are getting an advocate in immigration court.”

Michele

Michele R. Pistone

Professor of Law

_{Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law}

Director, Clinic for Asylum, Refugee & Emigrant Services (CARES)

Founder, VIISTA Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates

Co-Managing Editor,Journal on Migration and Human Security

Adjunct Fellow, Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation

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

Many well-deserved congrats, Michele, my friend!

As I previously mentioned, I am delighted to have had a small role in helping Michele get VIISTA off the ground.

To once again state the obvious: American Government and our Federal Judiciary need more “scholar problem-solvers” like Michele.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-07-20

Why Legal Representation Is Essential To Due Process For Asylum Seekers (In Fewer Than 200 Words)

Why Legal Representation Is Essential To Due Process For Asylum Seekers (In Fewer Than 200 Words)

By. Paul Wickham Schmidt

Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Courtside Exclusive

Oct. 5, 2020

Unlike criminal defendants, asylum seekers have no right to “appointed counsel.” Yet, never in the history of our country has access to legal assistance been more important to asylum seekers’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.

The Justice Department and the DHS have actively sought to skew asylum law against asylum seekers by reversing favorable precedents and promulgating restrictive regulations intended to evade the protections available under the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration & Nationality Act, and international conventions. They have also used arrests, detention, shortened filing deadlines, pressure on Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges to deny more asylum applications, and other “gimmicks” to discourage legitimate asylum seekers from filing, documenting, and pursuing their applications.

Without access to competent counsel, experienced in the latest developments in asylum law and enforcement, asylum seekers have little chance of prevailing at the administrative level and virtually no chance of successfully seeking review and intervention from Article III Courts to protect and vindicate precious, often life-saving, statutory and Constitutional rights.

“TILL DEATH ☠️⚰️ DO US PART” — EOIR CAN CONTINUE OPERATIONS DESPITE COVID-19: U.S. District Judge “Stuffs” Immigration Bar’s Pleas For Better Protections!

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/04/28/federal-judge-says-he-cant-order-immigration-courts-to-close-over-covid-19/?kw=Federal%20Judge%20Says%20He%20Can%27t%20Order%20Immigration%20Courts%20to%20Close%20Over%20COVID-19&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_content=20200428&utm_term=nlj&slreturn=20200328111724

Jacqueline Thomsen reports for the National Law Journal:

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that he did not have the authority to order immigration courts to temporarily shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, confirmed to the federal bench last year, found he did not have jurisdiction to rule on that matter, and the immigration lawyers and detained immigrants seeking a temporary restraining order against the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case.

He pointed to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states legal challenges tied to removal proceedings conducted in immigration courts can only be brought to courts of appeals.

Nichols wrote that “the increased risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to satisfy Article III, and also that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will increase as a result of being forced to attend in-person hearings.” But he found the detained immigrants named in the suit do not have “an imminent in-person hearing,” and therefore lack standing.

“More generally, there is no evidence in the record that any of the individual plaintiffs has been forced to appear, or will be forced to appear, at an in-person hearing over his or her request for either a continuance or some way of attending remotely, such as by VTC or teleconference. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The individual plaintiffs have thus failed to establish that they are likely to suffer an imminent injury to their health that is traceable to EOIR’s failure to take different action,” Nichols wrote.

The judge also took issue with immigration lawyer groups who alleged that detained immigrants are being deprived of counsel due to policies implemented during the pandemic.

Nichols said the lawyers “fail to explain” how the policies have caused the immigrants “to be unable to retain an attorney—especially considering that they had been unable to find counsel even before the pandemic and considering that they were able to retain counsel for this suit.”

He further said the immigration lawyers have failed to show that “immigration judges are regularly refusing to deny requests for continuances or requests for telephonic or VTC hearings.”

. . . .

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

Those with access to the NLJ (everyone can get 3 free “non-premium” articles per month by registering) can read Jacqueline’s full article and get Judge Nichols’s full opinion at the above link.

A slight clarification of the last sentence in Jacqueline’s full article: “Nichols, during arguments, was concerned about what options detained immigrants have if an immigration judge, which are Article I judges under the control of the Department of Justice, refused to delay an in-person hearing or hold it remotely.”

Immigration Judges are “administrative judges” who work for the Attorney General. Unfortunately, they are not “Article I Judges,” which would make them a true independent judiciary.

Immigration Judges would like to be Article I Judges. Most immigration and judicial experts agree that they should be. There are a number of legislative proposals circulating to establish an independent Article Immigration Court. But, alas, notwithstanding the obvious and pressing need, Congress is nowhere close to legislating the necessary change.

So, these current blatantly unconstitutional “captive courts” operating under the DOJ will continue to stagger on, taking innocent lives and trampling due process and fundamental fairness in the process. Grimly, as I had predicted, it’s apparently going to take some actual dead bodies⚰️of migrants and perhaps their lawyers piling up on the courthouse steps to get either the Article IIIs or Congress to pay serious attention to this unfolding disaster which seems to operate just enough beneath their “radar screens” to allow them to ignore or, as in this case, paper it over.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-28-20

ANOTHER BIG DUE PROCESS VICTORY: 3rd. Cir. Reaffirms That Due Process Applies Equally To Discretionary Relief, Finds BIA Screwed Up “Ineffective Assistance Claim,” Rejects OIL’s Attack On Due Process — Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-ineffective-assistance-calderon-rosas-v-atty-gen

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

27 Apr 2020

ineffective assistance

CA3 on Ineffective Assistance: Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

“Immigration law is a field in which fair, accurate factfinding is of critical importance. The need in immigration proceedings for effective attorneys who can competently marshal the evidence on each side is therefore of commensurate importance. Yet aliens—often poor, often non-English speaking—are disproportionately saddled with low-quality counsel, and the consequences can be drastic. This is a case in point. Petitioner Sergio Calderon-Rosas paid a now-disbarred attorney to represent him in removal proceedings, and Calderon-Rosas was ordered deported after that attorney failed to present key evidence supporting his application for cancellation of removal. Calderon-Rosas sought a new hearing, arguing that he was deprived of due process by, among other things, his attorney’s ineffective assistance, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his claims. We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to review due process claims where a petitioner, like Calderon-Rosas, seeks only discretionary relief—and if so, whether Calderon-Rosas’s claims have merit. Because we conclude that we have jurisdiction and Calderon-Rosas plainly presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.”

[Hats off to Petra D. Fist!]

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

Get the full decision at the link.

Panel: GREENAWAY, JR., KRAUSE, and RESTREPO,

Circuit Judges

Opinion by: Judge Krause

Here’s my favorite quote from court’s unanimous opinion written by Circuit Judge Krause:

The government’s argument, however, is one we have squarely rejected. We long ago recognized that due process claims can be asserted by petitioners seeking discretionary relief because “Congress instructed the Attorney General to establish an asylum procedure,” and “[w]hen Congress directs an agency to establish a procedure . . . it can be assumed that Congress intends that procedure to be a fair one.” Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996) (addressing asylum claim). “[F]airness,” we explained, “mandate[s] that the asylum procedure promulgated by the Attorney General provide the most basic of due process.” Id.; see also Cham v. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 683, 691 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[A]lthough Cham has no constitutional right to asylum, he was entitled, as a matter of due process, to a full and fair hearing on his application.”); Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 373–74

8

(3d Cir. 2003) (“Ponce–Leiva’s brief . . . suggests that counsel’s ineffectiveness was a denial of due process. Accordingly, we may analyze the claim, at least within the parameters of due process.”).

More recently, in Serrano-Alberto v. Attorney General, 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017), in exercising jurisdiction over claims for discretionary relief, we reiterated that “petitioners must receive a full and fair hearing that allows them a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on their behalf, and a decision on the merits of their claim by a neutral and impartial arbiter.” Id. at 213 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That procedural due process right, we explained, is comprised of “three key protections” in immigration proceedings: “(1) ‘factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her’; (2) the opportunity to ‘make arguments on his or her own behalf’; and (3) ‘an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.’” Id. (quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc)). In short, “[t]hroughout all phases of deportation proceedings, petitioners must be afforded due process of law.” Id.

So true. Yet, so often ignored in practice by the Supremes and Circuit Courts.

The current Immigration “Court” system is run by a politically biased enforcement official, Billy Barr, who solely controls judicial appointments, job retention, sets so-called “performance standards” intentionally weighted toward DHS Enforcement’s needs, establishes binding “precedents,” and changes results favorable to asylum seekers and other respondents when they don’t suit his nativist agenda. In this system, no respondent is receiving a “fundamentally fair hearing” before a “fair and impartial decision maker.”

Even if an Immigration Judge tries to act fairly in an individual case, as many do, they are still bound by the Attorney General’s pro-enforcement policies, and the specter of arbitrary reversal of results favorable to the respondent by so-called “certification” by the AG hangs over and materially compromises the entire system and every proceeding.

Indeed, by concentrating only on the small, and somewhat random, sampling of “petitions for review” that actually cross their desks, the Courts of Appeals and the Supremes are ignoring the systemic lack of fundamental due process that infects this entire dysfunctional and unfair system. Time to wake up and do the right thing!

Nice words are one thing. Actions an entirely different matter!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-20

TRAC IMMIGRATION: Crisis In Immigration Court Representation? — 60% In Immigration Court Live In Rural Counties Where Immigration Lawyers Are Scarce!

Read the complete report here:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/602/

Here’s an excerpt:

The Hidden Impact of Removal Proceedings on Rural Communities

Although the Immigration Courts with the largest backlogs of cases are located in large cities, the latest Immigration Court records show that when adjusted for population, many rural counties have higher rates of residents in removal proceedings than urban counties. In fact, of the top 100 US counties with the highest rates of residents in removal proceedings, nearly six in ten (59%) are rural. In these communities, residents facing deportation may find themselves in rural “legal deserts[1]” where there are few qualified immigration attorneys, longer travel times to court, and high rates of poverty.

The Immigration Court data used in this report was obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Mapping Pending Immigration Court Cases

TRAC recently mapped the Immigration Court’s current active backlog—over 1.1 million cases—to show the number of residents in each county who are awaiting their day in court. In this follow-on report, TRAC used the same data set to map the proportion of residents (“rate”) with pending immigration cases as a fraction of total residents[2].

When the total number of backlog cases is mapped, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago emerge as areas with large numbers of pending cases. This makes sense, because the total number of immigration cases is driven by the geographic concentration of large numbers of people in urban areas. However, when the number of pending immigration cases is mapped relative to county population, a different picture emerges. Many large urban counties are revealed to be more average, while many rural counties are shown to have much higher concentrations of removal cases.

In these rural counties, residents may have a heightened sense that immigration enforcement is impacting their community. This, in fact, would be an entirely rational perception since the odds are indeed greater.

Figure 1 below includes a map of the proportion of residents in each county currently in the backlog (top) and the total number of cases in each county in the backlog (bottom, reprinted from our previous report). The county-level rate is represented as the number per 100,000 residents who are currently in removal proceedings.

Particularly striking is how many counties in Southern California and the New York City-Boston corridor, which are prominent in the map of the number of cases, look more typical once population is taken into account. Also striking is how counties in the Great Plains regions from Southwest Minnesota to western Oklahoma pop off the map as places where higher percentages of the community are facing deportation proceedings today.

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

There is little doubt that DHS Enforcement and their “partners at EOIR” have made an effort to hinder individuals’ Constitutional and statutory right to representation by counsel of their choice. From “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” to locating so-called “detained courts” in obscure places, to arbitrary denial of continuances, to restricting bonds, to failures to provide notices and giving intentionally “bogus” notices, to rude and unprofessional treatment of attorneys, to trying to get rid of “know your rights” presentations, to skewing the law to change results to favor DHS.

All this leads to a largely “due process free” Deportation Railroad.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-10-20

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 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

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

NICOLE NAREA @ VOX: As Life Threatening Due Process & Statutory Violations Predictably Mount Under The Ninth Circuit’s “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” Program, Congressional Dems Demand IG Investigation Of “Tent Courts,” A/K/A Kangaroo Courts!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/18/20920000/house-democrats-investigation-tent-courts-border-port

House Democrats are calling for investigations into two temporary immigration courts that opened along the southern border last month where migrants who have been waiting in Mexico are fighting to obtain asylum in the US, according to a letter sent Thursday.

The courts — located in tent complexes near US Customs and Border Protection ports in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas — were built to hear cases from migrants who have been sent back to Mexico under President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols.

Unveiled in January, the policy has affected over 50,000 migrants found to have credible asylum claims, including those who present themselves at ports of entry on the southern border and those who are apprehended while trying to cross the border without authorization.

The tent courts, which opened in early September with no advance notice to the public, have the capacity to hold as many as 420 hearings per day in Laredo and 720 in Brownsville conducted exclusively by video. Immigrants and their attorneys video conference with judges and DHS attorneys appearing virtually, streamed from brick-and-mortar immigration courts hundreds of miles away.

Democratic leaders, led by Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair Joaquin Castro, raised concerns Thursday that the tent facilities have led to violations of migrants’ due process rights by restricting their access to attorneys and relying on teleconferencing. They also expressed alarm that asylum seekers processed in the facilities are being returned to Mexico even though they are in danger there and that the public has largely been barred from entering the tent facilities, shrouding their operations in secrecy.

“Given the lack of access to counsel and the limitations of

, we are concerned these tent courts do not provide full and fair consideration of their asylum claims, as required by law,” the lawmakers wrote, urging the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s inspectors general to investigate. “The opening and operations of these secretive tent courts are extremely problematic.”

Few have been allowed to enter the courts

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan had assured that members of the public and the press would be permitted to access to the facilities so long as they do not “disrupt proceedings or individuals’ privacy.”

In practice, however, that’s not how they have operated, and as House Democrats pointed out Thursday, preventing the public from viewing immigration court proceedings violates federal regulations.

“We are concerned that the administration has intentionally built these tent court at Customs and Border Protection ports of entry to justify limited public access to these facilities, and that this lack of transparency may allow DHS to hid abuse and due process violations that may occur in the tents,” their letter said.

Laura Lynch and Leidy Perez-Davis, attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association who visited the port courts shortly after they opened in September, said they and other lawyers from the National Immigrant Justice Center, Amnesty International, and the Women’s Refugee Commission were barred from observing proceedings in the courts absent a document showing that they were representing one of the migrants on site.

The few attorneys that had such agreements were allowed to enter the facility a little more than an hour before their clients’ hearings to help them prepare — insufficient time given that, for many, it is their first opportunity to meet in person, Perez-Davis said.

In the first few days that the courts were open, the only people allowed in the hearing rooms were immigrants and their attorneys — but critically, not their translators, Lynch said. There were few attorneys representing asylum seekers in proceedings at the port courts, and even fewer spoke fluent Spanish and could have conversations with their clients.

Officials have since allowed translators into the hearing rooms, Lynch said, but neither DHS nor the DOJ have issued any formal clarification of their policy.

Attorneys are also not allowed to attend “non-refoulement interviews” at the tent facilities, in which an asylum officer determines, usually over the phone, whether a migrant should be sent back to Mexico or qualifies for an exemption allowing them to go to a detention facility in the US.

Limiting access to the port courts also inhibits legal aid groups’ ability to conduct presentations for migrants informing them of their rights in immigration proceedings, as they typically do in immigration courts.

Perez-Davis said that she observed one hearing from San Antonio — where some of the remote immigration judges handling cases in the ports courts are based — in which a young migrant woman was confused about what “asylum” means. That kind of knowledge would have previously been provided in presentations by legal aid groups.

Videoconferencing doesn’t facilitate a fair proceeding

The use of video conferencing in immigration court proceedings has long been a subject of controversy. In theory, teleconferencing would seem to make proceedings more efficient and increase access to justice, allowing attorneys and judges to partake even though they may be hundreds of miles away.

But in practice, advocates argue that teleconferencing has inhibited full and fair proceedings, with some even filing a lawsuit in New York federal court in January claiming that it violates immigrants’ constitutional rights.

Immigrants who appear in court via teleconference are more likely to be unrepresented and be deported, a 2015 Northwestern Law Review study found. Reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Executive Office of Immigration Review have also raised concerns about how technical difficulties, remote translation services, and the inability to read nonverbal communication over teleconference may adversely affect outcomes for immigrants.

Yet despite such research, the immigration courts have increasingly used video as a stand-in for in-person interaction.

In the port courts in Laredo and Brownsville, video substitutes for that kind of interaction entirely — but it has not been without hiccups so far.

Lynch, Perez-Davis, and Yael Schacher, a senior US advocate at Refugees International, said they all observed connectivity issues. For migrants who must recount some of the most traumatic experiences of their lives to support their asylum claims, video conferencing makes their task harder, Perez-Davis said.

“I have been asking myself what happens if you’re in the middle of the worst story you’ve ever had to tell, and the video cuts out?” she said.

These courts are sending immigrants back to danger in Mexico

Migrants are required to travel in the dark and show up for processing before their hearings at the port courts early as 4:30 in the morning.

That puts them at increased risk, with recent reports of violence and kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo, which is directly across the border from Laredo, and Matamoros, which is adjacent to Brownsville. The State Department has consequently issued a level four “Do Not Travel”warning in both Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.

Lynch and Perez-Davis said that attorneys are also increasingly afraid of crossing the border into Mexico in light of those safety concerns. Where they used to cross over the border to deliver presentations informing migrants of their rights and the US legal process in Mexican shelters, that is no longer happening to the same degree.

“It has chilled any sort of ability to provide legal representation,” Perez-Davis said.

DHS purports to exempt “vulnerable populations” from the Remain in Mexico policy and allow them to remain in the US, but in practice, few migrants have been able to obtain such exemptions in non-refoulement interviews.

The advocacy group Human Rights First issued a report earlier this month documenting dozens of cases in which inherently vulnerable immigrants — including those with serious health issues and pregnant women — and immigrants who were already victims of kidnapping, rape and assault in Mexico were sent back under MPP after their interviews.

With attorneys barred from advocating for migrants in these interviews, migrants will likely continue to be sent back to Mexico even if they should qualify for an exemption under DHS’s own guidelines.

“These interviews are a basic human rights protection to ensure that no one is returned to a country where they would face inhumane treatment, persecution or other harm,” Democrats wrote Thursday. “We are concerned that DHS is returning asylum seekers to harm in Mexico.”

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

This situation persists as a direct and predictable consequence of the Ninth Circuit’s atrocious decision staying the District Court’s properly issued injunction in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan!

As I told the US District Court, District of Rhode Island, 2019 District Conference on “Independence & the Courts” today:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change. Make the guys in the ivory tower “own” the deaths, human rights abuses, unrelenting human misery, and mockeries of justice that their intransigence and failure to carry out their oaths to faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. is causing to the most needy and vulnerable among us — that is, to those who have the audacity to assert their legal rights under our laws.

What good are “independent” courts who won’t stand up for our individual rights under the Constitution? “Independence” does not entitle judges to use their privileged positions to be complicit or complacent in the face of great tyranny and the human misery and irreparable harm it causes!

And, thanks to Nicole for “keeping on” this horrifying chronicle of calculated and premeditated human rights abuses by an Executive Branch “gone rogue,” and the disastrous real life human consequences of ivory tower appellate judges failing to perform their Constitutional duties. They will not escape the judgment of history for their unwillingness to stand up to the abuses of a White Nationalist regime carrying out a predetermined agenda totally unrelated to governing in the public interest or complying with the rule of law.

Also, many thanks too Laura and Leidy for having the courage and dedication to put themselves “on the line” to let us know exactly what’s happening as a result of the massive failure of all three branches of our Government.

Join the New Due Process Army and take the fight to preserve our American values and our Constitution to all three branches of Government until they do their duties and stop the illegal and unconstitutional abuses of asylum seekers!

PWS

10-18-19

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

“I Don’t Want To Do Your Dirty Work No More” — Is Mexico Tiring Of Committing Human Rights Violations In The Name Of Trump & The 9th Circuit?

“Times are hard

You’re afraid to pay the fee

So you find yourself somebody

Who can do the job for free

When you need a bit of lovin’

‘Cause your man is out of town

That’s the time you get me runnin’

And you know I’ll be around

I’m a fool to do your dirty work

Oh yeah

I don’t wanna do your dirty work

No more

I’m a fool to do your dirty work

Oh yeah”

From “Dirty Work” by Steely Dan (1972)

Listen on Youtube here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ghcsrblhn7A

Songwriters: Donald Jay Fagen / Walter Carl Becker

https://apple.news/AzGaEoYZJR_KtFInPtWScxA

Gaby Del Valle reports for Vox News:

The Mexican government is finally pushing back against the controversial Trump policy of forcing some asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their immigration cases play out in court, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security Briefing obtained by BuzzFeed News.

More than 35,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols, colloquially referred to as the Remain in Mexico policy, since its start in January, according to the DHS document. That’s put migrants in danger and strained resources in Mexican Border Communities. Now, Mexican officials have reportedly begun limiting the days and times U.S. immigration agencies can send asylum-seekers back to Mexico and have cracked down on which migrants can be returned.

Mexican officials in El Paso, for example, have stopped accepting migrants after 1 p.m., even though some migrants have to return to Mexico after crossing into the U.S. for court hearings, according to the memo. As a result, Customs and Border Protection has had to detain more than half of the migrants who came to the city for hearings in August. The Mexican government has also occasionally refused to accept migrants who have been issued deportation orders but are fighting their cases, the memo says..

The policy has led to overcrowding at migrant shelters along the border, many of which are operated by nonprofits and religious organizations. At cities along the border, migrants have become easy prey for cartels and gangs. The people helping them have become targets, too: In Nuevo Laredo, members of an organized crime group kidnapped the director of a migrant shelter earlier this month. The violence against migrants is so pervasive that advocates refer to the MPP as the Migrant Persecution Protocols.

The Mexican government has attempted to alleviate the strain by busing migrants to cities further from the border, like Monterrey and Tapachula, the later of which is close to the country’s border with Guatemala. That has only complicated things further, since migrants have to return to the U.S. for their court hearings.

Being forced to wait in Mexico has also had legal consequences for migrants, many of whom struggle to find lawyers. A recent report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that less than 1% of migrants who have been forced to wait in Mexico as part of the MPP have lawyers.

Cover image: A security guard accompanies a group of U.S. asylum-seekers out of Mexican immigration offices after they were returned by U.S. authorities to wait in Mexico under the so-called Remain in Mexico program, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Wednesday, July 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Christian Chavez

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

As I’ve been saying all along, the bogus “Migrant Protection Protocols” (a/k/a “Return to Mexico,” a/k/a “Let “em Die In Mexico”) are nothing more than a very transparent scheme to deprive asylum applicants who have passed “credible fear” of their statutory, regulatory, and Due Process Constitutional right to be represented by counsel of their choice.

DHS has intentionally made it functionally impossible for U.S. pro bono groups to effectively represent those asylum seekers returned to Mexico. As we all know, without counsel, applicants have little, if any, realistic chance of succeeding on asylum claims, particularly under Trump’s restrictionist, openly anti-asylum regime.

For some reason, a complicit 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing this legal travesty to proceed. Vulnerable asylum applicants are being abused by Trump on the 9th Circuit’s watch with impunity.

PWS

08-25-19

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY) INTRODUCES BILL TO PROVIDE ATTORNEYS FOR ASYUM SEEKERS – Other Dems Sign On

https://apple.news/AgrY1IyNUTySuACBpvrL_aQ

Veronica Stracqualursi
Politics Reporter
CNN

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand introduces new legislation that would provide asylum seekers with attorney

Veronica Stracqualursi

CNN

Updated 2:18 PM EDT August 2, 2019 Washington

2020 Democratic presidential candidate and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrandintroduced a bill Wednesday that would provide immigrants with an attorney as they seek asylum or other legal protections in the US as the Trump administration has been dramatically limiting the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum.

Immigrants, for example, have the right to counsel and may hire a lawyer themselves, but unlike in the criminal justice system, representation is not guaranteed.

Under Gillibrand’s proposed bill, legal counsel would be required for eligible groups facing removal proceedings — including children, individuals with disabilities, victims of abuse, torture, and violence, and individuals at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

The Funding Attorneys for Indigent Removal (FAIR) Proceedings Act “would ensure that some of the most vulnerable individuals in this process can be represented by an attorney,” Gillibrand said in a statement Friday.

“This would not only guarantee a more humane way to process asylum claims and other legal protections, but it would improve the efficiency of our immigration courts and help our country do a much better job of managing our immigration system,” Gillibrand said.

She accused the Trump administration of being “far too willing to fast-track deportation cases even when people have credible claims to asylum.”

Democratic Reps. Donald McEachin from Virginia and Zoe Lofgren from California have introduced a House companion to Gillibrand’s bill. Sens. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders, two other 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Richard Blumenthal have also signed onto the Senate bill as co-sponsors.

The Trump administration has worked to limit immigration and toughen the US asylum process amid overcrowded conditions at border facilities and a spike in apprehensions at the US-Mexico border over the recent months.

Last month, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security also rolled out an interim rule that would prohibit migrants who have resided or “transited en route” in a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants from Central America traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum and as a result, drastically limiting who’s eligible for asylum.

A federal judge blocked the asylum rulefrom going into effect, deeming it “likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

The Trump administration also moved to expanda procedure to speed up deportations to include undocumented immigrants anywhere in the US who cannot prove they’ve lived in the country continuously for two years or more.

The notice, filed in the Federal Register on July 22, casts a wider net of undocumented immigrants subject to the fast-track deportation procedure known as “expedited removal” which allows immigration authorities to remove an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge. The American Civil Liberties Union has said it will sue to block the policy.

© 2019 Cable News Network, Inc. A WarnerMedia Company. All Rights Reserved.

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

Competent lawyers have been beating the Trump Administration like a drum on immigration issues. That’s why corrupt officials like Trump, Barr, Miller, “Big Mac With Lies,” and “Cooch Cooch” are so desperate to railroad asylum applicants out of the country while unlawfully denying them access to even the limited number of pro bono lawyers available under current law.

The Federal Courts have also “tanked” on their constitutional duty to insure Due Process by requiring appointed counsel in immigration cases, something that should make the entire Article III judiciary hang their collective heads in shame. The Federal Courts have also been “asleep at the switch” by allowing the Trump Administration to use inhumane coercive detention in obscure places and other gimmicks intentionally designed to defeat asylum applicants’ right to counsel of their own choosing.

PWS

08-03-19

“BIG MAC WITH LIES” — Acting DHS Sec. Kevin McAleenan Falsely Claims That 90% Of Asylum Seekers Abscond — Actual Court Records Show The Truth: “Most courts showed patterns very similar to national appearance rates — with represented families’ appearance rates close to 100 percent, and unrepresented families somewhat lower.”

Here’s what McAleenan told Congress:

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan testified Tuesday that 90 percent of asylum-seekers tracked under a recently instituted program skipped the hearings in which their cases were to be adjudicated.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, McAleenan explained that his department is hampered in its efforts to deter illegal immigration by U.S. laws that allow asylum-seekers to remain on U.S. soil under their own recognizance for months or even years while awaiting a hearing that the vast majority of them simply skip.

“Out of those 7,000 cases, 90 received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent,” McAleenan told Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), referring to the results of a recent DHS pilot program that tracks family units applying for asylum.

“90 percent did not show up?” Graham asked.

“Correct. That is a recent sample from families crossing the border,” McAleenan replied.

https://apple.news/A3pp8Hb9QSA2ZwNpyJnHmPQ

Here’s the truth as compiled by the nonpartisan TRAC on the basis of a case-by-case examination of actual court records:

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The latest case-by-case records from the Immigration Courts indicate that as of the end of May 2019 one or more removal hearings had already been held for nearly 47,000 newly arriving families seeking refuge in this country. Of these, almost six out of every seven families released from custody had shown up for their initial court hearing. For those who are represented, more than 99 percent had appeared at every hearing. Thus, court records directly contradict the widely quoted claim that “90 Percent of Recent Asylum Seekers Skipped Their Hearings.”

These findings were based upon a detailed analysis of court hearing records conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. With rare exception virtually every family attended their court hearings when they had representation. Appearance rates at the initial hearing were 99.9 percent. One reason for these higher rates for represented families is that it is an attorney’s responsibility to keep on top of when and where their client’s hearing is scheduled, and communicate these details to them. Thus, even if the court’s notification system fails, the family still finds out where and when to appear for their hearing.

Under our current system, there is no legal requirement that immigrants actually receive notice, let alone timely notice, of their hearing. Given many problems in court records on attendance that TRAC found, and in the system for notifying families of the place and time of their hearings, these appearance rates were remarkably high. TRAC’s examination of court records also showed that there were nearly ten thousand “phantom” family cases on the court’s books. These were cases entered into the Immigration Court’s database system but with little information apart from a case sequence number. The date of the notice’s filing, charges alleged, and particulars on the family were all blank.

Most courts showed patterns very similar to national appearance rates — with represented families’ appearance rates close to 100 percent, and unrepresented families somewhat lower. Full details by nationality and court are available at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/

In addition, a number of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through May 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

———————————————————————————
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
_____________________________________

Obviously, if McAleenan and the Administration were serious about court appearances, rather than spreading lies and creating chaos, they would work with the pro bono bar and NGOs to establish a universal representation program for asylum seekers. That would achieve nearly 100% compliance with hearing notices while promoting the rule of law and Constitutional Due Process. Not to mention that they should be investing in “quality control” in the issuance of the hearing notices, which all too often are erroneously addressed or improperly served.

Lawyers and improved notice as well as more professional adjudications that actually comply with the generous legal standards for asylum established by Congress and the Supreme Court would be much smarter and better investments than detention, more enforcement officers, bogus in absentia hearings (most based on defective notices), attempting to force asylum seekers to apply or wait in dangerous third countries without functioning asylum systems, and smearing lawful asylum applicants in support of totally unwarranted changes in the law.

Additionally, with lawyers and fair, impartial, and properly trained independent judges, many more of these asylum cases could be granted in short order, thus helping eliminate largely self-created Immigration Court backlogs and unnecessary appeals that burden the system as a result of the Administration’s constant malfeasance (a/k/a “malicious incompetence” resulting in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”).

In the meantime, McAleenan’s lies, distortions, and misrepresentations under oath should certainly be grounds for a Congressional investigation into why he retains his current position and why DHS is using taxpayer money to falsify data to support a bogus attack on lawful asylum seekers.

Also interesting, but not surprising, that EOIR has 10,000 “phantom family cases” in its system.

PWS

06-19-19

FRANZ KAFKA’S AMERICA: At the “Jena Gulag” Everyone’s A Criminal Including Attorneys Committing The “Crime” Of Representing Their Clients!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/06/guest-post-m-isabel-medina.html

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

Escobedo v. Illinois(1964) – I remember the case from law school and it is one of those cases that stay with you. It’s a case that spoke so firmly to our profession and the constitutional right that our profession guards – the right to counsel.   It’s the case where the attorney is trying to see the client, and the client keeps asking to see the attorney, and they are both at the police station, but the police continue to deny both the ability to meet and talk before the person is interrogated by police. The case fascinated me because the situation seemed so remarkable, really, incredible, and, of course, the Supreme Court, at that time, gave what I thought the correct response. I still think it is the correct response but what I missed then, and sometimes now, is how many of us think, then and now, it was not. But Escobedo is a Sixth Amendment case that applies in the context of criminal prosecutions so although I have thought of it often in the past three weeks, it is uncertain precedent to rely on in the context of immigration proceedings. It also strikes me now who Escobedo is, and I remember when we first discussed this case in law school, the complete absence of a discussion about his race and national origin, in the classroom.

I also think often of Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning that “The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime,” And what this reasoning means in a world where persons are incarcerated, prevented from touching, hugging and kissing their closest relatives, including their children, simply because they are immigrants in removal proceedings (a civil process, the Court continues to tell us – not a criminal process) and where persons are not allowed to meet with their attorneys in a room in which they can go over documents or testimony together, but instead meet only in cubicles that are completely separated from each other except for a quarter inch slit at the bottom of a plastic/glass divider. So it is literally physically impossible to point at a statement in a document and ask the client a question about that statement. And it is in fact physically impossible for a client to hand over to their attorney documents. They have to be taken apart and slipped across through that quarter inch slit. It took a client over an hour to slip over to me part of the file.

This is the world at La Salle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana, one of the Geo owned and managed detention centers in Louisiana that currently houses only immigrant detainees. But the guards at La Salle know better – they are housing criminals at La Salle and the guards think of them as criminals, call them criminals, and treat them like criminals. Criminals, apparently, are undeserving of any kind of protection. The reason for the cubicle, I am told, is to make impossible the passing of contraband. I ask what contraband. I ask further, by attorneys? Attorneys are bringing in contraband? I ask amazed. And the answer I am given is yes, you’d be surprised. And I persist, What? What kind of things are attorneys bringing in? And the answer I get eventually is things like food.

At La Salle, inmates are separated and designated by clothing of different colors into different groups based on their alleged “dangerousness” or “security.” Inmates are written up for asking questions or making requests or complaining about things like missed mail or failures to deliver mail. Inmates are also restricted in accessing outside time, private time, and so many of the things those of us who are free take for granted, and those of us who are committed to serve a criminal sentence are denied. But these “inmates” aren’t serving a criminal sentence, as I remind the guards. They are civil detainees – they are not supposed to be treated like criminals serving a criminal sentence.

At La Salle, civil detention is criminal detention.   I have had greater physical access to persons convicted of murder or persons who’ve been accused of criminal offenses. I’m somewhat nonplussed by the restrictions on meeting with someone who is facing removal from this country; and the impact of those restrictions on their right to counsel.

But I am even more nonplussed when those restrictions start being applied directly to me. In order to see a client, I have to turn my car keys in to the facility. I cannot take my bag or purse with me. This is for my safety I am told. Every time I visit a person at La Salle, I ask for access to the person. I know there is a room at La Salle in the visiting area that allows for that. I know that the facility has made this room available to consular officials visiting persons in the facility. But the facility refuses to make this room available for attorney-client visits. I ask every time and am refused every time. I leave multiple phone messages for the Warden but no one ever calls me back and no one with authority ever agrees to talk to me.

When I come for the hearing at La Salle Immigration Court with the family of a person I am representing, the guard refuses to allow the children of the person into the courtroom. I ask why not. Federal policy is that children 12 and older can attend court proceedings. There are signs in the waiting room at the facility that state this. But when I come with six law students and the family, the officer says no they have to be 15 and older (after looking the children over). So I ask why again. I explain that I’ve checked with the Court administrator and federal guidelines and the ICE–ERO on the case and the Court administrator said the children were allowed to attend. No one had indicated otherwise. So the officer goes off to check with someone. When she returns she says the ICE officer in charge of the facility has determined that the children cannot go in. I ask why? She says that’s what he’s decided. I say may I speak to him. That is not consistent with the federal policy and the court administrator approved it. I’d like to speak to him. She goes out again and comes back a bit later. Then a person not in uniform comes in waves to me and takes me into a bigger office. There he proceeds to threaten me with arrest – first, it sounds like he is going to arrest me himself but then he threatens that he is going to call the sheriff and have the sheriff arrest me. I ask him why he would do that.  I am just trying to find out why the children can’t attend the hearing, given that it’s federal policy and I’ve gotten approval of the court administrator. He is physically shaking with anger as he tells me again he is going to call the sheriff and have me arrested. I agree to be arrested but remind him that the facility operates by force of law and regulation – it can’t operate as if law doesn’t apply here. I am an attorney, I explain, I have to be able to assert my client’s interests.

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

Who are the “real criminals” here?

It takes lots of corruption, cowardice, and complicity to make this happen: A Congress that doesn’t care, a Supreme Court that disingenuously manufactures ridiculous legal fictions and turns a blind eye to glaring Constitutional violations, Article III Courts who can see that the results are inherently biased, coercive, and unfair but look the other way, a thoroughly corrupt Attorney General who has no interest whatsoever in justice, complicit politicos and bureaucrats at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS willing to violate ethical standards and their oaths of office, and those minions at the “bottom of the pyramid” who glory in the chance to exercise power in an arbitrary and abusive way.

Thanks goodness for dedicated, courageous lawyers like Isabel who are members of the “New Due Process Army,” fight for the legal rights of the most vulnerable among us, refuse to give in to the oppressors, and document and expose the vileness and lawlessness of the Trump Administration and its many enablers and retainers like Geo and its guards.

Your tax dollars at work!

PWS

06-11-19

EOIR DIRECTOR McHENRY TRIES TO EXPLAIN TRASHING OF DUE PROCESS TO SKEPTICAL HOUSE DEMS — DOJ Leadership Has Turned “Courts” Into “A DMV For Deportation,” Says Chairman Jose Serrano (D-NY)!— Many Cases From Trump Shutdown Still “MIA” While Lives Hang In The Balance!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-court-government-shutdown-immigrants-waiting-for-cancelled-hearings-rescheduled-2019-03-11/

Kate Smith reports for CBS News:

Immigration courts are still wading through the disruptions caused by the government shutdown, which closed the courts and effectively cancelled between 50,000 and 95,000 hearings in December and January.

Many immigrants are still waiting to have those hearings rescheduled, James McHenry, the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review which oversees the nation’s immigration courts, told lawmakers during a hearing last week. “The courts are in the process of rescheduling those, they’ve been working overtime since the shutdown ended to get that done,” McHenry said.

Congressman Jose Serrano, who chaired the hearing, called the delay “deeply problematic,” in an email to CBS News. The nation’s immigration courts reopened on January 28 after being closed for over a month during the partial government shutdown.

“It is ironic that this Administration’s obsession with building a wall only increased the number of immigrants in limbo, aggravating an already serious crisis,” said Serrano, who represents New York’s 15th district. “There needs to be a serious effort to reschedule these hearings quickly”

Although McHenry estimated that 50,000 immigration cases were cancelled during the shutdown, others say the number could be nearly double that. According to Syracuse University’s TRAC, 80,051 hearings during the shutdown were either outright cancelled or had their status left unchanged — the hearing date simply came and went without acknowledgement, leaving affected migrants to wonder what comes next.

TRAC said the number of cancelled cases rises to more than 94,000 when it includes other factors, like “Docket Management” or “Immigration Judge Leave.”

Many hearings scheduled for the week after the government reopened were also postponed as court clerks waded through over a month’s worth of filings that hadn’t been touched during the shutdown. Rather than processing those documents, court administrators in Charlotte, North Carolina, for example, threw them into brown cardboard boxes for clerks to deal with once the court opened, said Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney who serves clients in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The immigration court system, which is overseen by the Department of Justice, handles a range of cases involving non-citizens, including issuing green cards and ruling on asylum claims. The courts also serve as a necessary step toward temporary Social Security cards — needed for work permits and driver’s licenses — making hearings intensely important for immigrants.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review declined to comment on the status of the courts after the shutdown.

CBS News spoke with six immigration attorneys, all of which have at least one client whose cancelled case hasn’t yet been rescheduled. Many of the hearings that were have yet to be rescheduled are for migrants seeking asylum, a legal form of immigration for people fleeing persecution and threats in their home country. One immigrant was waiting on a final hearing on their asylum case, a decision that would determine whether she gets to stay in the United States or be deported.

“The impact on the client is just not knowing,” said McKinney.

The cancellations have also added to the system’s record-high case backlog, which McHenry estimated to be 850,000 during Thursday’s hearing. Once the courts have fully realized the impact from the shutdown, immigration advocates predict it will get even bigger.

For the immigrants with cancelled hearings, getting back in front of a judge could take years. At the Newark, New Jersey immigration court, some cancelled hearings have been penciled in as far back as August 2021, said Alan Pollack, an immigration attorney in New Jersey, in an interview with CBS News. In Houston, the immigration court begun issuing dates in 2022, said Ruby Powers, an immigration attorney.

“We’re getting a bit used to things taking a while and a dose of chaos,” Powers said.

First published on March 11, 2019 / 12:29 PM

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

Here’s Subcommittee Chairman Jose Serrano’s (D-NY) “spot on” statement about the DOJ’s “dissing” of Due Process at EOIR.

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-serrano-statement-at-hearing-on-executive-office-for-immigration-0

Chairman Serrano Statement at Hearing on Executive Office for Immigration Review

March 7, 2019

Press Release

Congressman José E. Serrano (D-NY), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related AgenciesAppropriations Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the Subcommittee’s hearing on the Executive Office for Immigration Review:

The subcommittee will come to order.

For our second hearing of the year, today we welcome James McHenry, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR. EOIR primarily functions as our nation’s immigration court system, where it administers and adjudicates our nation’s immigration laws. Thank you for being with us, Director McHenry.

I wanted to hold this hearing because I have deep concerns about how our nation’s immigration courts are operating. Some of those concerns are longstanding, while others have been exacerbated by the decisions of the Trump Administration.

Our nation’s immigration courts handle a wide variety of immigration-related claims, from removal proceedings to asylum claims. These are complex, nuanced proceedings that require time, understanding, and care. In many cases, the consequence—removal from this country—is so severe that we must have significant due process to ensure that no one’s rights are violated in an immigration court proceeding.

Unfortunately, these concerns are increasingly being shoved aside. This, in part, is due to the enormous, and growing, backlog of pending cases before the courts, which is now more than 1 million cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. That growth is largely due to the significant increase in immigration enforcement efforts over the past 15 years, which has not been followed by a similar growth in the immigration court system. Although this subcommittee has included significant increases in immigration judge teams for the past two fiscal years, the backlog has actually increased under the Trump Administration. This situation was worsened by the recent government shutdown.

The reasons for that are sadly clear. The leadership at the Justice Department has attempted to turn our immigration courts into a sort of deportation DMV– where immigrants get minimal due process on their way out the door. This Administration has chosen to: impose quotas on immigration judges to limit case consideration regardless of complexity; limit the ways in which immigrants can make valid claims for asylum; increase the use of videoconferencing to reduce in-person appearances; and undermine the discretion of immigration judges to administratively close cases, among many other things. Ironically, these choices, supposedly aimed at efficiency, have actually increased the backlog.

I believe our immigration courts should strive to be a model of due process. A couple of bright spots in that effort are the Legal Orientation Program and the Immigration Court Help Desk, both of which help to better inform immigrants about their court proceedings. We should seek to expand such programs.

Despite these efforts, in our current system, an estimated 63 percent of immigrants do not have legal counsel. We’ve all read stories about children, some as young as 3 years old, being made to represent themselves. That is appalling. Our immigration laws are complicated enough for native English speakers, let alone those who come here speaking other languages or who are not adults. We can, and should, do better than this.

Today’s hearing will explore the choices we are making in our immigration court system, to better understand how the money we appropriate is being used, and whether it is being used in line with our expectations and values. Thank you, again, Director McHenry, for being here.

Now let me turn to my friend, Mr. Aderholt, for any comments he may have.

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

It’s painfully obvious that Director McHenry doesn’t have the faintest idea how many cases are actually “off docket” because of the Trump Administration’s malicious incompetence, a/k/a ”Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”

As Chairman Serrano observed, the vision of the Immigration Courts once was “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” That noble vision has been replaced by a “partnership” with DHS Enforcement to misconstrue the law, deny rights, punish those we should be protecting, and reduce “Immigration Judges” to menial “rubber stamps” on cruel, illegal, and unduly harsh enforcement actions in the hopes that the Article III Courts will “take a dive” and “defer” rather than intervening to put an end to this travesty.

Chairman Serrano and others have identified the problem. But they haven’t solved it!

That will require the removal of the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and establishing an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court where Due Process can flourish, fundamental fairness will be the watchword, “best practices” (not merely expediency) will be institutionalized, and all parties will be treated equally and respectfully, thus putting an end to years of preferential treatment of DHS.

PWS

03-12-19

Many well-deserved congrats, Michele, my friend!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Why Legal Representation Is Essential To Due Process For Asylum Seekers (In Fewer Than 200 Words)

By. Paul Wickham Schmidt

Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

Courtside Exclusive

Oct. 5, 2020

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Here’s what McAleenan told Congress:

Here’s the truth as compiled by the nonpartisan TRAC on the basis of a case-by-case examination of actual court records:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Chairman Serrano Statement at Hearing on Executive Office for Immigration Review

Related posts: