GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators & Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”

Fernanda Echavarri
Reporter
Mother Jones

https://apple.news/AyKjNs5gOQJqIJ2_IeeQvcg

Fernanda Echavarri reports for Mother Jones:

“A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts

SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION COURT, COURTROOM #2;
PRESIDING: JUDGE LEE O’CONNOR

Lee O’Connor has been in his courtroom for all of two minutes before a look of annoyance washes over his face.

Eleven children and six adults—all of them from Central America, all of them in court for the first time—sit on the wooden benches before him. They’ve been awake since well before dawn so they could line up at the US-Mexico border to board government buses headed to immigration court in downtown San Diego, Kevlar-vested federal agents in tow. Like the dozens of families jam-packed into the lobby and the six other courtrooms, they’ve been waiting out their asylum cases in Mexico, often for months, as part of the Trump administration’s controversial border policy, the Migrant Protection Protocols.

O’Connor has a docket full of MPP cases today, like every day. Before he gets to them, though, he quickly postpones a non-MPP case to January 2021, explaining to a man and his attorney that he simply doesn’t have time for them today, motioning to the families in the gallery. While he’s doing this, the little girl in front of me keeps asking her mom if she can put on the headphones that play a Spanish translation of the proceedings. A guard motions the little girl to be quiet.

For months, immigration attorneys and judges have been complaining that there’s no fair way to hear the cases of the tens of thousands of Central Americans who have been forced to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their claims inch through the courts. MPP has further overwhelmed dockets across the country and pushed aside cases that already were up against a crippling backlog that’s a million cases deep, stranding immigration judges in a bureaucratic morass and families with little hope for closure anytime in the near future.

I went last month to San Diego—home to one of the busiest MPP courts, thanks to its proximity to Tijuana and the more than 20,000 asylum seekers who now live in shelters and tent cities there—expecting to see logistical chaos. But I was still surprised at how fed up immigration judges like O’Connor were by the MPP-driven speedup—and by the extent to which their hands were tied to do anything about it.

Once O’Connor is done rescheduling his non-MPP case, he leans forward to adjust his microphone, rubs his forehead, and starts the group removal hearing. The interpreter translates into Spanish, and he asks if the adults understand. “SÃ,” they say nervously from the back of the courtroom. O’Connor goes down his list, reading their names aloud with a slight Spaniard accent, asking people to identify themselves when their names are called. He reprimands those who do not speak up loud enough for him to hear.

O’Connor, who was appointed to the bench in 2010, is known for being tough: Between 2014 and 2019, he has denied 96 percent of asylum cases. He explains to the migrants that they have the right to an attorney, although one will not be provided—there are no public defenders in immigration court. O’Connor acknowledges finding legal representation from afar is difficult, but he tells them it’s not impossible. He encourages them to call the five pro bono legal providers listed on a sheet of paper they received that day. The moms sitting in front of me have their eyes locked on the Spanish interpreter, trying to absorb every bit of information. Their kids try their best to sit quietly.

As he thumbs through the case files, O’Connor grows increasingly frustrated: None of them has an address listed. “The government isn’t even bothering to do this,” he grumbles. The documents for MPP cases list people’s addresses as simply “Domicilio Conocido,” which translates to “Known Address.” This happens even when people say they can provide an address to a shelter in Mexico or when they have the address of a relative in the United States who can receive their paperwork. “I’ve seen them do this in 2,000 cases since May,” O’Connor says, and the Department of Homeland Security “hasn’t even bothered to investigate.” He looks up at the DHS attorney with a stern look on his face, but she continues shuffling paperwork around at her desk.

O’Connor picks up a blue form and explains to the group that they have to change their address to a physical location. The form is only in English; many of the adults seem confused and keep flipping over their copies as he tells them how to fill it out. O’Connor tells them they have to file within a week—perhaps better to do it that day, he says—but it’s unclear to me how they could follow his exacting instructions without the help of an attorney. He points out other mistakes in the paperwork filed by DHS and wraps up the hearing after about 45 minutes. The families don’t know that’s typical for a first hearing and seem perplexed when it ends.

O’Connor schedules the group to come back for their next hearing in five weeks at 8:30 a.m. That will mean showing up at the San Ysidro port of entry at 4:30 a.m.; the alternative, he says, is being barred from entering the United States and seeking forms of relief for 10 years. “Do you understand?” he asks. The group responds with a hesitant “SÃ.”

The Trump administration designed MPP to prevent people like them from receiving asylum, and beyond that, from even seeking it in the first place. First implemented in San Diego in late January 2019 to help stem the flow of people showing up at the southern border, the policy has since sent somewhere between 57,000 and 62,000 people to dangerous Mexican cities where migrants have been preyed upon for decades. Their cases have been added to an immigration court that already has a backlog of 1,057,811 cases—up from 600,000 at the time when Obama left office—according to data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

The skyrocketing immigration court backlog

View on the original site.

According to immigration judge Ashley Tabaddor, who spoke to me in her capacity as union president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, MPP has constituted a fundamental change to the way courts are run. DHS, she says, is “creating a situation where they’re physically, logistically, and systematically creating all the obstacles and holding all the cards.” The MPP program has left the court powerless, “speeding up the process of dehumanizing the individuals who are before the court and deterring anyone from the right to seek protection” All this while the Department of Justice is trying to decertify Tabbador’s union—the only protection judges have, and the only avenue for speaking publicly about these issues—by claiming its members are managers and no longer eligible for union membership. Tabaddor says the extreme number of cases combined with the pressure to process them quickly is making it difficult for judges to balance the DOJ’s demands with their oath of office.

Immigration attorneys in El Paso, San Antonio, and San Diego have told me they are disturbed by the courtroom disarray: the unanswered phones, unopened mail, and unprocessed filings. Some of their clients are showing up at border in the middle of the night only to find that their cases have been rescheduled. That’s not only unfair, one attorney told me, “it’s dangerous.” Central Americans who speak only indigenous languages are asked to navigate court proceedings with Spanish interpreters. One attorney in El Paso had an 800-page filing for an asylum case that she filed with plenty of time for the judge to review, but it didn’t make it to the judge in time.

As another lawyer put it, “The whole thing is a fucking disaster that is designed to fail.”

Guillermo Arias/Getty People line up at the San Ysidro border crossing in Tijuana in May 2019.

COURTROOM #4; PRESIDING: JUDGE PHILIP LAW

Down the hall, a Honduran woman I’ll call Mari stands up next to her attorney and five-year-old son, raises her right hand, and is sworn in.

Mari’s hearing isn’t much of a hearing at all. Stephanie Blumberg, an attorney with Jewish Family Service of San Diego, who is working the case pro bono, asks for more time because she only recently took the case; Judge Philip Law says he will consolidate the cases of mother and child into one; and he schedules her next hearing for the following week at 7:30 a.m., with a call time of 3:30 a.m. at the border.

Just as it’s about to wrap up, Bloomberg says her client is afraid to return to Mexico. “I want to know what is going to happen with me. I don’t want to go back to Mexico—it’s terrible,” Mari says in Spanish, an interpreter translating for the judge. “I have no jurisdiction over that,” Law says. “That’s between you and the Department of Homeland Security.” Law then turns to the DHS attorney, who says he’ll flag the case and “pass it along.”

While nine families begin their MPP group hearing, Mari tells me back in the waiting room that she and her son crossed the border in Texas and then asked for asylum. They were detained for two days and then transported by plane to San Diego, where she was given a piece of paper with a date and time for court and then released in Tijuana. She didn’t know anyone, barely knew where she was, and, trying to find safety in numbers, stuck with the group released that day. Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.

Mari’s voice gets shaky, and she tries to wipe the tears from her eyes, but even the cotton gloves she’s wearing aren’t enough to keep her face dry. I tell her we can end the conversation and apologize for making her relive those moments. She looks at her son from across the room and says she’d like to continue talking.

“I thought about suicide,” she whispers. “I carried my son and thought about jumping off a bridge.” Instead, she ended up walking for a long time, not knowing what to do or what would happen to them because they didn’t have a safe place to go.

“I haven’t talked to my family back home—it’s so embarrassing because of the dream I had coming here, and now look,” she says. “We’re discriminated against in Mexico; people make fun of us and the way we talk.” Her boy was already shy but has become quieter and more distrusting in recent months.

In the last year, I’ve spoken to dozens of migrants in border cities like Ciudad JuÃ¡rez and Tijuana who share similarly horrific stories. Human Rights First has tracked more than 800 public reports of torture, kidnapping, rape, and murder against asylum seekers sent to Mexico in the last year. A lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies is challenging MPP on the grounds that it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the “United States’ duty under international human rights law” not to return people to dangerous conditions.

“The system has not been set up to handle this in any way,” says Kate Clark, senior director of immigration services with Jewish Family Service of San Diego, one of the groups listed on the pro bono sheet Judge O’Connor handed out earlier in the day. They’re the only ones with a WhatsApp number listed, and their phones are constantly ringing because “it’s clear that people don’t know what’s going on or what to expect—and they’re in fear for their lives,” Clark says. Still, her 8-person team working MPP cases can only help a small percentage of the people coming through the courtroom every day.

Later that afternoon, shortly after 5, two large white buses pull up to the court’s loading dock. Guards in green uniforms escort about 60 people out from the loading dock. Moms, dads, and dozens of little kids walk in a straight light to get on a bus. They are driven down to the border and sent back to Tijuana later that night.

A few days later, Mari’s attorney tells me that despite raising a fear of retuning to Mexico in court, US port officials sent Mari back to Tijuana that night.

COURTROOM #2; PRESIDING: JUDGE LEE O’CONNOR

I find myself back in O’Connor’s courtroom for his afternoon MPP hearings. This time, the only people with legal representation is a Cuban family who crossed in Arizona in July 2019 and turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents. This is their first time in court, and their attorney calls in from out of state.

Right away, O’Connor wants to address a different kind of clerical error from the one that bothered him earlier in the day—and one that he thinks matters even more. It involves the first document that DHS issues to “removable” immigrants, known as a Notice to Appear (NTA) form. Although the form allows agents to check a box to categorize people based on how they encountered immigration officials, O’Connor points out that in this case it was left blank—and that “this is fairly typical of the overwhelming majority of these cases.”

He isn’t the first or only judge to notice this; I heard others bring up inconsistent and incomplete NTAs. Border officials are supposed to note on the form if the people taken into custody are “arriving aliens,” meaning they presented at the port of entry asking for asylum, or “aliens present in the United States who have not been admitted or paroled,” meaning they first entered illegally in between ports of entry. Thousands of MPP cases have forms without a marked category. As far as O’Connor is concerned, that’s a crucial distinction. He believes that this Trump administration policy shouldn’t apply to people who entered the country without authorization—meaning countless immigrants who applied for MPP should be disqualified from the get-go.

In the case of the Cuban family, like dozens more that day, the DHS attorney filed an amended NTA classifying them as “arriving aliens.” O’Connor points out is not how they entered the United States. The DHS attorney is unphased by the judge’s stern tone and came prepared with piles of new forms for the other cases of incomplete NTAs. The family’s lawyer says maybe the government made a mistake. O’Connor, unsatisfied, interrupts her: “There was no confusion. I’ve seen 2,000 of theseâ¦the government is not bothering to spend the time.” After a lengthy back-and-forth, a testy O’Connor schedules the family to come back in three weeks.

O’Connor’s stance and rulings on this issue have broader implications. He terminated a case in October because a woman had entered the country illegally before turning herself in and wrote in his decision that DHS had “inappropriately subjected respondent to MPP.” He is among the loudest voices on this issue, saying that MPP is legal only when applied to asylum-seekers presenting at legal ports of entry—though it’s unclear to many lawyers what it might mean for their clients to have their cases terminated in this way. Would these asylum seekers end up in immigration detention facilities? Would they be released under supervision in the United States? Would they be deported back to their home countries?

Since MPP cases hit the courts last March, asylum attorneys have been critical of DHS for not answering these questions. I was present for the very first MPP hearing in San Diego and saw how confused and frustrated all sides were that DHS didn’t seem to have a plan for handling these cases. Now, almost a year later, little has changed.

Tabaddor, the union president, tells me that “there are definitely legal issues that the MPP program has presented” and that judges are having to decide whether the documents “are legally sufficient.” “The issue with DHS—frankly, from what I’ve heard—is that it seems like they’re making it up as they go,” she says.

Last week, Tabaddor testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee and for the independence of immigration courts from the political pressures of federal law enforcement. There are approximately 400 immigration judges across more than 60 courts nationwide, and almost half of those judges have been appointed during the Trump era. (According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, dozens of judges are quitting or retiring early because their jobs have become “unbearable” under Trump.)

California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, an immigrants’ rights supporter in Congress, argued during the hearing that the immigration courts are in crisis and the issue requires urgent congressional attention. “In order to be fully effective, the immigration court system should function just like any other judicial institution,” she said. “Immigration judges should have the time and resources to conduct full and fair hearings, but for too long, the courts have not functioned as they should—pushing the system to the brink.”

Guillermo Arias/Getty Asylum seekers in Tijuana in October

COURTROOM #1; PRESIDING: JUDGE SCOTT SIMPSON

“I don’t want any more court,” a woman from Guatemala pleads just before lunchtime. “No more hearings, please.”

Unlike many of the people who were there for their first hearing when I observed court in San Diego, this woman has been to court multiple times since mid-2019. No matter how hard she tried, she couldn’t find a lawyer, she tells Judge Scott Simpson. She’s had enough.

“We’ve reached a fork on the road, ma’am,” Simpson says in a warm, calm tone. “You either ask for more time for an attorney to help you or you represent yourself.”

“No, it’d be a loss since I don’t know anything about the law,” the woman responds, her voice getting both louder and shakier. Simpson explains to her again the benefits of taking time to find an attorney.

“It’s been almost a year. I don’t want to continue the case. I want to leave it as is,” she tells him. After more explanation from the judge, the woman says she’d like to represent herself today so that decisions can be made. Simpson asks what she would like to do next, and the woman says, “I want you to end it.”

This woman’s pleas are increasingly common. Tabaddor says MPP has taken “an already very challenging situation and [made] it exponentially worse.” The new reality in immigration courts “is logistically and systematically designed to just deter people from seeking or availing themselves of the right to request protection,” Tabaddor says.

After hearing the Guatemalan woman ask for the case to be closed multiple times, Simpson takes a deep breath, claps his hands, and says there are four options: withdrawal, administrative close, dismissal, or termination. He explains each one, and after 10 minutes the woman asks for her case to be administratively closed. The DHS attorney, however, denies that request. Simpson’s hands are tied.

The judge tells the woman that because DHS filed paperwork on her case that day, and because it’s only in English, that he’s going to give her time to review it, because “as the judge I don’t think it would be fair for you to go forward without the opportunity to object to that.” He schedules her to come back in a month.

“MPP is not a program I created,” he says. “That decision was made by someone else.”

Additional reporting by Noah Lanard.

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

“Malicious incompetence,” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” “Man’s Inhumanity to Man” — it’s all there on public display in this deadly “Theater of the Absurd.”

Here, from a recent Human Rights Watch report on over 200 of those illegally returned to El Salvador without Due Process and in violation of the rule of law:

138 Killed;

70 Sexually abused, tortured, or otherwise harmed.

Here is the HRW report as posted on Courtside:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/06/how-americas-killer-courts-promote-crimes-against-humanity-human-rights-watch-trump-his-white-nationalist-sycophants-toadies-tout-lawless-policies-that-violate-legal-obligations-he/

Where, oh where, has our humanity and human decency gone?

And, how do spineless jurists on Article III Courts who continue to “rubber stamp” and overlook the disgraceful abrogation of Due Process and fundamental fairness going on in a grotesquely biased and mismanaged “court system” controlled by a White Nationalist, nativist regime look at themselves in the mirror each morning. Maybe they don’t.

Abuse of the most vulnerable among us might seem to them to be “below the radar screen.” After all, their victims often die, disappear, or are orbited back to unknown fates in dangerous foreign lands. Out of sign, out of mind! But, what if it were their spouses, sons, and daughters sent to Tijuana to be raped while awaiting a so-called “trial.”

Rather than serving its intended purpose, promoting courage to stand up against government tyranny and to defend the rights of individuals, even the downtrodden and powerless, against Government abuse of the law, life tenure has apparently become something quite different. That is, a refuge from accountability and the rules of human decency.

John Roberts, his “Gang of Five,” and the rest of the Article III enablers will escape any legal consequences for their actions and, perhaps more significant, inactions in the face of unspeakable abuses of our Constitution, the rule of law, intellectual honesty, and the obligations we owe to other human beings.

How about those cowardly 9th Circuit Judges who ignored the law, betrayed human decency, and enabled rapes, killings, and other “crimes against humanity” by “green lighting” the unconstitutional and clearly illegal “MPP” — better known as “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” with their absurdist legal gobbledygook in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan. They are enjoying life in the ivory tower while their human victims are suffering and dying.

But, folks like Fernanda and many others are recording their abuses which will live in history and infamy, will forever tarnish their records, and be a blot on their family names for generations to come.

There is no excuse for what is happening at our borders and in our Immigration Courts today. Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change! Flood the Article IIIs with examples and constant reminders of their handiwork and dereliction of duty! Let the bodies pile up on their collective doorsteps until the stench is so great that even they can no longer ignore and paper over their own complicity and moral responsibility with legal banalities. Force them to see their own faces and the faces of their loved ones in the scared, tormented faces and ruined lives of those destroyed by our scofflaw regime and its enablers.

Also, if you haven’t already done so, tell your Congressional representatives that you have had enough of this grotesque circus!

Here’s what I wrote to my legislators, and some from other states, recently:

I hope you will also speak out frequently against the grotesque abuses of human rights, Due Process, and human decency, not to mention the teachings of Jesus Christ and almost all other religious traditions, that the Trump Administration is carrying out against refugees of color, many of them desperate and vulnerable women and children, at our Southern Border.

Additionally, under Trump, the U.S. Immigration Courts, absurdly and unconstitutionally located within a politically biased U.S. Department of Justice, have become a mockery of justice, Due Process, and fundamental fairness. I urge you to join with other legislators in abolishing the current failed (1.1 million case backlog) and unfair system and replacing it with an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court. It’s time to end the abuse! This must be one of our highest national priorities.

I invite you and your staff to read more about the grotesque abuses of law, human rights, and fundamental human decency being committed daily on migrants and other vulnerable humans by the Trump Administration in my blog: immigrationcourtside.com, “The Voice of the New Due Process Army.” This is not the America I knew and proudly served for more than three decades as a Federal employee.

Due Process Forever; Trump’s Perverted View of America Never!

Thanks again.

With my appreciation and very best wishes,

Paul Wickham Schmidt

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Feckless Legislators, Never!

PWS

02-07-20

“LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO” UPDATE: SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION JUDGES STAND UP AGAINST TRUMP REGIME’S LAWLESS BEHAVIOR — Elsewhere Along The Border, Most Judges Appear To “Go Along To Get Along” With White Nationalist Agenda!

https://apple.news/A8ArjPBJHQmSHq_XVgoRjKw

Alicia A. Caldwell reports for the WSJ:

U.S.

Judges Quietly Disrupt Trump Immigration Policy in San Diego

Immigration court terminates more than a third of ‘Remain in Mexico’ cases

SAN DIEGO—Immigration judges in this city are presenting a challenge to the Trump administration’s policy of sending asylum-seeking migrants back to Mexico, terminating such cases at a significantly higher rate than in any other court, according to federal data.

Between January and the end of September, immigration judges in San Diego terminated 33% of more than 12,600 Migrant Protection Protocols cases, also known as Remain in Mexico, according to data collected by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Judges in El Paso, Texas, the busiest court hearing MPP cases, terminated fewer than 1% of their more than 14,000 cases.

The nine San Diego judges have repeatedly ruled that asylum seekers waiting in Mexico weren’t properly notified of their court dates or that other due process rights were violated.

The high rate of dismissals is undermining the Trump administration’s goal of quickly ordering the deportation of more illegal border crossers who request asylum, including those who don’t show up from Mexico for their court hearings.

The effect is more symbolic than practical. Such a decision doesn’t mean a migrant is allowed to stay in the U.S., even if they show up for their court hearing. Instead, it saves them from being banned from coming to the country for 10 years and makes it tougher for the government to charge them with a felony if they cross the border illegally in the future. Those whose case is dismissed when they aren’t in court might not even know about the decision unless they call a government hotline.

Spokespeople for Customs and Border Protection, which carries out MPP at the border, and the Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment.

However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose lawyers represent the government in immigration Court, have filed an appeal with a Justice Department panel. The appeal questions whether judges who terminate cases for migrants who don’t show up in court made a mistake.

A spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the immigration court’s parent agency, said immigration judges don’t comment on their rulings.

Denise Gilman, an immigration lawyer and director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, said the high number of dismissals in San Diego sends a message that judges there believe many government’s cases don’t meet minimum legal standards.

That stands in contrast to immigration judges elsewhere, experts and advocates said.

“Everywhere but in San Diego, [judges] are going with the flow,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a lawyer and policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, which opposes the Trump administration’s border policies.

Immigration judges are unlike most other judges in that they are civil servants, neither appointed nor elected. In civil courts, some jurisdictions are known as more plaintiff- or defendant-friendly. Some federal appeals courts skew left or right, but most don’t rule so frequently on a single policy as immigration judges on MPP.

The Trump administration has sent more than 55,000 asylum-seeking migrants to Mexico to await court hearings under MPP. Migrants were first turned back in January, and through the end of September, just over 5,000 have been ordered deported. Eleven were granted some sort of relief, including asylum, according to TRAC.

Over two recent days in San Diego, multiple judges made clear that they had concerns about Remain in Mexico program as they dismissed cases.

Judge Scott Simpson terminated cases for a family of three from Honduras after ruling that the government violated their due process rights by not properly filling out their notice to appear. As a result, he said, the migrants didn’t know the grounds on which they could fight their case.

“I found that the charging document was defective on a technicality,” Judge Simpson explained to Belma Marible Coto Ceballos and her two children. “It just means that your court case is over.”

MORE ON IMMIGRATION

• Bipartisan House Deal Opens Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrant Farmworkers

• Immigrant-Visa Applicants Required to Show They Can Afford Health Care

• U.S. Immigration Courts’ Backlog Exceeds One Million Cases

• New Trump Administration Rule Will Look at Immigrants’ Credit Histories

Ms. Coto quietly nodded as she listened to an interpreter before her attorney, Carlos Martinez, objected to the government’s plan to send the family back to Mexico while it appeals the termination. She and her children are afraid to return, Mr. Martinez explained, after Ms. Coto was assaulted in Tijuana.

Judge Simpson said he didn’t have the authority to keep the family in the U.S., but sought assurances that authorities would interview Ms. Coto about her fears of being sent back to Mexico.

During a separate hearing that same day, 10 MPP cases were closed by Judge Christine A. Bither, who also raised questions about the migrants’ addresses listed on government documents. She denied a government request to issue deportation orders in their absence.

Judge Simpson, meanwhile, repeatedly questioned how the government would update migrants in Mexico about their cases. Migrants routinely move between shelters or cities and don’t have a fixed address where they can receive mail.

He noted that migrants’ addresses are routinely listed on government documents as “domicilio conocido,” or general delivery in Spanish. In one case, he noted that “domicilio conocido” was misspelled for a migrant family that arrived late to the port of entry and missed the bus to immigration court. The government agreed to dismiss that case.

Write to Alicia A. Caldwell at Alicia.Caldwell@wsj.com

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

As noted in the article, the issues raised by the San Diego rulings are now before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Even if the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges “do the right thing” and reject the DHS appeal, I’m relatively sure that Billy Barr will change the result so that the DHS “wins” (and justice “loses”) no matter what the law says.

Larger question: a system where the biased prosecutor gets to hire and supervise the “judges” and then change the result if the individual nevertheless wins is obviously unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. So whatever happened to the Article III Courts whose job it is to uphold the Constitution and enforce the Bill of Rights against Executive overreach (which is exactly why the Bill of Rights was included in our Constitution)? Why are those gifted with life-tenure so feckless in the face of clear Executive tyranny?

Some Immigration Judges who lack life tenure and the other protections given to Article III judges are willing to stand up; those who are empowered so they can stand up instead stand by and watch injustice unfold every day in this fundamentally unfair system that is an insult to Constitutional Due Process, a mockery of justice, and a disgrace to their oaths of office!

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

PWS

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE LEE O’CONNOR EXPOSES MASSIVE DHS ILLEGALITY & FRAUD IN IMPLEMENTATION OF SO-CALLED MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS (“LET ‘EM DIE IN MEXICO”) – “Indeed, the vast majority of respondents subjected to the MPP program involve cases where DHS has compelled -without authorization of law – aliens who were present within the United States and were not arriving aliens to return to Mexico to await their removal proceeding. It appears that over 90 percent of the MPP cases involve aliens were not properly subject to INA § 235(b)(2)(C). The court finds that termination is the appropriate action.”

Here’s Judge O’Connor’s decision, dated 09-17-19:

9-17-19 IJ termination MPP

Here’s key language from Judge O’Connor’s decision:

Respondents appeared for a hearing on September 9, 2019, with counsel and were granted a continuance for attorney preparation. The court reset the case to September 17, 2019. Respondents moved to terminate removal proceedings on the ground that they are not arriving aliens and were therefore not properly subjected to the MPP program. The court concludes thatDHS has not proven its fundamental allegation that respondents are arriving aliens and that DHS has not acted properly in subjecting aliens who were apprehended within the United States to the MPP program. Indeed, the vast majority of respondents subjected to the MPP program involve cases where DHS has compelled -without authorization of law – aliens who were present within the United States and were not arriving aliens to return to Mexico to await their removal proceeding. It appears that over 90 percent of the MPP cases involve aliens were not properly subject to INA § 235(b)(2)(C). The court finds that termination is the appropriate action.

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

So this is the “legacy” of “Powerful Woman” Kirstjen Nielsen and her successor “Big Mac With Lies:” Massive violations of legal and human rights of asylum seekers!

And, don’t forget the complicit Article III Judges of the 9^th Circuit in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan whose mindless “green-lighting” of this abusive and clearly illegal program is responsible for daily mockeries of the very U.S. laws they were sworn to uphold as well as continuing human misery.

It also shows:

The great potential of an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court to stop DHS abuses in their tracks, at an early point in time (this would also save time and public money now being squandered on various illegal, ill-advised, and always inhumane “enforcement schemes and gimmicks”);
The potential of an independent Immigration Court with a true merit selection system for judges;
The value of effective representation of asylum seekers (which is either impeded or actively blocked by DHS and EOIR these days);
The corruption of leadership at DHS and DOJ and the lawyers representing them in court in defending the indefensible;
The dangers of abuses in a system run by a prejudiced Executive with no meaningful oversight and outside the public eye;
That while some Article III Judges have gone “belly up” in the face of massive illegality and abuses of our system, others like Judge O’Connor, even without the benefit of life tenure, have courageously continued to stand tall for Due Process and the legal rights of migrants to fair treatment under the law.

The current immigration system and those administering it in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner is a national disgrace! Something to remember when Kelly, Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies,” and other senior officials of DHS and DOJ try to “reinvent” themselves in the private sector and disguise or disavow their truly disgusting record of subservience to Trump and the massive human rights violations for which they are morally responsible.

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” Never!

PWS

10-25-19

ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS: In An Asylum System Designed To Abuse & Discourage Legitimate Asylum Seekers, U.S. Immigration Judge Robert Hough’s Persistence Saves Two Lives, At Least For Now

https://apple.news/ALbbeLJpzTOWr1LCa2mcLQg

Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports for the LA Times:

Identical twins. Identical asylum claims. Very different luck at the border

The system gives enormous power to U.S. customs officers, Border Patrol agents and asylum officers, whose whims and judgment calls decide the fate of many migrants.

The 12-year-old identical twins entered Texas from Mexico days apart in the foothills of Mt. Cristo Rey. One came with their father. The other arrived with their mother.

It was June. The family’s plan was to get caught by Border Patrol agents as quickly as possible, then claim asylum so they could stay in the U.S. legally while awaiting immigration court hearings.

The parents had hoped that crossing the border separately, each with one son, would improve the chance that they all would be allowed into the country legally.

But that’s not what U.S. immigration officials decided. They released Nostier Leiva Sabillon and his father in Texas, and sent Anthony Leiva Sabillon and his mother back to Mexico.

The difference in treatment shows how arbitrary the U.S. immigration system has become as the Trump administration tries to stem the flow of migrants from Central America.

More than 54,000 migrants have been subjected to the controversial policy known as “Remain in Mexico,” which took effect this year and requires most asylum seekers who are not from Mexico to wait there while the U.S. weighs their cases.

Homeland Security Department leaders credit the program — along with a new requirement that migrants apply for asylum first in the countries they travel through before reaching the U.S. — with dramatically reducing apprehensions at the southern border.

Migrant advocates say the new policies give enormous power to U.S. customs officers, Border Patrol agents and asylum officers, whose whims and judgment calls decide the fate of many migrants.

Things looked grim for Nostier and his 39-year-old father, Carlos Leiva Membreño, when they were picked up by the Border Patrol.

“The good news is that you are already in the United States,” an agent told them, according to Leiva. “The bad news is that you are going back to Juarez.”

The pair was detained.

But days later their luck changed. With minimal questioning, they were released with instructions to appear in immigration court in Maryland, where they planned to join relatives.

The decision remains a mystery to them. Leiva described it as a miracle.

“God had his angels protect me and my son,” he said.

They appeared in court in Baltimore, then moved in with Nostier’s great aunt in Houston and had their case transferred there this fall. They are not scheduled to appear in court until Aug. 21, 2020, giving them at least a year of freedom.

Through relatives, Leiva found a construction job in Idaho and left Nostier in Houston.

After some trouble getting vaccinated — parental consent is usually required — his aunt managed to register him for school.

He had been the chubbier twin, outgoing and older by a minute, with dreams of becoming a military commander to protect his family.

Having never been without his brother, he grew shy, quiet and brooding.

Anthony and their mother were 740 miles away in the Mexican city of Juarez.

Dilcia Sabillon Aceituno, 40, told immigration officials that the family had fled Naco, Honduras, because members of the 18th Street gang — an organization that she said had killed two of her cousins — were pressuring her to put her twins to work for them dealing drugs.

She didn’t want her sons to become criminals.

Border Patrol agents listened, but it didn’t seem to matter. Sent back to Mexico, she and Anthony moved into a migrant shelter in the dangerous Anapra neighborhood to await an Aug. 15 court appearance in El Paso.

They and four other migrants shared a room without electricity or a lock on the door. There was a school next door, but Anthony’s mother couldn’t afford to send him.

On the dirt streets, boys bullied him, and men shouted threats, beat his mother and cursed her for being Honduran.

Hiding in their room, Anthony, who wanted to be a doctor, helped his mother with daily blood tests and insulin for her diabetes. She noticed he was losing weight, growing pale and depressed.

“I tell him not to be sad, he will be with his twin soon,” she said as they sat in their room at the shelter last month.

She filled out an asylum application in English with the help of an American immigration lawyer from Minnesota who visited the shelter to provide free legal assistance. It was a lucky break: Most migrants in the Remain in Mexico program have no lawyers.

At the August court hearing, Sabillon told the judge she was afraid of returning to Mexico. Anthony said he wanted to be with his brother.

The judge sent them to be interviewed by an asylum officer by phone, a common arrangement over the last year as the government has struggled to keep up with the flood of new cases.

The officer rejected their claim, returning them to Mexico days later.

“They don’t listen,” she said.

There was nothing to do but wait a month for their next immigration hearing.

Anthony traded daily audio messages with his brother in Houston. Nostier was enjoying school, where he made friends who spoke Spanish and began learning English. An older cousin helped him with his homework.

He had also started playing soccer with other Honduran boys at his great aunt’s apartment complex.

“Don’t worry,” he told Anthony. “You will be playing with us here soon.”

His mother wasn’t so sure.

The lawyer who had helped them was moving to Washington and could no longer represent them. Sabillon would have to represent herself.

On Sept. 26, Sabillon woke her son at 3:30 a.m. so they could dress by flashlight at the shelter, gather their paperwork and board a shelter van to the bridge. She slipped a wooden rosary around her neck.

“We’re going to our destiny,” she said as she hugged fellow asylum seekers goodbye.

After she and Anthony crossed the border bridge, U.S. officials collected their belongings to place in storage, then drove the pair and 23 other asylum seekers to their 8:30 a.m. hearing.

They were among the last to appear before the judge at 12:45 p.m. When he asked for their asylum application, Sabillon said she didn’t have it: It was in a bag Border Patrol agents had taken.

“Do you want more time to fill out an application?” Judge Robert Hough asked through a court interpreter.

“No,” she said.

“You understand if you don’t submit an application, you can be removed to Honduras. Is that what you want?” the judge said.

Sabillon began to cry.

“No, I have it over there, I just need to find someone to help me,” she said in Spanish between sobs as Anthony looked on. “Please, for his twin!”

The court interpreter said he couldn’t understand her. The judge referred her to be interviewed by an asylum officer, just like she was after her last hearing, and reset her case for Dec. 12. Mother and son were led from court looking stunned. It appeared they would be returned to Mexico.

But their luck was about to change. This time, the asylum officer who interviewed Sabillon by phone was sympathetic.

She told her story, the same one she had already been over with other immigration officials. But this time the officer decided to release her and Anthony until their asylum case was decided.

They spent a week in detention before being freed on Oct. 4. They arrived in Houston by bus the next day.

The twins have been inseparable since, clambering around the yard of the apartment complex where they’re staying and making TikTok videos with their cousins.

By last week, Nostier had grown talkative, preparing his brother to attend school next week. Anthony showed off Band-Aids to his cousins where he had received the required vaccinations.

He has also gained weight — along with a taste for spicy chicken wings. His mother predicted his cheeks would fill out soon and make the twins look identical again.

Neither had learned the details of why their family fled Honduras, and Sabillon was proud of that.

“They’re still innocent,” she said as she watched them roughhouse.

Sabillon wasn’t sure how to change her next court appearance from El Paso to Houston. She wondered if she should ask the court to combine her case with that of her husband, who was due to return from Idaho this weekend.

She was determined to find a lawyer. Without one, she figured their immigration case would be left to chance. She didn’t want to get sent back to Mexico again.

“My sons’ future is here,” she said.

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

The key to this outcome was Judge Hough’s asking questions and sending the case back to the Asylum Office for a second look. Unfortunately, many Immigration Judges, pushed to crank out numbers, not justice, and falsely told by their “superiors” that all asylum claims are fraudulent anyway, would merely have ordered deportation.

The problem of arbitrary and capricious decision making in “life or death” asylum cases is hardly a new one. Indeed, it was well documented and publicly exposed by my colleagues Professors Andy Schoenholtz, Phil Schrag, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales in their seminal 2007 book Refugee Roulette.

Despite some stabs at addressing the problem in subsequent years, it has remained a persistent feature of a broken system and is worse now that ever. That’s because this Administration actually views cruel, arbitrary, and capricious adjudication as both a demonstration of absolute Executive Power and a way of punishing and discouraging legal asylum seekers.

Some favorable precedents correctly applying asylum law, particularly in the area of domestic violence and family-based “particular social groups,” were moving the system slowly toward “consensus grants” on a significant number of clearly deserving Central American cases. They could eventually have been used to act favorably on perhaps one-third of the Northern Triangle Asylum cases without resorting to the Immigration Court system. These precedents could also have formed a basis for establishing a robust refugee program in the Northern Triangle itself, thus eliminating the need for the dangerous overland journey to the U.S. and reducing the influence of smugglers.

Instead of building on these modest, yet important, human rights successes, unethical Trump Administration politicos, including Sessions and Barr, illegally and maliciously removed them and replaced them with the idea, again unethically communicated to adjudicators, that denial should be the “preferred result” in every case.

The corrupt system now encourages arbitrary and capricious decision-making on asylum cases and elimination or manipulation of judicial review as as a tool for discouraging those who should get our protection from daring to use our legal system.

Perhaps worse yet, with very transparent evidence of what is going on (the Administration largely admits that they are using the asylum system as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers) the Article III Courts, starting with the Supremes, have failed in their duty to require an asylum adjudication system that meets both the Due Process and Equal Protection requirements of our Constitution.

Every life saved is a life saved. That’s why the “little things” like Judge Hough is doing matter. With lawyers and a chance to document and present their asylum cases, and to seek review before the Article III Courts, Dilcia and Anthony at least have a fighting chance to gain protection.

(Unfortunately, neither the El Paso nor Houston Immigration Courts nor the Fifth Circuit have reputations for fair and impartial treatment of asylum seekers. Indeed, some of the most grotesque and legally unjustifiable abuses of Due Process and fundamental fairness have taken place right under the noises of 5th Circuit judges. That probably explains the unusual eagerness of DHS and DOJ to locate many branches of the “New American Gulag,” and their embedded “Kangaroo Courts” including absurdly unjust “Tent Courts” within the Fifth Circuit. How else would you explain places like Jena, Louisiana and many other obscure locations within that state where counsel is often unavailable and access to clients is often illegally restricted or cut off. Indeed, complicity breeds contempt for human life and the legal system, something that smug Article III Judges refusing to do their Constitutional duties might live to regret. Without “regime change” in 2020, the reprieve for this family might be only temporary.)

But the fact that there are pockets of fairness, caring, and impartiality in a clearly unconstitutional system merely demonstrates the arbitrary and capricious way in which this system deals with life or death decisions and the complicity of both Congress and the Article IIIs in allowing this disgraceful, outrageous mockery of justice to continue!

Those who have weaponized the asylum system against the most deserving and vulnerable among us and the life-tenured judges who are unethically allowing this to happen on their watch should not escape accountability.

PWS

10-20-19

MOLLY O’TOOLE @ LA TIMES: Trump & The 9th Circuit Carrying Out Illegal “Remain In Mexico Program” — And, They Are Are Getting Away With It!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=4451c711-f803-4861-ada0-9558eff71923

By Molly O’Toole reporting from mexicali, mexico

From the roadside, Oswaldo Ortiz-Luna offered a box of candy to the cars idling in the golden dust of northern Mexico. His wife hawked another box of sweets farther up the line of traffic, perching their 18-month-old daughter on one hip. Sticky fruit and tears smudged the baby’s cheeks.

As the sun went down, Oswaldo and his family of six hadn’t yet sold enough candy for the roughly $6 they needed to spend the night at a nearby shelter. They are among the thousands of asylum seekers trapped just beyond the border under the Trump administration’s signature policy — “Remain in Mexico.”

Under the Migrant Protection Protocols — better known as Remain in Mexico — Trump administration officials have pushed 37,578 asylum seekers back across the southern U.S. border in roughly seven months, according to Homeland Security Department reports reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. One-third of the migrants were returned to Mexico from California. The vast majority have been scattered throughout Mexico within the last 60 days.

While their cases wind through court in the United States, the asylum seekers are forced to wait in Mexico, in cities that the U.S. State Department considers some of the most dangerous in the world. They have been attacked, sexually assaulted, and extorted. A number have died.

In dozens of interviews and in court proceedings, current and former officials, judges, lawyers and advocates for asylum seekers have said that Homeland Security officials implementing Remain in Mexico appear to be violating U.S. law, and the human cost is rising.

Testimony from another dozen asylum seekers confirmed that they were being removed without the safeguards provided by U.S. law. The alleged legal violations include denying asylum seekers’ rights and knowingly putting them at risk of physical harm — against federal regulations and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the foundation of the U.S. immigration system. U.S. law grants migrants the right to seek protection in the United States.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are writing the phrase “domicilio conocido,” or “known address,” on asylum seekers’ paperwork instead of a legally required address, making it nearly impossible for applicants stuck in Mexico to be notified of any changes to their cases or upcoming court dates. By missing court hearings, applicants can be permanently barred from asylum in the U.S.

Meanwhile, some federal asylum officers who are convinced they are sending asylum seekers to their deaths told The Times that they have refused to implement the Remain in Mexico policy at risk of being fired. They say it violates the United States’ decades-long legal obligations to not return people to persecution.

Officials at Homeland Security headquarters as well as Customs and Border Protection, the agency charged with primary enforcement of the policy, refused repeated requests for interviews or data on the policy, citing “law enforcement sensitivity.”

For President Trump, however, whose political priority is to restrict even legal immigration to the United States, the Remain in Mexico policy has been his single most successful effort: Just one asylum seeker subjected to the policy is known to have won the ability to stay in the U.S.

Oswaldo said his family fled their hometown outside Guatemala’s capital in February after his older sons refused to join the MS-13 gang and members threatened to kill them. While in Mexico, he said, police beat and robbed them, and local gangs tried to kidnap his 7-year-old daughter. They rode freight trains to the U.S. border, Oswaldo running for the trains with the baby on his chest in a bright-pink carrier.

The family claimed asylum in April with U.S. authorities in Calexico, a small agricultural city in southeastern California across from Mexicali. Officials sent them back to Mexico, telling them to report to the border again a month later and about 100 miles west, in Tijuana. There, they’d be brought into the U.S. for a court hearing in San Diego, then sent back to Tijuana. Officials separated the case of Oswaldo’s eldest son, 21, from the rest of the family’s case.

“Life was already so difficult,” Oswaldo said. When U.S. officials returned them to Mexico, he said, “it was hard to take.”

After unveiling the policy in December, Homeland Security officials did not push the first asylum seekers back to Mexico until Jan. 28, launching the program in San Ysidro, south of San Diego. By the end of March, they’d expanded the policy east to El Paso. In May, a federal appeals court ruled that the policy could continue until hearings on its legality in October. With the court’s blessing, the administration expanded the policy to the rest of the U.S.-Mexico border, and to any Spanish speaker, not just Central Americans. In less than three months, the number of removals quadrupled.

In July, U.S. officials began returning asylum seekers from the rest of Texas to Nuevo Laredo and then Matamoros, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.

The State Department gives Tamaulipas a level 4 “do not travel” warning — the same as Syria’s.

At least 141 migrants under the Remain in Mexico program have become victims of violence in that country, according to Human Rights First, a nonpartisan advocacy group.

At a media briefing earlier this month, Mark Morgan, the acting head of Customs and Border Protection, told The Times, “I would never participate in something I thought was illegal.” He added that the judicial system would ultimately “determine the legality” of the policy.

He said he was unaware of any incidents in which an asylum seeker was harmed under Remain in Mexico, but he said the U.S. didn’t track what happened to migrants once they were returned to Mexico. “That’s up to Mexico,” he said.

Roberto Velasco, spokesman for Mexico’s Foreign Ministry, said the policy was a “unilateral action” and that the U.S. was “solely responsible” for ensuring due process for asylum seekers returned to Mexico.

While saying the policy is for the migrants’ own protection, Morgan said it was also intended to deter asylum seekers. He claimed, as the president often does, that many asylum applicants had fraudulent cases.

“If you come here with a kid, it’s not going to be an automatic passport to the United States,” Morgan said. “I’m hoping that that message will get back.”

In November, the Trump administration was engaged in intense negotiations with Mexico to get them to agree to take asylum seekers headed for the U.S. During that time, administration officials drafted a pilot Remain in Mexico program in California. In email exchanges, the officials struck key protections for asylum seekers. But when plans were leaked, the policy was put on hold.

In late January, officials pushed back the first asylum seekers from San Ysidro, but it was short-lived — in April, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked Remain in Mexico.

Then, just a few weeks later, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Trump administration to resume the policy.

But two of the three judges raised concerns about its legality. One judge said the government’s legal argument to send migrants to Mexico was an “impossible” reading of the law.

“The government is wrong,” the judge wrote. “Not just arguably wrong, but clearly and flagrantly wrong.”

Diana Diaz, 19, is among the asylum seekers caught up in the policy’s complexities. She fled El Salvador last year after a Barrio 18 gang member threatened to kill her when she refused to become his girlfriend. A local police officer said he’d protect her but began to harass her instead, she said.

“He said, ‘I can rape you — I can do whatever I want to you — and make it look like the gangs did this, not me,’ ” she recounted the police officer saying.

She crossed alone from Guatemala into southern Mexico in November. In January, she arrived in Tijuana to join thousands of people waiting at the San Ysidro port of entry to register asylum claims.

In March, Diaz’s number finally came up. U.S. officials brought her into the San Ysidro entry, took her fingerprints, asked her a few questions and then sent her to the “icebox,” migrants’ term for U.S. immigration detention, she said. But shortly after, Customs and Border officials took her to the gate leading back to Tijuana and gave her a notice to come back the next month for a court hearing.

“I can’t go back there — my life is at risk,” she recounted telling them.

She said they told her: “That’s not my problem anymore.”

Now, U.S. officials are returning asylum seekers at a rate of nearly 3,300 a week.

Courtroom battles

Judge Lee O’Connor’s raised voice ricocheted through his near-empty courtroom in San Diego.

“If I were to issue an in absentia order, where would it even be served?” O’Connor asked a Trump administration lawyer.

“Your honor, on the address the court has.”

“The ‘general delivery,’ Baja California, Mexico?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“How is that an address?”

“Those are the addresses I was given,”the government lawyer responded. “I don’t know where they came from.”

Lawyers, advocates, U.S. asylum officers and judges see more than just bureaucratic dysfunction and sloppy policymaking — Trump officials, they say, intended to make it nearly impossible to win asylum in the United States under Remain in Mexico.

In the 9th Circuit ruling in May, one judge said Homeland Security’s procedures for implementing the policy were “so ill-suited to achieving that stated goal as to render them arbitrary and capricious.”

Remain in Mexico has added to a backlog of more than 975,000 pending immigration cases. In July, one out of every four new cases was assigned to the Remain in Mexico program.

Sitting behind piles of paper earlier this summer in San Diego, O’Connor weighed the government’s request to issue removal orders for a handful of asylum seekers who hadn’t shown up for their hearings that day. If O’Connor ruled in the administration’s favor, the decision could bar each applicant from the United States for at least a decade, if not permanently.

He launched into the administration lawyer, rattling off a list of legal violations.

The majority of asylum seekers returned to Mexico under the policy are originally from Central America, and a sizable number speak only indigenous languages. But Homeland Security officials routinely don’t provide translation or use phone interpreters in removal proceedings, according to internal communications obtained by the nonprofit American Oversight and shared with The Times.

The Times reviewed a number of asylum seekers’ paperwork on which Customs and Border Protection officers had put incomplete addresses or provided no translation. And the free phone number the government provided for applicants to call for updates on their cases was an 800 number, which can only be used from within the United States.

“There’s some things that we’re still working through,” said Sidney Aki, a CBP official in charge of the San Ysidro port. He conceded that officers had made mistakes implementing the policy, saying they were in uncharted territory.

As of the end of July, only 2,599 Remain in Mexico cases had been decided, with another 23,402 cases pending in immigration courts across the country — nearly double the number from one month earlier, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. At that point, not one person had won asylum.

O’Connor ordered that the government’s removal proceedings against the absent asylum seekers be terminated. He’s not the only one; overall, in roughly 60% of the decisions reached so far under Remain in Mexico, immigration judges have closed the government’s case against the asylum seekers, according to the clearinghouse data.

“If the government intends to carry out the program,” O’Connor ruled, “it must ensure due process is strictly complied with and statutory requirements are strictly adhered to. That has not been shown in any of these cases.”

Worse by the day

Nora Muñoz Vega watched her son kick a soccer ball at Buen Pastor shelter in Juarez. As 9-year-old Josue David played, his 29-year-old mother weighed a difficult decision: Keep waiting in Juarez on their asylum case or take a bus, sponsored by the Mexican government, back to Honduras.

Asylum seekers stuck in Juarez under Remain in Mexico have hearings scheduled into 2020. But unable to find work in Mexico without a permit, and too scared to venture out, Muñoz Vega said the few weeks until her second hearing seemed like an eternity.

In its May ruling allowing Remain in Mexico to resume, the 9th Circuit relied in part on assurances from the U.S. that Mexico was providing for the asylum seekers. Yet none of the migrants to whom The Times spoke had been able to obtain a work permit: All were staying in shelters run by churches or non-governmental organizations, or hotels when shelters filled up.

Through “voluntary return,” the Mexican government, along with the United Nations, is facilitating the Trump administration’s effort to get asylum seekers to give up on their cases. More than 2,000 Central Americans have taken free rides back to their home countries under the U.N. program, which is funded by the U.S. government.

Although it’s unclear exactly how many asylum seekers under Remain in Mexico have gone home, a number appear to be growing tired of waiting and are crossing the border illegally.

On the viaduct between Juarez and El Paso, Border Patrol Agent Mario Escalante watched from the U.S. side as Mexican National Guard units patrolled on theirs.

Escalante was born in El Paso but said he practically grew up in Juarez, with family on both sides of the bridge for generations. Grisly murders had become commonplace in Juarez, he added. “It’s the culture; you get used to it.”

But asked whether Juarez was safe for the asylum seekers U.S. officials had sent there, Escalante brushed off the question.

When his radio crackled, he sped toward a popular crossing just beyond the international bridge. A group of Central American women and children cowered in the shade.

“It’s difficult to watch,” Escalante said. “The need’s gotta be pretty great.”

One woman with her son raised her head. It was Muñoz Vega, the Honduran mother.

Across the country, a number of federal asylum officers have quit, and a handful are refusing to implement Remain in Mexico, half a dozen asylum officers and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel told The Times.

They say the Trump administration is forcing them to violate the law in implementing the policy, end-running standards set by Congress and intentionally putting vulnerable asylum seekers in harm’s way. Most requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation.

In June, the union representing federal asylum officers in the Washington, D.C., area filed a brief in support of the lawsuit against Remain in Mexico.

“Every day, it gets a little bit worse,” said one asylum officer in California who refused to screen migrants under the policy.

Generally, before Remain in Mexico, asylum seekers at the border would receive a “credible fear” interview. The asylum officers, many of whom are attorneys, screen for fear of persecution in the asylum seeker’s home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or being part of a particular social group. Congress set “credible fear” as an intentionally low bar to help ensure the U.S. did not violate the law by returning people to harm.

But according to administration guidelines under Remain in Mexico, only asylum seekers who proactively express a fear of returning to Mexico — not their home countries — are referred by CBP officials to asylum officers, and for an entirely new interview process. That process screens them for likelihood of persecution in Mexico.

In these interviews, asylum officers also have to use a much higher legal standard. Essentially, instead of proving a 10% likelihood of persecution in their home country, asylum seekers have to prove a 51% likelihood of persecution in Mexico. That standard is generally reserved for a full hearing before an immigration judge.

In reality, the standard being used under Remain in Mexico is nearly impossible, another asylum officer said: “No one can pass.”

According to interviews with asylum seekers and officers, as well as Citizenship and Immigration Services statistics shared with The Times, many asylum seekers under Remain in Mexico are being removed without any interview at all.

Against its own guidelines, those sources say, Homeland Security officials also are returning children, people with disabilities and other medical conditions, and pregnant women. Lawmakers have demanded an inspector general investigation of the alleged violations.

The second asylum officer said she recently sounded the alarm after seeing a spate of women in late stages of pregnancy being turned back to Mexico. She was told that Customs and Border Protection does not consider a late-stage pregnancy to be a serious medical condition.

“They don’t want them to drop any babies on U.S. soil,” the asylum officer said.

A third asylum officer said they’re required to conduct the more complex Remain in Mexico interviews — sometimes lasting more than five hours — with children too young to speak.

Four officers described cases of asylum seekers who said they had been kidnapped in Mexico, then beaten and raped. Once their families sent money, the kidnappers released them. But when the victims fled for the border, the asylum officers had to turn them back. Kidnappers are now waiting outside ports of entry for the U.S. returns, officers said.

“In 99% of the interviews, they said they faced harm in Mexico, and we sent them back,” the third asylum officer said.

One asylum officer said she routinely woke up in a sweat from nightmares.

“How long can I do this and live with myself?” she said. “I think about these people all the time … the ones that I sent back. I hope they’re alive.”

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

Molly’s article strongly suggests that the “myth” that U.S. institutions are successfully stranding up to Trump and his White Nationalist gang is just that — a myth.

Actually, with the help of “go along to get along” Federal Courts, increasingly dominated by Trump’s hand-picked far right flunkies, and a GOP-controlled legislature that has abandoned any pretense of protecting the Constitution and acting in the common good, Trump appears to be successfully dismantling the U.S. legal system right before our eyes.

The Ninth Circuit Judges who knowingly engineered this human rights and legal disaster are immune from legal liability for their wrongdoing. But, they shouldn’t be allowed to escape the judgment of history on their dereliction of duty, abandonment of fundamental human values, and the human carnage it has caused and continues to cause every day.

Thanks, Molly, for keeping us informed of what the 9th Circuit’s “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico Policy” really means in human terms.

PWS

08-29-19

DUE PROCESS: 9th Cir. Might Be Afraid Of Trump, But U.S. Immigration Judge Scott Simpson Isn’t!

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/story/2019-06-14/judge-orders-dhs-to-keep-man-in-u-s-for-immigration-hearings-instead-of-returning-to-mexico

Kate Morrissey reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune and LA Times:

Judge orders U.S. to hold asylum seeker

Doubtful about his mental state, jurist prevents migrant from being sent to Mexico.

By Kate Morrissey

SAN DIEGO — An immigration judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep a Honduran asylum seeker in the United States while he waits for his court proceedings, instead of returning him to Mexico again under a Trump administration program.

Judge Scott Simpson said that after evaluating the man’s mental competence in a special hearing on Friday, he found that the man would need safeguards in his case to ensure due process. He ordered one put in place immediately: to remove the man from a program known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols and more widely as “Remain in Mexico.”

“I find that he lacks a rational and factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings,” Simpson said in issuing his order.

This is the first time that a judge has made such a ruling since the program was implemented in January, according to advocates who have been monitoring immigration court proceedings.

The program requires certain asylum seekers from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to wait in Mexico while their cases progress in immigration court. The man has been waiting in Tijuana as part of the program for several months.

A Customs and Border Protection guide for officials implementing the program says that migrants with known physical or mental health issues should not be included.

“It’s a big deal that a judge recognized that there was a predatory nature to having put this person in the ‘Migrant Persecution Protocols,’ ” said Ian Philabaum of Innovation Law Lab, calling the program a name used by some immigrant rights advocates. “He wasn’t going to have a chance, and now he gets a chance.”

At the man’s first hearing in March, Simpson quickly became concerned that the man might have a mental competency issue that would make him ineligible for the program or require other protections. He ordered DHS to evaluate the man’s mental state.

Simpson asked government attorneys at each hearing after that whether the man’s mental state had been evaluated and whether the government believed he should continue to be included in the program.

Each time, the government attorney responded that the man should continue in MPP.

Still skeptical, Simpson told Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney Dan Hua to be prepared to give details Friday about DHS’s evaluation of the man before he was returned to Mexico. When the judge came into court Friday morning, Hua was not able to answer that question.

“The government’s inability to provide that information is simply not excusable,” Simpson said. He gave Hua 30 minutes to find out answers.

Hua said immigration officials at the port of entry had evaluated the man each time he’d come to court, meaning that as of Friday, he’d been evaluated four times.

The attorney could not produce evidence showing what the evaluation observed or what standard it used when the judge pressed for more details.

Philabaum said that fact was significant.

“That assessment of the mental competency was performed on four different occasions, and on four different occasions, according to the U.S. government attorney, their assessment was he was perfectly competent to proceed with his immigration case representing himself,” Philabaum said. But in the man’s “first hearing, it took the immigration judge approximately two minutes to realize there was an issue of competency here.

“Whatever type of standard that CBP has instituted to assess the competency of an individual to be eligible, according to the immigration judge today, it has failed.”

DHS officials, CBP officials and Department of Justice officials did respond to a request for comment.

Simpson decided to do his own evaluation of the man’s mental state under an immigration court precedent known as the Matter of MAM.

He listed the rights that the man has, such as the right to present evidence and the right to question witnesses. He asked if the man understood his rights.

“Um, yes. I need more,” said the man through a Spanish interpreter. “I need more because here I only have some letters, some birth certificates. They’re not translated into English yet.”

“Sir, I’m the immigration judge in your case. It’s my job to decide whether you can stay in the United States,” Simpson said. “In your own words, tell me who am I and what’s my job.”

“I cannot understand you,” the man responded.

In the end, the man was only able to appropriately respond to simple questions such as the date and what city he was in. He told the judge he had not had much schooling and couldn’t read or write.

ICE later confirmed the man is pending transfer to the agency’s custody. He could be taken to an immigration detention facility or released “on parole” into the U.S. to a sponsor while he waits for his next hearing.

Simpson said that depending which option the government chooses, other safeguards may be necessary, including providing an attorney for him if he’s detained.

Morrissey writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

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

Every day the human carnage mounts as the 9th Circuit continues to “sponsor” Trump’s illegal, deadly, and unconstitutional “Remain in Mexico Program.” Interesting how a few non-life-tenured Immigration Judges in San Diego and one courageous U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of California seem to be the only Federal officials interested in either the rule of law or the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. Go figure!

Congrats to Judge Scott Simpson for standing up for the rule of law and the rights of the most vulnerable in the face of massive dereliction of duty by those higher up the line.

Sadly, unlike the 9th Circuit, Judge Simpson lacks authority to enjoin further violations of the law and human rights by the Trump Administration. How many more human beings will suffer, be wronged, and perhaps die as a result of the 9th Circuit’s complicity in scofflaw behavior having little or nothing to do with protecting our borders or any other legitimate policy end and everything to do with punishing and dehumanizing those who seek justice under our laws.?

PWS

06-17-19

CRUEL, YET REALLY STUPID: TRUMP’S “REMAIN IN MEXICO POLICY” DENIES DUE PROCESS WHILE CREATING COURT CHAOS — Enfeebled Judges Fume As “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” Bloats Backlogs! — Article IIIs Complicit! — “The policy’s name is migrant protection, but they send you to the most dangerous city in Mexico.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=e1be401d-5763-4c8b-abee-151232bd287e

Kate Morrissey reports in the LA Times:

SAN DIEGO — The San Diego immigration court has been overwhelmed by the number of cases judges are hearing under a Trump administration program that returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for hearings in the U.S.

Normally, asylum seekers coming to the California border would be distributed to immigration courts across the country, either because they would be held somewhere in the federal government’s national immigration detention system or because they would be released to reunite with family and friends already in the U.S.

Now, the increasing number of people picked for the administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, known widely as the Remain in Mexico program, across the California border are all being sent to immigration court in downtown San Diego.

“Other than wallow through it, I don’t know what we can do,” said Immigration Judge Lee O’Connor shortly before walking out of his courtroom at 6:21 p.m. one evening last week after hearing a string of MPP cases. Court staff, including security, had left the building long before.

Immigration judges are already working under performance quotas set by the Trump administration to reduce the immigration court backlog, which has grown nationally to nearly 900,000 cases, according to data from the Transactional Record Access Clearinghouse of Syracuse University.

The San Diego court has more than 5,700 cases pending, up from 4,692 cases in fiscal 2018, a 22.4% increase. Nationally, the backlog has grown about 16.2% in fiscal 2019.

“This is a reflection of the constant doublespeak we’ve been highlighting. The agency has internally conflicting priorities,” said Ashley Tabaddor, speaking in her capacity as head of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges. “It creates chaos.”

On a given day, three of San Diego’s seven judges generally have afternoons full of MPP cases. On a recent Tuesday afternoon, 82 people were scheduled to appear before three judges, 28 of those before O’Connor.

“The judges have no control in terms of how many cases are being scheduled,” Tabaddor said.

Border officials who initially receive migrants either requesting protection at a port of entry or after they’re apprehended crossing illegally are responsible for scheduling the first court appearance for returnees.

Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Homeland Security was unable to respond to questions in time for publication.

Several of the judges assigned to hear cases in San Diego have pushed back on the government for a laundry list of issues that could be violations of the government’s due process responsibilities under immigration law.

Tabaddor said she’s heard a number of concerns from her union members who are trying to make sure “all of the T’s are crossed and all of the i’s are dotted” in implementation of the new program. “That’s what the oath of office is,” Tabaddor said. “You’re supposed to make sure all the rules are followed.”

One that has come up over and over again is the address put down initially on each asylum seeker’s case documents by border officials. Along the California border, Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol have written some version of “Domicilio conocido,” or “known address.”

Some have “Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.” Others simply say “Baja California” without the city or the country noted.

Having an accurate address on file is key to showing that immigrants were given proper notice of their court hearings. That proof of notice is a crucial part of a judge’s decision to proceed “in absentia” and order a person deported if he or she doesn’t show up for a hearing.

“This whole program, I don’t understand it,” said Immigration Judge Jesús Clemente on his first day of hearing MPP cases. “How are we ever going to tell this person that he has a hearing?”

Similarly, when an government attorney suggested that it was the asylum seeker’s responsibility to provide an accurate address, Immigration Judge Scott Simpson responded with incredulity. “Are you saying the respondent provided this address?” he asked, referring to the asylum seeker. “Are you saying every respondent in the MPP program provided this address?”

“I can’t speak to that,” the attorney representing ICE responded. “In my experience, the address the respondent provides is what is put down.”

“That’s how it usually works,” Simpson replied. “But I’m not convinced that’s what’s happening now.”

When asked about the address issue recently, San Ysidro Port of Entry Director Sidney Aki said that migrants don’t often know where they will be staying when they’re first returned.

To prevent any miscommunication, Aki said, they’re told to return to the port of entry at a particular date and time.

Normally, if a judge believes that the government violated an asylum seeker’s due process rights, the judge can terminate immigration proceedings against that person, said attorney Lindsay Toczylowski, executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Then the asylum seeker can apply for protection outside of immigration court in a process that is less adversarial.

For returnees who are ultimately hoping for asylum in the U.S., termination won’t help them because they’ll be returned to Mexico with no access to the U.S. asylum system, she said.

“It essentially removes their ability to vindicate their due process rights,” Toczylowski said.

Among other issues, the dates on instructions given to returnees that explain when to come back to the San Ysidro Port of Entry to be taken to court don’t always match the dates on their hearing notices. Or, the government fails to file the preliminary paperwork in the case and the immigration court doesn’t have a hearing scheduled for the person when he or she shows up.

“I’m sure you’re frustrated,” Simpson said to a man whose paperwork had not properly been filed by the government, resulting in a delay in the start of his case. “I share your frustration.”

Asylum cases typically have several preliminary hearings, known as “master calendar hearings,” before the “merits hearing,” where evidence is presented for the judge to make a decision on the person’s claim. During those master calendar hearings, asylum seekers are given time to look for attorneys, are told their rights in immigration court, and are given applications to fill out and submit.

Juan, a doctor who fled Honduras after facing threats for his participation in political protest, filed his asylum application in mid-May. His merits hearing was scheduled for November.

Where to live and how to sustain themselves in Tijuana is becoming a larger and larger issue as more asylum seekers are returned. Despite its promises at the program’s outset, Mexico has not given many of the returnees permission to work while they wait.

Tijuana’s migrant shelters are already at or near capacity, and most of the people staying in them are not returnees from the program.

One returnee who had become homeless and tried crossing illegally only to be returned again to Tijuana said he was planning on going back to his country in the coming days. It would be better to die there, he said, than to continue living as he’s been living in Tijuana.

Juan is one of the lucky ones. He is staying at a shelter near the border. Still, he’s worried about the long wait ahead.

“The policy’s name is migrant protection, but they send you to the most dangerous city in Mexico,” he said.

Morrissey writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

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

The Ninth Circuit had an opportunity to put at least a temporary halt to this blatant denial of the statutory right to counsel and the constitutional right to adequate notice and Due Process. They “swallowed the whistle.” Eventually, these feckless and complicit Article III courts will find their own dockets overwhelmed with the results of their inaction in the face of a Due Process, operational, and human rights disaster of gargantuan proportions in the U.S. Immigration Courts as mal-administered by the DOJ.

Of course, the real culprit is Congress, which has failed to act to require an independent, constitutional U.S. Immigration Court. But, the word “feckless” doesn’t begin to describe a body that under Mitch McConnell has intentionally ceded its constitutional power to govern and oversee in the overall public interest to an unqualified, scofflaw President who respects neither democratic institutions nor the rule of law.

PWS

06-06-19

U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGE JONATHEN SCOTT SIMPSON EXPRESSES FRUSTRATION WITH FECKLESS “COURT” SYSTEM THAT KOWTOWS TO DHS ENFORCEMENT’S “STAY IN MEXICO PROGRAM” — DOJ’s “Captive Courts” Expected To Assist DHS In Misusing Asylum Laws To Discourage & Punish Asylum Seekers”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/asylum-return-to-mexico-hearing-migrant-protection-protocols/index.html

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

San Diego (CNN)Twelve asylum seekers required to stay in Mexico for the duration of their immigration hearings presented themselves one by one before an immigration judge over nearly four hours Wednesday. Each case appeared to raise a similar set of questions about the new policy for Judge Jonathen Scott Simpson, and the hearing culminated in a dose of skepticism from the judge.

“Several things cause me concern,” Simpson said toward the end of the hearing, as he weighed whether four asylum seekers who weren’t present should be removed in absentia.

RELATED: Homeland Security expands program of returning migrants to Mexico to await hearings

The migrants who appeared at the San Diego immigration court on Wednesday fall under the Migrant Protection Protocols program, informally known as “Remain in Mexico.” The program, which was initially rolled out in January at the San Ysidro port of entry, roughly 18 miles from the court, requires some asylum seekers to stay in Mexico to await their immigration hearings. Immigration and Customs Enforcement manages transportation to and from the border and court appearances.

The requirement that some of those seeking asylum stay in Mexico as they await their US court dates marks an unprecedented change in US asylum policy. As such, it has raised a host of questions among lawyers, advocates and now, immigration judges.

As of March 12, the US had returned 240 migrants to Mexico under these protocols.

The first spate of hearings, which got underway this month, have underscored outstanding issues with the new program, including the challenge of obtaining legal representation while in another country and providing notification of court dates to an individual without a fixed address. They have also revealed glitches in the system, in which conflicting dates are causing confusion among migrants over when to appear at a port of entry for a court appearance.

The largest group to attend court so far came Wednesday. The 12 asylum seekers — five with attorneys, seven without — participated in a master calendar hearing, the first hearing in removal proceedings.

Border Patrol facility over capacity as government struggles to keep pace in the Rio Grande Valley

In one case, a man seeking asylum who did not have a lawyer said he had been provided with a list of legal service providers by the government but had trouble understanding it.

“I was confused,” he told the judge. “I don’t know how to read and write. It becomes difficult.” He added: “In Mexico, it’s even more complicated. It’s more complicated than if I were here.”

“I understand it’s more difficult,” Simpson replied. “It’s not lost on me.”

All asylum seekers whose cases were scheduled for Wednesday were set up with merits hearing dates, where individuals provide evidence to substantiate their claims to remain in the US, or are given additional time to find legal representation. The dates were scattered among April, May and July.

In some instances scheduling issues arose, as Simpson explained that his afternoons for the next several months are dedicated to master calendar hearings for Migrant Protection Protocols. Merits hearings, therefore, would need to be scheduled for the mornings.

Senate panel approves Trump’s nominee to lead ICE

Given that asylum seekers must wait in Mexico, however, and therefore need time to be processed by US Customs and Border Protection before going to their hearings, mornings were out of the question.

“Immigration officers need four hours,” said Robert Wities, an ICE attorney.

“I can’t do an entire master calendar in the afternoon and merits hearing,” Simpson responded, later asking the ICE attorneys to explain in writing why it wouldn’t be possible for the asylum seekers to attend morning hearings.

In February, a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups asked a federal judge for a restraining order that would block the Trump administration from forcing asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their cases make their way through the immigration courts. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for this Friday.

In the meantime, the administration may clarify or resolve those issues in the future in documents provided to the immigration court. But for now, immigration hearings for those asylum seekers waiting in Mexico are set to move forward.

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

Can you imagine what would happen if the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel Robert Wities told a U.S. District Judge when he or she could or couldn’t schedule hearings? What if a private attorney said he or she would only appear in the afternoon? What kind of “court system” doesn’t give its own judges flexibility to set their own court schedules in the manner they believe will be most fair, effective, and efficient? Why has the statutory contempt of court authority that Congress conferred on U.S. Immigration Judges more than two decades ago never been implemented by the DOJ?

A real court would examine both the legality and the procedures that the DHS unilaterally, and apparently incompetently, put in place for their “Stay in Mexico” program. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s rewriting of the oath of office notwithstanding, U.S. Immigration Judges, like other Federal employees, swear an oath to uphold our Constitution (e.g., Due Process) not an oath of loyalty to the Attorney General, the President, or the DOJ.

PWS

03-24-19

NQRFPT: Due Process, Administrative Competence, Common Sense MIA From Initial “Return to Mexico” Hearings, Forcing Frustrated Judge Into A Round Of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

NQRFPT = “Not Quite Ready For Prime Time”

MIA = “Missing in Action”

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-remain-in-mexico-hearings-20190314-story.html

Kate Morrissey reports for the San Diego Union Tribune:

Two of the three asylum seekers who were supposed to show up for the first immigration court hearings under the “Remain in Mexico” policy did not make it across the border on Thursday to appear.

After the Homeland Security Secretary announced what she called a “historic” program, known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols, in December, many wondered — and worried — about the logistics of shuttling migrants back and forth across the border for court hearings.At least one of the people who had been returned to Tijuana after asking for asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry missed the court hearings because of what Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Rico Bartolomei called a “glitch” in the scheduling system.

Court cases for the program were supposed to start next Tuesday, but somehow cases got scheduled for this Thursday, Bartolomei explained. At first, the court tried to reschedule those hearings for Tuesday but realized it wouldn’t have a way to communicate that effectively with the asylum seekers in Mexico.

“At the end of the day, we kept the hearings as scheduled,” Bartolomei explained.

The issue was that when the court rescheduled to March 19, anyone who called its toll-free number to check for court date updates thought that the hearings would be on March 19. That happened in the case of one Honduran woman who had Los Angeles-based attorney Olga Badilla representing her.

Badilla explained to the judge that she had only learned the day before that the hearing had moved back to March 14 and that her client hadn’t found out in time to be at the port of entry at 9 a.m. She arrived a couple of hours later, but Customs and Border Protection officers wouldn’t let her into the U.S. for her hearing.

“She’s present at the port of entry and ready to come in,” Badilla told the judge, asking for the court’s help. “It’s an unusual situation given the circumstances.”

Bartolomei turned to the government attorney, Jason Aguilar, chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Aguilar said the judge should order the woman deported in her absence.

Bartolomei denied that motion, saying that the woman had received “insufficient notice” of the hearing. Instead, he scheduled a future date with Badilla to turn in the woman’s asylum application.

Though the woman was given another chance to show up for court, she ran into more problems down at the border. Her permit to stay in Mexico was on the verge of expiring in anticipation of her crossing into the U.S. for court. If she had crossed and returned again, she would likely get a new one. Without entering the U.S., she was about to become deportable from Mexico.

When court ended for the day, Badilla went to try to help her client.

The other person who didn’t show up for court, a 24-year-old man from Honduras, had also had his case rescheduled through the court’s glitch.

ICE attorney Aguilar again moved to have the man ordered deported.

Bartolomei pushed the ICE attorney about whether it made sense to order someone deported from the U.S. while they are still in Mexico. He asked if it made more sense to consider the person’s application for admission withdrawn.

According to immigration attorney Tammy Lin, a withdrawal would limit potential restrictions on the man’s ability to come to the U.S. in the future. A deportation order would make it much more difficult for the man to come to the U.S.

During the conversation, Bartolomei sighed audibly, weighing the options before him.

Then he decided to reschedule his case for the 19th to see if the man showed up then. Since he didn’t have an address to send the new hearing notice to, he gave it to the Department of Homeland Security to pass on to the man.

The one person who did show up did not have an attorney. Also from Honduras, the man arrived at El Chaparral plaza outside the port of entry well before 9 a.m. A volunteer from a legal services organization that supports migrants in the plaza every morning before they ask for asylum saw him and escorted him to the gate inside the port that marks the entry to the U.S.

He waited in line, shuffling down the spiral walkway in a mix of commuters, shoppers and friends returning from trips abroad. When he got to the front of the line, a Customs and Border Protection official held him to the side to wait for the other two who were supposed to come.

He was nervous, he said.

A few minutes after 9 a.m., several CBP officers and two plainclothes officials took him into the U.S. Officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement transported him from the port of entry to the office building in downtown San Diego that houses the immigration court.

He arrived at the court before noon and sat in a corner of the back row of benches, head bowed.

When it was his turn to face the judge, he spoke softly into the microphone and watched attentively as Bartolomei explained each of the documents he had received.

Bartolomei asked him if he wanted more time to find an attorney.

Yes, the man replied.

The judge granted him another month to try to find someone to help him and told him he would likely be taken back to Mexico again.

“I know it will be difficult to try to get an attorney from there,” Bartolomei told him, urging him to try his best to find a lawyer to take his case.

When his turn was over, ICE officers quickly whisked him away, back to the port of entry.

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

Notice will continue to be an issue in this ill-designed process. It actually appears that it will be impossible to properly serve anyone at a “last known address” in Mexico. Thus, any in absentia hearings should ultimately be vacated for lack of notice and will have to be re-started. That’s what “ADR” is all about.

The ICE Attorney was both unhelpful and probably unethical when he insisted on frivolously moving for an “in absentia” order given the obvious scheduling and notice issues attributable to his agency’s choice of this “historically” goofed up and perhaps illegal method of proceeding. Unwillingness to assume any responsibility for their own frequent screw ups and predictably bad policy choices is certainly a “hallmark” of the Trump Administration!

Once of the things that made the Arlington Immigration Court run as well as it did during my tenure was the sense of justice, common sense, practicality, and overall cooperation and helpfulness of the ICE Chief Counsel’s Office in working with the Immigration Judges and private bar to “keeping the ball moving down the field.” Apparently deprived of such a professional approach by the mindless “due process and common sense be damned policies” of this Administration, today’s Immigration Judges face additional roadblocks in promoting efficiency and fairness in accordance with the law. No wonder the backlogs are growing exponentially even with more Immigration Judges on the bench!

Here’s how might a “due process and efficiency-oriented system” could have dealt with the same issues:

Work with the private sector to obtain local counsel for individuals who have passed the “credible fear” process;
Find out how long it will take the lawyer to prepare the application for asylum for filing with the Immigration Court;
Choose a compatable date for filing at the “Initial Master” from a computerized list of “available first Master dates” on Judge Bartolomei’s calendar made available by EOIR;
Release the applicant to a local nonprofit who will help insure that he or she understands the system and the importance of keeping attorney meetings and appearing before the Immigration Court as scheduled;
At the first Master, the attorney files the completed asylum application with Judge Bartolomei, and he assigns an Individual Hearing date;
Presto! A system that works, uses court and judicial time wisely, and promotes fair and efficient results.

Contrast that with the mindless system described above. The key: under the current system everybody has wasted time and effort, particularly Judge Bartholomei, but without getting any closer to assigning an actual Individual Hearing date than on the day the applicant passed “credible fear.”

That’s how Government-created “bogus emergencies” happen. It’s really important that folks like Kate keep reporting on the “nitty gritty” of the Trump Administration’s “malicious incompetence” and how it is destroying and degrading our immigration and justice systems on a daily basis.

Undoubtedly, this Administration will attempt to shift blame for its own predictable failures to the victims — asylum seekers, their lawyers, and Immigration Judges. It’s important that the Trump Administration be held fully accountable, both in the present and for history, for the consequences of their terrible White Nationalist restrictionist agenda.

PWS

03-16-19

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Feckless Legislators, Never!

Related posts:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: