"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
NEW YORK — Dr. P. has to be reminded to take breaks during her 12-hour emergency-room shifts — to drink water so she doesn’t get dehydrated; to go to the bathroom; even just to breathe for a few minutes alone, unencumbered by layers of sweaty, suffocating personal protective equipment.
It can be hard to remember to pause because there’s too much to do. Too many patients, everywhere, wheezing and gasping for air. Even before the ER was overwhelmed, she had been reluctant to step away. In mid-March, as patients were surging into emergency departments, she requested to cancel some scheduled time off.
“I asked to keep working, rather than just sit at home and do nothing,” she said. “It’s a helpless feeling sitting at home, knowing that things are getting worse at the hospital.”
But if the Supreme Court lets the Trump administration have its way, she might have to stop her lifesaving work, permanently.
[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]
P. is a “dreamer,” one of the 825,000unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children who have received protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (I’m using only her last initial because she fears attracting attention to her family, which is still undocumented.)
DACA, created by the Obama administration in 2012, shields these young immigrants from deportation and allows them to work. An estimated 29,000 are health-care workers like P. and on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.
After the Trump administration announced in 2017 that it planned to terminate the program, one of the more prescient outcries came from the medical community. In a Supreme Court filing, a consortium of medical colleges and aligned groups warned that the industry depends heavily on not just immigrant workers but specifically on DACA recipients, and that ending DACA would weaken the country’s ability to respond to the next pandemic.
[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]
For now, those who had DACA protections before the legal battles began are able to continue renewing them while the courts deliberate. For people such as P. — and the patients who rely on her care — this has been a godsend, if an imperfect one given her career choice.
The education and training required to become a doctor are an exceptionally long undertaking, and DACA offers only two years of protections before renewal is required (though it was never guaranteed). There was always a chance she might not be able to actually practice medicine after years of schooling and taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt.
Still, P. committed herself to finding a way to become a doctor. She applied for and received DACA status, completed college (in three years, to save money) and persuaded a highly ranked medical school to give its first-ever slot to a dreamer.
She’s in her first year of residency in emergency medicine. Each day, after she takes off her protective gear and attempts to wash off both “the virus and the fear,” she goes home and worries about whether she will be allowed to complete her residency. Losing DACA would mean losing her ability to repay her loans, treat desperate patients, even stay in the only country she has ever known. She’s been here since age 2.
She’s on edge, waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether the way the Trump administration ended DACA was lawful. Tremendous uncertainty surrounds the range of possible outcomes, from no changes at all to every DACA recipient losing protections immediately. In oral arguments last fall, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested terminating DACA would result in dreamers losing their work authorization but that deportation was not at issue; Trump administration officials have since made clear they are, in fact, reopening removal proceedings.
. . . .
**************
Read the forested of Catherine’s article at the link.
The lower Federal Courts unanimously did the right thing here by protecting the Dreamers from irrational Executive overreach based on an invidious racially-tainted White Nationalist agenda and a transparently bogus legal rationale. There was no reason for the Supremes to even take the case. Dismissing the Government’s poorly reasoned, bad faith case against the Dreamers should be a “no brainer” for the Supremes. The lower court decisions provide numerous solid reasons for doing so.
Nevertheless, to date, J.R. and his GOP colleagues have yet to find a White Nationalist immigration policy by the Trump regime that they didn’t “greenlight.” If, as expected, they do it again here, the results for both America and the Dreamers will be horrendous.
“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”
Robert Pauw Founding Partner Gibbs, Houston & Pauw Seattle, WA
********************
How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?
Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individualsand to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.
Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.
USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!
Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.
Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!
A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!
Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Geoffrey writeS in ImmigrationProf Blog.
A Stunning Fifth Circuit Asylum Decision: An Analysis of Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr by Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center
I was moved this morning to write about a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit. This is an insightful and sensitive decision from the 2-person panel’s majority, Judges Dennis and King, with Judge Jones dissenting. The April 9th decision is Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr.
In the very first paragraph, the essence of the decision is announced: “Without addressing the coup, the BIA found that any change in gender based violence was incremental or incidental and not material. Because this conclusion is not supported by the record, we grant the petition and remand.” Id. at 1.
Procedurally, the case involved an in absentia order of removal from 2005. In 2017, the petitioner moved to reopen proceedings outside the 90-day deadline for such motions based on a change in country conditions in Honduras. The petitioner argued that in Honduras since the time of her original removal order there had been “a 263.4 percent increase in violence against women since 2005.” She submitted a trove of documents to support her motion. The Immigration Judge, and Board on appeal denied her motion to reopen.
As recounted in the panel’s decision, there had been a military coup in Honduras in 2009. Specifically, there were several principal changes in the country as a result: “(1) the Gender Unit of the Honduran National Police, established between 2004 and 2005, has been restricted in its operations, and access to the Unit is now limited or nonexistent; (2) the power of the Municipal Offices for Women to address domestic violence has been severely diluted, and officials have been removed from their positions for responding to women’s needs, especially those related to domestic violence; (3) institutional actors have targeted women for violence, including sexual violence, and threatened the legal status of over 5,000 nongovernmental women’s, feminist, and human rights organizations that have opposed the post-coup government’s policies; (4) the rate of homicides of women more than doubled in the year after the coup and has continued to steadily increase, ultimately becoming the second highest cause of death for women of reproductive age; and (5) in 2014, the status of the National Institute for Women was downgraded and other resources for female victims of violence were eliminated….”
The crux of the Immigration Judge’s decision in denying her motion to reopen was that the violence suffered by women in Honduras is an “ongoing problem” and the increase allegedly did not represent a “change in country conditions.” The Board, in its decision, did not even mention the coup, finding instead that the IJ had not clearly erred” because the evidence reflected only an “incremental or incidental,” rather than a “material” change in country conditions.
I would like to point out several noteworthy and instructive aspects of this excellent decision.
First, in analyzing her claim, the Fifth Circuit’s majority noted, as is usual, that the government had introduced “no conflicting evidence.” Indeed, they did not introduce any evidence of country conditions in Honduras at all. Instead, on appeal they “cherry-pick[ed]” excerpts from the evidence introduced by the petitioner. Most typically, the relied on a 2014 Department of State report describing the availability of “domestic violence shelters and municipal women’s offices.”
This first point is important because it accurately describes what is typical of these asylum proceedings. The government often relies on little beyond the State report, and introduces no other evidence of its own. The result sometimes leads to tortured arguments on appeal, nitpicking before the Board, or unfair conclusions before the immigration judge.
It is frustrating sometimes when we litigate these cases and we see parties attempt to shoehorn their conclusions into preconceived molds. This selective reasoning should be called out more often. Many times when confronted with a record that contains a treasure trove of material that is largely favorable to the immigrant, the government is at a loss about how to respond on appeal. Instead of agreeing to a remand, they are faced with defending a sparse record with support for their position. As such, they have to (assuming they do not agree to a remand) cull through the record to find anything to shore up the precarious reasoning in the administrative decisions below.
Second, the majority rejects reliance on a prior case where a petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. As astutely pointed out by the majority, it makes no sense to hold that the current petitioner is unable to meet her evidentiary burden merely because a prior petitioner had failed to do so. In the words of the majority, “to hold that Inestroza-Antonelli is precluded from proving that conditions changed as a factual matter during this period simply because a previous petitioner failed to do so would violate the ‘basic premise of preclusion’—i.e., ‘that parties to a prior action are bound and nonparties are not bound.’ Id. at 7 (citing 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4449 (3d ed. 2019)). It is refreshing to see a panel rely on the famous federal practice and procedure treatise.
Third, the decision does a wonderful job of elucidating the “substantial evidence” standard, which is used so often against the immigrant-petitioner. Here, the majority explains that this standard does not mean that the Court of Appeals reviews the BIA decision to determine whether “there theoretically could have been some unevidenced occurrence that would make its findings correct.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Instead, the “substantial evidence” standard just means what it says: whether a party has produced substantial evidence in support of their position. Here, the government – as noted – provided no evidence against the petitioner’s position. In fact, the record “compels” the conclusion that conditions have “significantly changed,” according to the majority.
Fourth, the decision takes to task the BIA’s lack of analysis in its decision, specifically the failure on the part of the agency even to mention the “coup” in Honduras. Instead, there was nothing but a conclusory statement that the Board had “considered [the petitioner’s] arguments.” We have seen, for example, other courts of appeals such as the Seventh Circuit, take to task the BIA in recent months. See Baez-Sanchez v. Barr (7th Cir. 2020) (Easterbrook, J.) . It is a very good sign that circuit courts are making searching inquiries, demanding compliance from the Board and EOIR, and not engaging in mere cursory review.
There was a frustration shown in that, as they noted, the Board evidenced a “complete failure” to address the “uncontroverted evidence” of a clear significant “turning point” in Honduras’ history. The majority characterized this failure as an abuse of discretion by the BIA. On a separate point concerning the Board’s rejection of an argument about her abusive husband’s return to Honduras in 2009, as a changed in country conditions, the majority stopped short of calling that argument’s rejection an “abuse of discretion.” In a footnote, the majority noted several sister circuits that agreed that such a change should be characterized as a change in “personal circumstances.”
The most notable thing about the panel’s 2-1 decision besides its well thought-out reasoning is the lack of any discussion involving Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), anywhere in either the majority’s or dissent’s decisions. Arguably, A-B- is related and has been used (routinely) by the government to argue against relief for women who are similarly situated. Because this case turned on a denial of a motion to reopen in 2017, and there was no Attorney General’s decision until 2018, there was no occasion for the IJ and, later, the BIA rely on the AG’s A-B- decision. To the extent that AG Sessions in A-B- did not rule out all gender-based violence claims, the more important take away here is this: Matter of A-B- can be overcome and is no prohibition on relief, despite what a number of judges and BIA members may believe, so long as the petitioner can produce substantial evidence in support of his or her claims, as the petitioner did so well here. (Note, since this decision relates to a motion to reopen, the case will now be remanded to the BIA and IJ and the petitioner’s fight will continue on remand.)
Judge Edith Jones in her dissent, while never relying outright on A-B-, still takes affront at the perceived failure to “defer” to the BIA. In a telling passage, she states: “The majority has failed to defer to the BIA, which, hearing no doubt hundreds (or thousands) of cases from Honduras, must be far more familiar with country conditions than judges working from our isolated perch . . . . .” This is a scary position. While it is true the BIA has heard thousands of cases from Honduras, this cannot and should not form the basis for any rationale to blindly “defer” to the Board.
This type of deference and the attempted “rubber-stamping” that it engenders was exactly what Justice Kennedy warned about in his short but biting concurrence in Pereira v. Sessions. To quote Justice Kennedy, the “type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling…it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2121 (2018), Kennedy, J., concurring (emphasis added). Justice Kennedy was right. The dissent’s transparent and clearly forthright encapsulation of the arguments in favor of “deference” highlights the dangers inherent in such a position and shows just why Chevron must (and will) be reconsidered.
Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Immigration Clinic Director
(Individual capacity; Institution for identification only)
KJ
***********************
Judge Jones’s dissent ignores the clear evidence that the BIA is no longer anything approaching an “expert tribunal,” and that it’s jurisprudence has swung sharply in an anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-asylum, direction under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
How long can the Article IIIs keep “papering over” not only the all too often deficient work-product produced by today’s BIA, but, more significantly, the glaring unconstitutionality of a system constructed and run by prosecutors and politicos that purports to function like a “court.” I doubt that Judge Jones would be willing to trust her life to a “court” that was composed and run like EOIR. So, why aren’t other “persons” entitled to the same Constitutional treatment and human dignity that she would expect if their positions were reversed?
In the meantime, I wholeheartedly endorse Geoffrey’s observation that even in the “Age of A-B-,” and in the normally “asylum-unfriendly” Fifth Circuit, great scholarship, persistence, and good lawyering can save lives! We just need more “good lawyers” out there in th NDPA to keep pressing the fight until all of the Article III’s stop “going along to get along” with the charade currently unfolding at EOIR and we also get the “regime change” necessary to establish an Article I Immigration Court that functions like a “real court” rather than a surreal vision of a court.
The Trump administration’s novel COVID-19 border ban invokes public health authority to erect a shadow immigration enforcement power in violation of the Refugee Act, legal safeguards for unaccompanied minors, and fundamental procedural rights. Relying on an obscure 1944 provision that provides no authority for immigration removals, the Centers for Disease Control purports to authorize summary Border Patrol expulsions of asylum seekers.
On March 20, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) issued a largely unnoticed but sweeping order authorizing the summary expulsion of noncitizens arriving at the border without valid documents. The Order operates wholly outside the normal immigration removal process and provides no opportunity for hearings or assertion of asylum claims. It deploys a medical quarantine authorization to override the protections of the immigration and refugee laws through the use of an unreviewable Border Patrol health “expulsion” mechanism unrelated to any finding of disease or contagion.
How the COVID-19 Expulsion Policy Works
The CDC Order is based on an emergency Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Interim Final Rule issued simultaneously with the Order under the authority of an obscure provision of the 1944 Public Health Service Act. Section 362 of that Act authorizes the Surgeon General to suspend “introduction of persons or goods” into the United States on public health grounds. Based on an unprecedented interpretation of the 1944 Act, the CDC regulation invokes the COVID-19 pandemic to redefine what constitutes “introduction of persons” and “introduction of communicable diseases” into the United States. It establishes a summary immigration expulsion process that ignores the statutory regime governing border arrivals and disregards the protections and procedures mandated by the 1980 Refugee Act and Refugee Convention as well as the special safeguards for unaccompanied minors under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”).
The CDC Order “suspending introduction of certain persons” applies to land travel from two countries, Mexico and Canada, and only to those noncitizens defined as “covered aliens.” That definition is unrelated to infection or disease. It includes only those who arrive by land without valid travel documents and immediately “suspends” their “introduction” for a renewable period of 30 days. In actuality the Order singles out those who seek asylum – and children – to order them removed to the country from which they entered or their home country “as rapidly as possible.” A recently leaked Customs and Border Protection directive makes clear that expulsion is the goal and that no process is provided.
The Order’s stated rationale is the risk alleged from “covered aliens” being crowded in “congregate settings.” The apparent justification for bypassing all legal protections and procedures is the CBP’s assertion that Border Patrol officers are “not operating pursuant to” their authority under the immigration laws.
This shadow immigration expulsion regime is not part of some coherent public health or safety plan to seal our borders or to diminish the risk of COVID-19’s introduction into the U.S. A web of other proclamations and restrictions leave open many avenues for other travelers to enter the United States. The risk of processing in congregate settings is a function of DHS’s own practices and policies; it is also not unique to landborders.
The CDC order is designed to accomplish under the guise of public health a dismantling of legal protections governing border arrivals that the Trump administration has been unable to achieve under the immigration laws. For more than a year, the administration has sought unsuccessfully to undo the asylum system at the southern border claiming that exigencies and limited government resources compel abrogating rights and protections for refugees and other noncitizens. The courts have rebuffed those attempts in critical respects. Now the administration has seized on a public health crisis to impose all it has been seeking – and more.
Unquestionably, the United States faces a pandemic of unknown scope and duration that has led to the greatest social and economic disruption and restrictions on personal movement in our lifetime. The hospital and healthcare system is under siege and threatened with collapse in some areas. Infected persons can be asymptomatic and may not be detected. The addition of contagious individuals can exacerbate spread of the virus, place additional strains on hospitals, pose dangers to healthcare workers and law enforcement officers, and increase the risk of infection for others.
But the COVID-19 ban is an act of medical gerrymandering. It is crafted to override critical legal rights and safeguards in singling out only those arriving at the border without authorization and deeming that class of people a unique and unmitigable public health threat. It tries to justify an end-run around congressionally mandated procedural rights and protections essential for refugees and unaccompanied minors and it does so to achieve an impermissible goal. What’s additionally shocking here: the statutory provision does not actually give the executive branch expulsion authority.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Lucas’s “mini treatise” at the above link.
The law is clearly against Trump here, as Lucas so eloquently and cogently sets forth. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean much in an era of a feckless GOP-stymied Congress and an authoritarian-coddling righty Supremes’ majority led by Roberts and his four sidekicks.
The Supremes have delivered a strong message to the lower Federal Courts that Trump can do just about anything he wants to migrants. He just has to invoke some transparently bogus “national security” or “emergency” rationale for ignoring the Constitution and statutes.
It’s “Dred Scottification” in full force. Largely the same way the courts buried the rights and humanity of African Americans to enable a century plus of “Jim Crow” following the end of the Civil War. The “law of the land” just became meaningless for certain people and in certain jurisdictions. “Any ol’ justification” — states’ rights, separate but equal, no jurisdiction, etc. — was more than enough to read Africans-American citizens out of their Constitutional and other legal protections.
Don’t kid yourself. That’s exactly what Trump, the GOP, and the Supremes’ majority are up to here.
And, the amazing thing, here in 21st Century America, they are getting alway with it! In plain sight!
This November, Vote Like Your Life Depends On It! Because It Does!
ENSHRINED IN law for four decades, the system that allows persecuted migrants to seek refuge in the United States has survived sustained assaults since the Trump administration took office. Now Mr. Trump, having weaponized a public health crisis to ignore long-established statutes, rules and procedures, has finally managed to crush it.
For the past three weeks, virtually every category of migrant without papers has been turned back at legal ports of entry along the southern border or expelled immediately upon apprehension by border agents; 10,000 have been thrown out so far in the crisis. They include minors who may have been trafficked and asylum seekers, individually or in families, who may face persecution in their home countries. Immigration courts are suspended, deportation procedures have been ditched, and due process is a thing of the past.
For years, President Trump has disparaged unauthorized migrants as disease carriers, with paltry evidence. Now he justifies the brutal measures, imposed March 21, by insisting that in the midst of a pandemic, migrants could ignite a “perfect storm” of contagion that would endanger border agents, the health-care system and the public. “Left unchecked,” he warned, they could even “cripple our immigration system” — the very immigration system he has tried by every means to dismantle since taking office.
[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]
The evidence for that is, so far, scant; a hundred times more people have tested positive for the coronavirus in the United States than in Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala combined — the countries of the overwhelming majority of migrants at the southern border. That adds weight to the suspicion that Mr. Trump, contemptuous of what he calls “the worst immigration laws ever,” is obliterating them through the legally dubious means of a health emergency measure enacted in 1944.
It is reasonable in the face of this pandemic to exercise extreme caution in screening those who are admitted to the United States, and even barring most foreign travelers from Western Europe and China, some of the world’s most ravaged regions. It’s a different thing to impose a systematic, draconian, extralegal regime, one never contemplated by Congress, whose effect is to ignore and override 40 years of asylum and immigration law.
Mr. Trump had severely tightened asylum procedures before the pandemic but had not, and could not, expunge the possibility that migrants with reasonable asylum claims could apply and be heard in court. Respecting those asylum procedures, like respecting civil liberties, presents few challenges during prosperity and peacetime. It is more difficult, and requires political courage, when the country is reeling economically, and on what amounts to a war footing, as it is today.
Yet it is precisely in times of emergency that any country faces its most severe tests — ones that call into question the nation’s essential character and values. It shames itself when it fails to live up to those qualities and values, as the United States did when it forcibly imprisoned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. That is what Mr. Trump is doing now by betraying this country’s long tradition as a beacon to those fleeing oppression.
*******************
Four decades of progress, uneven and imperfect as it was, in implementing the Refugee Act of 1980 undone in less than four years. Notably, Trump obliterated the Act without Congressional participation. Also, he took advantage of the Supremes failure to force the Executive to comply with the letter and spirit of its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca establishing a generous, humanitarian reading of the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum seekers under the Refugee Act of 1980. When the Executive can simply eliminate laws he doesn’t like without Congress and without effective resistance from the Supremes, democracy is definitely on the ropes.
The “mainstream media” is finally picking up on what the “New Due Process Army” and Courtside have been saying for the better part of three years. And, the dissolution of American democracy started with the assault on immigration and refugee laws. But, it won’t end there unless we vote the regime out in November and start rebuilding an America that honors Due Process, the rule of law,competency, and the dignity and rights of all humans.
Due Process Forever! Vote Like Your Life Depends on It! Because, It Does!
They are children who were caught crossing the southwest border without papers and sent to migrant shelters in New York when the coronavirus was silently spreading. Now the city is a pandemic epicenter in lockdown, but the Trump administration is pressing ahead with their deportation cases, forcing the children to fight in immigration court to stay.
In two courthouses in the center of the besieged city, hearings for unaccompanied children—migrants who were apprehended without a parent—are speeding forward. The U.S. Department of Justice, which controls the immigration courts, has said it has no plan to suspend them.
This week an 8-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a teenage single mother with an infant were preparing for imminent court dates and deadlines in New York, lawyers representing them said. With children trapped indoors in shelters and foster-care homes, many young migrants who don’t have lawyers may not even be aware of ongoing court cases that could quickly end with orders for them to be deported.
Hearings for unaccompanied children are also proceeding in courts in other COVID-19 hotspots, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency in charge of the immigration courts, has rejected calls from judges, prosecutors and immigration lawyers to shut down courts nationwide. Although hearings for immigrants who are not detained have been suspended through May 1, cases of people in detention are going forward at the same accelerated pace as before the pandemic.
That includes many unaccompanied children. Since last year, Trump administration officials have instructed the courts to treat those children as detained if they are in shelters or foster care under the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, a federal agency. Immigration judges are under pressure to complete detained cases within 60 days—warp speed in immigration court—with no exception for children.
Across the country, about 3,100 unaccompanied children are currently in the custody of the refugee agency. Many have run from deadly violence and abuse at home and hope to find safety with family members in the United States. The demands for them to meet fast-moving court requirements are causing alarm among lawyers, caregivers and families.
“It is inexplicable and dangerous that the Trump administration has insisted that detained unaccompanied children are still required to go to court,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, which helps provide lawyers for unaccompanied children. Unlike in criminal courts, in immigration court children have no right to a lawyer paid by the government if they cannot afford one.
On April 8, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the immigration bar, and other legal groups asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order to force the Justice Department to suspend in-person hearings of detained immigrants during the pandemic.
Justice Department officials say they are holding hearings for immigrants in detention, including for children, so they can get their cases decided and perhaps be freed quickly.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of Julia’s report at the link.
The idea, as DOJ claims, that this is being done to facilitate the “freeing” of kids is preposterous on its face.
First, there is nothing stopping them from arranging placements for children without the Immigration Court hearings being completed. It used to be done all the time.
Second, the DOJ has intentionally and unethically rewritten asylum laws through “precedents” aimed primarily at making it harder to qualify for asylum. This abuse of process particularly targets those fleeing persecution resulting from various types of systematic government and societal violence in Central America. The approval rates for these types of cases have fallen to minuscule levels under Trump.
Third, no child has any chance of succeeding in Immigration Court without a lawyer. Almost all lawyers who represent children in Immigration Court serve “pro bono” — or work for NGOs who can only provide minimal salaries.
Yet, the Administration is making these lawyers risk their health and safety, while artificially accelerating the process, all of which actively and aggressively discourages representation.
Added to that is the constant “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” with Immigration Courts closing, reopening, and re-closing on a moment’s notice and dockets constantly being rearranged as judges, court support staff, interpreters, and DHS lawyers fall ill.
The Administration could work with groups like KIND and other NGOs to arrange placements, and schedule hearings in a manner that promotes health and safety for everyone while maximizing due process. But, the Administration refuses to do this.
Instead, those seeking to inject sanity, common sense, best practices, and human decency into the process are forced to sue the Administration in Federal Court. This further dissipates and diverts already scarce legal resources that could have been used to actually represent children in Immigration Court and arrange safe placements for them.
Finally, as I have noted previously, the Administration has simply suspended the operation of the Constitution and the rule of law at the borders. This means that thousands, including unaccompanied children, are “orbited into the void” without any process whatsoever or any effort to ascertain their situations or best interests.
All of this gives lie to the Administration’s bogus claim that this is about looking out for the best interests of these kids. No, it’s about maximizing cruelty, destroying lives (considered an effective and acceptable “deterrent” in nativist circles), and carrying out a noxious racist White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda.
And, to date, Congress and the Federal Courts, both of which have the power to put an end to this disgraceful, unlawful, and unconstitutional conduct have been largely “MIA.”
Nevertheless, thanks to courageous and dedicated journalists like Julia and organizations like KIND, a public record is being made. While those responsible for implementing and enabling these abuses directed at the “most vulnerable of the vulnerable” among us are likely to escape legal accountability, they will eventually be tried and found wanting in the “court of history.”
No case in the Supreme Court’s current docket has higher stakes for human life in the era of COVID-19 than its upcoming ruling on the fate of so-called Dreamers—young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and who remain shielded from deportation thanks to a program President Barack Obama instituted in 2014.
A highly unusual letter made its way to the justices late last month, after the case had already been briefed, argued, and for which a decision is already in the works. Lawyers for a group of beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known colloquially as DACA, wrote to the justices to warn about the dire consequences that a ruling in favor of Trump would have on the roughly 27,000 health care workers who happen to be DACA recipients. Among them are doctors, nurses, paramedics, and others on the front lines of combating the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the country. “Termination of DACA during this national emergency would be catastrophic,” the lawyers wrote.
The letter wasn’t just an appeal to the justices’ humanity and sense of fairness—after all, like the rest of us, they themselves have had to cancel public hearings, practice social distancing, and adjust to telework. But the filing also brought to bear a legal requirement the Trump administration had to weigh, but didn’t, when the Department of Homeland Security first announced the wind-down of DACA: the multitude of “reliance interests” that the government had created when it instituted the program—not just for recipients who have built their livelihoods around it, but the scores of local governments, businesses, and institutions that rely on so-called Dreamers for their own day-to-day functioning. “The public health crisis now confronting our nation illuminates the depth of those interests as borne by employers, civil society, state, and local governments, and communities across the country, and especially by health care providers,” the lawyers wrote in their letter, which also listed examples of health care workers who would be at risk of losing it all if the Supreme Court somehow agreed with the arguments the Trump administration has made in its years-long bid to terminate DACA.
A pair of recent analyses by the Center for Migration Studies and the Center for American Progress broadened the lens and found that the number of DACA recipients who qualify as essential workers during the pandemic could reach hundreds of thousands, as many of them also work in the health industry as food preparers, custodians, or in administrative roles, or otherwise in the fields of education, manufacturing, transportation, food retail, or the hard-hit restaurant industry. Some of these health care professionals, like others in the trenches, have begun to speak up. “I am treating people suspected of having COVID-19, and all I’m asking is to stay in this country and provide that care,” Veronica Velasquez, a 27-year-old physical therapist at a Los Angeles community hospital, told USA Today. “We’re definitely helping them stay alive.” Speaking to the New York Times in the middle of his shift, Aldo Martinez, a 26-year-old paramedic in Florida who was brought to the U.S. when he was 12, seemed to make a direct appeal to the justices. “It’s imperative that the Supreme Court take account of conditions that did not exist back in November,” he said. “It seems nonsensical to invite even more chaos into an already chaotic time.”
The pandemic was unforeseen at the time the justices considered the DACA dispute in November and could well change the calculus for how the Supreme Court ultimately rules in the case. But the issue of “reliance,” which federal agencies promulgating or rolling back policy are required to consider under administrative law, is not new to the case. The words reliance or reliance interests came up dozens of times at the oral argument in November, with some justices appearing rightly concerned that the Trump administration did not engage in the due diligence federal law demands when rescinding a policy on which people’s lives, the economy, and other third parties depend. At the hearing, Justice Stephen Breyer articulated what the law expects in these circumstances. “When an agency’s prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests,” Justice Breyer said, quoting from a decade-old opinion by the late conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia, “it must be taken into account.” Justice Scalia added in his original 2009 opinion “that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” In other words, explain to the public why the current reality doesn’t affect your thinking for what you’re trying to do.
But when one reads the 2017 memorandum that rescinded DACA, or a later one that purported to better explain the termination, there’s no indication anywhere that the Trump administration took into account the human, economic, and social costs of leaving so many people—many of them with jobs, small businesses, American families, and ties to the community—unprotected. Later reporting by the New York Times revealed that a key actor in the deliberations to end DACA, then Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, was herself deeply conflicted with signing her name to the anti-immigrant rationales that the White House, Stephen Miller, and then Attorney General Jeff Sessions advanced for rolling back the program—none of whom, it would seem, took into consideration the myriad harms that would flow from that decision.
Courts in California, New York, and Washington, D.C., took notice of these self-inflicted flaws and allowed DACA to remain in the books. “As a practical matter,” wrote a Brooklyn federal judge in early 2018, “it is obvious that hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and those close to them planned their lives around the program.” United States District Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion leaving DACA in place that the Trump administration showed “no true cognizance of the serious reliance interests at issue here”—and worse, that “it does not even identify what those interests are.”
The Trump administration’s evident failure to own up to the human cost of its policy choices and to spell them out clearly has now given the Supreme Court an opportunity to fix the mess. But as Joe Biden suggested in a statement shortly after the DACA letter was filed, the justices cannot just close their eyes to a reality that was not before them when they first took up the case: a pandemic that has touched every single one of us—and that has fallen hardest on those providing needed medical care. “If the Supreme Court upholds President Trump’s termination of DACA in the midst of a national public health emergency, it will leave a gaping hole in our health care system that is liable to cost American lives,” Biden said.
At the very least, the justices could discard the bare-bones justifications offered by the Trump administration for doing away with DACA and make him and his administration show their work. In the letter filed with the Supreme Court at the end of March, the lawyers suggest a sort of middle ground: a new round of legal arguments in writing addressing “whether remand to the agency for reconsideration of its decision to terminate DACA is appropriate in light of the extraordinary public health emergency.” In an interview, Muneer Ahmad, a Yale law professor who is a signatory to the letter, suggested that New York, where his clients reside, is a kind of ground zero that would be instructive for the justices. “New York is both an epicenter for Dreamers and DACA recipients and an epicenter of the pandemic,” he told me.
Trump may not want to take full responsibility for the federal response to the coronavirus. But the DACA controversy, at its very core, is about political accountability—about how the law requires the president and his government to take ownership of their policy choices, even those that harm others. During the hearing to consider DACA’s fate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor alluded to the realpolitik dimensions of ending the program when she asked Noel Francisco, Trump’s chief Supreme Court lawyer, to articulate the administration’s rationale for trying to end the program. “Where is the political decision made clearly?” she asked. “That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.”
*************************
Read Cristian’s full article at the above link.
And, Cristian is by no means the only one joining me in “calling out” the J.R. Five for their betrayal of America in favor of an anti-democratic, far right political agenda, groveling before a President who has flouted his racism and open disdain for the law and courts who won’t do his bidding.
Linda Greenhouse Contributing Opinion Writer NY Times
Linda Greenhouse in The NY Times flays the “J.R. Five’s” pathetic handling of the recent Wisconsin case that highlighted the GOP’s aggressive program of voter suppression.
Here’s an excerpt from Linda’s analysis of the Supreme mockery of justice in the recent Wisconsin voter case, RNC v. DNC:
In more than four decades of studying and writing about the Supreme Court, I’ve seen a lot (and yes, I’m thinking of Bush v. Gore). But I’ve rarely seen a development as disheartening as this one: a squirrelly, intellectually dishonest lecture in the form of an unsigned majority opinion, addressed to the four dissenting justices (Need I name them? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), about how “this court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
Let’s think about that. “Ordinarily not alter”?
There are quite a few things that should not ordinarily be happening these days. People shouldn’t ordinarily be afraid of catching a deadly virus when exercising their right to vote. Half the poll-worker shifts in the city of Madison are not ordinarily vacant, abandoned by a work force composed mostly of people at high risk because of their age.
Milwaukee voters are not ordinarily reduced to using only five polling places. Typically, 180 are open. (Some poll workers who did show up on Tuesday wore hazmat suits. Many voters, forced to stand in line for hours, wore masks.) And the number of requests for absentee ballots in Milwaukee doesn’t ordinarily grow by a factor of 10, leading to a huge backlog for processing and mailing.
I wonder how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh understand the word “ordinarily.” And I wonder why the opinion was issued per curiam — “by the court.” Did none of the five have the nerve to take ownership by signing his name?
**************************
Read Linda’s full article at the link.
When a case pits the Republican National Committee against the Democratic National Committee do you really have to wonder who’s going to win with the “J.R. Five” in the driver’s seat at the Supremes?
I’ve been warning for some time about the institutional failure of the Article III Courts led by the disgraceful example of Roberts who is afraid to stand up to Trump when it counts. Interesting that in this and other areas, the “professional commentators” are picking up on and reinforcing things I have been saying on Courtside for a long time. And, much of the shabby performance of America’s life tenured judiciary begins with failing to stand up to Trump’s racist assault on migrants and his unconstitutional dismantling of justice in our overtly biased Immigration Courts.
Justice Sotomayor said it very clearly at oral argument in the DACA case:“That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.” The same can be said about much of the J.R. Five’s one-sided immigration jurisprudence in the “Age of Trump.”
David Hernandez Associate Professor for Latino Studies Mount Holyoke College
David Hernandez for The Fulcrum analyzes how President Trump is circumventing Congress on immigration law and policy:
“The Trump administration’s power grab during the new coronavirus pandemic is well underway.
But even before the Covid-19 outbreak, President Trump was out-maneuvering the principal obligations of Congress — funding and providing oversight of the executive branch, and setting policy through legislation — by deploying executive orders, rule changes, fee schedules and international agreements to minimize the power of the legislative branch during his presidency.”
Click the link above for a detailed analysis.
KJ
*****************
Yup. But, readers of “Courtside” already know this.
The LA Times Editorial Board expounded on the same theme today:
The pandemic as pretext
The Trump administration is using COVID-19 as an excuse to advance several controversial initiatives.
The Trump administration has carried out nearly 10,000 summary deportations or “expulsions” since March 21, using emergency public health measures that have given U.S. Customs and Border Protection broad authority to bypass immigration laws, CBP officials said Thursday.
The measures have allowed the agency to quickly turn away most unauthorized migrants —sending them back across the Mexican border. The moves have dramatically slashed the number of detainees held in border stations, where they fear the coronavirus could spread, the officials said. CBP currently has fewer than 100 detainees in custody, down from nearly 20,000 at this time last year during last year’s border crisis, officials said.
[[Under coronavirus immigration measures, U.S. is expelling border-crossers to Mexico in an average of 96 minutes]]
Since the implementation of the rapid expulsions, unlawful border crossings have dropped 56 percent, said acting CBP commissioner Mark Morgan. Morgan also acknowledged that the United States has all but closed its borders to asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution, including those who attempt to enter legally at U.S. ports of entry.
“Those who are undocumented or don’t have documents or authorization are turned away,” Morgan said.
Democratic lawmakers have accused the administration of defying U.S. laws and exceeding the authority of the coronavirus public health order, but Morgan defended the emergency measures as a necessary step to stop the spread of the disease.
“This is not about immigration,” Morgan said. “This is about public health. This is about putting forth aggressive mitigation and containment strategies.”
[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]
CBP said the number of migrants detained at the border fell to 33,937 in March, down 7 percent from February. Single adults from Mexico accounted for 70 percent to 75 percent of those taken into custody, and most of the remainder were from Central America’s Northern Triangle countries: Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
The Mexican government has agreed to accept the rapid return of migrants from those nations at the border under an agreement reached with the Trump administration last month.
The recent expulsions include children who would otherwise be protected from rapid removal by U.S. anti-trafficking laws. Since the emergency order took effect, the United States has expelled nearly 400 underage migrants, according to the most recent tally by the Reuters news agency. The minors were released into Mexico or boarded onto planes and flown back to Central America without being transferred to the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Nick’s article at the link.
It’s going to take more than a letter from Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and other Dems to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. Indeed, with the help of J.R. and his Trumpist GOP majority on the Supremes, I would expect that asylum laws, like voting rights, Due Process, and other individual rights will remain a “dead letter” until we get both 1) regime change; and 2) reform in the appointment of Article III Judges.
There is little, if any, data right now to support the view that asylum seekers at the Southern Border have been a significant source for the initial spread of coronavirus in the U.S.; however, their arbitrary removal to other countries might have helped the worldwide spread of the disease.
Moreover, as COVID-19 spreads into the Gulag and the Immigration Courts from the rest of America, infections in those locations could help spread the virus, given the lawyers, Government employees, and contractors exposed at those dangerous locations. Nor were Asian Americans responsible.
We do, however, have some data to show that U.S. citizens and other travelers returning from Europe were inadvertently a source of the virus’s spread in New York, and that Trump’s ineptness and failure to heed early warnings contributed to the spread.
But, science and truth seldom have any meaning for Trump and his toadies. And, we also know that while Trump often falsely claims “victories” that are either fabricated or largely someone’s else’s, he never takes responsibility for his own many mistakes and shortcomings.
Happy to share my new article Mistreating Central American Refugees: Repeating History in Response to Humanitarian Challenge (forthcoming Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal). The full article can be downloaded here.
Abstract:
In the 1980s, tens of thousands of Central Americans fled to the United States seeking refuge from civil unrest that ravaged their countries. In a largely geopolitical response, the Reagan administration labeled those fleeing Guatemala and El Salvador as “economic migrants,” detained them, and largely denied their asylum claims. The illegal discrimination against these refugees was exposed in a series of lawsuits and through congressional investigations. This led to the reconsideration of thousands of cases, the enlistment of a corps of asylum officers, and an agreement on the conditions under which migrant children could be detained.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the 1980s have been forgotten, or intentionally neglected. Beginning in 2014, once again large numbers of Central American asylum seekers—including women and children—are being detained. Asylum denial rates for migrants fleeing extreme violence are high. The mixed refugee flow continues to be mischaracterized as an illegal immigration problem. Many of the tactics used in the 1980s are the same today, including hampering the ability to obtain counsel. President Trump has taken the cruelty to the next level, by invoking claims of national security in attempting to shut down asylum by forcing applicants to remain in Mexico or apply for asylum in a third country. We should remember the lessons of the past. Spending billions on harsh border enforcement that preys on human beings seeking refuge is wrongheaded. We should be implementing policies and procedures that are cognizant of the reasons migrants are fleeing today, while working on sensible, regional solutions.
Professor Hing’s article echoes one of the themes of some of my speeches and comments, although, of course, he approaches it in a much more scholarly and systematic manner.
Check out my speech here:
“JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW”
There is complicated news nabout voter suppression tonight out of Wisconsin. It has overridden today’s news of the extraordinary outburst of Trump’s acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, who flew almost 8000 miles to Guam to harangue the sailors from the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
I’ll cover the Modly story later in the week, but for tonight, Wisconsin.
There is a crucial election there tomorrow that landed tonight at the US Supreme Court. The backstory is that in 2010, thanks to REDMAP the Republican Redistricting Majority Project I wrote about on Saturday, the Wisconsin legislature was controlled by Republicans. They worked to guarantee their control, gerrymandering the state so effectively in 2011 that in the 2012 elections, Republicans lost a majority of voters, but took 60% of the seats in the legislature. (They won only 48.6% of the votes, but took 61% of the seats.)
With this power, they promptly passed a strict voter-ID law that reduced black and Latino voting, resulting in 200,000 fewer voters in 2016 than had voted in 2012. (Remember, Wisconsin is a key battleground state, and Trump won it in 2016 by fewer than 23,000 votes.)
Now, there is a move afoot to purge about 240,000 more voters from the rolls, thanks to the old system called “voter caging.” The state sent letters to registered voters, largely in districts that voted Democratic in 2016, and those who did not respond to the letters have been removed from the voter rolls on the argument that the fact they didn’t respond to the letters must mean they have moved. Initially, the purge was supposed to happen in 2021, after the election, but a conservative group sued to removed them earlier and a conservative state judge, Paul V. Malloy ordered it done. Malloy’s decision has been appealed to the Wisconsin state supreme court, which has deadlocked over the issue by a vote of 3-3.
On tomorrow’s ballot is a contest for a seat on that court. The Republicans desperately want to reelect their candidate, Justice Daniel Kelly, who recused himself from the voter purge vote pending the election. Trump has endorsed Kelly, who will uphold the purge if he is reelected. Before the pandemic, observers thought Kelly’s opponent had a good chance of unseating him because of expected high turnout among Democrats. But now, of course, all bets are off, especially since the Democratic strongholds in the state are in the cities, where the residents are hunkered down.
The election was originally scheduled for tomorrow, but the pandemic has gummed up the works. A stay-at-home order went into effect in the state on March 25, and more than a million voters have requested absentee ballots. But this huge surge means the state is running behind and hasn’t been able to deliver the ballots. Meanwhile, roughly 7000 poll workers, who are volunteers and often elderly, have said they would not come manage the election, so a large number of polls can’t open. The city of Milwaukee, whose 600,000 people normally would have 180 polling places, will have five. Milwaukee tends to vote Democratic.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, tried to get the Republican-dominated legislature to postpone the election or to mail ballots to all voters for a May 26 election deadline, but it refused. Over the weekend, the mayors of Wisconsin’s ten biggest cities urged the state’s top health official, Andrea Palm, to “step up” and use her emergency powers to replace in-person voting with mail-in voting, as Ohio did when faced with a similar problem. On Monday, Evers signed an executive order postponing the election until June 9—something even he was unsure he had the power to do, but he said he felt he had to try to keep people safe– but Republicans challenged the order and the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court blocked it.
Last Thursday, a federal judge permitted absentee ballots to be counted in the election so long as they arrived back to election officials by April 13, but Republicans immediately challenged the decision. Tonight, in a 5-4 decision, the US. Supreme Court refused to permit this extension of time for the state to receive absentee ballots, arguing (apparently without any self-awareness) that the federal judge made a mistake by changing the rules of an election so close to its date. This means that absentee ballots have to be postmarked tomorrow, even if the voter hasn’t gotten one by then.
The court insisted that the issue in the decision was quite narrow, and had nothing to do with the larger question of the right to vote. The four dissenting justices cried foul.
Writing for the four other judges in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote that “the court’s order, I fear, will result in massive disenfranchisement.” “The majority of this Court declares that this case presents a “narrow, technical question”…. That is wrong. The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the midst of a pandemic. Under the District Court’s order, they would be able to do so. Even if they receive their absentee ballot in the days immediately following election day, they could return it. With the majority’s stay in place, that will not be possible. Either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others’ safety, or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. That is a matter of utmost importance—to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin’s citizens, the integrity of the State’s election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation.”
The New York Times editorial board echoed Ginsburg, warning that what is happening in Wisconsin, where Republicans are trying to use the pandemic to steal an election, could happen nationally in 2020. This is why Democrats tried to get robust election funding in the $2.2 trillion coronavirus bill to bolster mail-in ballots, and why Trump said: “The things they had in there were crazy, they had things, levels of voting that if you ever agreed to, you would never have another Republican elected in this country again.”
This crisis in Wisconsin has national implications. The reelection of Kelly will likely mean Wisconsin loses another 240,000 voters, most of them Democrats. This will increase Trump’s chances of winning the state in 2020, and Wisconsin is likely key to a victory in the Electoral College.
This is why I watch the minutia of politics so carefully. It’s hard to imagine that the election of a state judge in Wisconsin matters to our nation of fifty states and 330 million people, but it does. Oh, boy, does it.
**************
Remember, if more voters turn out, Trump & the GOP lose. The “J.R. Five” will be doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn’t happen. That’s why it’s critical for Dems to get out the vote and create a “Roberts-proof” majority. Also, winning the Senate is the way to start pushing back on the J.R.Five’s plans to dismantle democracy and with it any semblance of equality in America. Voter suppression is just the beginning.
Kate Morrissey reports for the San Diego Union Tribune:
On the same day the first person in immigration custody in San Diego was confirmed to have the new coronavirus, the American Civil Liberties Union sued for the release of certain high-risk detainees at the region’s two detention centers.
In the lawsuit, ACLU attorneys argue that specific detainees at Otay Mesa Detention Center and Imperial Regional Detention Facility who have pre-existing conditions that would make severe symptoms of COVID-19 more likely should be released in order to protect them from likely exposure to the virus. Some similar cases, filed by other groups around the country, have been successful in getting immigrant detainees released.
This coverage of the coronavirus pandemic is part of your subscription to The San Diego Union-Tribune. We also provide free coverage as a service to our community.
“During this pandemic, we’ve seen institutions at all levels take these really drastic, life-altering measures to preserve public safety and community well being,” said Monika Langarica, an attorney with the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which oversees massive detention operations across the country, rather than follow the course of these other institutions, has done almost the opposite.”
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Kate’s article at the above link.
Similar suits have produced mixed results throughout the country. While some U.S. District Judges have ordered or threatened to order the release of certain detainees, others have “blown off” legitimate health concerns and the failure of DHS and DOJ authorities to follow health guidelines during the pandemic.
Of course, the idea that social distancing, universal testing, basic hygiene, or individual protective equipment is being employed in any part of the “DHS Gulag” and the Immigration “Courts” is preposterous on its face. Yet, remarkably, some U.S. District Judges prefer the “show me the dead bodies approach” as an alternative to the sensible preventive measures recommended by health professionals. After all, “they are only aliens” in the eyes of the regime and some Federal Judges.
Others, more astutely, have recognized that those stuck in the Gulag and the never-ending dysfunction of the Immigration “Courts” are actually their fellow human beings, most without serious criminal convictions. They are also “persons” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, entitled to have their health, safety, and lives protected from dangerous and unreasonable actions by the Federal Government.
On Monday, by a 5–4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court approved one of the most brazen acts of voter suppression in modern history. The court will nullify the votes of citizens who mailed in their ballots late—not because they forgot, but because they did not receive ballots until after Election Day due to the coronavirus pandemic. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, the court’s order “will result in massive disenfranchisement.” The conservative majority claimed that its decision would help protect “the integrity of the election process.” In reality, it calls into question the legitimacy of the election itself.
Wisconsin has long been scheduled to hold an election on April 7. There are more than 3,800 seats on the ballot, and a crucial state Supreme Court race. But the state’s ability to conduct in-person voting is imperiled by COVID-19. Thousands of poll workers have dropped out for fear of contracting the virus, forcing cities to shutter dozens of polling places. Milwaukee, for example, consolidated its polling locations from 182 to five, while Green Bay consolidated its polling locations from 31 to two. Gov. Tony Evers asked the Republican-controlled legislature to postpone the election, but it refused. So he tried to delay it himself in an executive order on Monday. But the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court reinstated the election, thereby forcing voters to choose between protecting their health and exercising their right to vote.
Because voters are rightfully afraid of COVID-19, Wisconsin has been caught off guard by a surge in requests for absentee ballots. Election officials simply do not have time, resources, or staff to process all those requests. As a result, a large number of voters—at least tens of thousands—won’t get their ballot until after Election Day. And Wisconsin law disqualifies ballots received after that date. In response, last Thursday, a federal district court ordered the state to extend the absentee ballot deadline. It directed officials to count votes mailed after Election Day so long as they were returned by April 13. A conservative appeals court upheld his decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the only protection in place to ensure that voters could still safely cast ballots.
Now the Supreme Court has reversed that order. It allowed Wisconsin to throw out ballots postmarked and received after Election Day, even if voters were entirely blameless for the delay. (Thankfully, ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by April 13 still count, because the legislature didn’t challenge that extension.) In an unsigned opinion, the majority cited the Purcell principle, which cautions courts against altering voting laws shortly before an election. It criticized the district court for “fundamentally alter[ing] the nature of the election by permitting voting for six additional days after the election.” And it insisted that the plaintiffs did not actually request that relief—which, as Ginsburg notes in her dissent, is simply false.
. . . .
**************************
Read the rest of Mark’s article at the link.
Just last week Trump admitted that if more Americans voted, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
John Roberts and his fellow GOP partisans on the Supremes got the message loud and clear. Although, they didn’t really need much direction from their Great Leader, since the GOP Supremes have scarcely ever seen a civil rights or voting rights law that they didn’t want to gut and pervert.
With markets wobbling, unemployment rising, and Trump’s “malicious incompetence” threatening American lives every day, the GOP hopes for November could depend on large-scale disenfranchisement and massive voter suppression. And, the J.R. Five have made it clear that they are primed and ready to twist and manipulate the law as necessary to guarantee their party’s minority stranglehold on government.
So much for “just calling balls and strikes.” Nope! The J.R. Five “resizes the strike zone” as necessary to guarantee victory for “their team” and defeat for American democracy.
In the words of the Supreme Court, “Freedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”1 While imprisonment usually occurs in the criminal context, courts have allowed detention under our immigration laws, which are civil and (purportedly) non-punitive, only to protect the public from danger or to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future hearings.2 Case law thus requires a determination that a detained noncitizen does not present a danger to the public, a risk to national security, or a flight risk in order to be eligible for bond under section 236 of the I&N Act.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged the complexity of such determinations. In it’s 2006 decision in Matter of Guerra,3 the Board suggested nine factors that an immigration judge may consider in deciding if bond is warranted. The list included whether the respondent has a fixed U.S. address; the length of residence, employment history, and family ties in this country (and whether such ties might lead to legal status); the respondent’s criminal record, and their record of appearing in court, fleeing prosecution, violating immigration laws, and manner of entry to the U.S. But the Board made clear that an immigration judge has broad discretion in deciding what factors to consider and how much weight to afford each factor.The ultimate test is whether the decision was reasonable.
What makes such a decision reasonable? Given what the Supreme Court has called “an individual’s constitutionally-protected interest in avoiding physical restraint,”4 Guerra’s broad discretion must be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of relying on “one size fits all” presumptions as a basis for overriding such a fundamental constitutional right. In allowing IJs to consider what factors to consider and how to weigh them, Guerra should be read as directing those judges to delve deeply into the question of whether the noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk. Obviously, all recently-arrived immigrants are not flight risks, and all of those charged with crimes don’t pose a threat to society.As the trier of fact, immigration judges are best able to use their proximity to the respondent, the government, and the evidence and witnesses presented to determine what factors are most indicative of the likelihood that the respondent will see their hearings through to the end and abide by the result, or in the case of criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism.
In considering the continued custody of one with no criminal record, the risk to public safety or national security are generally not factors. And in Matter of R-A-V-P-,5 a case recently decided by the BIA, the immigration judge found that the respondent, an asylum-seeker with no criminal record, presented no risk on either of those counts. However, the immigration judge denied bond on the belief that the respondent was a flight risk, and it was that determination that the BIA was asked to consider on appeal.
How does one determine whether someone detained upon arrival is likely to appear for their hearings? It is obviously more complicated than whether one presents a threat to public safety, in which the nature of the criminal record will often be determinative. In R-A-V-P-, the Board repeated the nine Matter of Guerra factors, and added a tenth: the likelihood that relief will be granted.
As stated above, Guerra made clear that these were suggestions; the immigration judge could consider, ignore, and weigh whatever factors they reasonably found relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, many of the listed Guerra factors were not applicable to the respondent. Guerra involved a respondent found to pose a danger to others. The nine factors laid out in the decision were not specific to the question of flight risk; clearly, all the listed factors were not meant to apply in all cases. As to the specific case of R-A-V-P-, obviously, someone who was detained since arrival can have no fixed address, length of residence, or employment history in this country. The respondent’s history of appearing for hearings also reveals little where all appearances occurred in detention.And the Guerra factors relating to criminal record and history of fleeing prosecution are inapplicable to a respondent never charged with a crime.
The Board’s decision in R-A-V-P- is very short on details that would provide meaningful context. There is no mention of any evidence presented by DHS to support a flight risk finding. In fact, the absence of any listing of government counsel in the case caption indicates that DHS filed no brief at all on appeal, a point that doesn’t appear to have made a difference in the outcome.6
The few facts that are mentioned in the decision seem to indicate that the respondent sought asylum from Honduras based on his sexual orientation. Not mentioned were the facts that the respondent entered as a youth, and that although he entered the U.S. without inspection, he made no attempt to evade immigration authorities after entry. To the contrary, he immediately sought out such authorities and expressed to them his intention to apply for asylum.These facts would seem quite favorable in considering the Guerra factors of the respondent’s “history of immigration violations,” manner of entry to the U.S., and attempts to “otherwise escape from authorities.”7 And although not mentioned in Guerra, the respondent is also represented by highly competent counsel, a factor that has been demonstrated to significantly increase the likelihood of appearance, and one within the IJ’s broad discretion to consider as weighing in the respondent’s favor.
Regarding the tenth criteria introduced by the Board, i.e., the likelihood of relief being granted, the persecution of LGBTI individuals is well-documented in Honduras, and prominently mentioned in the U.S. Department of State’s country report on human rights practices for that country. The State Department reported an increase in killings of LGBTI persons in Honduras in 2019, and that 92 percent of hate crimes and acts of violence committed against the LGBTI community went unpunished. Such asylum claims are commonly granted by asylum officers, immigration judges, and the BIA.
Yet the Board took a very strange approach to this point. It chose to ignore how such claims actually fare, and instead speak in vague, general terms of how “eligibility for asylum can be difficult to establish,” even for those who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. The Board next noted only that the immigration judge found that the respondent “did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum,” without itself analyzing whether such conclusion was proper.
In fact, the immigration judge did deny the asylum claim; a separate appeal form that decision remains pending before the BIA. But the Board missed an important point.The question isn’t whether the respondent will be granted asylum; it’s whether his application for asylum will provide enough impetus for him to appear for his hearings relating to such relief. From my experience both as an attorney and an immigration judge, the answer in this case is yes.One with such a claim as the respondent’s who is represented by counsel such as his will almost certainly appear for all his hearings.The author of the Board’s decision, Acting BIA Chair Garry Malphrus, did sit as an immigration judge in a non-detained court for several years before joining the BIA. I’m willing to bet that he had few if any non-appearances on cases such as the respondent’s.
Yet the Board’s was dismissive of the respondent’s asylum claim, which it termed a “limited avenue of relief” not likely to warrant his appearance in court. Its conclusion is strongly at odds with actual experience. Early in my career, I represented asylum seekers who arrived in this country in what was then known as “TRWOV” (transit without visa) status, which meant that the airline they traveled on was responsible for their detention. The airline in question hired private guards to detain the group in a Queens motel.As time passed, the airline calculated that it would be cheaper to let those in their charge escape and pay the fine than to bear the ongoing detention costs. The airline therefore opened the doors and had the guards leave, only to find the asylum seekers waiting in the motel when they returned hours later.None were seeking to abscond; all sought only their day in court.And that was the determinative factor in their rejecting the invitation to flee; none had employment records, community ties, or most of the other factors held out as more important by the BIA in R-A-V-P-. They chose to remain in detention rather than jeopardize their ability to pursue their asylum claims.
My clients in the above example had a good likelihood of being granted asylum. But volunteering in an immigration law clinic three decades later, I see on a weekly basis individuals with much less hope of success nevertheless show up for all of their hearings, because, even in these dark times, they maintain faith that in America, an impartial judge will listen to their claim and provide them with a fair result. In one case, an unrepresented asylum applicant recently released from detention flew across the country for a preliminary master calendar hearing because the immigration judge had not yet ruled on his motion for a change of venue.
So for what reason did the BIA determine that the respondent in R-A-V-P- would behave to the contrary? The Board made much of the fact that an individual who promised to pay for the respondent’s bus ticket and provide him with a place to live (an offer which the Board referred to as “laudable”) was a friend and not a family member of the respondent. But on what basis can it be concluded that living with a cousin rather than a friend increases the chances of his future appearance in court? In the absence of statistics or reports that support such determination, is this fact deserving of such discretionary weight? The Board felt it could rely on this factor simply because it was mentioned in Matter of Guerra. But while that decision requires a finding that the IJ’s conclusion was reasonable, the decision in R-A-V-P- appears to be based more on a hunch than a reasoned conclusion, with the Board referencing seemingly random factors in support of its conclusion without explaining why such factors deserve the weight they were afforded, while ignoring other more relevant factors that would weigh in favor of release.
The respondent has now been detained for well over a year, including the seven months his bond appeal lingered before the Board, a very significant deprivation of liberty. The respondent’s asylum appeal remains to be decided, likely by a different Board Member or panel than that which decided his bond appeal.But now that the majority of the Board has voted to publish the bond denial as a precedent decision, what is the likelihood that any Board member will review that appeal with an unbiased eye?
As a final point, although the drafting of the decision likely began months earlier, the Board nevertheless chose to allow the decision to be published as precedent in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic that poses a particular threat to those detained in immigration jails. So at a time when health professionals and numerous other groups are pleading for the government to release as many as possible from immigration detention centers, the BIA chose to instead issue a decision that will likely lead to an opposite result.
Notes:
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
Ibid; Robert Pauw, Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (4th Ed.) (AILA, 2017) at 418.
24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997).
27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).
Appeals may be summarily dismissed due to the failure to file a brief or to sufficiently state a ground for appeal. However, the BIA does not view an appeal or motion as unopposed where ICE files no brief.
Matter of Guerra, supra at 40.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
“Courtside” Exclusive
April 6, 2020
Jeffrey and I both get to pretty much the same “bottom line” here. But, as usual, he is more “nuanced” in his approach.
Certainly, the DOJ’s two-decade program, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, of systematically excluding from the BIA (and also largely from the Immigration Judiciary, with a more than 9-1 government/private sector hiring ratio) any acknowledged immigration and human rights expertise from those who actually represent and work with asylum applicants is paying huge dividends for Trump’s nativist immigration agenda.
A “captive BIA” well-attuned to “not rocking the boat” and “implementing the Attorney General’s priorities” abandons due process and fundamental fairness for individuals. Instead, they crank out an endless stream of one-sided pro-DHS-enforcement “precedents.”
Led by the Supremes’ “supreme abdication of judicial duties” in Chevron and Brand X, the Courts of Appeals and sometimes the Supremes themselves “defer” to “any old interpretation” by the BIA rather than undertaking the more challenging search for the “best interpretation.” In immigration law, “deference” to the BIA “tilts the playing field” overwhelming in favor of DHS and against individuals and due process.
And, if the BIA occasionally lets the immigrant “win” or at least not outright “lose,” one or two precedents, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have shown a frequentwillingness to merely step in and change the results. Sometimes, they do this on cases decided years ago, even when DHS doesn’t ask them to. They openly and aggressively are carrying out a predetermined White Nationalist, nativist agenda. Because, they can!
If this sounds like a parody of due process, that’s because it is! But, the Supremes and the rest of the Article IIIs have been studiously looking away while due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection are trampled in Immigration Court for more than a half-century. Why step up to the plate now?
Although it’s hard to do under Chevron, the BIA does sometimes so clearly ignore the statute or come up with such “off the wall” interpretations that the Article IIIs occasionally have to distinguish Chevron and intervene. In other words, generally screwing immigrants is OK by the Article IIIs; but, at some point looking totally feckless or downright idiotic by rubber stamping the BIA’s most outlandish anti-immigrant rulings is a “no no.” Bad for their reputations, law school speaking tours, and recruitment of the “best and brightest” clerks that the “Supremos” and other Article IIIs enjoy so much.
Another “big advantage” of a captive and fundamentally unfair BIA is that its “perversions of justice” become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The respondent inR-A-V-P- should not only have been released on bond, but his asylum case could easily have been granted in a “short hearing” in a system committed to a fair interpretation and application of asylum law. That might have led to the release of others and the more efficient granting of other similar cases. That actually would be an huge step forward in a dysfunctional system running a largely self-inflicted backlog of approximately 1.4 million cases.
Instead, denying meritorious cases creates hugely inflated denial rates. This supports the Trump Administration’s intentionally false narrative that all asylum claims are frivolous or fraudulent.
And, naturally, if the claims are overwhelmingly non-meritorious, who cares if we give asylum applicants any due process or not. Just summarily deny them all and you’ll be right 90% of the time.
That’s probably why Trump has gotten away with his biggest outrage: Simply eliminating the statutory right to apply for asylum at the border by Executive fiat, confident that the Supremes and the Article IIIs will never have the guts to effectively intervene and hold him accountable merely for arbitrarily inflicting potential death sentences on asylum seekers. After all, they are just “aliens,” not really “humans” or “persons” under the warped views of the Roberts’ Court majority! “Dred Scottification in action.”
Also, by denying meritorious claims for asylum seekers already in the U.S., the BIA“sends a message” that asylum seekers shouldn’t bother applying — they can’t and won’t win no matter how meritorious their cases. And, what’s more, the BIA will use the manipulated, improperly inflated “denial rates” to show that there is “little likelihood of success” on the merits of any asylum claim.
Under R-A-V-P–, this virtually guarantees punitive DHS detention, serving as both a punishment for asserting rights and a further deterrent to asserting claims in Immigration Court. Heck, in a “best case scenario” for Trump, COVID-19 will wipe out all detained asylum seekers, thereby eliminating that “problem.”
The system is a farce. But, it is a farce that both Congress and the Article IIIs have enabled.
Asylum seekers and other migrants deserve justice from America. When they will finally get it from a system intentionally rigged against them, and judges and legislators all too often unwilling to acknowledge or recognize their humanity, remains to be seen.
Mica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, Reuters
Mica writes:
I wanted to share our latest reporting, which found about a third of the 43,000 immigrants in detention as of March 2 were housed at facilities that have only one hospital – or none – with intensive-care beds within 25 miles, according to an analysis of data from the American Hospital Directory and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The seven sites with no such hospitals nearby held a total of about 5,000 detainees, according to the analysis, which examined centers that averaged 100 or more detainees. (ICE has said there are fewer detainees being held currently – around 35,600 – but did not provide a facility-by-facility breakdown of their whereabouts)
We focused on Louisiana where the number of immigrant detainees has quadrupled under Trump to nearly 7,000 as of March 2 data. Many of the detention centers in the state are in tiny, rural towns. The Catahoula Correctional Center for example houses more than 500 detainees. It is just outside of Harrisonburg, LA, population 330.
Nurses, doctors and hospital administrators at the small hospitals closest to the detention centers – and even at larger facilities farther away – said they would be overwhelmed if there is an outbreak inside one of the facilities.
Public health experts said an outbreak in a population of 1,500 detainees could require between 150 and 175 intensive-care admissions.
We previously have reported on how lawyers are seeking parole for vulnerable immigrant detainees and how the city of Matamoros in Mexico, where thousands of migrants are stuck in limbo in tent camps, is unprepared for an outbreak.
Please read and share and contact me with additional tips for us to follow!
The whole idea of locating immigration prisons “in the middle of nowhere” intentionally to hamper representation, coerce, punish, and deter detainees from asserting legal rights, and limit accountability and public oversight has been a grotesque denial of due process from the “git go.” Congress and the Article III Courts should have intervened long ago to put a stop to this nonsense before it became life-threatening on an even larger scale.
Even more preposterous is that the DOJ and EOIR have located so-called “courts” (that aren’t really courts in any sense of the term, and which no longer provide any semblance of due process and fundamental fairness) within the Gulag. It’s more like the Spanish Inquisition than it is 21st Century American Justice. Except the tragedy is that this is what passes for justice in 21st Century America! What has happened to our country and our souls? Sadly, it’s actually possible that those appearing before the Spanish Inquisition were treated better than we treat asylum seekers under the Trump regime.
Even worse, the “perpetrators” of this disgraceful mockery of the law and human dignity have to date gotten away Scot-Free. Our justice system at all levels has failed migrants seeking fair and humane treatment under our laws. (Apparently, threatening the lives, rights, and safety of non-criminal so-called “civil detainees” isn’t a problem for either Congress or the Article IIIs. We already know that Trump considers our Constitution to be a joke, and that he therefore runs over it with regularity, contempt, and impunity, while Roberts and his Supremes’ majority express disinterest in holding the Trump regime accountable for even the most boldly egregious abuses. No wonder his open contempt for the Article IIIs has only grown over the past three years.)
Thanks, Mica, for your courageous reporting and continuing to tell the story of those whose lives are being endangered by a “maliciously incompetent” White Nationalist regime and feckless Federal Courts, many of whom have forgotten the meaning of their oaths of office and their obligations to their fellow human beings.
Read all of Mica’s stories in their entirety at the above links. Or, better yet, contact Mica directly@Reuters with your own “horror stories” from inside Trump’s judicially-enabled New American Gulag.
Due Process Forever! The Trump Regime & The Complicit Congress & Federal Courts That Enable Its Abuses, Never!
Vote Like Your Life Depends On It This November! Because, It Does!
