Tent Courts – immigrationcourtside.com

ADOLFO FLORES @ BUZZFEED: More On The EOIR “Tent Court” Farce!

See below Buzzfeed’s latest story about tent court access.

Immigration “Tent Courts” Aren’t Allowing Full Public Access, Attorneys Say

Observers and reporters can’t watch what some consider to be the most important part of an immigration proceeding.

Adolfo FloresBuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on January 13, 2020, at 4:23 p.m. ET

The Trump administration recently agreed to open its “tent courts,” makeshift tribunals where immigrants made to wait in Mexico attend hearings, but lawyers and legal observers say the set up still fails to give the public full access.

Attorneys and advocates said the government is still keeping the public out of what some consider to be the most important part of immigration court proceedings by using judges located inside a Fort Worth, Texas, facility that is closed to the public. The hearings are where immigrants get the opportunity to present arguments and evidence as to why they should be allowed to stay in the US.

Judges at the Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center, which the public has no access to, are overseeing the individual merits hearings via video that’s beamed into “tent courts” in Brownsville, Texas. At the same time, the public has also been barred from attending the hearings in person at the “tent court,” effectively closing off public access.

“It’s highly problematic,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Using these adjudication centers and judges is clearly intentional. The agency is trying to operate these cases in secret.”

The facilities in Falls Church, Virginia, and Fort Worth were created by the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the nation’s immigration courts, as a way to reduce its growing case backlog.

Denying public access is especially concerning because most immigrants in “Remain in Mexico,” formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), are not represented by an attorney, Lynch said. An analysis of 56,004 MPP hearings found that only 4% of immigrants are represented by a lawyer, the rest are having to make their case on their own.

“Many immigrants are walking into these tent courts unrepresented,” Lynch said. “And there’s no way to observe them.”

EOIR refused to confirm whether judges at the adjudication center were listening to merits hearings in Brownsville. But attorneys with clients at the Brownsville “tent court” confirmed to BuzzFeed News that they’ve had cases before judges at the Fort Worth adjudication center and have been rescheduled to judges there in the future.

“All immigration judges hear all case types. Due to pending litigation, we have no further comment,” said Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for EOIR.

The Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In September, DHS opened two temporary court facilities along the Texas border, one in Brownsville and another in Laredo for immigrants in the “Remain in Mexico” program. Judges in brick and mortar courts throughout the US, officials said, would hear their cases and make rulings via video.

When the “tent courts” started their first hearings, they were immediately criticized for its lack of transparency because reporters, legal observers, and the public couldn’t attend hearings from inside.

Instead, DHS and EOIR said the public could attend the hearings by going to the courtroom where the immigration judges, who would be video conferenced into the “tent courts,” were physically at. But that’s not possible when immigration judges hear merits hearings from adjudication centers closed to the public.

In general, immigration courts are open to the public, although according to the Justice Department, immigrants can request that merits hearings be closed.

At the Brownsville “tent courts,” however, merits hearings are closed automatically by design, said Andrew Udelsman, a fellow in the Texas Civil Rights Project’s racial and economic justice program.

“The case right now appears to be a blanket rule that the public has no access to MPP merits proceedings and that is illegal,” Udelsman told BuzzFeed News. “There is a First Amendment right of public access to court proceedings. That right is being violated by this blanket denial of access to merit proceedings.”

Demonstators, all part of a grassroots group called Witness at the Border supported by ACLU Texas and Children’s Defense Fund Texas, gather to protest outside the Brownsville “tent courts.”

Last week, Reynaldo Leaños Jr., a reporter with Texas Public Radio, tried to attend a merits hearing at the Brownsville “tent court” after a Cuban asylum-seeker invited him to attend. Yet private security contracted by the government told Leaños no one was allowed into the hearings.

Asked by BuzzFeed News why that was the case, a security guard with Ahtna at the facility, who declined to give his name, said it was because the shipping containers the merits hearings are held in were too small to accommodate additional members of the public.

Norma Sepulveda, an immigration attorney who had a hearing last week in Brownsville with a judge located in Fort Worth, said it was “ridiculous” that the merits hearings were being held inside small shipping containers that only fit seven people.

“I don’t know why they put us in these tiny rooms to hold the hearings other than to say there’s no space for anyone else to be present,” Sepulveda told BuzzFeed News. “These hearings are being scheduled with these judges intentionally to be able to conduct them without any oversight.”

Sepulveda said her client’s son, a resident of the US, was initially listed as a witness in the case and was allowed into the room. However, when Sepulveda said she was no longer going to call him to testify he was removed from the room by private security.

“It’s clear to me that the policy is no spectators, if you will, and no family support for individual hearings,” Sepulveda said.

Private security at the “tent courts” in Brownsville also enforcing different rules from one day to the next, that legal observers and attorneys said don’t make sense.

On the first day the public was allowed into the Brownsville facilities, private security agents said reporters weren’t allowed to attend hearings with a pen and notepad. Yet, on the second day they did allow journalists to take notes, but not observers like Udelsman of the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Private security officials are also only allowing the public to view master calendar hearings, the first time people see a judge, which tend to be short preliminary hearings. Requests to attend different master calendar hearings, other than the one room made available, were denied.

“They’re preventing anybody from being able to explain in the most accurate manner possible, what’s happening,” Udelsman said. “You’re prohibiting the public from knowing what’s happening in the courtroom and making life as difficult as possible for the few people who are able to report on what’s happening.”

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

Direct: 202.507.7627 I Email: llynch@aila.org

American Immigration Lawyers Association

Main: 202.507.7600 I Fax: 202.783.7853 I www.aila.org

1331 G Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005

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

Thanks for passing this along and for all you do, Laura!

“Secret proceedings” and lack of transparency are key steps toward any neo-fascist state!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-14-20

AILA POLICY BRIEFING: EOIR Still Playing “Hide The Ball” On Tent Court Access!

20011061-AILA Policy Briefing

Policy Brief: Public Access to Tent Courts Now Allowed, but Meaningful Access Still Absent January 10, 2020

Contact: Laura Lynch (Llynch@aila.org) or Leidy Perez-Davis (LPerez-Davis@aila.org)

In September 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened massive temporary tent facilities in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, that function as virtual immigration courtrooms for vulnerable asylum seekers subject to Remain in Mexico. During the hearings, asylum seekers are held in tents at the ports of entry while judges appear remotely via video teleconference (VTC).

Unlike in other immigration courts, the government barred attorney observers, press, and the public from accessing these facilities, in violation of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations requiring immigration hearings to generally be open to the public. Access to the tent courts is critical to ensuring due process, and AILA, along with several other organizations and numerous members of Congress, repeatedly voiced concerns about the lack of transparency. In response, and after months of public demand for access, the Wall Street Journal reported on December 29, 2019, that DHS directed component agencies to open the tent courts to the public.1

The DHS acknowledgement that transparency is both necessary and required is a vital first step toward upholding due process in tent courts. However, thus far, DHS and DOJ have operationalized this directive in a way that fails to allow meaningful access to the tent court facilities and imposed new hurdles to transparency by assigning immigration judges from the Ft. Worth Immigration Adjudication Center.

Tent Court Access Prior to December 29, 2019, Public Access Announcement

When DHS initially opened the tent courts in September 2019, it allowed only asylum seekers and their attorneys of record into the facilities. At one time, even support staff for attorneys of record such as interpreters and paralegals were restricted from entering the tents, though they were later allowed to accompany the attorneys. Attorney observers, press, and members of the public were categorically barred from the tent facilities while hearings were taking place. Representatives from AILA and other court observers were permitted to observe Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings only at the brick-and-mortar courtrooms where the judges appearing by VTC were located. However, remote observation is not an adequate substitute for access to the tent courts because observers are not able to assess how the proceedings are operating from the vantage point of the individual respondent, who is the most gravely impacted by these proceedings.

1 “In an effort to ensure consistency, clarity, and transparency, the acting secretary directed [component agencies] to formalize guidance for public access to these facilities, consistent with immigration courts across the country.” – DHS spokeswoman, Heather Swift. See Michelle Hackman, Wall Street Journal, U.S. Opens Immigration ‘Tent Courts’ to Public, Dec. 29, 2019.

1

Laredo and Brownsville Tent Court Setup from September 2019 through December 2019

Laredo Tent Court Brownsville Tent Court

Laredo tent court proceedings, including both Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings, were conducted via VTC by immigration judges located at the brick-and-mortar San Antonio immigration court, which is nearly 200 miles away. Brownsville tent court proceedings, including both Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings, were conducted by immigration judges located at the Harlingen and Port Isabel immigration courts, as well as the El Paso SPC, which is nearly 800 miles away from the Brownsville tent court.

● Respondents appeared in person at the Laredo tent court.

● Immigration judges from the San Antonio Immigration Court appeared via VTC.

● Attorneys of record appeared either (1) at the Laredo tent court or (2) via VTC from the San Antonio brick-and-mortar courtrooms.

● ICE trial attorneys located at the San Antonio Immigration Court appeared via VTC.

● Interpreters interpreted remotely from the San Antonio Immigration Court.

● Witnesses appeared either (1) at the Laredo tent court or (2) via VTC from the San Antonio brick-and-mortar courtrooms.

● Court observers were only permitted to observe Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings at the brick-and-mortar courts

● Respondents appeared in person at the Brownsville tent court.

● Immigration judges from Harlingen, Port Isabel, or El Paso SCP appeared via VTC.

● Attorneys of record appeared either (1) at the Brownsville tent court or (2) via VTC from the immigration judge location.

● ICE trial attorneys appeared via VTC from the immigration judge location.

● Interpreters interpreted remotely from the immigration judge location.

● Witnesses appeared either (1) at the Brownsville tent court or (2) via VTC from the immigration judge location.

● Court observers were only permitted to observe Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings at the brick-and-mortar courts.

Tent Court Access After December 29, 2019, Public Access Announcement

Master Calendar Hearings

Reports indicate that members of the press and public have been permitted to observe Master Calendar Hearings at the Brownsville and Laredo tent court facilities, in addition to the brick-and-mortar courts where the judges sit. However, this access has not been consistent with access allowed at other immigration courts across the country. For example, Master Calendar Hearings are generally open to the public, but in the tent courts, DHS personnel dictate particular Master Calendar Hearings the public is permitted to observe. Reporters and court observers have encountered other logistical hurdles, such as DHS prohibiting pens and notepads in the tents, which impede their ability to accurately observe and document the hearings.

Access to Individual Merits Hearings2

DOJ and DHS recently imposed significant new barriers that block the public’s ability to observe Individual Merits Hearings taking place at the Laredo and Brownsville tent courts. DOJ recently began assigning individual merits hearings to the Ft. Worth Immigration Adjudication Center (IAC) judges. The Ft. Worth IAC opened in October 2018 and is a remote-only facility that is closed to the public.3 Immigration judges

2 In order to observe asylum hearings, court observers need to obtain permission from the Respondent. See EOIR Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapter 4.9, Public Access.
3 For more background information about IACs, please see the following materials: AILA’s Policy Brief: FOIA Reveals EOIR’s Failed Plan for Fixing the Immigration Court Backlog, Feb. 21, 2019 (pgs. 4-5); The American Bar

2

AILA Doc. No. 20011061. (Posted 1/10/20)

stationed at these centers adjudicate cases from around the country via VTC. The public has not been permitted to observe hearings at the IAC. Previously, court observers have been able to watch IAC proceedings by video in courtrooms where the respondent and ICE attorney are located.

However, reports indicate that DHS has blocked access to Individual Merits Hearings at the tent courts. If that continues, it would mean that there is no location for court observers or the media to watch the Individual Merits Hearings of respondents in tent courts assigned to IAC judges. For example, an AILA member reported earlier this week that DHS prevented her client’s adult son who is a lawful permanent resident from attending his mother’s Individual Merits Hearing at the Brownsville tent court that was assigned to a judge located at the Ft. Worth IAC. The son was initially permitted to enter the hearing in the tent court because he was listed as a witness in the case. Once the hearing started, the AILA member informed the immigration judge that she did not intend to call the son as a witness and would instead rely on his declaration. Despite empty chairs in the hearing room, security made the son sit in the waiting area for the duration of the hearing because the policy does not permit observers to attend Individual Merits Hearings.

At best, utilizing Ft. Worth IAC immigration judges to adjudicate Individual Merits Hearings at tent courts introduces additional operational complexities. At worst, it will block all public access. See below for more information on how using IAC judges to adjudicate hearings at the tent courts is functioning. AILA is still gathering additional information.

Merits Hearings at Brownsville Tent Court Adjudicated by IAC Judges

● Respondents appear in person at the Brownsville tent court.

● Immigration judges from the Ft. Worth IAC appear via VTC.

● Attorneys of record appear at the Brownsville tent court.

● ICE trial attorneys from an unknown location appear via VTC.

● Interpreters interpret in person at the Brownsville tent court.

● Witnesses appear in person at the Brownsville tent court.

● AILA is still gathering more information on whether DHS and DOJ are

taking steps to facilitate court observers’ access to these hearings.

What Don’t We Know?

DHS and DOJ’s lack of transparency continues to create chaos for court observers at these two tent courts. Below are a few of the many key outstanding questions regarding access to the tent court facilities.

DHS indicated that it has developed formal guidance on public access to tent court facilities but has not yet shared this guidance publicly. Will DHS share this guidance with the public?

What steps are DHS and DOJ taking to ensure meaningful public access to observe both Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings conducted at the tent court facilities, consistent with access allowed at other immigration courts across the country?

In situations where immigration judges from an IAC are assigned to adjudicate Individual Merits Hearings at the tent courts, how will DOJ facilitate public access? Does DOJ have plans to open the IACs to the public in the future?

Association’s 2019 Update Report, Reforming the Immigration System (pgs. 81-82); and The American Immigration Council Blog, The Judicial Black Sites the Government Created to Speed Up Deportations, Jan. 7, 2019.

3

AILA Doc. No. 20011061. (Posted 1/10/20)

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

Shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with EOIR’s “Trump Era” user unfriendly policies, misinformation, xenophobia, and anti-Due-Process agenda.

I appreciate “NDPA superstars” Laura and Leidy keeping “on” this story. But, with Congress and the Article III courts taking a “pass” on their Constitutional functions (but, still collecting their paychecks), those “true patriots” like Laura and Leidy defending our Constitution and trying to preserve our democratic institutions face constant unnecessary “uphill battles” because of the dereliction duty by those charged with protecting the public good.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-11-20

ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES SPEAKS OUT AGAINST EOIR’S LIMITS ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION COURTS

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

McHenry letter_letterhead

VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

James McHenry, Director
Christopher Santoro, Acting Chief Immigration Judge Executive Office for Immigration Review
5107 Leesburg Pike, 18th Floor
Falls Church, VA 22041

Dear Director McHenry and Chief Immigration Judge Santoro,

Public access to the immigration courts is vital to the constitutional protections of the respond- ents who appear in court. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27 the immigration courts are open to the public. Limited exceptions to public access exist under the regulations, for example, to protect witnesses or parties or the public interest (§ 1003.27(b)), in VAWA cases (§ 1003.27(c)), and when there is a protective order (§ 1003.27(d)). Asylum hearings are confidential and are not open to the public unless the asylum applicant consents (8 C.F.R. § 1208.6).

Migrant Protection Protocol “MPP” hearings are routinely conducted in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27. Observers have been denied access to remote hearing locations where respondents are appearing in “tent courts.” In addition, it was recently announced that some MPP hearings would be heard via video teleconference by immigration judges in the Fort Worth Adjudication Center. For such hearings, public access is entirely restricted, as observers are not allowed in the tent courts or the adjudication centers. As Judge Ashley Tabaddor stated in an interview with CNN, “MPP is rife with issues but by assigning the adjudication centers to the tent courts takes us to a new low where public access to the court are now eliminated.” She further stated, “[t]his is not the way we as judges or courts should function.”

We agree with Judge Tabaddor. On December 5, 2019, a member of our group of former immi- gration judges, Ilyce Shugall, was denied access to the immigration court while attempting to observe an MPP individual calendar hearing. Human Rights First requested permission for the observers to sit in Laredo with the respondents in the tent courts. The request was denied. Ac- cordingly, the observers, including Former Immigration Judge Shugall, who traveled across the country, were required to sit in San Antonio to observe respondents appearing from Laredo via

December 10, 2019

VTC. Although the individual hearing was an asylum merits hearing, the respondent consented to Former Judge Shugall observing the hearing.

Early in the hearing, Immigration Judge Cynthia Lafuente-Gaona confirmed that the respondent consented to Former Judge Shugall observing, as she was with a delegation from Human Rights First. Subsequently, Judge Lafuente-Gaona asked Former Judge Shugall to step out of the court- room because she was taking notes on her computer and looking at her cell phone. The assistant chief counsel for ICE was taking notes on his computer, but was never asked to cease his note taking. Former Judge Shugall advised she would put both her phone and computer away and take notes on a note pad. Judge Lafuente-Gaona told Former Judge Shugall she “should know better” because she was a former judge. Former Judge Shugall explained that attorneys and ob- servers used computers and phones in her courtroom when she was on the bench and had used her computer and phone in court all week, including in Judge Lafuente-Gaona’s courtroom the prior day. Former Judge Shugall remained in the courtroom and continued her note taking on a note pad. Some time later, a legal fellow from Human Rights First entered the courtroom. Judge Lafuente-Gaona again confirmed with the respondent that he consented to the additional observ- er. While doing so, she told the respondent that the observers were “writing about what he was saying,” which was entirely untrue. Judge Lafuente-Gaona then told the observers that their note taking on note pads was distracting and asked both to leave. After a break, the observers con- firmed with Judge Lafuente-Gaona that she was requiring they remain outside of the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing. She had two male guards escort the two female attorneys out of the courtroom. That same day the legal fellow from Human Rights First was prevented from ob- serving another pro se merits hearing.

Immigration judges preside over individual and master calendar hearings that are rife with dis- tractions. During master calendar hearings, people are constantly entering and leaving the court- room, taking notes, talking, and moving papers. On many dockets, children are crying, crawling on the floors, throwing toys and food, and playing with microphones. In addition, in immigra- tion courtrooms across the country, parties routinely take notes on computers and use cell phones in court. Observers taking notes during a pro se asylum hearing is not inherently distracting. That the judge became distracted because a former immigration judge and an attorney from a human rights organization made her nervous does not justify closing the courtroom.

While the above examples are specific to MPP hearings, issues related to public access to the immigration courts is not exclusively limited to MPP. For example, according to a Daily Beast article, earlier this month a reporter was forced to leave an immigration courtroom in New York.

Very few respondents subject to MPP are represented. There are significant concerns with ac- cess to counsel and due process in MPP proceedings. Allowing observers in court, pursuant to the regulations, is crucial. A judge’s failure to follow the regulations and the constitution should be of great concern to EOIR. It is certainly of paramount concern to this group of former immi- gration judges.

As former immigration judges, we understand that a judge has the right to control the conduct of those attending a hearing, but exercise of that control cannot compromise the parties’ due pro-

cess rights. We request that EOIR investigate this issue and ensure that the public has appropri- ate access to all immigration courts.

Very truly yours, /s/

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Steven Abrams

Terry Bain

Sarah Burr

Teofilo Chapa

Jeffrey Chase

George Chew

Matthew D’Angelo

Bruce J. Einhorn

Cecelia Espenoza

Noel Ferris

James Fujimoto

Jennie Giambastiani

John Gossart

Paul Grussendorf

Miriam Hayward

Rebecca Bowen Jamil

William Joyce

Carol King

Margaret McManus

Charles Pazar

Laura Ramirez

John Richardson

Lory Rosenberg

Susan Roy

Paul Schmidt

Ilyce Shugall

Denise Slavin

Andrea Sloan

William Van Wyke

Polly Webber

Bob Weisel

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

NOTE: A few of the above signatures were not received in time for the “hard copy” mailed to EOIR. They later were added to the publicly distributed version.

Public access is critical to Due Process and Fundamental Fairness in Immigration Court. In the Arlington Immigration Court, we were constantly “under observation” by reporters, Congressional staff, NGOs, students, Senior Executives from DOJ and DHS, Asylum Officers, OIL Attorneys, EOIR Headquarters and BIA staff, ORR staff, and other members of the public. We welcomed it. All of us viewed it as a “teaching opportunity” and a chance to demonstrate “Due Process in action” and to communicate our judicial philosophies and expertise in the law to others. It was an important “public education” opportunity.

Indeed, when I taught “Refugee Law & Policy” as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law “Court Observation” was a required assignment. The same was true of many of my teaching colleagues at the many law schools in DC and Virginia.

Far from “disruptive” or “distracting,” I found that public observation actually improved everyone’s performance, including my own. Everyone in the courtroom got into “teaching mode,” willing and eager to demonstrate the importance of their roles in the justice system. Counsel on both sides would often remain for a few minutes after the case to discuss their respective roles and how they came to choose immigration law as a career (of course, being careful not to discuss particular case facts).

Indeed, one of the most meaningful items of “feedback” I got from an observer (paraphrased) was: “I expected something much more openly adversarial and hostile. I was surprised by the degree of cooperation, mutual respect, and teamwork by everyone in the courtroom including counsel, the witnesses, the interpreter, and the judge to complete the case in the time allotted and to inform the judge’s decision. Everyone seemed to be working toward a common goal of resolution, even though they had different roles and views on the right outcome.”

Of course that was then. I’ve been told that most Immigration Courts these days are much more “openly hostile territory” particularly for respondents and their counsel. All the more reason why we need more, rather than less, in person court observation.

Many thanks to our friend and Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall for bringing this festering problem “out in the open.”

PWS

12-12-19

AS ARTICLE III JUDGES SHIRK DUTIES, EMBOLDENED EOIR RAMPS UP ASSEMBLY LINE JUSTICE IN TENT CITIES WHILE PLOTTING TO BAR PUBLIC FROM VIEWING THEIR LATEST ASSAULTS ON DUE PROCESS!

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

More immigration judges to be assigned to cases at tent facilities

By Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

Updated 7:13 AM EST, Fri December 06, 2019

(CNN)More immigration judges will begin conducting hearings over video conferencing at tent courts along the US-Mexico border, raising concerns among lawyers about transparency in the immigration process.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration erected facilities in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, to serve as makeshift courts for migrants seeking asylum in the United States who have been returned to Mexico until their court date. The judges in these cases are not at the tent facility but preside by teleconference from other immigration courts several miles away.

As of mid-September, there were 19 judges from three separate immigration courts in Texas hearing cases. But the latest expansion includes the use of immigration judges assigned to a center in Fort Worth, Texas, that is closed to the public, leaving little opportunity for people to observe hearings.

“I’m just very concerned that there will be no public access to these hearings. And hearings will be operating in secret, without any transparency and notice to the public,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

US court proceedings are generally open to the public.

Adjudication centers serve as a hub for immigration judges who beam into courtrooms remotely to hear cases. There are two — one in Fort Worth and another in Falls Church, Virginia. Neither is open to the public.

Immigration judges assigned to the Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center are expected to begin hearing cases of migrants who fall under the administration’s “Migrant Protection Protocols” program via video teleconference in January 2020, according to the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the nation’s immigration courts.

“Public access to hearings is governed by regulation, and EOIR’s process and policies surrounding the openness of hearings have not changed,” said EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly.

Lynch said some attorneys representing migrants who have been waiting in Mexico for their court date began receiving notices of judges from the Fort Worth center assigned to their cases in late November. The immigration judges’ union has also taken issue with the use of the center.

“MPP is rife with issues but by assigning the adjudication centers to the tent courts takes us to a new low where public access to the court are now eliminated,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “This is not the way we as judges or courts should function.”

The process has already presented lawyers with a host of logistical challenges and some anticipate those will worsen as immigration judges assigned to adjudication centers begin hearing cases.

Currently, advocates and legal observers have been able to monitor proceedings from three immigration courts in Texas: Harlingen, San Antonio and Port Isabel.

US Customs and Border Protection said in a statement to CNN that access to the Laredo and Brownsville hearing facilities, which are located on the agency’s property, “will be assessed on a case-by-case basis when operationally feasible and in accordance with procedures for access to any CBP secure facility.”

Around 60,000 migrants have been subject to the administration’s policy that requires some migrants to wait in Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings. Given that they’re residing in Mexico, immigration lawyers based in the US have limited access to them, particularly in dangerous regions. Only a small share of migrants in the program have secured representation, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks court data and released a report on access to attorneys this summer.

Some in the legal community argue that access to the tent facilities, not just the immigration courts where the judges are located, is important for that reason — to give lawyers the opportunity to connect with migrants who may need legal representation and explain the process. It’s equally important, lawyers argue, that people be allowed to observe the proceedings.

“Without the public being able to see what’s been going on in these hearings, the public has no assurance that people are being given proper due process and proper shot at fighting their asylum case,” said Erin Thorn Vela, a staff attorney in the racial and economic justice program at the Texas Civil Rights Project.

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

Wow! Secret Courts sentencing folks to torture or death without lawyers, adequate notice, time to prepare, or any consistent application of reasonable rules. Sounds like the “Star Chamber.” Is that why we fought the American Revolution? To create our own version of the worst abuses of the Crown? Apparently.

As American justice and the rule of law go down the tubes, the Supremes and the Circuits have become “disinterested observers,” at best.

Thanks to Laura Lynch at AILA for forwarding this latest example of judicial irresponsibility.

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-06-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few have been allowed to enter the courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videoconferencing doesn’t facilitate a fair proceeding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These courts are sending immigrants back to danger in Mexico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

10-18-19

Laredo Tent Court	Brownsville Tent Court
Laredo tent court proceedings, including both Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings, were conducted via VTC by immigration judges located at the brick-and-mortar San Antonio immigration court, which is nearly 200 miles away.	Brownsville tent court proceedings, including both Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings, were conducted by immigration judges located at the Harlingen and Port Isabel immigration courts, as well as the El Paso SPC, which is nearly 800 miles away from the Brownsville tent court.
● Respondents appeared in person at the Laredo tent court. ● Immigration judges from the San Antonio Immigration Court appeared via VTC. ● Attorneys of record appeared either (1) at the Laredo tent court or (2) via VTC from the San Antonio brick-and-mortar courtrooms. ● ICE trial attorneys located at the San Antonio Immigration Court appeared via VTC. ● Interpreters interpreted remotely from the San Antonio Immigration Court. ● Witnesses appeared either (1) at the Laredo tent court or (2) via VTC from the San Antonio brick-and-mortar courtrooms. ● Court observers were only permitted to observe Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings at the brick-and-mortar courts	● Respondents appeared in person at the Brownsville tent court. ● Immigration judges from Harlingen, Port Isabel, or El Paso SCP appeared via VTC. ● Attorneys of record appeared either (1) at the Brownsville tent court or (2) via VTC from the immigration judge location. ● ICE trial attorneys appeared via VTC from the immigration judge location. ● Interpreters interpreted remotely from the immigration judge location. ● Witnesses appeared either (1) at the Brownsville tent court or (2) via VTC from the immigration judge location. ● Court observers were only permitted to observe Master Calendar Hearings and Individual Merits Hearings at the brick-and-mortar courts.

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts: