"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
As one more reminder of what we’ve lost, the text of the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling is unlikely to console us. Even so, I recommend downloading the pdf. In the wake of its overturning, this beautifully written document – which reads like a long form essay – is not only interesting in itself but now seems like another sign of how much has changed over the last half century, in this case for the worse.
Drafted by Justice Harry Blackmun, the ruling includes a clear and persuasive summary of the history of abortion law. “At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy that she does in most States today.” It tracks the centuries-old debate over when life begins, and dismisses the argument that a fetus is a person guaranteed the protections afforded US citizens. Throughout, it strikes us as the careful explication and clarification of a law, of legal precedent, unlike Justice Alito’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, which seems more like an expression of religious conviction masquerading as an unbiased interpretation of the constitution.
The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka Purnell
What’s most striking about Roe v Wade – and its difference from the ruling that overturned it – is its eloquence. Blackmun’s lucid, frequently graceful language reflects a commitment to decency and compassion. The judges are clear about the dangers of carrying an unwanted child or a high-risk pregnancy to term. They strive to see the issue from the perspective of those confronting a serious life crisis, and to imagine the devastating outcomes that pregnant women and their families may face.
Advertisement
Support the Guardian and enjoy the app ad-free.
Support the Guardian
“Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”
The passage I admire most is the one in which Blackmun, at once profound and lyrical, describes the atmosphere surrounding the issue of abortion, the way our opinions are formed, and the pressures that the law must acknowledge and keep in balance.
“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”
And there it is: a superbly rendered catalogue of the factors that come to mind when we consider the factors that will now determine whom Dobbs will hurt most: poverty, race, and life on the raw edges of human existence – an edge, one might say, on which every decision about abortion is made.
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Francine’s article at the link.
Let’s face it. The concern for human life of out of touch righty ideologues like Alito ends at birth. After that, the “others” are expendable — particularly if they are women or folks of color!
All their claimed concern about “personhood” ends at delivery — when it can no longer be used to threaten vulnerable pregnant women or medical professionals. After that, the GOP program for kids (whether wanted or not) consists of things like:
Valuing their lives below the “right” of every Tom, Dick, and Harriett in America to own and use military-style assault weapons (something that certainly wasn’t the “original intent” of the drafters of the 2d Amendment);
Cutting education budgets, “dumbing down” public school curriculums, and harassing teachers, school administrators, and school board members;
Imposing work requirements on public assistance without regard to the needs and availability of suitable child care;
Deporting their parents to far away countries without concern for the welfare of children (US citizen and others);
Declaring “war” on vulnerable kids who aren’t heterosexuals;
Opposing provisions that would expand the availability of health insurance to kids;
Spreading misinformation about life-saving vaccines for children;
Falsely denying climate change that threatens the world we will leave to our kids and future generations;
Spreading fear and terror in ethnic communities containing “mixed families” to discourage them from taking advantage of available community services;
Threatening the educational rights of non-citizen children currently guaranteed by Plyler v. Doe (but perhaps not for long, if the Clarence Thomases of the world have their way);
Treating kids in Immigration Court as less than “persons” entitled to full due process (for example, forcing toddlers to “represent themselves” in life or death asylum cases);
Separating families;
Detaining families and children in grossly substandard conditions;
Making it more difficult for people of color to vote and thus exercise their legal and political rights;
Being more concerned about BLM protests than in the loss of young black lives that generated them.
I could go on an on.
One essential starting place and training ground for a “new generation” of Federal Judges who will be committed to humane values, empathy, accurate historical understanding, due process, and equal justice for all is the “retail level” of our justice system — the U.S. Immigration Courts, currently controlled solely by AG Merrick Garland. That’s why Garland’s disturbing failure to instill progressive values and install scholarly progressive judges — the best, brightest, and most courageous — in his now-dysfunctional EOIR system should be of grave concern to advocates of individual choices and anyone who cares about equal justice for all and the future of our nation!
The GOP-dominated Federal Judiciary has become a tool of authoritarians and religious zealots who seek to wipe out established individual rights, reduce humanity, and insert themselves and their out of touch views into every aspect of human existence — ultimately threatening the very future of humanity!
The Dems, by contrast, are the party of individual rights and human freedom. Too bad they haven’t done a better job of selling, and sometimes of following and boldly acting upon, their own stated values!
“Tough noogies, ladies, suck it up and accept your fate,” say Federal Judges Southwick, Jones, and Oldham of the 5th Cir! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsNo “particular social group” here says 5th Circuit Judge Southwick and his buddies Jones and Oldham. Just a little “good old fashioned trial by ordeal.” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Toxic Trio of “America’s Worst & Most Cowardly Judges” sticks it to Salvadoran refugee woman who survived domestic violence in country where femicide is rampant and uncontrolled by corrupt and inept government.
Lopez Perez v. Garland, 5th Cir., 06-02-22, published
BEFORE:Edith Jones (Reagan), Andrew Oldham (Trump), and Leslie H. Southwick (Bush II) Circuit Judges
OPINION: Judge Southwick
Lopez-Perez argues here that the IJ erred under Matter of A-R-C-G- by concluding that she had not established a nexus between her persecution and her social group. Further, she argues that the IJ incorrectly decided that the government of El Salvador was willing and able to protect her.2 These issues were identified in her Notice of Appeal and are preserved for our review here.
It is true that the IJ concluded that Lopez-Perez had not demonstrated the requisite nexus and further that she had not shown that the government was unable or unwilling to help her. Although the IJ’s analysis was cursory, we nonetheless conclude that his decision must be upheld because remand would be futile. Jaco, 24 F.4th at 406. The IJ intimated that Lopez-Perez’s proffered social groups — “Salvadoran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave; or Salvadoran women who are viewed as property by virtue of their position in a domestic relationship” — were cognizable.
2 Lopez-Perez also argues for the first time that we should remand to the IJ for consideration in light of intervening decisions in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (Att’y Gen. 2018) and Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020). We decline this invitation. In addition to the fact that this argument was not raised in her Notice of Appeal, Matter of A- B- has been overruled, see A-B- III, 28 I. &. N Dec. 307 (Att’y Gen. 2021), and this court specifically rejected Grace in Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 233–34. See also Meza Benitez v. Garland, No. 19-60819, 2021 WL 4998678, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021) (explaining this Circuit’s rejection of Grace).
7
Case: 20-60131 Document: 00516340524 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-60131
We have disagreed, holding that circularly defined social groups are not cognizable. See id. at 405; accord Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 226. Indeed, the social groups identified in Jaco are nearly identical to those claimed by Lopez- Perez: “Honduran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships . . . and Honduran women viewed as property because of their position in a familial relationship.” Jaco, 24 F.4th at 399. Because the IJ is bound to follow the law of this circuit on remand, he would be forced to conclude that Lopez-Perez’s social groups were not cognizable, thus ending the analysis. See In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 341 (BIA 2002) (noting that the BIA is “unquestionably bound” to follow circuit court rulings).
We DENY the petition for review.
********************************
It’s worthy of note that neither party challenged the propriety of the “particular social group!” So, this panel actually went beyond the issues before them to “stick it to” this abused refugee woman by gratuitously rejecting a well-established formulation of a “particular group” that has been the basis for granting protection in literally thousands of cases going back over two decades. (I note that even before A-R-C-G-, in Arlington the DHS Counsel routinely accepted this formulation of a “PSG” based on the so-called “Martin Memo” from DHS.)
Perhaps, that’s because even this panel acknowledged that the IJ’s “nexus analysis,” the actual ground of denial was “cursory.” In other words, this vulnerable women sought legal protection only to be shafted by poorly qualified Federal Judges at every level — the Immigration Court, the BIA, and the Fifth Circuit!
Here’s what Wade Henderson, then President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights had to say about Judge Leslie H. Southwick in opposition to his confirmation:
Given the tremendous impact that federal judges have on civil rights and liberties, and because of the lifetime nature of federal judgeships, no judge should be confirmed unless he or she demonstrates a solid commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans. Because Judge Southwick has failed to meet this burden, we must oppose his confirmation.
Here’s what the progressive group “Suit Up Maine” had to say about Judge Andrew Oldham at the time of his confirmation:
ANDREW OLDHAM: Confirmed by the Senate on July 18, 2018. Collins voted YES; King voted NO. Nominated to be federal judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Oldham is young, aggressively conservative, and has been involved in controversial litigation that emphasized ideology over the law. Oldham has worked on cases aimed at limiting reproductive rights, challenging the Affordable Care Act, challenging California’s law requiring good cause for concealed carry of firearms, and challenging habeas rights, all of which were ultimately unsuccessful. He defended Texas laws that limited women’s access to abortions that were ultimately determined by the Supreme Court to put “undue burden” on women’s right to choose. His challenge to the Affordable Care Act based on the “Origination Clause” of the Constitution was dismissed by the 5th Circuit for lack of standing. He attempted to barr the use of habeas corpus claims by two plaintiffs, but appeals courts allowed the claims. He also filed an amicus brief on behalf of multiple states (including Maine) using the Second Amendment to challenge a California law requiring good cause for concealed carry of firearms. The 9th Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to concealed carry of firearms. Additionally, Oldham was involved in challenging the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules under the Clean Air Act, and he defended Texas campaign finance laws that were being challenged by multiple nonprofits and political committees under the First Amendment. His record of unsuccessful attempts to shape the law according to his own conservative ideology suggests that this bias is likely to accompany him to the federal bench.
All these fears, criticisms, and predictions of bias have proved to be all too well-founded in the mal-performance of this “Toxic Trio” of far right ideologues.
“Heard (not Amber) on the street:
“So the one BIA precedent in the past 20 years that actually recognized a PSG as valid isn’t worthy of Chevron deference, but A-B- was?!!”
“No more judicial restraint? Why is DOJ not changing position and or dropping these cases?”
“The 5th Circuit decision claims to direct all IJs in the 5th NOT to apply ARCG. And, most 5th Circuit IJs are high deniers anyway, so they don’t exactly need encouragement.”
“Perhaps better IJs could think of creative ways to work around the 5th’s decision. But, they don’t exist in the 5th Circuit in Garland’s EOIR.”
“It also shows the problems caused by Garland’s failure to “redo” the BIA and the IJ corps on “Day 1.” By now, it’s too late.”
Unqualified, far-right Federal Judges, egged on and supported by Stephen Miller and GOP State AGs, have basically usurped the power of Congress and the Executive to set immigration policies. There is lots of contempt for humanity, racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, and disrespect for true individual liberty driving their vile and illegal agenda.
The Constitutional rights of all Americans and the future of our democracy is at stake here. Will enough folks wake up and resist this takeover before it ‘s too late? TBD!
Eliana Weinstein research assistant in the department of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine PHOTO: CornellProfessor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
By ELIANA WEINSTEIN and STEPHEN YALE-LOEHR, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
Abortion bans have far-reaching consequences. Within the first 30 days of the enactment of the Texas abortion ban last September, the state saw a 60% decline in abortions. Refugees — who are disproportionately represented in southern states along the U.S. border — are among the most endangered groups. These individuals face imminent danger, violence or persecution in their home country.
Due to inherent instability, refugees are especially vulnerable to sex trafficking along the migration journey. The fear of deportation, lack of immigration status, lower educational attainment, inability to speak English and unfamiliarity with U.S. employment protections mark them as targets. Immigrant women make up 80% of sex-trafficked individuals in the United States.
The glaring omission of exceptions for rape or incest under the Texas law is disturbing. An estimated 5% of rapes among victims of reproductive age result in pregnancy, which by one estimate amounts to 32,000 rape-related pregnancies each year in the United States. The six-week mark under the Texas law allows a maximum buffer of two weeks from the time a pregnant woman misses her period, the first sign of pregnancy. In a third of rape-related pregnancy cases, victims do not discover they are pregnant until the second trimester, 13 weeks into the pregnancy.
. . . .
The shadow of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision lies at the intersection of human rights, law, and medicine. Abortion transcends partisan politics, with far-reaching consequences for women, children, healthcare providers, and all tax-paying citizens.
Rather than prioritize the life of an unborn child, our country must consider the lives that will be forever altered by a birth into desperate circumstances. States should enact protections for groups that will be most vulnerable, including victims of assault or rape, sex-trafficked individuals, and refugees. By defending our nation’s most vulnerable, we would see substantial benefits to the nation as a whole.
Weinstein is a research assistant in the department of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine. Yale-Loehr is an immigration professor at Cornell Law School.
****************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
But, as some of my NDPA colleagues would say, isn’t cruelty and hurting refugee women of color the point of the far right’s war on abortion?
It’s certainly not about the welfare of children and women for which they care not a fig. See, e.g., vicious attacks on vulnerable LGBTQ kids and their families; end of child tax credits; child separtion; unrepresented kids in Immigration Court; making “White kids feel good” at the expense of their minority classmates; seeking to circumvent protections for unaccompanied minors at the border; disparaging statements calling U.S. citizens “anchor babies,” etc.
Ironically, children of migrant women are considered by the GOP to be “persons” as long as they are in the womb. Once they are born, they become “nonpersons” with few if any rights that Repubs are willing to recognize.
If they could (and that might be next), they would strip kids of undocumented parentage of citizenship. Who says today’s Supremes wouldn’t go along? Having a class of “nonpersons” makes their job easier. No rights, no problems for righty judges and right wing politicos!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
How much of Ukraine will look like this by war’s end? Photo from Previous Russia-Ukraine War by Wojciech Zmudzinski Creative Commons License
Weekly Briefing
briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The content of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
CONTENTS (jump to section)
PRACTICE ALERTS
NEWS
LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
RESOURCES
EVENTS
PRACTICE ALERTS
Virtual EOIR Registration: For new attorney registration, practitioners are no longer required to go to the court personally to show an ID. However, they still may appear personally. To coordinate identification verification please contact: Tina.Barrow@usdoj.gov or by phone at 717-443-9157.
Adjustment-Ready Cases: DHS is filing motions for dismissal for about 1,000 cases nationwide for Adjustment-Ready Cases (ARCs) to allow for pursuit of relief before USCIS. If you don’t want the case dismissed, timely file your opposition.
ICE Appointment Scheduler: Now available in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole in addition to English.
Hill: Immigration restrictionists celebrated that the bill includes funding increases for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but worried that the Biden administration will not use those funds to implement the Trump-style strict enforcement measures they favor…“The budget gives ICE money to fund over 5,000 more beds than proposed in funding bills introduced last year in both the House and Senate. These funding levels directly contradict commitments made by the Biden administration and members of Congress to reduce the immigration detention system,” Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, said in a release.
WaPo: Advocates for immigrants said they welcomed many of the Biden administration’s early changes, such as ending the travel ban and increasing the number of refugees allowed into the United States. But they said the most recent spending bill increases funding for immigration enforcement and complained that Biden has not kept his campaign promise to end privately run detention, which accounts for the majority of the ICE system.
NYT: The tension has also resonated inside the White House, where senior officials have been anxious that unwinding the Trump-era border restrictions would open the United States to an increase in illegal crossings at the southern border and fuel Republican attacks that Mr. Biden is too lenient on illegal immigration.
NYT: More than 4,100 Russians crossed the border without authorization in the 2021 fiscal year, nine times more than the previous year. This fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, the numbers are even higher — 6,420 during the first four months alone.
RollCall: Now, embassies have shuttered in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. That could increase pressure on other consular posts in the region already feeling the weight of a visa backlog of nearly half a million cases.
AP: All Florida government agencies would be barred from doing business with transportation companies that bring immigrants to the state who are in the country illegally under a bill sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday.
Miami Herald: Nearly 200 Haitian migrants were returned to Haiti on Friday by the U.S. Coast Guard after their bid to reach U.S. shores ended with their overloaded sailboat running aground behind a wealthy North Key Largo resort in the Upper Florida Keys and some of their compatriots making a harried dash to freedom in the choppy waters. See also Black Immigrants to the U.S. Deserve Equal Treatment.
NYT: Although the bureau did not say how many people it missed entirely, they were mostly people of color, disproportionately young ones. The census missed counting 4.99 of every 100 Hispanics, 5.64 of every 100 Native Americans and 3.3 of every 100 African Americans.
Buzzfeed: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents obtained millions of people’s financial records as part of a surveillance program that fed the information to a database accessed by local and federal law enforcement agencies, according to a letter sent Tuesday by Sen. Ron Wyden to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general requesting an investigation into whether the practice violated the US Constitution.
Forbes: “International student enrollment at U.S. universities declined 7.2% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” according a new analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). “At the same time, international student enrollment at Canadian colleges and universities increased 52% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, illustrating the increasing attractiveness of Canadian schools due to more friendly immigration laws in Canada, particularly rules enabling international students in Canada to gain temporary work visas and permanent residence.”
Law360: A Salvadoran woman urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Eleventh Circuit decision greenlighting her deportation based on a decades-old removal order issued after she voluntarily left the country, saying the ruling conflicted with Fifth and Seventh Circuit precedents.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Thursday revived an asylum application from a man who says he fled political violence in Guinea, finding a string of errors in an immigration judge’s determination that he wasn’t credible.
LexisNexis: Dissent: I respectfully dissent from this court’s denial of rehearing en banc on the issue of whether to grant Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration’s (“Board”) recent interpretation of § 1101(a)(43)(S), providing that an aggravated felony under the INA is “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness.” …Namely, this decision is the first and only to uphold the Board’s 2018 redefinition as reasonable—repudiating the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision. Accordingly, by no longer requiring a nexus element, this opinion expands the list of possible state crimes that could trigger immigration deportation consequences for many persons who may not have been otherwise subject to deportation. This is a sizeable impact for many people in our country.
LexisNexis: The Government indicates that the matter should be remanded, in part, to the BIA for consideration of her request for voluntary departure in light of Niz-Chavez. Thus, the petition for review is granted as to the stop-time issue, and this matter is remanded to the BIA for consideration under Niz-Chavez and other relevant precedents.
LexisNexis: The Board granted one extension but denied a second, suggesting that Oluwajana instead submit his brief with a motion seeking leave to file it late. When he did so, less than two weeks after the submission deadline, the Board denied the motion in a cursory-and factually erroneous-footnote. And having rejected the brief, the Board upheld the removal order without considering Oluwajana’s allegations of error by the immigration judge. Based on the undisputed circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by unreasonably rejecting Oluwajana’s brief.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals on Wednesday to decide if an immigrant’s rape conviction bars deportation relief, with a dissenting judge saying the decision only delays the “unpalatable” conclusion that the man can seek a removal waiver.
BIA: When the Department of Homeland Security raises the mandatory bar for filing a frivolous asylum application under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2018), an Immigration Judge must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the requirements for a frivolousness determination under Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), have been met.
LexisNexis: Additionally, the respondents assert that despite informing immigration officials of their intent to get a new attorney and “sort out [their] case,” ICE officials told them that they were not priorities for deportation and there was nothing more they could do with respect to their case (Respondents’ Mot., Tab G). Accordingly, under these circumstances, we will equitably toll the filing deadline for the respondents’ motion to reopen.”
Law360: An Illinois federal judge closed the book on Chicago’s lawsuit challenging certain Trump-era conditions for recipients of a federal public safety grant on Tuesday when he put the final touches on his judgment blocking conditions for receiving the grant to resolve the case’s outlying issues.
LexisNexis: Defendant executed an I-864 Affidavit of Support; therefore, he is contractually obligated to provide Plaintiff and J.K.M.F. any support necessary to maintain their household at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Plaintiff has received no financial support from Defendant since fleeing to a shelter on October 21, 2021…Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged a meritorious claim against Defendant for breaching his contractual duty.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s New York office will overhaul its policy on people suspected of civil immigration offenses while on bond, settling claims it detained suspects beyond what the law allows without a chance to post bail.
Law360: A D.C. district court ordered the federal government to disclose the names of border officers who screened migrants’ asylum claims under a pilot program, saying Friday that asylum-seekers needed to know if they were unwittingly placed in the since-suspended project.
Law360: A woman’s suit contending she was wrongly deprived of pandemic relief payments from the IRS because of her marriage to an immigrant is barred by a federal law prohibiting court challenges that restrain tax collection, a Maryland federal court ruled.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to consider deferred action and related employment authorization for noncitizens who have an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification but who cannot apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) because a visa number is not available.
AILA: DOS provided guidance for nationals in Ukraine seeking to enter the United States. The guidance clarifies information on nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, COVID-19 entry requirements, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.
AILA: EOIR updated appendix O of the policy manual with adjournment code 74. The reason is “Public Health,” and the definition is “Adjourned for public health reasons.”
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the group page and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The “Top News Section” is a good rundown of the Biden Administration’s “mixed bag” on immigration policy, particularly as it relates to our largely defunct asylum system and the refugee system (still reeling from Trump-era “deconstruction”) that does not appear to be prepared for the inevitable flow of Ukrainian refugees. It also highlights some of the lingering damage to our democracy (e.g., racially biased census undercount) done by the Trump regime and its toady enablers.
My Take: Ukrainian Refugees & The U.S. Response
So far, largely meaningless political rhetoric from the Administration concerning Ukrainian refugees has been predictably “welcoming.” But, the actions to date have amounted to nothing more than taking the obvious step of granting TPS to Ukrainians actually here.
That does little or nothing to address the nearly 3 million refugees who have fled Ukraine in recent weeks. If the Administration has a coherent plan for admitting our share of those refugees and resuming processing of Ukrainians and all other refugees seeking asylum at the border, they have not announced it.
For example, despite U.S. and worldwide condemnation of China’s treatment of Uyghurs — some characterizing it as “genocide” — the Administration has done nothing to speed the processing of the very limited number of Uyghur refugees languishing in our still largely dysfunctional asylum system. If, as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, the Administration is unable to address “low hanging fruit” like Uyghurs and Immigration Court reform, in a bold and timely matter, how are they going to respond to more difficult human rights issues?
As this op-ed in today’s NY Times points out, “generous” responses to large-scale refugee situations are often short-lived. As refugees flows inevitably continue and grow, the initial positive responses too often “morph” into xenophobia, nativism, racism, culture wars, and restrictionism.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/ukraine-refugee-crisis.html
Ukrainian refugees have two potential “advantages” over those from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela, Ethiopia, DRC, and the Northern Triangle that could help them realize “more durable” protection. They are 1) mostly White Europeans, and 2) mostly Christian.
Neither of these is a legally recognized international criterion for defining refugees. Fact is, however, that they were not universally descriptive of those aforementioned groups who have often received less enthusiastic receptions from Western democracies. As a practical matter, “cultural attitudes” influence the Western World’s acceptance of refugees, probably to a greater extent than the actual dangers which those refugees face in the lands from which they have fled.
But, that has also been true in Haiti, Syria, Central America, the DRC and many other trouble spots. It has made little positive difference to the U.S. The Trump regime, led by Uber racist-misogynist refugee deniers “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller actually went out of their way to target the most vulnerable women and children fleeing persecution for further abuse.
And, to date, the Biden Administration’s promise to do better and regularize the treatment of those fleeing gender-based violence has been a huge “nothingburger.” Whatever happened to those promised “gender-based regulations” and the “common-sense recommendations” to replace the restrictionist holdover, bad-precedent-setting BIA with real judges who are experts in gender-based asylum?
The flow of refugees from Ukraine, and a much smaller (at this point) flight of dissidents from Russia, has already “exceeded projections” and is not likely to diminish in the coming weeks and months. Moreover, with Russia focusing on civilian targets and leveling parts of many major metropolitan areas in Ukraine, the essential infrastructure and “livability” of many areas is rapidly being destroyed.
Thus, even if a “truce” were declared tomorrow (which it won’t be), many who have fled would not be able to return for the foreseeable future, perhaps never, even if they wanted to. The latter is a particular risk if Russia makes good on its threats to eradicate the current Ukrainian Government and replace it with a Russian puppet regime.
Refugee planning has consistently lagged foreign policy developments even though that has been shown to be problematic over and over. When will we ever learn?
We can’t necessarily prevent all foreign wars and internal upheavals, worthy as that goal might be. But, we can learn to deal better with inevitable refugee displacements.
Indeed, that was the purpose of the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, to which we and the other major democracies are parties. That more than 70 years after the initial Convention was signed we are still groping for solutions (indeed, we have shamefully abrogated a number of our key responsibilities under both domestic and international law)to recurring, somewhat predictable, and inevitable dislocations of humanity is something that should be of concern to all.
Despite all of the nativist propaganda, the truth is that nobody wants to be a refugee and that it could happen to any of us for reasons totally beyond our control! The similarity of the lives of many Ukrainians, up until a few weeks ago, to daily life in Western Democracies has perhaps “brought home” these realities in ways that the equally bad or even worse plight of other refugees in recent times has not.
I hope that we can learn from this terrible situation and treat not only Ukrainian refugees, but all refugees, with generosity, humanity, compassion, kindness, and as we would hope to be treated if our situations were reversed. Because, in reality, nobody is immune from the possibility of becoming a refugee!
*Cover photo by photojournalist Guillermo Martinez shows a boy in El Salvador wearing a protective mask from his home during a COVID-19 lockdown. Photo credit: Guillermo Martinez/APHOTOGRAFIA/ Getty Images
New Report: Dual Crises
Gender-Based Violence and Inequality Facing Children and Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
Gender-based violence has long been one of the main drivers of migration from Central America to the United States. Widespread violence, including sexual abuse, human trafficking, and violence in the home and family, combined with a lack of access to protection and justice forces children and women to flee in search of safety. Drawing on existing research and interviews with children’s and women’s rights experts, this report lays out how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated already pervasive forms of violence against children and women in Central America, as well as the deeply entrenched gender inequality that leaves children and women even more vulnerable to violence.
Successful implementation of the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America must start by acknowledging that gender-based violence is a primary driver of migration and includes most violence against children.
Obviously, mindless, failed enforcement and deterrence-only policies that tell women and children to “suffer and die in place” rather than flee and seek asylum are absurdly out of touch with the realities of both human migration and the real situation in the Northern Triangle. This report shows that increased flight from the Northern Triangle probably has more to do with the aggravating effects of the pandemic on the already untenable situation of many women and children in the Northern Triangle than it does on any policy pronouncements, real or imagined, on the part of the Biden Administration.
An honest policy that recognizes the reality that gender-based persecution is a major driver of forced migration in the Northern Triangle would go a long way toward addressing the largely self-created situation at our Southern Border.
As many of us keep saying, to no visible avail, asylum isn’t a “policy option” for politicos and wonks to “discuss and debate.” It’s a legal and moral requirement, domestically and internationally, that we are currently defaulting upon!
Wonder why “democracy is on the ropes” throughout the world right now? Perhaps, we need look no further than our own horrible example!
A robust overseas refugee program in the region and a uniform, consistent, timely policy of granting asylum to qualified applicants applying at ports of entry at our borders would be a vast improvement.
Sure, it would undoubtedly result in the legal immigration of more refugees and asylum seekers. That’s actually what refugee and asylum laws are all about — an important and robust component of our legal immigration system.
Although our needs are not actually part of the “legal test for asylum,” the fact is, we need more legal immigrants of all types in America right now.
It should be a win-win for the refugees and for America. So why not make it happen, rather than continuing failed policy approaches that serve nobody’s interest except nativist zealots trying to inflame xenophobia for political gain?
An additional point: On February 2, 2021, to great ballyhoo, President Biden issued Executive Order 14010. A key provision of that order required that:
(ii) within 270 days of the date of this order, promulgate joint regulations, consistent with applicable law, addressing the circumstances in which a person should be considered a member of a “particular social group,” as that term is used in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
270 days have long passed. In fact, its been more than 300 days since that order. Yet, these regulations are nowhere in sight. Perhaps, that’s a good thing.
This doesn’t come as much of a surprise to “us old timers” who have “hands on” experience with the unsuitability of the DOJ regulation drafting process for this assignment. Indeed, this assignment is actually several decades “overdue,” having originally been handed out by the late former Attorney General Janet Reno prior to her departure from office in January 2020!
The problem remains lack of expertise. With the possible exception of Lucas Guttentag, I know of nobody at today’s DOJ who actually has the necessary experience, expertise, perspective, and historical knowledge to draft a proper regulation on the topic. Past drafts and proposals have been disastrous, actually seeking to diminish, rather than increase and regularize, protections for vulnerable women and others facing persecution on account of gender-based particular social groups.
Indeed, one proposal was even used by OIL as an avenue in attempting to “water down” the all-important, life saving “regulatory presumption of future persecution arising out of past persecution!” Talk about perversions of justice at Justice! Why? Because OIL had suffered a series of embarrassing, ego-deflating setbacks from Article III Courts calling out the frequent failure of the BIA and IJs to properly apply the basics of the presumption. Sound familiar?
At DOJ, the “normal solution to lack of expertise and competence” is to simply eliminate expertise and competence as requirements! In many ways, “good enough for government work” has replaced “who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice” as the DOJ’s motto!
It’s also yet another reason why the DOJ is a horribly inappropriate “home” for the U.S. Immigration Courts!
“Make the record” to fight the ignorant nonsense and grotesque misconstruction of the asylum law and country conditions by the Third Circuit & far, far too many Federal Judges & Bureaucrats with this authoritative report authored by Natalie Gonnella-Platts, Jenny Villatoro, and Laura Collins of the George W. Bush Institute:
No Justice: Gender-based Violence and Migration in Central America
Gender-based violence affects one in three women worldwide, making it an urgent and important policy challenge. Violence against women and girls is often excluded from conversations on the nexus of Central American migration, regional development, and domestic immigration reform.
Key Excerpts:
. . . .
Though there has been increasing focus from US and international influencers on the levels of violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (known as the Northern Triangle) and its impact on migration, an adequate response to the gendered differences in the ways violence is perpetrated remains limited and at times nonexistent.
This needs to change, especially since gender-based violence within the Northern Triangle constitutes a daily threat to women and girls—one that has been significantly worsened by corruption, weak institutions, and a culture of impunity toward perpetrators. At individual and community levels, gender-based violence drives women and girls to be displaced internally, migrate to the United States, or a somber third path—death either by femicide or suicide. At national levels, it seriously inhibits security, opportunity, and development.
As circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, gender-based violence has a direct influence on migration flows across the region and is deeply tangled with cyclical challenges of inequity and poverty. For those who choose to seek assistance or flee their communities, high rates of revictimization and bias further obstruct access to justice and safety.
Until policies and programs respond to the serious violations of agency and human rights perpetuated against women and girls (and within systems and society at large), instability in and migration from the Northern Triangle only stand to grow.
As the United States and the international community consider a comprehensive plan on Central America and immigration reform, proposed strategies must anchor the status and safety of women and girls at the center of solutions.
. . . .
In Guatemala, teenage girls face a substantial risk of being “disappeared,” with 8 out of every 10,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 17 reported missing each year.7
. . . .
Guatemala: In Guatemala, about 8 of every 1,000 women and girls were the victim of violence in 2020. Thirty women were murdered on average each month last year, or almost one per day, the lowest rate in the last 10 years. Reported rape cases averaged 14 per day.17 One of the most extreme and recognizable forms of gender-based violence is sex slavery. According to a report by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and UNICEF: “A combination of gangs, crime families, and drug trafficking organizations run sex trafficking rings in Guatemala that may involve some 48,500 victims.”18
Women in Indigenous and rural communities may have it even worse. For example, Indigenous women in Guatemala face multiple layers of discrimination, including a history of repression and genocide.
During the genocidal Guatemalan civil war that lasted from 1960 to 1996, state sanctioned mass rape during massacres was used to repress the Indigenous populations—with offenses committed publicly and bodies often left on display with the intent to instill terror in the Mayan communities.19 Truth commissions state that more than 100,000 Indigenous women were raped and forced into sex slavery.20
State-sanctioned and state-accepted gendered violence may have contributed to a culture that tolerates violence against women. Guatemalans were the most accepting of gender-based violence in a 2014 survey of Latin American countries by Vanderbilt University, while El Salvador came in second.21
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the risk of violence to women and girls in the Northern Triangle, as it has in every region
of the world. Exploited by gangs and others, lock-downs have forced those most at risk for violence to shelter in proximity to their abusers. All three countries within the region have reported sizable increases in intrafamily violence since the start of the pandemic. El Salvador has also seen a notable increase in intrafamily femicide.
. . . .
Coupled with the trauma already experienced by survivors, each of these factors contributes to a lack of trust in institutions, high levels of impunity for perpetrators, and a vicious cycle of repeat violence against women and girls.
Faced with this dire reality, women and girls often have three choices: (1) report and face disbelief, (2) stay and risk additional violence, or (3) flee.
. . . .
Women and girls undertake this risky journey with no guarantee of legal protection in the United States. But they come because the horrors they face at home are so much worse.
It’s important to remember that seeking asylum
is often the only legal means that migrants who qualify have of entering the United States. Although requesting asylum is legal, the path to asylum is not
safe. An understanding of legal rights and access to services—including health, trauma, and legal support—also remain out of reach for many female migrants, furthering cycles of exploitation.
Current US refugee and asylum law does not recognize gender-based violence as its own category warranting protection. According to the American Bar Association, US protections for victims of gender-based violence are built upon 20 years of advocacy and sometimes favorable legal opinions.54 These protections are tenuous, with any presidential administration able to roll back the decisions made under its predecessor. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently reinstated prior precedent for gen- der-based violence asylum requests and announced that the Department of Justice would pursue a formal rule.55 But even this could be reversed in the future.
Until legislation enshrines gender-based violence as a condition warranting humanitarian protection, the United States will continue to turn away women and girls who merit refuge.
. . . .
The Northern Triangle, Mexico, and the United States are at a crossroads. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras can either take advantage of a young population of prime working age by promoting pol- icies that create a safe, stable environment where women and girls can fully participate, or they can continue on a path that is leading to substantial lev- els of gender-based violence, instability, migration, and economic stagnation.
As research continuously demonstrates, when empowered, active, and engaged, women and girls are a critical catalyst for security and prosperity. Countries with higher levels of gender equity are more peaceful and stable overall.66 Gender equality can provide better outcomes for children, increased labor productivity, lower poverty rates, and reduced levels of violence.67
In seeking to secure a brighter future across the Western Hemisphere, immigration and develop- ment policies must include solutions to address gender inequity and gender-based violence. As current circumstances at the southern border of the United States demonstrate, stability and prosperity are not possible without them.
*****************
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Many thanks to my good friend and “founding mother of the NDPA,” Deb Sanders for bringing this to my attention.
The Bush Institute has done some great “practical scholarship” on gender-based asylum, exposing many of the lies and misinformation upon which Government policies have been based, particularly GOP nativist policies and the overtly misogynistic attack on migrant women of color by the Trump regime.
And let’s not forget that Ms. Chavez-Chilil is actually one of the lucky ones! She got a chance to make her claim and was awarded life-saving protection by an Immigration Judge under the CAT, albeit protection that leaves her unnecessarily and perpetually “in limbo” — ineligible to fully join our society and maximize her own human potential for everyone’s benefit.
By contrast, thousands of women and girls (also men and boys) are insanely, illegally, and immorally “orbited” back to danger zones without any opportunity to even make a claim and without any legitimate process whatsoever, let alone due process!
Why this is important:
Compelling documentation and cogent arguments will win individual cases and save lives;
We can build case law precedent for gender-based asylum grants;
We must make a clear historical record of which jurists and bureaucrats stood up for the rule of law and the humanity of refugee women and which of them purposely have aligned themselves with the “dark side of history.” See, e.g., Chief Justice Roger Taney.
Why is the Biden Administration mindlessly and immorally attempting to “deter” legal asylum seekers from seeking to save their own lives? What’s the excuse for treating a moral and legal requirement under domestic and international law as a “bogus political strategy option” rather than the legal obligation it is? Why was the DOJ “pushing” a legally wrong, corrupt, factually wrong position before the Third Circuit? Where’s the expertise? The backbone? The moral courage? The accountability?
“Hey ladies, not every woman in Guatemala is hanging up there with you (yet), so what’s the problem,” says Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz of the 3rd. Cir.“ “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen., 3rd Cir., 12-09-21, published
PANEL: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patty Shwartz
KEY QUOTE:
Chavez-Chilel’s proposed PSG lacks particularity. “[N]ot every immutable characteristic is sufficiently precise to define a [PSG],” id. at 552, and courts have concluded that a proposed PSG of all women in a particular country “is overbroad[] because no factfinder could reasonably conclude that all [of a country’s] women had a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on their gender,” Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (addressing Iranian women).8 Reasons to depart from this general rule are not present here. For example, in Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized the PSG of all Somali women because “all Somali females have a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on gender given the prevalence of” female genital mutilation. Id. at 518; see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797–98 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365–66 (B.I.A. 1996) (recognizing PSG of “young women” in a particular tribe in Togo due to pervasive practice of female
8 In Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 668–69 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the BIA’s conclusion that “all women in Guatemala” was too broad a group to qualify as a PSG and remanded for further analysis. That case rested on the Ninth Circuit’s two-part definition of a PSG, which recognized any group “united by a voluntary association, including a former association, or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot or should not be required to change it.” Id. at 666 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This definition is not consistent with our Court’s three requirements for a PSG, see S.E.R.L., 894 F.3d at 540, so we decline to follow the reasoning in Perdomo.
14
genital mutilation). Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender. Cf. A.R. 170–73, 182 (Chavez-Chilel’s testimony that she knew of no other women who suffered sexual or domestic violence); A.R. 232 (report explaining that one-third more Guatemalan women experience sexual or domestic violence against them than women in Paraguay). Accordingly, while the size of the group standing alone would not disqualify a group from being a PSG, Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2013), Chavez- Chilel has failed to demonstrate that her proposed PSG is sufficiently particularized. Thus, her alleged fear of persecution based upon membership in such a group does not provide a basis for asylum. Because Chavez-Chilel cannot prove her asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard to obtain withholding of removal. See Blanco v. Att’y Gen., 967 F.3d 304, 315 (3d Cir. 2020). As a result, the IJ and BIA correctly denied her request for asylum and withholding of removal.9
This is a seriously flawed analysis. The court conflates psg “particularity” with nexus. Obviously, not every woman in Guatemala need fear persecution for some to be persecuted on that basis!
Suppose a few Jews escaped Nazi persecution. Does that mean Jews weren’t a PSG? Suppose only 10% of Poles were killed by the Nazis because of their ethnicity. Does that mean Poles were not a PSG? Suppose only 40% of Roma in a particular country are exterminated? Does that make Roma not a PSG? What if every Catholic in a particular country doesn’t have the exact same fear of persecution? Does that mean that Catholics don’t have a “well-founded fear”of persecution? Does that mean that Catholicism isn’t “one central reason” for persecution? Of course not, except in the uninformed minds of Judge Shwartz and her panel colleagues!
Obviously “women in Guatemala” is 1) fundamental to identity; 2) particularized (it clearly excludes non-women); and 3) distinct in Guatemalan society (and every other country in the world). Indeed, like family “women” and “men” are among the oldest, most fundamental, readily recognizable “particular social groups” in human existence!
I’m not the only critic of this outrageous misconstruction of asylum law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ says:
The court completely misconstrued the standard for determining particularity:
Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender.
Particularity of course is a clear marker for group inclusion, and does not require evidence that everyone in the group is being targeted for persecution – compare, e.g. family or land owners.
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Our friend and “practical scholar” colleague, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, adds:
Appears also to ignore the “once central reason” asylum rule in that the court is erroneously say gender must be “sole” reason (page 15, use of word “solely”)
So court got it wrong on 2 counts – not “all” women in Guatemala must be persecuted to form a valid PSG and gender need not be “sole reason” for the persecution.
Another colleague who practices in the 3rd Circuit sums it up succinctly and bluntly: “Awful!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
In addition to being legally wrong on a number of points, as pointed out by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community, the court’s decision is horrible policy:
Note that the IJ DID grant CAT relief, and the government did NOT appeal that grant.
The “good news” is that the CAT grant prevents Ms. Chavez-Calel from being returned to torture and persecution in Guatemala. However, by misapplying asylum law, the court basically places her in an indefinite “limbo status.”
She therefore is deprived of the right to fully integrate into our society by getting a green card and becoming a citizen. The court also strips her of any realistic path to exercising political rights! What sense does manipulating the law to intentionally create disenfranchised subclasses in American society make when better alternatives are available?
To add insult to injury, in this decision the Third Circuit joined other Circuits and the BIA in giving DHS and EOIR a “pass” on their intentional decision not to comply with the INA requirements for issuing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) to commence removal proceedings.
Obviously, these “ivory towerists” have never experienced the actual mess that occurs when overworked, understaffed Immigration Court clerks manually mail out subsequent notices, by regular U.S. Mail, using addresses haphazardly entered by DHS personnel in the chaos that often exists at the border and upon release from DHS detention.
Perhaps, in their exalted positions, these Article IIIs no longer have to rely on the ever-deteriorating service of the U.S. Postal service. This morning, I delivered a “mini-stack” of mis-delivered U.S. Mail to my next door neighbor. We seem to get mis-delivered mail on a weekly basis. And, I live in a reasonably “upscale” neighborhood, if I do say so myself — one where folks know all the neighbors and take the time to “re-route” misdirected mail. Think there are places America where that doesn’t happen?
What do these judges think “delivery accuracy” is in the communities and situations where most Immigration Court respondents live? Maybe, there was a good reason why Congress required the NTA, which, unlike subsequent EOIR notices, is often served personally, to contain accurate information on the time and place of their hearing.
Maybe, we need Federal Judges who live in the “real world” rather than abstract one they have constructed where the lives of migrants are at issue! Maybe, we need more Federal Judges who have seen and experienced the consequences of “poor and uninformed judging” on immigrant and ethnic communities in the U.S.!
At a time when the Supremes’ righty majority appears to be intent on dismantling half a century of established women’s rights, the Third Circuit’s wrong-headed decision is a further “body blow” to both the humanity and human rights of women throughout the world!
Judge Schwartz is an Obama appointee. Her panel colleagues are GOP appointees. We deserve better from our life-tenured Federal Judiciary! Much, much better!
My friend and Round Table colleague Judge Lory D. Rosenberg sent me the following this morning:
I want to share some awful news I learned last night. Lisa Brodyaga is in hospice with very little if any time left.
Its so sad.
If any of you know Lisa and wish to communicate with her before she leaves us, send an email to her at her email address. Friends will retrieve the emails and read them to her. Her friend Thelma Garcia told me Lisa listened tonight with her eyes closed and was smiling as Thelma read them to her.
And, here’s a bit about her long and illustrious career.
NIPNLG Proudly Announces its 2019 Member Honorees
Lisa Brodyaga and Al Otro Lado
Please join NIPNLG in paying tribute to two extraordinary honorees on the frontlines fighting injustice every day.
Lisa Brodyaga
Lisa Brodyaga has represented asylum seekers and other immigrants, and even U.S. citizens, since 1978. Since 1981, she has been certified in immigration and nationality law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. In 1985, Lisa co-founded Refugio Del Rio Grande, a 501(c)3 refugee camp and law office on a 45-acre wilderness near Harlingen, Texas, where she still serves as a volunteer attorney. Initially, most of Lisa’s work involved asylum seekers, including arguing Guevara-Flores v. INS (5th Cir. 1986); and also lawful permanent residents, including in Diaz-Resendez v. INS (5th Cir. 1992). Lisa’s career is punctuated with victories, such as Carranza de Salinas v. Holder (5th Cir. 2012), and many others, without which, many critical pro-immigrant court decisions would not be – or would not have been – possible. Lisa lives on the premises of Refugio, nurturing her farm roots, with her beloved Boxers, a horse, a pair of white llamas, a flock of chickens, and a small, very spoiled, herd of cattle.
*****************
Lisa argued a number of cases before the BIA during my tenure. We also frequently were on opposite sides of litigation during my tenure at the OGC of the “Legacy INS,” as well as being on the “same side” during my time in the private sector and academia.
No matter what side we were on, I always appreciated Lisa’s passion, scholarship, and willingness to take on the most difficult and important issues for her often pro bono or “low bono” clients.
Lisa certainly has been a role model for the totally dedicated NDPA attorney — saving the lives of the most vulnerable among us and aggressively working every day to improve and protect our democracy.
My deepest appreciation for “a life well lived,” Lisa! May eternal peace and mercy be with you! I will miss you.
Citing Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), the Board concluded that “female nurses” were not a cognizable “particular social group” because being a nurse, like being a taxi driver, is not an immutable characteristic. The panel held that the Board erred by simply citing Matter of Acosta, and failing to provide any meaningful analysis about the immutability of “female nurses.” The panel explained that in contrast to Acosta, Plancarte cannot avoid compulsion by the cartel simply by changing jobs, because even if she ceased employment as a nurse, she would still be a nurse, as she has received specialized medical training and has a professional license as a nurse. Moreover, the cartel targeted Plancarte precisely because of her specialized nursing skills, and threatened her and her family with torture and death to force her to use those skills to provide medical treatment to the cartel. Thus, regardless of whether she would continue to work as a licensed nurse, Plancarte lacks “the power to change” the immutable nursing characteristics—her medical knowledge and nursing skills—that make her important to the cartel. The panel therefore granted the petition with respect to Plancarte’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remanded for consideration of the other required characteristics of her proposed particular social group of “female nurses.”
Turning to Plancarte’s CAT claim, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision ignored uncontradicted record evidence showing both acquiescence and direct involvement by government officials. The panel held that substantial evidence therefore compelled the conclusion that there was official involvement and acquiescence in the cartel forcing Plancarte to provide medical treatment to cartel members. The panel granted the petition with respect to CAT, and remanded for a determination whether the likelihood of
4 PLANCARTE SAUCEDA V. GARLAND
torture if Plancarte were returned to Mexico is sufficient to warrant CAT relief.
***************
Welcome to the “any reason to deny culture” at Garland’s EOIR!
In addition to the gross errors noted by the panel, I also think that there is a winning argument that being a registered nurse is “fundamental to identity” and therefore not something we should require an individual to change. Put it in today’s COVID context, for Pete’s sake!
Think that being a lawyer isn’t “fundamental” to the identity of a BIA Appellate Judge, an Immigration Judge, or an Article III Judge?Only when these “judges” are thinking of ways to deny protection to others do they engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty and absurd reasoning!
This is the type of case that should have been a “quick grant” and a precedent for other grants of protection in a functioning justice system! Instead it’s an disaster! One that just happens to have been “outed” by a conscientious Court of Appeals panel — something no person of color can count on! It should be no mystery why this maliciously incompetent system creates huge, growing, out of control backlogs while squandering public resources and destroying lives!
Immigration Court— Failure
BIA — Failure
OIL — Failure
Garland — Failure
And this gang is going to be in charge of setting precedents and protecting due process and human rights of women and other asylum seekers under the Administration’s proposed “streamlined” asylum system? Absurd! It will be a death sentence for far too many refugees!
Congrats to Vallerye Allyn Anderson for saving a life here! Her outstanding performance and understanding of human rights were far superior to that of any “judge” or other DOJ lawyer involved in this case. So, why are the wrong judges still making life or death decisions at EOIR without competent “adult supervision” from qualified judges at the BIA with expertise in asylum law and the guts to apply it correctly, humanely, and generously? See, e.g., Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga. Just hope that Vallerye and others like her will pursue EOIR judgeships until the disgraceful, deadly, two-decade old “progressive expert lockout from the 21st Century Immigration Judiciary” finally ends and quality, courage, and due process prevail!
Vallerye Allyn Anderson ESQ Sacramento, CA PHOTO: LexisNexis
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Failure to “clean house” of Miller Lite White Nationalism, it’s acolytes, go along to get along toady enablers, and to bring common sense, long overdue, obvious, recommended, available progressive human rights reforms and better judges and leaders to EOIR — An ongoing national disgrace!🤮
Op-Ed: The U.S. isn’t helpless. It could take in 150,000 Afghan refugees
Americans owe them more than sympathy.
By Karen Musalo
In the past week we have seen searing images and read heartbreaking media accounts of Afghans attempting to leave as the Taliban has rolled into Kabul and asserted control over the country. Americans owe vulnerable Afghans more than sympathy.
Among those at greatest risk are individuals who have worked with the U.S. or its NATO allies, women’s rights activists, human rights defenders, academics, journalists and members of ethnic minorities. Some have reported death threats by the Taliban. Many are desperately trying to destroy any information connecting them to their professional past, but as long as they remain in Afghanistan, they are at risk.
Given the history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Americans have a duty not only to help such vulnerable Afghans but also to lead other nations to do the same.
Direct help from the U.S. is going to require a different approach than the government is taking now. The two routes to date — special immigrant visas and entry through a new priority category created in the refugee admission program — are woefully inadequate. For a start, they do nothing to respond to the immediate and desperate need for protection.
Special immigrant visas, created by Congress in 2009, provide a route to immigrate for Afghans who worked with the U.S. government. As has been widely reported, the application process is extremely onerous and seriously backlogged, conditions aggravated by chronic understaffing during the Trump administration. The International Rescue Committee recently reported that 300,000 Afghan civilians worked with the U.S. in some capacity, but only 16,000 special immigrant visas have been granted since 2014, with 18,000 “in the pipeline.”
Priority 2 of the refugee admission program is broader; it requires an employment relationship with the U.S. but includes work with U.S.-funded projects, nongovernmental organizations or the media. However, this possibility of protection comes with daunting logistical hurdles. Only Afghans outside their country can apply. This means that those at risk must first find a safe harbor nation and a means to support themselves during a processing period that can take months or even years, a situation that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has conceded would be “incredibly hard.”
Nothing in the law of the United States limits it to these two narrow options for responding to the urgent protection needs of the Afghan people. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a mechanism to admit individuals “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” a process referred to as “humanitarian parole.”
Administrations going back to the 1950s have used the parole authority generously to admit those fleeing persecution — Hungarians after the Soviet invasion of their country, Cubans after Fidel Castro took power, and Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon. Just this week a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to evacuate Afghans at highest risk and to use humanitarian parole to quickly and efficiently allow their entry into the United States.
. . . .
************************
Thanks, Karen.
Interesting that after decades of chest thumping, fist pumping, nation building, and nationalist rhetoric about our military prowess in Afghanistan and the power of “muscular militarized democracy,” the “right wing crew of cowards and defeatists” now asserts that we are overwhelmed, and even more absurdly existentially endangered, by the prospect of saving 150,000 Afghans from a life threatening situation we helped engineer! Gimmie a break!
I doubt that Afghan refugees are a greater “threat” to America than the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, the perpetrators of the “big lie,” and their supporters and enablers. Or, how about those refusing to save the lives of others and endangering all of us, including children, by not getting vaccinated or wearing a mask. No wonder these anti-American activists are so anxious to shift the focus to the world’s most vulnerable and defenseless, rather than take responsibility or be held accountable for their own noxious, life and democracy threatening actions! That’s what cowards do!
In addition to the statutory measures discussed by Karen above, the President has authority, after consultation with Congress, to admit refugees directly from a country in crisis. INA 101(a)(42)(B). Consequently, the oft heard statement that refugees must be in a “third country” to apply is simply not accurate.
Where there is a will, there is a way. But, some might well question the “will” of the Biden Administration here.
What is painfully obvious is that there isn’t enough urgency, boldness, or creativity in those tapped by the Administration to manage this crisis and actually save some lives! Maybe Alejandro Mayorkas and Lucas Guttentag need to pick up the phone and call Professor Musalo to get things back on track and save more lives, before it’s too late.
A federal judge delivered another setback to the Biden administration’s immigration agenda on Thursday, blocking a set of rules that limited who deportation agents should detain and deport from the country.
U.S. District Court Judge Drew Tipton prohibited federal officials from enforcing two directives that instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to focus on arresting recent border-crossers, as well as immigrants deemed to threaten public safety or national security.
Under the new so-called “enforcement priorities,” ICE agents were required to obtain supervisory approval before arresting immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission who did not fall within the three specified categories.
The memos issued in January and February are part of a broader Biden administration initiative to reshape ICE operations in the interior.
. . . .
*********************
Read the full article at the link. The case, quite aptly, is called Texas v. US!
One would like to think that this would be a “no-brainer” stay and reverse from the 5th or the Supremes. But, given the stocking of the Federal Courts by Trump & McConnell with right-wing extremist judges who have little concern with most individual Constitutional rights and who pride themselves on indifference to racism and unequal justice, I wouldn’t count on it.
However, if this outrageously wrong order stands, I would be interested to see how Tipton and his White Nationalist cabal that includes GOP reactionary AGs in Texas and Louisiana plan to micromanage DHS. Also, I figure that as the grotesque DHS abuses predictably mount, the NDPA will win some major cases from better Federal Judges in other jurisdictions that will force a showdown with Tipton and his motley crew of righty extremists.
Too bad we no longer have a functioning Congress willing to revise the immigration laws in a way that actually incorporates reality and advances our national interests.
Better Federal Judges for a better, fairer America!
As the human rights situations in Afghanistan, Haiti, and the Northern Triangle continue to unravel, the lack of a coherent, operational, legally sound, properly generous refugee and asylum program will continue to haunt the Administration;
In particular, the disgraceful failure to establish a strong, consistent, humane, and protection-oriented interpretation of gender-based asylum to protect women, who are disproportionately targeted for persecution, torture, and other violence, will cost lives of the most vulnerable and be a lasting stain on our nation. (I just listened to Peter Baker, NBC WH Correspondent, on Meet the Press, characterize Afghanistan under the Taliban as a “nation of spouse beaters!”)
The need to fix our our refugee and asylum systems immediately was obvious on January 20, 2021. Why, after 7 months it still is nowhere close to being accomplished is less obvious!
The turmoil in Afghanistan and Haiti and the ongoing human rights disasters in Latin America, all reasonably predictable, are going to increase the human and political problems flowing from a failure to take human rights seriously and to bring the practical human rights experts necessary to solve these issues constructively into the Government power structure! In the end, human rights are everyone’s rights! We ignore that at our peril!
Ironically, while protecting women from persecution and improving their lives was used as a justification by Administrations of both parties for our continuing military presence in Afghanistan, now, as the “end game” plays out in real time, it appears to have been largely reduced to a “talking point” (or a “news feature”) without any discernible plan for protecting or saving Afghan female refugees. Sadly politicos and officials from both parties seem more interested in using women’s lives as “cover” for two decades of ultimately futile presence there than with actually saving any lives now. Indeed, if we treat Afghan women refugees with the inhumane indifference we have continued to heap on female refugees seeking legal asylum at our Southern Border, their outlook is beyond grim.
On June 16, Attorney General Merrick Garland finally, mercifully vacated three decisions that formed a key part of the Trump administration’s unrelenting attack on the law of asylum.1 Matter of A-B-, issued by Jeff Sessions in June 2018, took aim in particular at victims of domestic violence.2 Matter of L-E-A-, issued the following year by William Barr, sought to undermine protection for those targeted by gangs due to their familial ties.3 And on January 14, 2021, six days from the end of the Trump Administration, acting A.G. Jeffrey Rosen issued a second decision in A-B-, gratuitously criticizing the method for determining nexus in asylum claims employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, while conveniently evading that court’s review of the original decision in the case through remand.4
Garland’s action restores the law to where it stood prior to June 11, 2018, but only for the time being. Proposed rules on the subject (which Garland referenced) are due by October 30, when they will first be subjected to a period of public comment. If final rules are eventually published, it will occur well into next year.
As we sigh in collective relief and celebrate the first steps towards correcting our asylum laws, let’s also take note of the imperfect place in which the case law stands at present.
As to domestic violence claims, the BIA’s 2014 decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- (which Matter of A-B- had vacated) has been restored as binding precedent.5 That decision was issued at a time when (as now) regulations addressing particular social groups were being contemplated by DHS and EOIR.6 While A-R-C-G- was an extremely welcome development, the Board used it to recognize a rather narrowly-defined group: “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” In a footnote to the decision, the Board declined to address the argument of several amici (including UNHCR) that a particular social group may be defined by gender alone. Although A-R-C-G- led to many grants of asylum, some immigration judges relied on the limited scope of the group’s definition to deny claims involving slightly broader variations, in particular, where the victim was not legally married, but nevertheless in a domestic relationship that she was unable to leave. While the BIA reversed some of those denials in unpublished decisions, it declined to speak to the issue through binding precedent.
As to Matter of L-E-A-, Garland’s recent action returns us to the BIA’s original opinion in that case.7 While the decision acknowledged that families constitute particular social groups (a point that was not in dispute, having been universally recognized for some 35 years and stipulated to by DHS), the BIA still denied asylum by invoking a legally incorrect standard for establishing nexus that it has continued to apply in all family-based asylum claims.
For these reasons, the content of the forthcoming regulations will be extremely important in determining the future of asylum in this country. While a return to the test for social group cognizability expressed in the BIA’s 1985 precedent in Matter of Acosta tops most regulation wish lists, I will focus the discussion here on a couple of more specific items necessary to correct the shortcomings of Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of L-E-A-.
First, the regulations need to explicitly recognize that a particular social group may be defined by gender alone. In its 2002 Gender Guidelines, UNHCR identified women “as a clear example of a social subset defined by innate and immutable characteristics, and who are frequently treated differently than men,” and whose “characteristics also identify them as a group in society, subjecting them to different treatment and standards in some countries.”8 However, over the nineteen years since those guidelines were issued, the BIA has consistently avoided considering the issue.
The peril of defining gender-based groups in the more narrow manner employed by the BIA has been addressed by two distinguished commentators, who explain that such practice results in “constant re-litigating of such claims,” sometimes creating “an obstacle course in which the postulated group undergoes constant redefinition.”9 And of course, that is exactly what has happened here, as A-R-C-G- gave way to A-B-, which led to differing interpretations among different courts until Garland’s recent reset. The above-mentioned commentators further decried the “nitpicking around the margins of the definition” resulting from the narrow approach when the true reason for the risk of persecution to the applicant “is simply her membership in the social group of ‘women.’”10 Regulations recognizing gender alone as a particular social group would thus provide clarity to judges and asylum officers, eliminate the wastefulness of drawn out litigation involving “nitpicking around the margins,” and bring our laws into line with international standards.
But as L-E-A- demonstrates, recognition of a group alone does not guarantee asylum protection. In order for a group’s recognition to be meaningful, the regs must also address an ongoing problem with the BIA’s method for determining nexus, or whether persecution is “on account of” the group membership.
The BIA is accorded deference by Article III courts when it reasonably interprets immigration laws, provided that the meaning of the language in question is ambiguous. However, the “on account of” standard included by Congress in defining the term “refugee” is quite clear; its meaning is long established, and in fact, is not particular to immigration law.
The Supreme Court referenced this standard last year in a non-immigration case, Bostock v. Clayton County. The Court explained that the test
incorporates the “‘simple’” and “traditional” standard of but-for causation…. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome would not have happened “but for” the purported cause….In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.11
In a 2015 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied this exact test in the asylum context to conclude that persecution was on account of family, determining that the petitioner’s “relationship to her son is why she, and not another person, was threatened with death if she did not allow him to join Mara 18.”12 But for some reason, the BIA has felt entitled to reject this established standard outside of the Fourth Circuit in favor of its own excessively restrictive one.
Had the proper test for nexus been employed in L-E-A-, asylum would have been granted. Under the facts of that case, once the familial relationship is removed from the equation, the asylum-seeker’s risk ceases to exist. However, the BIA instead imposed an incorrect test for nexus requiring evidence of an “animus against the family or the respondent based on their biological ties, historical status, or other features unique to that family unit.”13
As a former circuit court judge, Garland is particularly qualified to recognize the error in the Board’s approach, as well as the need to correct its course. The problem is compounded by the particular composition of the BIA at present. For example, of the ten immigration judges who were promoted to the BIA during the Trump administration, nine denied asylum more than 90 percent of the time (with the tenth denying 85 percent of such claims). Three had an asylum denial rate in excess of 98 percent.14
This matters, as those high denial rates were achieved in part by using faulty nexus determinations to deny asylum in domestic violence claims, even before the issuance of Matter of A-B-. This was often accomplished by mischaracterizing the abuse as merely personal in nature, referencing only the persecutor’s generally violent nature or inebriated state. The analysis in those decisions did not further examine whether gender might also have been one central reason that the asylum seeker, and not someone else, was targeted.
One BIA Member appointed under Trump recently found no nexus in a domestic violence claim by concluding that the persecutor had not targeted the asylum seeker because of her membership in the group consisting of “women,” but rather because she was his woman. There is no indication in the decision that the Board Member considered why the persecutor might view another human being as belonging to him and lacking the same rights he seems to enjoy. Might it have been because of her gender?
Without a correction through published regulations, there is little reason to expect different treatment of these claims moving forward. Let’s hope that the Attorney General views his recent action as only the first steps on a longer path to a correct application of the law.
Copyright 2021, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
The regulations under consideration at that time were never issued.
27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) (“L-E-A- I”).
UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-Related Persecution within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (May 2002) at para. 30.
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status, Second Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 442.
Hathaway and Foster, supra.
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020).
Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).
Without progressive intervention, this is still headed for failure @ EOIR! A few things to keep in mind.
Former Attorney General, the late Janet Reno, ordered the same regulations on gender-based asylum to be promulgated more than two decades ago — never happened!
The proposed regulations that did finally emerge along the way (long after Reno’s departure) were horrible — basically an ignorant mishmash of various OIL litigation positions that would have actually made it easier for IJs to arbitrarily deny asylum (as if they needed any invitation) and easier for OIL to defend such bogus denials.
There is nobody currently at “Main Justice” or EOIR HQ qualified to draft these regulations! Without long overdue progressive personnel changes the project is almost “guaranteed to fail” – again!
Any regulations entrusted to the current “Miller Lite Denial Club” @ the BIA ☠️ will almost certainly be twisted out of proportion to deny asylum and punish women refugees, as well as deny due process and mock fundamental fairness. It’s going to take more than regulations to change the “culture of denial” and the “institutionalized anti-due-process corner cutting” @ the BIA and in many Immigration Courts.
Garland currently is mindlessly operating the “worst of all courts” — a so-called “specialized (not) court” where the expertise, independence, and decisional courage is almost all “on the outside” and sum total of the subject matter expertise and relevant experience of those advocating before his bogus “courts” far exceeds that of the “courts” themselves and of Garland’s own senior team! That’s why the deadly, embarrassing, sophomoric mistakes keep flowing into the Courts of Appeals on a regular basis.
No regulation can bring decisional integrity and expertise to a body that lacks both!
Any progressive who thinks Garland is going to solve the problem @ EOIR without “outside intervention” should keep this nifty “five month snapshot of EOIR under Biden” in mind:
Progressive judges appointed to BIA: 0
Progressive judges appointed to Immigration Court: 0
Progressives installed in leadership positions @ EOIR permanently or temporarily: 0
Billy Barr Selected Immigration Judges Appointed: 17
“Miller Lite” holdover individuals still holding key positions @ EOIR: many (only two removed to date)
Number of BIA precedents decided in favor of respondent: 2
Number of BIA precedents decided in favor of DHS: 9
That’s right, folks:Billy Barr and Stephen Millerhave had more influence and gotten more deference from Garland at EOIR than have the progressive experts and advocates who fought tirelessly to preserve due process and to get the Biden Administration into office. How does that a make sense?
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — Finally vacating two grotesquely wrong anti-female, anti-asylum precedents hasn’t ended the “Miller Lite Unhappy Hour” for migrants and their advocates at Garland’s foundering DOJ!
Progressives, advocates, and NGOs must keep raising hell until we finally get the “no-brainer,” long overdue, obvious, personnel, legal, structural, institutional, and cultural changes at EOIR that America needs! Waiting for Judge Garland to get around to it is like “Waiting for Godot!” Perhaps worse — I don’t recollect that anyone died waiting for Godot!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The BIA Denial Club, Never!🏴☠️
“When will it end, Judge G? When will it ever end?” –“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
PANEL:Mary M. Schroeder and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr.,* District Judge.
OPINION BY: Judge Mendoza
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Ravinder Kaur’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish material changed circumstances to warrant an exception to the time limitation on her motion to reopen, and in concluding that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Kaur sought to reopen her removal proceedings based on a combination of changed personal circumstances – the death of her abusive husband and his family’s threats that they would kill her if she returned to India because she was responsible for his death, and changed country conditions – including worsening conditions in India for women and widows.
The panel held that the Board mischaracterized the record and erred in concluding that Kaur presented evidence of only changed personal circumstances in support of reopening. The panel explained that while a self-induced change in personal circumstances does not qualify for the changed circumstances exception, that principle cannot apply rigidly when changed circumstances in the country of origin, while personal to the petitioner, are entirely outside her control, as was the case here. The panel further
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
KAUR V. GARLAND 3
explained that even where any change in personal circumstances is voluntary and did not originate in the country of nationality, the changed circumstances exception applies where changes in personal circumstances are made relevant due to changes in country conditions. The panel wrote that Kaur’s husband’s death, and his family’s death threats, were made relevant by increased violence in India against women, and in particular against widows. The panel further wrote that, contrary to the Board’s determination that Kaur provided evidence of only generalized conditions, Kaur presented evidence demonstrating that the prevalence and severity of human rights violations against women and widows had materially worsened in many respects.
The panel held that the Board also erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal relief. First, the panel concluded that the Board erred in determining that Kaur failed to establish that a protected ground, including her membership in a family social group, would be one central reason, or a reason, for the harm she fears. The panel wrote that a person may share an identity with a persecutor, and if a member of a particular social group is persecuted by other members of that same group because those members perceive the applicant as being “insufficiently loyal or authentic” to that group, she has been persecuted on account of a protected ground. Second, the panel concluded that the Board erred by requiring Kaur to show that her similarly situated family members had been mistreated. The panel explained that the safety of similarly situated members of the family who remained in the country of origin may be pertinent to a claim of future persecution, but does not itself disprove it, and in this case, the Board relied on the safety of Kaur’s daughter, who was not similarly situated. Third, the
4 KAUR V. GARLAND
panel concluded that the cultural context and Kaur’s evidence established more than a mere personal vendetta.
The panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT protection. First, the panel held that the Board erred in applying a “more likely than not” standard, rather than requiring Kaur to show a “reasonable likelihood” of meeting the statutory requirements for CAT protection. Moreover, the panel concluded that the Board abused its discretion in determining that Kaur did not meet the government consent or acquiescence requirement. The panel pointed out that Kaur presented evidence that her husband’s family is wealthy and has the means of carrying out their threats, that India suffers from widespread corruption, and that officials respond ineffectively to crimes, especially those against women. Based on that evidence, the panel concluded that the Board did not have substantial evidence to dismiss Kaur’s fears as speculation.
***********************
This is outrageous! In addition to raising issues about Garland’s failure to replace the “Killer BIA” with real progressive judges who are experts in human rights, due process, and immigration law, as almost every expert recommended, it raises serious concerns about Associate AG Vanita Gupta’s inexplicable failure to bring in litigation competence at OIL. Presenting and defending this mess as acceptable performance by DOJ quasi-judicial officials raises very serious ethical questions about both the “judges” and the attorneys defending their obviously defective, bias-based, anti-asylum, anti-female work product.
As many of us have been saying ever since the election, the “thorough housecleaning” at DOJ can’t wait! There is plenty of evidence to get the government lawyers participating in this mockery of justice out of leadership and decision-making positions, at a minimum! The fact that this case was argued under the Trump regime does not change the unethical performance at OIL or the incompetence of the BIA. Folks who “go along to get along” with violations of law and ethics, particularly in support of a White Nationalist agenda, should not be holding responsible Government legal positions. PERIOD!
Every individual and group who believes in due process, equal justice, gender fairness, good government, humanity, racial justice, and legal ethical norms should be demanding that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke change leadership at EOIR, immediately relieve and replace (even if on a temporary basis) the BIA, and bring ethics, expertise, and competence to OIL.
Kristen Clarke, some the most outrageous “civil rights abuses” in America here taking place right at the DOJ — at EOIR and OIL! Others are “hidden in plain sight” at DHS, particularly in their “New American Gulag.” You’re NOT going to solve voting rights, police misconduct, or any other civil rights problem inAmerica without first getting the DOJ’s house in order. And, that means standing up to your dawdling and, to date, remarkably ineffective “political bosses” and demanding immediate change!
It’s YOUR REPUTATION, along with the lives of refugee women like Ms. Kaur, that are on the line here!
CGRS Urges V.P. Harris to Reject Short-Sighted Policies that Endanger Central Americans
San Francisco, CA (June 10, 2021) – This week Vice President Kamala Harris visited Guatemala and Mexico, meeting with government and civil society leaders to discuss issues of corruption, violence, and poverty. During a Monday press conference with Guatemalan president Alejandro Giammattei, Harris offered a callous and woefully misguided message to Central Americans. “I want to be clear to folks in the region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border,” Harris said. “Do not come. The United States will continue to enforce our laws … If you come to our border, you will be turned back.” These remarks reflect a deep misunderstanding of our laws and of the conditions forcing people to seek asylum at our border. The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) urges the vice president and the Biden-Harris administration to do better.
For people fleeing Central America it is no secret that the voyage north is dangerous, and that they will likely face hostility at the U.S. border. Yet thousands continue to make the treacherous journey because widespread violence, poverty, and disasters in their home countries leave them no other option. Vice President Harris and the Biden-Harris administration should understand this: People flee home because their lives, and the lives of their children, depend on it. The administration’s advice that Central Americans, Haitians, and others escaping grave dangers simply “not come” – as if they have any choice in the matter – is cruel and wildly out of touch. Moreover “enforcing our laws” should mean upholding the right to seek asylum, which is enshrined in both U.S. and international law. Turning people away without the slightest concern for the dangers they’ll face, as the Biden-Harris administration has continued to do under the illegal Title 42 policy, is a blatant violation of our laws.
“Our country has played a direct role in the dangerous conditions that plague Central America by bolstering oppressive regimes and contributing to the violence and instability driving refugee flight from the region,” CGRS Manager of Regional Initiatives Felipe Navarro Lux said today. “Instead of taking responsibility and addressing the harm we have caused, the United States time and time again has doubled down on ineffective and draconian policies that punish Central Americans and other refugees for seeking U.S. protection. We have a legal and moral obligation to do better.”
Our immigration and foreign policies should seek not to suppress migration, but to expand safe and orderly pathways to refugee protection and, in the long term, to make the region safer, so that migration is increasingly an option, rather than a necessity, for Central Americans. We can do so by:
Encouraging transparent and accountable governments that uphold the rights of their residents: The United States should stand with Central American civil society organizations (CSOs) working for change – not abusive or authoritarian governments – to combat corruption, advance the rule of law, and promote respect for human rights, particularly for vulnerable groups including youth, women, Indigenous, Black, and LGBTQ+ people.
Prioritizing humanitarian protection over deterrence. Pressuring countries in the region to increase migration enforcement and militarize their borders only forces people seeking protection to make more dangerous journeys, exposing them to increased human rights violations.
Expanding and developing new pathways for migrants and asylum seekers: We should expand protections those fleeing persecution, increase opportunities for family reunification, and address the needs of those displaced by climate change.
Designating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Guatemala, and re-designating TPS for Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua: TPS allows immigrant communities in the United States to live and work without fear of deportation, and to send remittances to family members in their home countries still recovering from the effects of back-to-back hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Click here to read CGRS’s recommendations for expanding access to protections for refugees and migrants in Central America and Mexico, with Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Church World Service, Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración, AC (IMUMI), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF), Washington Office on Latin America, and Women’s Refugee Commission.
—
CGRS urge a la vicepresidente Harris rechazar políticas miopes que ponen en peligro a los centroamericanos
San Francisco, CA (10 de junio de 2021) – Esta semana la vicepresidente Kamala Harris visitó Guatemala y México, reuniéndose con líderes de los gobiernos y la sociedad civil para discutir asuntos de corrupción, violencia, y pobreza. Durante una rueda de prensa junto con el presidente guatemalteco Alejandro Giammattei, Harris leofreció un mensaje cruel y tristemente equivocado a los centroamericanos. “Quiero ser clara con las personas en la región que están pensando en hacer el peligroso viaje a la frontera de Estados Unidos-México”, dijo Harris. “No vengan. Estados Unidos hará cumplir sus leyes… Si vienen a nuestra frontera, serán regresados”. Estas palabras relejan un profundo desconocimiento de nuestra legislación y de las condiciones que obligan a las personas a pedir asilo en nuestra frontera. El Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados (CGRS por sus siglas en inglés) urge a la vicepresidenta y al gobierno Biden-Harris a realizar un mejor trabajo.
Para las personas que huyen de Centroamérica no es un secreto que el viaje al norte es peligroso, y que muy seguramente serán recibidos con hostilidad en la frontera de EE. UU. Aun así, miles continúan migrando porque la violencia, pobreza, y desastres en sus países de origen no les dejan otra opción. La vicepresidente Harris y el gobierno Biden-Harris deben entender esto: Las personas huyen de sus hogares porque sus vidas, y las vidas de sus hijos, dependen de ello. El consejo que este gobierno le da a los centroamericanos, haitianos, y otros que escapan de graves peligros cuando les dice que “no vengan” – como si fuera una opción – es cruel y se aleja de la realidad. Mas aún, “hacer cumplir nuestras leyes” debería significar proteger el derecho a solicitar asilo, el cual se encuentra consagrado en la ley nacional e internacional. Retornar a personas en la frontera sin la menor preocupación por los peligros que puedan enfrentar, como el gobierno Biden-Harris continúa haciendo bajo la ilegal política del “Título 42”, es una violación descarada de nuestras leyes.
“Al apoyar gobiernos opresivos y contribuir a la violencia e inestabilidad en Centroamérica, nuestro país ha jugado un papel directo en la creación de los peligros que obligan a miles a huir”, dijo Felipe Navarro-Lux, Gerente de Iniciativas Regionales de CGRS. “En vez de asumir nuestra responsabilidad y aminorar el daño que hemos causado, una y otra vez Estados Unidos ha implementado políticas ineficientes y draconianas que castigan a los centroamericanos y otros refugiados por buscar protección en este país. Es hora de cumplir nuestras obligaciones legales y morales.”
En vez de buscar suprimir la migración, nuestras políticas exteriores y migratorias se deben enfocar en crear y ampliar opciones seguras y ordenadas de acceso a protección para refugiados y, a largo plazo, mejorar las condiciones en la región para que la migración sea cada vez más una opción, y no una necesidad, para los centroamericanos. Podemos hacer esto al:
Promover gobiernos que respeten los derechos de todos sus residentes, urgiendo transparencia y rendición de cuentas: Estados Unidos debe apoyar a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que trabajan para efectuar cambios – y no a gobiernos corruptos y autoritarios – para combatir la corrupción, reforzar el estado de derecho, y promover el respeto por los derechos humanos, particularmente para la juventud, mujeres, personas indígenas, negras y LGBTQ+.
Priorizar la protección humanitaria sobre la disuasión migratoria. Presionar a los países de la región a aumentar sus controles migratorios y militarizar sus fronteras solo obliga a las personas que buscan protección a tomar caminos más peligrosos, exponiéndolas a mayores violaciones de derechos humanos.
Ampliar y desarrollar nuevas oportunidades para migrantes y solicitantes de asilo: Debemos ofrecer más opciones para aquellos que huyen de la persecución, aumentar las oportunidades de reunificación familiar, y atender las necesidades de aquellos desplazados por el cambio climático.
Designar Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS, por sus siglas en inglés) para Guatemala, y re-designar TPS para Honduras, El Salvador, y Nicaragua: Con TPS, las comunidades inmigrantes en Estados Unidos pueden vivir y trabajar sin temor a ser deportadas, y enviar remesas a sus familias en sus países de origen, los cuales aún están sintiendo los devastadores efectos de huracanes y la pandemia COVID-19.
Haga click aquí para leer recomendaciones para ampliar el acceso a protección para refugiados y migrantes en Centro América y México, desarrolladas por CGRS, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Church World Service, Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración, AC (IMUMI), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Latin America Working Group Education Fund (LAWGEF), Washington Office on Latin America, y Women’s Refugee Commission.
Brianna Krong | Communications and Advocacy Coordinator
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
When it comes to the Biden Administration on human rights, racial justice, gender justice, due process, immigration, border strategy, and cleaning up corruption, unhappily the answer is “No!”
