#U.S. Board of Asylum Appeals | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pashterlengkap · 13 days

Text

These 11 LGBTQ federal judges are making history – and are all appointed by Joe Biden

President Joe Biden announced that his 200th federal judge got confirmed earlier this week, beating both Presidents Donald Trump and President Barack Obama in the number of confirmations at similar points in their terms. In a statement, Biden celebrated the most diverse group of judges to be appointed. “These judges are exceptionally well-qualified. They come from every walk of life, and collectively, they form the most diverse group of judicial appointees ever put forward by a president – 64% are women and 62% are people of color,” said Biden. “Before their appointment to the bench, they worked in every field of law—from labor lawyers fighting for working people to civil rights lawyers fighting to protect the right to vote.” Included among these judges are 11 LGBTQ+ judges, the most put forward by a sitting U.S. president, tied with Obama. Here are all of Biden’s LGBTQ+ judicial appointees. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today Beth Robinson – U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Beth Robinson is the first openly lesbian woman to serve on a U.S. appeals court, being confirmed on November 1, 2021. She was previously the first out LGBTQ+ Vermont Supreme Court justice. Robinson also served as co-counsel in the famous Baker v. Vermont case, which granted equal rights to LGBTQ+ couples. Alison Nathan – U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Alison Nathan was confirmed on March 23, 2022 and is the second openly LGBTQ+ woman to serve on the U.S. appeal court. She gained national attention for presiding over the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. Nicole Berner – U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Lisa McFarland, Fourth Circuit court photographer Judge Nicole G. Berner Nicole Berner is the first openly lesbian judge to serve on the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. She was confirmed on March 19, 2024. She previously served as legal counsel for the Service Employees International Union, supporting many progressive policies. Ana C. Reyes – United States District Court for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes is the first LGBTQ+ woman and the first Latina to serve in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. She was confirmed on February 15, 2023, and worked previously at the firm Williams and Connolly, often working pro bono for refugees and asylum seekers. Daniel Calabretta – United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel Calabretta was confirmed on February 16, 2023, and is the first openly gay judge to preside over California’s Eastern District. He previously served on the California Superior Court and as a presiding judge on the Juvenile Court. He’s also served under the California governor as deputy legal affairs secretary. Gina R. Méndez-Miró – United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico Gina R. Méndez-Miró is the first LGBTQ+ judge to preside over Puerto Rico’s District Court. She was confirmed on February 14, 2023, and was Biden’s 100th judge to be confirmed. She previously served as chief of staff to the Puerto Rico Senate and on the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals. Charlotte Sweeney – United States District Court for the District of Colorado Charlotte Sweeney is the first lesbian judge to preside over a District Court in Colorado and the first one west of the Mississippi. She was confirmed on May 25, 2022, and previously worked as a partner at Sweeney & Bechtold. She’s a member of the Colorado LGBT Bar Association and is on the board of directors for the Matthew Shepard Foundation. Nina Morrison – United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Nina Morrison is the second openly LGBTQ+ judge to serve in the Eastern District of New York. She was confirmed on June 8, 2022.… http://dlvr.it/T7RFhL

0 notes

njnewscorp · 7 months

Text

Asylum Can’t Be Denied Based Solely on Alien’s Lies

A citizen of the former Soviet republic of Balarus, who filed an application for asylum 13 years ago and whose case has bounced from the administrative hearing level, to the Board of Immigration Appeals, to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and back down, and back up, has gained an order from the Ninth Circuit that further proceedings be conducted.

Friday’s memorandum opinion by a three-judge panel vacates an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals(“BIA”) denying the motion of Uladzimir Sliusar to reopen asylum proceedings and remands the matter with a directive “to exercise its discretion against the correct legal framework.” It holds that the determination by an immigration judge (“IJ”) that the asylum-seeker lacks credibility did not justify an apparent refusal to consider documentary evidence he sought to put forth, the opinion holds.

“An immigration judge must consider all of the documentary evidence in the record, regardless of its type” before ruling on an asylum application, even if the IJ finds the application “to be frivolous,” it declares.

2005 Application

Sliusar, gained admission to the United States on June 4, 2004 and applied for asylum on Jan. 27, 2005 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He asserted that as a member of a pro-democracy student group, he had been subjected to arrest and being beaten by a KBG agent, and would be in jeopardy if returned to Balarus.

However, an immigration judge (“IJ”) on June 27, 2006, following a hearing, determined that the petition was frivolous, noting that Sliusar had plagiarized chunks of asylum petitions of other Belarusians.

The BIA remanded for reconsideration in light of a 2007 decision; on remand, the judge again found the petition to be frivolous; the BIA affirmed; Sliusar sought to reopen but his motion was denied; and he then sought a reversal in the Ninth Circuit of the order denying asylum.

2015 Opinion

In a Feb 5, 2015 memorandum opinion, a three-judge panel said:

“The agency’s finding that Sliusar was not credible and his asylum application frivolous are well supported by the record….Given the obvious plagiarism in his application, his inability to explain why his statement was so similar to others, and the inconsistencies within his own sworn testimony, the IJ properly found Sliusar not credible.”

Sliusar was not deported. He hired new lawyers who argued that the BIA should grant his third motion to reopen proceedings on the ground that the IJ had failed to address the Ninth Circuit’s 2001 opinion in Al-Harbi v. INS, which reversed an order denying withholding of removal, relying on documentary evidence.

Case Found Applicable

Friday’s opinion rejects the government’s contention that Al-Harbi is inapposite, setting forth:

“In Al-Harbi, we held that an immigration judge must decide whether ‘substantial, non-testimonial, evidence in the record’ supports a claim for asylum or withholding of removal—even if she deems the applicant’s testimony not to be credible….The same requirement applies to claims for relief under CAT.”

The fact that the judge found that Sliusar’s application was frivolous does not alter the result, the opinion says, explaining:

“While a person who files a frivolous asylum application cannot receive any form of legal status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)…, he remains eligible for withholding of removal…and protection under CAT….Thus, there must be some way that the filer of a frivolous asylum application can seek relief through withholding of removal or under CAT. The scheme only makes sense if the immigration judge must consider the entire record, not just the applicant’s fabricated testimony, and determine whether independent evidence still warrants non-INA relief.”

Documentary evidence—admitted as exhibits at the hearing by the IJ but not alluded to in her decision—included two letters from other student activists and hospital records which, the opinion says, “corroborated much” of Sliusar’s account, while the government insisted in merely supported factual contentions that had previously been rejected.

The Ninth Circuit panel—comprised of Circuit Judges Richard Paez and John B. Owens, along with Sixth Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs, sitting by designation—spurned the governments contention that Sliusar did not act with diligence in failing to cite the 2001 opinion in Al-Harbi until 2016. The opinion points to the appellant’s declaration that he did not learn of the opinion until he hired new lawyers in 2016.

It notes that the BIA provided no reason to depart from the rule that an alien is entitled to rely on advice from counsel and no basis for doubting Sliusar’s declaration that he did not learn of Al-Harbi until 2016, concluding that the appellant “acted with due diligence” in invoking the decision when he did.

In a footnote, the opinion relates that Sliusar has, in later years, admitted lying about having been beaten by a KBG agent.

The applicant’s wife, initially ascribed with complicity in her husband’s false statements, has subsequently been admitted as a citizen.

The case is Sliusar v. Whitaker, 16-74019.

1 note · View note

blogynewsz · 9 months

Text

Secret Asylum Eligibility of Mexican Journalist Arrested in the U.S. Unveiled

Mexican Journalist Granted Eligibility for US Asylum After Exposing Corruption in Military A journalist from Mexico who fled the country after uncovering corruption within its military has been granted eligibility for asylum in the United States, according to the National Press Club. Emilio Gutiérrez Soto, the reporter in question, received notice this week that the Board of Immigration Appeals…

View On WordPress

0 notes

veryruinswombat · 4 years

Text

UR RIGHTS THAT WERE ROLLED BACK BY TRUMP IN 2018

Info from: https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/

On January 4, Sessions rescinded guidance that had allowed states, with minimal federal interference, to legalize marijuana. This move will further reignite the War on Drugs.

On January 8, Trump re-nominated a slate of unqualified and biased judicial nominees, including two rated Not Qualified by the American Bar Association.

On January 8, the administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for nearly 200,000 Salvadorans.

On January 11, the Trump administration released new guidelines that allow states to seek waivers to require Medicaid recipients to work – requirements that represent a throwback to rejected racial stereotypes.

On January 12, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing Kentucky to require Medicaid recipients to work.

On June 29, a federal judge struck down Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirements.

On January 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Mulvaney’s leadership announced it would reconsider the agency’s payday lending rule.

On January 17, the administration announced its decision to bar citizens from Haiti from receiving H2-A and H2-B visas.

On January 18, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposed rule to allow health care providers to discriminate against patients, and within the department’s Office for Civil Rights, a new division – the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division – to address related claims.

On January 18, the CFPB abruptly dropped a lawsuit against four online payday lenders who unlawfully made loans of up to 950 percent APR in at least 17 states.

On January 25, the Census Bureau announced that the questionnaire for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will use race and ethnicity questions from the 2010 Census instead of updated questions recommended by Census Bureau staff. This suggests that the Office of Management and Budget will not revise the official standards for collecting and reporting this data, despite recommendations from a federal agency working group to do so.

On February 1, The New York Times reported that the Department of Justice was effectively closing its Office for Access to Justice, which was designed to make access to legal aid more accessible.

On February 1, reports surfaced claiming Trump’s Labor Department concealed an economic analysis that found working people could lose billions of dollars in wages under its proposal to roll back an Obama-era rule – a rule that protects working people in tipped industries from having their tips taken away by their employers.

On February 1, multiple sources reported that acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Mick Mulvaney had transferred the consumer agency’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity from the Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending division to the director’s office. The move essentially gutted the unit responsible for enforcing anti-lending discrimination laws.

On February 2, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing Indiana to require some Medicaid recipients to work.

On February 12, the Trump administration released its Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal, which would deny critical health care to those most in need simply to bankroll the president’s wall through border communities. The proposal would also eliminate the Community Relations Service – a Justice Department office established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which has been a key tool that helps address discrimination, conflicts, and tensions in communities around the country.

On February 12, the Trump administration released an infrastructure proposal that would reward the rich and special interests at the expense of low-income communities and communities of color and leave behind too many American communities and those most in need.

On February 12, BuzzFeed News reported that the U.S. Department of Education would no longer investigate complaints filed by transgender students who have been banned from using the restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. On the same day, the department released a statement saying Trump’s budget “protects vulnerable students” – a dubious claim.

On February 26, the U.S. Department of Education proposed to delay implementation of a rule that enforces the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The rule implements the IDEA’s provisions regarding significant disproportionality in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities with regard to race and ethnicity.

On March 5, the Trump administration approved Arkansas’ request to require some Medicaid recipients to work.

On March 5, the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education released a new Case Processing Manual (CPM) that creates greater hurdles for people filing complaints and allows dismissal of civil rights complaints based on the number of times an individual has filed.

On March 12, Attorney General Sessions announced the Justice Department’s ‘school safety’ plan – a plan that civil rights advocates criticized as militarizing schools, overpolicing children, and harming students, disproportionately students of color.

On March 23, Trump issued new orders to ban most transgender people from serving in the military – the latest iteration of a ban that he had initially announced in a series of tweets in July 2017.

On March 23, Trump signed a spending bill that included the STOP School Violence Act, which civil rights organizations are concerned will exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline crisis, further criminalize historically marginalized children, and increase the militarization of, and over-policing in, schools and communities of color.

On March 26, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that he had directed the Census Bureau to add an untested and unnecessary question to the 2020 Census form, which would ask the citizenship status of every person in America.

On April 6, Attorney General Sessions announced that he had notified all U.S. Attorney’s offices along the southwest border of a new “zero tolerance” policy toward people trying to enter the country – a policy that quickly, and inhumanely, separated hundreds of children from their families.

On April 10, a federal official announced that the Department of Justice was halting the Legal Orientation Program, which offers legal assistance to immigrants.

On April 10, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to push for work requirements for low-income people in America who receive federal assistance, including Medicaid and SNAP.

On April 25, Secretary Ben Carson proposed changes to federal housing subsidies that could triple rent for some households and make it easier to impose work requirements.

On April 26, the Trump administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation in 12 months for approximately 9,000 Nepalese immigrants.

On May 4, the Trump administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation in 18 months for approximately 57,000 Honduran immigrants.

On May 7, the Trump administration approved New Hampshire’s request to require some Medicaid recipients to work or participate in other “community engagement activities.”

On May 11, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released changes to its Transgender Offender Manual that rolled back protections allowing transgender inmates to use facilities, including bathrooms and cell blocks, that correspond to their gender identity.

On May 18, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it would be publishing three separate notices to indefinitely suspend implementation of the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule.

On May 21, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) guidance on indirect auto financing.

On May 22, the Trump administration issued a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) designed to block access to health care under Title X and deny women information about their reproductive health care options.

On May 24, Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which will undermine one of our nation’s key civil rights laws and weaken consumer protections enacted after the 2008 financial crisis.

On June 6, Mick Mulvaney fired all 25 members of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Consumer Advisory Board.

On June 8, a Department of Justice filing argued that the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional. The brief was signed by Chad Readler, a Justice Department official who Trump nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On June 11, Attorney General Sessions ruled that fears of domestic or gang violence was not grounds for asylum in the United States.

On June 11, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director L. Francis Cissna announced the creation of a denaturalization task force in a push to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship.

On June 12, the Department of Justice sued the state of Kentucky to force it to “systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the registration records.” This voter purge lawsuit was filed one day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s voter purges in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.

On June 18, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, announced that the United States was withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council.

On July 3, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded guidance from the Departments of Justice and Education that provides a roadmap to implement voluntary diversity and integration programs in higher education consistent with Supreme Court holdings on the issue.

On July 10, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced cuts to navigator funding for outreach to hard-to-reach communities for the fall 2018 Affordable Care Act open enrollment period.

On July 25, the Department of Education proposed new borrower defense rules, which would further exacerbate inequalities – making the already unfair and ineffective student loan servicing system even more harmful to all students, particularly to borrowers of color. The proposal would strip away borrower rights and would not protect students from predatory practices in both higher education and student loan servicing.

On September 12, a federal judge struck down DeVos’ attempt to weaken the rule. In October, the Department of Education said it would no longer try to delay the Obama-era regulation.

On July 26, the Trump administration failed to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunite children and families separated at the border.

On July 30, Jeff Sessions announced the creation of a religious liberty task force at the Department of Justice, which many saw as a taxpayer funded effort to license discrimination against LGBTQ people and others.

On August 13, Secretary Ben Carson proposed changes to the Obama-era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which aimed to combat segregation in housing policy.

On August 15, the Federal Register published a Trump administration proposal to restrict protest rights in Washington, D.C. by closing 80 percent of the White House sidewalk, putting new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and opening the door to charging fees for protesting.

On August 29, The New York Times reported that the Department of Education is preparing rules that would “narrow the definition of sexual harassment, holding schools accountable only for formal complaints filed through proper authorities and for conduct said to have occurred on their campuses. They would also establish a higher legal standard to determine whether schools improperly addressed complaints.”

On August 30, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief opposing Harvard College’s motion for summary judgement in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, choosing to oppose constitutionally sound strategies that colleges and universities use to expand educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds.

On September 5, the Trump administration sent sweeping subpoenas to the North Carolina state elections board and 44 county elections boards requesting voter records be turned over by September 25. Two months before the midterm elections, civil rights advocates worried this effort would lead to voter suppression and intimidation.

On September 6, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposal to withdraw from the Flores Settlement Agreement. The Flores Agreement is a set of protections for underage migrant children in government custody.

On September 13, the National Labor Relations Board proposed weakening the “joint-employer standard” under the National Labor Relations Act, which would make it difficult for working people to bring the companies that share control over their terms and conditions of employment to the bargaining table.

On October 1, a policy change at the Department of State took effect saying that the Trump administration would no longer issue family visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats or employees of international organizations who work in the United States.

On October 10, the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed ‘public charge’ rule was published in the Federal Register. Under the rule, immigrants who apply for a green card or visa could be deemed a ‘public charge’ and turned away if they earn below 250 percent of the federal poverty line and use any of a wide range of public programs.

On October 12, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest opposing a consent decree negotiated by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to overhaul the Chicago Police Department.

On October 16, the administration released its fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The document details the regulatory and deregulatory actions that federal agencies plan to make in the coming months, including harmful civil and human rights rollbacks.

On October 19, the Department of Justice ended its agreement to monitor the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County and the Shelby County Detention Center in Tennessee, which addressed discrimination against Black youth, unsafe conditions, and no due process at hearings.

On October 21, The New York Times reported that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering an interpretation of Title IX that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with” – effectively erasing protections for transgender people.

On October 22, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued new guidance on the Affordable Care Act’s 1332 waivers that would expand a state’s flexibility to establish insurance markets that don’t meet the requirements of the ACA.

On October 24, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that federal civil rights law does not protect transgender workers from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.

On October 30, Axios reported that Trump intends to sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship. In a tweet the following day, Trump said “it will be ended one way or the other.”

On October 31, the administration approved a waiver allowing Wisconsin to require Medicaid recipients to work. It was the first time a state that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act was allowed to impose work requirements.

On November 5, the Department of Justice filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to circumvent three separate U.S. Courts of Appeals on litigation concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

On November 7, on his last day as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum to gut the Department of Justice’s use of consent decrees.

On November 8, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice announced an interim final rule to block people from claiming asylum if they enter the United States outside legal ports of entry.

On November 8, the Department of Labor rolled back guidance issued by the Obama administration that clarified that tipped workers must spend at least 80 percent of their time doing tipped work in order for employers to pay them the lower tipped minimum wage.

On November 16, the Department of Education issued a draft Title IX regulation that represents a cruel attempt to silence sexual assault survivors and limit their educational opportunity – and could lead schools to do even less to prevent and respond to sexual violence and harassment.

On December 11, Trump declared that he would be “proud to shut down the government” – which he did. It resulted in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history (35 days), which harmed federal workers, contractors, their families, and the communities that depend on them.

On December 14, BuzzFeed News reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development was quietly advising lenders to deny DACA recipients Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans.

On December 18, the Trump administration’s School Safety Commission recommended rescinding Obama-era school discipline guidance, which was intended to assist states, districts, and schools in developing practices and policies to enhance school climate and comply with federal civil rights laws.

On December 21, following the recommendation of Trump’s School Safety Commission, the Departments of Justice and Education rescinded the Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline. Both departments jointly issued the guidance in January 2014.

11 notes · View notes

socialjusticeartshare · 4 years

Text

10 Years Old, Tearful and Confused After a Sudden Deportation

Since the coronavirus broke out, the Trump administration has deported hundreds of migrant children alone — in some cases, without notifying their families.

The last time Sandra Rodríguez saw her son Gerson, she bent down to look him in the eye. “Be good,” she said, instructing him to behave when he encountered Border Patrol agents on the other side of the river in the United States, and when he was reunited with his uncle in Houston.

The 10-year-old nodded, giving his mother one last squinty smile. Tears caught in his dimples, she recalled, as he climbed into a raft and pushed out across the Rio Grande toward Texas from Mexico, guided by a stranger who was also trying to reach the United States.

Ms. Rodríguez expected that Gerson would be held by the Border Patrol for a few days and then transferred to a government shelter for migrant children, from which her brother in Houston would eventually be able to claim him. But Gerson seemed to disappear on the other side of the river. For six frantic days, she heard nothing about her son — no word that he had been taken into custody, no contact with the uncle in Houston.

Finally, she received a panicked phone call from a cousin in Honduras who said that Gerson was with her. The little boy was crying and disoriented, his relatives said; he seemed confused about how he had ended up back in the dangerous place he had fled.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TOLL

Parents and guidance counselors worry about young people who were already experiencing soaring rates of depression, anxiety and suicide before the pandemic.

Hundreds of migrant children and teenagers have been swiftly deported by American authorities amid the coronavirus pandemicwithout the opportunity to speak to a social worker or plea for asylum from the violence in their home countries — a reversal of years of established practice for dealing with young foreigners who arrive in the United States.

The deportations represent an extraordinary shift in policy that has been unfolding in recent weeks on the southwestern border, under which safeguards that have for decades been granted to migrant children by both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to have been abandoned.

Historically, young migrants who showed up at the border without adult guardians were provided with shelter, education, medical care and a lengthy administrative process that allowed them to make a case for staying in the United States. Those who were eventually deported were sent home only after arrangements had been made to assure they had a safe place to return to.

That process appears to have been abruptly thrown out under President Trump’s latest border decrees. Some young migrants have been deported within hours of setting foot on American soil. Others have been rousted from their beds in the middle of the night in U.S. government shelters and put on planes out of the country without any notification to their families.

The Trump administration is justifying the new practices under a 1944 law that grants the president broad power to block foreigners from entering the country in order to prevent the “serious threat” of a dangerous disease. But immigration officials in recent weeks have also been abruptly expelling migrant children and teenagers who were already in the United States when the pandemic-related order came down in late March.

Since the decree was put in effect, hundreds of young migrants have been deported, including some who had asylum appeals pending in the court system.

Some of the young people have been flown back to Central America, while others have been pushed back into Mexico, where thousands of migrants are living in filthy tent camps and overrun shelters.

In March and April, the most recent period for which data was available, 915 young migrants were expelled shortly after reaching the American border, and 60 were shipped home from the interior of the country.

During the same period, at least 166 young migrants were allowed into the United States and afforded the safeguards that were once customary. But in another unusual departure, Customs and Border Protection has refused to disclose how the government was determining which legal standards to apply to which children.

“We just can’t put it out there,” said Matthew Dyman, a public affairs specialist with the agency, citing concerns that human smugglers would exploit the information to traffic more people into the country if they knew how the laws were being applied.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration extended the stepped-up border security that allows for young migrants to be expelled at the border, saying the policy would remain in place indefinitely and be reviewed every 30 days.

An agency spokesman said its policies for deporting children from within the interior of the country had not changed.

Amid Mr. Trump’s efforts to block migrants from seeking refuge in the United States, the administration has been scrutinized especially for its treatment of the most vulnerable among them — children.

Beginning in 2017, the government traumatized thousands of children by separating them from their parents at the border. Administration officials have also left young migrants to languishin filthy Border Patrol holding cells with no adult supervision and argued in court that the children were not legally entitled to toothbrushes or soap.

Democratic members of Congress argue that the swift deportations taking place now violate the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a 20-year-old federal law that lays out standards for the treatment of foreign children who arrive at the American border without an adult guardian.

In a letter last month to Mr. Wolf, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the moves had “no known precedent or clear legal rationale.”

Immigrant advocates say their pleas for help ensuring that the children have somewhere safe to go when they land have been ignored. Since the coronavirus was first discovered in the United States in January, 239 unaccompanied minors have been returned to Guatemala, and 183 have been returned to Honduras, according to government figures.

“The fact that nobody knows who these kids are and there are hundreds of them is really terrifying,” said Jennifer Nagda, policy director of the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights. “There’s no telling if they’ve been returned to smugglers or into harm’s way.”

Some minors have been deported overnight despite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy that says they should be repatriated only during daylight hours.

Before daybreak one morning late last month, Pedro Buezo Romero, 16, was taken from his bed in a shelter in New York and told to pack a suitcase so he could be taken to a court appearance in Florida.

Instead, the teenager ended up on four flights over two days. He was able to sleep for a few hours in a hotel room in Miami shared by three adult employees of a private security company hired to transport him and two other migrant teenagers.

Only before boarding his final flight to Honduras from Texas did the adults reveal to Pedro that he was being deported. When he arrived in Honduras, he had to borrow the cellphone of an immigration official to ask his cousin for a place to stay.

Pedro’s mother has not been seen since the shelter in Mexico where they had been staying together was ransacked by gang members. He and his mother were separated during the ordeal, after which Pedro decided to cross the border alone.

While Pedro was in transit, his lawyers had worked frantically to try to locate him but did not receive any response from the federal government. “There were two or three days we had no idea where he was,” said Katty Vera de Fisher, a supervising migration counselor for Catholic Charities of New York.

Some of the children who have been expelled from the United States were previously ordered deported. But historically, even children with prior deportation orders have been given new opportunities to request asylum if they entered the United States again. Now, that appears to have changed.

Lawyers representing children threatened with deportation say they are having to engage in 11th-hour legal maneuvers to try to prevent deportations from happening.

Last week, Hannah Flamm, an immigration lawyer in New York, had only hours to try to stop the repatriation of a 14-year-old client after learning the girl had been booked by ICE on a 3 a.m. flight to Honduras.

The girl’s family had not been notified of her imminent arrival. Ms. Flamm managed to secure an emergency stay of the deportation at 11:47 p.m., at which point the girl was allowed to go back to sleep in the shelter where she was staying.

Ricardo Rodríguez Galo, the uncle of the 10-year-old boy who was deported this month, said he was shocked to learn that Gerson had been sent back to Honduras alone.

Mr. Rodríguez said he worried about the boy’s safety in Honduras, where his sister’s former partner had beaten the boy and his mother and withheld food from them. Mr. Rodríguez also wondered about the judgment of American authorities who chose to put a child on a plane without notifying any of his family members, including those who had been waiting in the United States to take the boy into their home.

“I’m not going to tell you that we were going to shower him with riches,” Mr. Rodríguez said. “We’re poor, but we were going to fight to support him. We were going to welcome him like he deserved.”

Kirk Semple contributed reporting.

Article Source

1 note · View note

schraubd · 5 years

Text

Ubaidullah Abdulrashid Radiowala: Another One We Betrayed

This case brings back some bad memories. A rickshaw driver in his native India, Ubaidullah Abdulrashid Radiowala came to the United States on a visitor's visa in 1998. He stayed, as he was fleeing an Indian mobster whom he had informed on to the police. In his time in the U.S., he built his own successful business and served as sole provider for his wife and four children (two whom immigrated to the US with him and are under DACA protection, two of whom were born in America). Three of his children are now in college, the fourth in high school. His earnings account for the entirety of his household's expenses -- food, tuition, rent, everything. Radiowala was arrested in 2017 on a traffic stop, and was ordered deported. Although there was some evidence that the mobster he had informed on might try to hurt him in India, it was too late for Radiowala to request asylum. And while the U.S. has the power to cancel removal for persons in his position, the IJ concluded that removing Radiowala would not cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a United States citizen" (in this case, his two U.S. citizen children). Although his children would no doubt suffer, the IJ and Board of Immigration Appeals decided that their suffering was not exceptional compared to any other family with a parent or spouse facing removal. The Third Circuit affirmed. And the reason this case brings back some bad memories isn't because I think the decision was wrong. It's because it was probably right. The bad memories I have stem from the near-impossible standard of review that we were faced with when overseeing the immigration docket. The needless cruelty and trifling pettiness of the immigration system was entirely out of our hands to check. It didn't matter. Where it might matter was in the chambers of immigration judges -- who were wildly overworked and may or may not care -- and, of course, in the initial decision of immigration officials to make commonsense decisions about which cases to prioritize and which to let slide. But by the time the case gets up to the appellate court level, the immigrant is pretty well doomed -- no matter how cruel or manifestly unjust their case is. So let's be clear: deporting Ubaidullah Abdulrashid Radiowala is needlessly cruel and manifestly unjust. There's no point to it other than the cruelty. He had been living in the United States for almost twenty years. He had raised a family here. He had sent his kids to college. He had built a successful business. He hadn't hurt anybody. He came to immigration authority's attention based on a traffic stop. A traffic stop! But of course, today the cruelty is the point. Radiowala has already been deported back to India. I hope he's safe. And I hope his family is getting by. But goodness, what a terrible thing we've done. What a terrible, terrible betrayal of the American ethos this is. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2ZdBSxt

#Immigration #India

5 notes · View notes

gwydionmisha · 5 years

Link

#William Barr #Immigration #Asylum Seekers #Refugees #News

1 note · View note

l85hm-blog · 5 years

Text

Humanitarian Relief

One area which immigration lawyers help individuals with is making an application for humanitarian visas, which can be sought by people fleeing oppression and persecution. Sufferers of tyranny can show that oppressors have persecuted them or that they've a genuine fear of being persecuted in the future. The USA acknowledges any type of persecution because of race, nationality, political opinion, religion, or being affiliated with certain social group. It achieves this by means of 2 avenues based upon exactly where the victim of oppression lives.

Refugee Status

The 1st option for gaining humanitarian based relief by way of a refugee visa. A refugee is somebody who resides outside the US and has been forced to get out of their home nation to escape tyranny and persecution. To be able to be entitled to a humanitarian green card you need to meet with the relevant requirements. Firstly you need to be residing outside of the USA. Next, you need to be someone of special humanitarian concern. This must be shown by showing you have already been persecuted or are in fear of persecution on account of nationality, political opinion, religion, race, or being part of a particular social group. Last of all, you mustn't be re-settled overseas, and you're legally admissible to the US.

If you fulfil these requirements, you'll obtain several things prior to being allowed into the States. You will actually be processed by the appropriate relief organization. An immigration attorney will not be necessary at this point. This relief organization will provide the required cultural orientation, travel plan, medical test and additionally if required, a loan to travel to the US. When you arrive in the US, you are eligible to work straight away. It's also possible to apply for your family to come to America. After one year of being a refugee in America, you have to apply for lawful permanent residency. A knowledgeable immigration attorney will help you with your US green card application. If you are successful in your application, you'll get your visa.

Asylum - Safety From Persecution

The 2nd pathway for gaining humanitarian based relief is through asylum. An asylum seeker is much the same as a refugee. The chief distinction is that for asylum, you are already present in the United States of America. You are able to make an application for asylum regardless how you arrived in the States or what your current immigration status is. After you're living in the US, a decent immigration attorney can help you review your asylum claim. If you happen to match the conditions, your immigration lawyer can help you in setting up your asylum application. It needs to be submitted to the USCIS within a year of your arrival in the US. Asylees aren't authorized to start working straight away. Whilst your asylum application is pending, you might be allowed to work after one hundred and fifty days. Right after the application is evaluated, you are going to be brought in for an interview. During this meeting, a special asylum immigration officer will determine whether you actually qualify for asylum status. Two or three weeks after your asylum interview, you'll get their verdict.

Asylum After A Year - Permanent Residence in the United States of America

If you're granted asylum in the USA, the next procedure is attempting to obtain an asylee green card. As with the first step, an immigration attorney can help by preparing your US green card application. To qualify for an asylee green card, you need to have been residing in the USA for one year with asylee status. You must also not have resettled in another foreign country. You are not required to apply for a green card, but the majority of asylees do, so they are on the path to United States citizenship. To try to get a US green card, your immigration attorney puts in your application to get adjustment of status. After your green card application has been approved, you will be fully able to work, travel, and live in the US.

If USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) will not grant you asylum after the interview, all may not be lost. Your immigration attorney can help you with the next phase. USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) will refer you to the immigration court. You will then be able to once again present your request for asylum to the court. Courtrooms are the places where attorneys are able to really help you by becoming your representative, and presenting your case in the best possible way. Should you be successful, you could get asylum or other lesser forms of humanitarian relief. If you fail again in your mission for asylum, you will be able to submit an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. You'll definitely require an immigration lawyer for that final appeal.

Conclusion - Precisely How an Immigration Lawyer Can Help

To conclude, immigration lawyers help with lots of aspects of putting in an application for humanitarian relief. They will help you ascertain whether you have a good case for asylum. If you do have a solid case, an immigration lawyer's role is to assemble the best possible asylum application. Moreover, they can give assistance with attempting to obtain a green card in the States after you have received asylee status.

1 note · View note

lincolngoldfinch1 · 3 months

Text

What Can Immigration Lawyers Do For You?

Immigration lawyers help immigrants with the process of becoming legal residents in a new country. This can be a difficult process, and immigration lawyers can help make it go more smoothly. They can also help immigrants apply for citizenship once they have become legal residents.

Who Are Immigration Lawyers?

An immigration lawyer is a legal professional who helps people with all aspects of the immigration process. This includes helping people to obtain visas, green cards, and citizenship status. Immigration lawyers can also help people defend their immigration status if they face deportation or other legal challenges.

There are many different types of immigration lawyers, each with their focus areas. Some may focus on helping refugees immigrate to a new country, while others may undertake to help businesses bring in foreign workers. Regardless of their focus, all immigration lawyers share one common goal: to help immigrants achieve their dreams of legally living in a new country.

The Duties And Responsibilities Of An Immigration Lawyer

Immigration lawyers are responsible for a wide range of duties. Some of the most common responsibilities include:

Filing Applications And Petitions With U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services (USCIS)

Immigration lawyers help their clients file the necessary paperwork to gain legal status in the United States, including visas, green cards, citizenship applications, asylum applications, and more.

Representing Clients During Interviews And Other Court Hearings Related To Immigration Matters

Immigration lawyers represent their clients at various stages of the immigration process—from initial application petition filing until a final decision is made by USCIS or an immigration judge on a case—to provide guidance and assistance with any questions that may arise during the process.

Advising Clients On Their Immigration Options In The United States

Immigration lawyers advise individuals, families, and businesses about the different visa programs available for non-citizens to live, work or study in the United States. They also help advise on any potential hurdles encountered during the application process, such as criminal backgrounds or medical issues.

Keeping Up With Changing Laws Related To Immigration Law And Policies

Immigration lawyers must keep abreast of immigration policy, legislation, and court decisions to advise their clients on navigating these changes. This includes developments within U.S. immigration law and international treaties and agreements that may impact a client’s case.

Advising On Immigration Consequences Of Criminal Convictions

Immigration lawyers are uniquely positioned to advise their clients regarding the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction and can often provide specialized legal counsel in these scenarios. For example, they may be able to help their clients avoid immigration penalties to prevent deportation proceedings down the line.

Representing Detained Immigrants Before Immigration Courts

Immigration lawyers represent individuals detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for potential removal proceedings before immigration courts or other administrative bodies such as Boards of Immigration Appeals (BIA). This includes advocating for an individual’s right to remain in the United States, defending against removal proceedings, and advocating for release on bond.

Assisting With Family-Based Immigration Cases

Immigration lawyers can assist clients with family-based visa petitions and applications related to marriage, parent/child relationships, and other familial connections. This includes helping individuals file the necessary paperwork and supporting documentation and representing their interests in court or through administrative hearings.

Representing Employers In Labor Certifications Or Business Visas

Employers often need help navigating the complexities of obtaining work visas for foreign nationals who wish to enter the United States to work temporarily or permanently. Immigration lawyers can help these employers by preparing labor certification applications and other paperwork and filing it with the appropriate government agencies.

Overall, immigration lawyers advise and guide those looking to enter or stay in the United States. Contact Lincoln-Goldfinch Law to understand further your rights, responsibilities, and restrictions under U.S. immigration laws.

More Info Lincoln-Goldfinch Law in EZlocal Driving Directions

Lincoln-Goldfinch Law 1005 E 40th St Austin, TX 78751 (855) 502-0555

0 notes

vodkasodaextralimeplease-blog · 5 years

Text

Humanitarian Relief

One of the areas that immigration attorneys help customers with is submitting an application for humanitarian visas, which is available to those trying to flee from persecution and tyranny. Sufferers of persecution are able to show that oppressors have persecuted them or that they've a fear of future persecution. The USA recognizes any sort of persecution because of political opinion, nationality, race, religion, or being affiliated with certain social group. It achieves this via two routes based on where the victim of oppression lives.

Refugee Status First

The first route for gaining humanitarian based relief is by a refugee visa. A refugee is somebody who resides outside of the USA and has been forced to leave their home country to escape persecution and tyranny. To be able to be entitled to a humanitarian visa you have to fulfill the relevant conditions. Firstly you've got to be outside of America. Next, you need to be an individual of special humanitarian concern. This is proven by establishing that you have already been persecuted or are in fear of persecution as a result of political opinion, race, nationality, religion, or membership in a particular social group. Finally, you must not be re-settled in another country, and you're legally qualified for admission in to America.

If you meet the specific requirements, you will get several things prior to being allowed into the States. You will at first be processed by the appropriate relief organization. An immigration attorney is not wanted at this point. This relief organization will provide the essential medical exam, cultural orientation, travel plan and if required, a travel loan to the US. After your arrival in the US, you're immediately eligible to work. You may also petition for other members of your family to come to the United States. After 12 months of being a refugee in the USA, you must submit an application for lawful permanent residency. A professional immigration attorney will help you with applying for your visa. When you are successful, you will get the green card.

Asylum - Safety From Persecution

The second avenue for obtaining relief on humanitarian grounds is by applying for asylum. An asylee is largely the same as a refugee. The chief difference is that for asylum, you must already be living in the USA. You are able to make an application for asylum irrespective of how you arrived in the USA or what your existing immigration status is. Once you're present in the States, a good immigration attorney can help you review your claim for asylum. If you happen to match the prerequisites, the immigration lawyer can help you organize your asylum application. It must be sent to the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) within a year of your arrival. Asylum seekers are not authorized to start work immediately. Whilst your application for asylum is being processed, you could be allowed to start work after one hundred and fifty days. Once the application has been dealt with, you're going to be interviewed. During this meeting, an asylum officer will determine if you qualify for asylum status. About two weeks after this interview, you will receive a final verdict.

Asylum After One Year - Permanent Residence in the United States of America

If you are given asylum in the States, the next procedure is making an application for an asylee green card. As with the previous step, an immigration attorney can help you by readying the green card application. To be entitled to an asylee green card, you need to have been living in the States for 12 months with the status of asylee. You must also not have resettled in another country. You don't have to put in an application for a US green card, although most asylees do, so that they are on the path towards citizenship. To get a US green card, the immigration attorney sends in the application to get status adjustment. After your application for a green card is approved, you will be able to travel, work, and live in the United States of America.

If USCIS doesn't grant you asylum following your interview, it is not the end of the road. An immigration lawyer will be able to help you with the next step. USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) pass you on to immigration court. You will be able to put forward your application for asylum again to the judge. Courts are the places where attorneys really help you by serving as your advocate, and presenting your case in the best way possible. If you are successful with your application, you will get asylum or other lesser forms of humanitarian relief. If you fail again in your quest for asylum, you can put in an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. You'll unquestionably need to hire an immigration attorney for that final appeal process.

Conclusion - Precisely How an Immigration Lawyer Can Help

To summarize, immigration attorneys help with a lot of areas of applying for humanitarian based relief. They'll help you figure out if you've got a good case for asylum. If you do have a reasonable case, an immigration lawyer's job is to put together the optimal asylum application. Moreover, they will be able to help with applying for a visa in the United States of America after you receive your asylee status.

1 note · View note

lawqueensimm-blog · 5 years

Text

Contact

Address: 160-40 78th Rd Fresh Meadows, NY 11366

Phone: (347) 343-6111

Website URL:

www.queensimmigrationlawyer.net

About US

The Gursoy Law Firm provides immigration services to individuals and companies all across the country. We represent clients in front of the United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (USCIS), U.S. Consulates, U.S. Department of Labor and other agencies of the government. We have effectively represented clients for over 15 years and helped obtain work visas such as H1B, E1, E2, L1 and work authorizations, as well as adjustment of status and permanent residence (green cards).

We have great success assisting clients with family-based permanent residency, K1 Fiance Visa, K3 Marriage Visa, VAWA and Family Abuse Cases, and Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence.

In addition, we also provide legal representation before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, Federal District Court or Circuit Court of Appeals, regardless of the type of issue, whether asylum, withholding of removal, C.A.T. withholding, cancellation of removal, or other deportation removal defense.

We can serve your US immigration needs anywhere in the United States or around the world. We are dedicated to providing legal services of the highest quality in a prompt, courteous, cost-effective, and ethical manner. We maintain regular contact with our clients regarding their specific cases and respond to any inquiries as expeditiously as possible.

Related Searches

Additional Details

Hours: Mon - Fri 8.30 am - 7 pm Sat 9 am - 3 pm

Payment Accepted: Cash, check, all cc.

Social Profiles

https://www.facebook.com/Queens-Immigration-Lawyer-2113441808929575/

https://twitter.com/lawyer_queens

GMB Listing

https://goo.gl/maps/VGx7e1Wn3iJ2

1 note · View note

georgia-immigration-blog · 5 years

Text

A Look at Some U.S. Immigration Court Problems

While asylum decisions must always be fair and unbiased, this isn't necessarily the case given the wide discretion immigration judges have been granted in deciding such cases, the absence of precedential decisions, and the fact that lots of the immigration judges have come in the enforcement arm of the immigration service and all are hired from the Attorney General of the United States. These factors invariably put the institutional function of immigration judges in conflict with expectations of fairness and impartiality in deciding asylum cases.

People that are new to immigration court clinic and unacquainted with the workings of immigration constraints frequently don't comprehend why the immigration courts operate so differently than our Article III, Article 1, and also our state courts. For a broader world to comprehend how the immigration courts function it's crucial to show and discuss some of the recent problems within our United States immigration courts.

Throughout the last ten years, our immigration courts have wrestled with disparate asylum consequences, both among the various immigration courts, and over precisely the same immigration teams; an immigration judge hiring scandal between 2004 and 2006 that abandoned many immigration positions empty; the execution of a 22-point Plan to improve the performance of the immigration court; the backlog of their immigration caseload starting in 2005; and the perpetual need to standardize immigration court rules and procedures.

Disparate Asylum Outcomes

Immigration practitioners such as myself frequently believed that asylum seekers were not receiving good justice because of the disparities in grants of asylum at the trial level in the a variety of courts. Moreover, there have been often disparities in outcomes in the exact same immigration courts. Professors Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag of Georgetown Law School in their Asylum Study have described the differing consequences in asylum choices as"Refugee Roulette."

The analysis is a massive piece of work that's been cited by scholars and others interested in refugee law. The Asylum Study analyzed asylum outcomes in Immigration Courts from 2000 through 2004 for asylum seekers out of what they believe Asylum Producing Countries (APC's). They found that for asylum seekers from countries that create a relatively high proportion of effective asylees, there are serious disparities amongst immigration courts at the prices at which they grant asylum to nationals of all those countries: Albania, China, Ethiopia, Liberia and Russia.

The drafters of the Asylum Study opine that the explanation for the differences between the courts might be"simply cultural" - several courts are more inclined to grant asylum while some might be especially demanding on all asylum seekers. Also, differences from one region may be due to differences in the populations of asylum seekers in different geographic locations. These explanations may be true, however, the question remains: is justice being properly served with respect to asylum seekers or are they being subjected to"Refugee Roulette?"

Possible Causes of Disparities Among Immigration Judges

Judging can be difficult in any forum. It is especially difficult concerning asylum claims since the required persecution must have occurred in a foreign country and may have happened a great while back with few witnesses and small documentation. Furthermore, immigration judges have been needed to make credibility determinations in each situation and the candidates' credibility may be suspect.

Statistics reveal that the five largest immigration courts had immigration judges who were consistent outliers when it came to asylum decisions. From one-third to three-quarters of the judges on these courts granted asylum in APC cases at rates more than 50 percent greater or more than 50 percent less than the national average. The authors of the Asylum Study arrived at the conclusion that discrepancies in the grant rates between judges in the same court may be because of different geographic populations of asylum seekers in different regions. It may also be that certain asylum seekers may come from certain ethnic groups that have similarly viable asylum claims.

The Asylum Study revealed that the single most important factor affecting the outcome of an asylum seeker's case was whether the applicant was represented by counsel. Represented asylum seekers were granted asylum at a rate of 45.6%, almost three times as high as the 16.3% grant rate for those without legal counsel. The number of dependents that an asylum seeker brought with her to the U.S. played a large role in increasing the chance of an asylum grant. Their analysis found that an asylum seeker with no dependents has a 42.3% grant rate, having one dependent increases the grant rate to 48.2%. It could be that asylum seekers who bring children in addition to a spouse appear more credible or some immigration judges may be more sympathetic to asylum seekers who have a family to protect.

The Asylum Study also found that gender of the judge had a significant impact on the likelihood that asylum would be granted. Female immigration judges granted asylum at a rate of 53.8%, while male judges granted asylum at a rate of 37.3%. The statistical calculations show that an asylum seeker whose case is assigned to a female judge had a 44 percent better chance of prevailing than if there is a case assigned to a male judge. This may be significant in that there are far fewer female immigration judges than male judges. Only approximately 35 percent of the 263 immigration judges are women.

The EOIR Hiring Scandal

In the early 2000's the case-loads of the country's immigration courts was rising while the number of immigration judges was simultaneously declining. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a branch of the U.S Justice Department which oversees the immigration courts, asked Congress for additional funding to hire more immigration judges. However, the reputation of the EOIR was tarnished by the discovery of an illegal political hiring scandal that took place from the spring of 2004 until December 2006. I will write more on the hiring scandal in a later article.

The Attorney General's 2006 Plan For Reform

In the wake of the hiring scandal and criticism from several federal circuit court rulings that sharply criticized the immigration courts, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez issued a 22- Point Plan for improving the operation of the immigration courts. It is not the objective of this article to delve deeply into the implementation of all of the entire reform effort, but I will briefly examine some of the positive changes that have emerged from its implementation.

On June 5, 2009, the EOIR produced a Fact Sheet detailing measures to improve the EOIR. According to the 2009 Fact Sheet, fifteen of the twenty-two proposed reforms had been enacted. These included: obtaining funding to hire additional immigration judges and field supervisors for immigration courts; drafting an immigration examination for all new judges; installing digital recording services in most, but not all, the immigration court rooms; and producing an online practice manual for the immigration court. The reforms also included training for new judges and additional training for current judges. As of July 2012 no sanctions had been granted to the immigration judges or the judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to hold attorneys or parties in contempt.

The training plans consisted of expanded training for new immigration judges on legal and procedural issues; a mentoring program for new judges; and periodic training on management. For the first time there was a joint legal conference in 2009 for immigration judges and BIA members. A Code of Conduct for Immigration Judges had been implemented in 2011 under the Obama Administration as well as the completion of installation of digital audio recording systems in all of the immigration courtrooms.

There is statistical evidence that the reforms have helped. The central finding of a 2009 report on the subject contends that judge-by-judge asylum disparities in the Immigration Courts are down. Court data shows that disparity rates have declined in ten of fifteen immigration courts that decide the bulk of all asylum matters. In New York the disparity rate among judges in Asylum cases has dropped by a quarter and in Miami the range among judges in their denial rates dropped almost two thirds from their previous levels. This indicates that justice is being better served for asylum seekers in these busy immigration courts.

If disparity rates have declined in ten of the fifteen immigration courts that hear the bulk of asylum claims this is real progress toward a fairer and more impartial system. Training for new immigration judges and the judicial mentoring programs have helped many new judges take their cases more seriously. However, this drop in disparity rates may well also be caused by better lawyering in those ten courts where there has been a drop in disparity rates. We know that an applicant has a better chance of succeeding if represented by counsel and so the implementation of the reforms of the 22-point plan may not necessarily be totally responsible for the drop in asylum disparity rates.

The Immigration Court Backlog

Our immigration courts are backlogged, which denies swift justice for asylum seekers. There has been a backlog of approximately 300,000 cases awaiting adjudication. The growing immigration court backlog is not a recent problem, but has been steadily growing since at least 2005. One important cause for this problem was the Bush Administration's failure to fill vacant and newly-funded immigration judge positions during the period of the political hiring scandal. Government filings seeking deportation orders increased between Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 and (FY) 2008 by thirty percent while the number of immigration judges on the bench saw little increase and for some periods fell. Subsequent hiring to fill these vacancies during the Obama Administration has not been sufficient to handle all the cases that wait attention.

Although there is still a backlog in the immigration courts, the Obama Administration instituted two initiatives to help clear the backlog. During the first quarter of 2012, immigration courts issued 2,429 fewer deportation orders than in the fourth quarter of 2011. Thus, the proportion of cases resulting in an order of deportation fell slightly to 64.1 percent. In over a third of all cases, the individual was allowed to stay, at least temporarily, in the U.S.

This historic drop in deportations began in August of 2011 when the Obama Administration initiated a review of its 300,000 court case backlog. The stated goal of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) review was to better prioritize and reduce the backup of pending matters that led to lengthy delays in immigration court proceedings of noncitizens it wanted to deport. To achieve this longer term objective, ICE attorneys assisted by court clerks, law clerks and paralegals had been redirected in a dramatic effort - part of this prosecution discretion (PD) initiative - to review all 300,000 cases to prioritize which to focus upon. A consequent drop in overall case dispositions occurred while these reviews were being carried out. As a result, overall court dispositions during the first quarter of 2012 fell to 50,489 - the lowest level since 2002.

Another Obama Administration initiative has resulted in fewer deportations. On June 15, 2012, the President announced a policy to grant young undocumented noncitizens a chance to work and study in the U.S. without fear of deportation. Under the new policy, ICE would stop attempting to deport these undocumented noncitizens who are under 30 years old, came to the U.S. as children and are otherwise law abiding. It has been estimated that as many as 800,000 such undocumented residents now in the U.S. could qualify for this new status.

Need For Standardizing Immigration Court Rules

The final problem this article will explore is the need for standardized rules and procedures for the immigration courts. As of the time of writing, there are now 59 immigration courts spread across 27 states of the U.S., Puerto Rico, and in the North Mariana Islands with a total of 263 sitting immigration judges. However, there are no set or standardized rules of procedure for the immigration courts.

One scholar has commented on the 22-Point Plan for improvement of the immigration courts contending,"the projected reforms, while greatly needed, fall short because they fail to include one of the basic tenants of our American court system - rules. It's hard to play by theminvoke themor enforce them if there are not any." Some basic immigration court procedures are set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Yet, in everyday practice in different immigration courts one will find locally accepted, but unpublished, procedures that are inconsistent with respect to when exhibits must be filed, marking exhibits, and how much hearsay will be allowed at an asylum hearing. Each immigration court seems to have its own set of entrenched customary practices.

Conclusion

Our immigration courts are busy tribunals wherein appointed immigration judges must decide in many cases who should be granted asylum and who should be denied. It should be a system that strives to be fair and impartial in its decision making concerning those fleeing persecution. More often than not the immigration courts do not appear to be fair and impartial in their decisions.

In examining recent statistics on asylum, it is heartening to find that asylum case filings are down. However, grants of asylum are higher than they have been in the last twenty-five years. This is a wonderful trend. Nevertheless, over the years there have been disparities in grants of asylum among various immigration courts, as well as disparities in such decisions between judges on the same court. The Asylum Study findings that I have cited in this article serve to reinforce and give statistical support to what I and other immigration court practitioners have often believed: while an ideal court system should be fair and impartial, more often than not, a request for asylum by a noncitizen becomes a game of"Refugee Roulette" in our current immigration court system.

1 note · View note

veryruinswombat · 4 years

Text

UR RIGHTS THAT WERE ROLLED BACK BY TRUMP IN 2019

Info from: https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/

On January 3, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration is considering rolling back disparate impact regulations that provide anti-discrimination protections to people of color, women, and others.

On January 4, The Guardian reported that the Trump administration has stopped cooperating with and responding to UN investigators over potential human rights violations in the United States.

On January 29, the Department of Justice reversed its position in a Texas voting rights case, saying the state shouldn’t need to have its voting changes pre-cleared with the federal government. Career voting rights lawyers at the department declined to sign the brief.

On February 6, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – under the direction of Trump-appointed Director Kathy Kraninger– released its plan to roll back the central protections of the agency’s 2017 payday and car-title lending rule.

On February 15, Trump announced that he would declare a national emergency on the southern border – an attempt to end-run the Congress in order to build a harmful and wasteful border wall.

On February 22, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule to significantly undermine the Title X family planning program’s ability to properly serve its patients and to provide its hallmark quality care. The rule’s provisions will have far-reaching implications for all Title X-funded programs, the services provided, and the ability of patients to seek and receive high-quality, confidential family planning and preventive health care services.

On March 7, the Department of Labor issued a proposed revision to the overtime rule, which proposes to raise the salary threshold to an amount ($35,308) far lower than the Obama Labor Department’s previously finalized rule ($47,476).

On March 11, the Trump administration released its FY 2020 budget proposal, which requested $8.6 billion for a southern border wall, requested an inexplicably and irresponsibly low figure for 2020 Census operations, and proposed deeply troubling cuts to the social safety net – including cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP.

On March 25, the Trump administration said in an appeals court filing that the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.

On April 11, the Trump administration ordered all federal agencies to put important policy decisions on hold until they have been reviewed by the White House, making it take even longer for independent regulators to respond to problems like risky lending practices.

On April 12, Politico reported that the Trump administration will not nominate (or renominate) anyone to the 18-member U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

On April 17, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule (eventually published on May 10) seeking to restrict housing assistance for families with mixed-citizenship status. The agency’s own analysis showed that the proposal could lead to 55,000 children becoming temporarily homeless.

On April 19, the Department of Health and Human Services published a proposal to reverse an Obama-era rule that required the data collection of the sexual orientation and gender identity of youth in foster care, along with their foster parents, adoptive parents, or legal guardians.

On May 2, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a final rule to allow health workers to cite religious or moral objections to deny care to patients, which will substantially harm the health and well-being of many people in America – particularly women and transgender patients.

On May 6, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule targeting home care workers – who are mostly women of color – designed to stop them from paying union dues and benefits through payroll deduction.

On May 6, the Office of Management and Budget proposed regulatory changes that could result in cuts in federal aid to millions of low-income Americans by changing how inflation is used to calculate the definition of poverty.

On May 22, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed changing the Obama-era Equal Access Rule to allow homeless shelters to deny access based on a person’s gender identity.

On May 24, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposed rule to weaken the non-discrimination protections (Section 1557) of the Affordable Care Act. The rule, if implemented, would harm millions of people in America by allowing health care providers to deny care to marginalized communities and worsen already existing health disparities.

On June 6, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a final rule that delayed the compliance date for the agency’s 2017 payday and car-title lending rule.

On June 12, Trump asserted executive privilege to block congressional access to documents related to the addition of an untested citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

On June 21, it was reported that Trump had directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to conduct a mass roundup of migrant families. The following day, the president announced that the raids were delayed, but has continued to threaten them.

On July 15, the administration moved to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants – deeming anyone who passes through another country ineligible for asylum at the U.S. southern border.

On July 23, the Trump administration published a notice in the Federal Register that expands expedited removals to a wider range of undocumented immigrants. The move threatens same-day deportation for anyone who cannot immediately show they have been in the United States continuously for two years without a hearing, oversight, review, or appeal. It also threatens to trigger massive racial profiling and roundups for immigrants and citizens in the United States.

On July 23, the Trump administration proposed a rule that could cut more than 3 million people from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – or food stamps – after Congress blocked similar efforts in 2018.

On July 25, Attorney General William Barr announced that the federal government will reverse a nearly two-decade moratorium to resume the federal death penalty.

On July 31, Bloomberg Law reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to issue a proposed rule to amend the agency’s “disparate impact” regulations that provide anti-discrimination protections to people of color, women, and others. If enacted, millions of people in America would be more vulnerable to housing discrimination – with fewer tools to challenge it. The proposal was officially published in the Federal Register on August 19.

On August 7, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided seven food processing plants in Mississippi and arrested 680 undocumented immigrants – representing the largest workplace raid in more than a decade. The raids – part of this administration’s dangerous, anti-immigrant agenda – left some children parentless and locked out of their homes after school.

On August 12, the administration announced its final “public charge” rule, which makes it more difficult for immigrants who come to the United States legally to stay as permanent residents if they have used (or are viewed as likely to use) public benefits.

On August 13, Bloomberg Law reported that the Department of Justice is urging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to change its position and urge the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ workers.

On August 14, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) unveiled a proposal that would allow government contractors to fire LGBTQ employees, or workers who are pregnant and unmarried, based on the employers’ religious views.

On August 16, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination against transgender people. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously reversed an Obama-era DOJ policy which clarified that transgender workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII.

On August 16, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent letters, first reported in the Boston area, stating that the agency will no longer consider most deferrals of deportation for people with a serious medical condition – asking people in extreme medical need to leave the country within 33 days.

On August 19, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Trump administration acted lawfully when it rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in September 2017.

On August 21, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan announced that the administration was moving forward with new rules aimed at ending the decades-old Flores settlement agreement that ensures constitutional protections for children in immigrant detention facilities. Without the protections of Flores, the government can hold immigrant children indefinitely, and in prison-like conditions, with no hope for a timely release and no mandate for appropriate care of traumatized children.

On August 23, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

On August 23, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Attorney General Barr promoted six judges to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which sets binding policy for deportation cases. All six of the judges have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims, and four of them fill seats that the Trump administration created in 2018.

On August 28, the Trump administration announced that some children born to U.S. military members and government employees working overseas wouldn’t automatically be considered U.S. citizens.

On September 3, the Trump administration announced that it would divert $3.6 billion of funding for military construction projects to fund the president’s harmful and wasteful wall along the southern border.

On September 11, multiple reports confirmed that the Trump administration would not grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Bahamians impacted by Hurricane Dorian. The denial of protected status follows the Trump administration’s termination of the TPS designation for several other countries.

On September 23, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan announced that the administration would soon end a federal immigration policy (commonly referred to as “catch and release”) that allows migrant families seeking asylum in the United States to remain in this country while their asylum applications are pending.

On September 24, the Department of Labor released its final overtime rule, which raises the salary threshold to an amount far lower than the Obama Labor Department’s previously finalized rule.

On September 27, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a statement of interest in defense of a Roman Catholic archbishop’s decision that led to the firing of a gay, married teacher – yet another move by the Trump administration to use religion as a shield against core anti-discrimination principles that protect LGBTQ people.

On October 1, the Department of Agriculture unveiled a new proposal to take away some state flexibility in setting benefit levels under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – the administration’s third attempt in the past year to kick people off food stamps.

On October 4, Trump signed a proclamation to deny visas to legal immigrants who are unable to prove they will have health care coverage or the ability to pay for it within 30 days of their arrival to the United States.

On October 7, the Department of Labor released a proposed tip rule that would eliminate the “80/20 rule,” which says that when a tipped worker is assigned non-tip-generating ‘side work’ that takes up more than 20 percent of their time, the employer can’t take the tip credit and must instead pay the worker the full minimum wage.

On October 22, a Department of Justice proposal published in the Federal Register proposed to begin collecting DNA samples from immigrants crossing the border, creating an enormous database of asylum-seekers and other migrants.

On October 25, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a new policy to narrow who can qualify for waivers of fees associated with applications for green cards, U.S. citizenship, work permits, and other benefits.

On October 25, Attorney General William Barr issued two decisions, made through his certification power, that will limit immigrants’ options to fight deportation.

On November 1, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule to undo requirements that its grantees ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are not used to fund discrimination.

On November 18, the Social Security Administration published in the Federal Register a proposal to slash Social Security disability benefits – which could cut benefits for up to 2.6 million people with disabilities.

On December 11, memos obtained by NPR revealed that Secretary Betsy DeVos overruled career staff in the Department of Education’s Borrower Defense Unit, who recommended to the department’s political leadership that defrauded student borrowers deserve no less than full relief from their student debts.

On December 12, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing South Carolina to require most Medicaid recipients to work.

9 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 6 years

Text

Judge halts mother-daughter deportation, threatens to hold Sessions in contempt

By Arelis R. Hernández, Washington Post, August 9, 2018

A federal judge in Washington halted a deportation in progress Thursday and threatened to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt after learning that the Trump administration started to remove a woman and her daughter while a court hearing appealing their deportations was underway.

“This is pretty outrageous,” U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said after being told about the removal. “That someone seeking justice in U.S. court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her?”

“I’m not happy about this at all,” the judge continued. “This is not acceptable.”

The woman, known in court papers as Carmen, is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union. It challenges a recent policy change by the Justice Department that aims to expedite the removal of asylum seekers who fail to prove their cases and excludes domestic and gang violence as justifications for granting asylum in the United States.

Attorneys for the civil rights organization and the Justice Department had agreed to delay removal proceedings for Carmen and her child until 11:59 p.m. Thursday so they could argue the matter in court.

But lead ACLU attorney Jennifer Chang Newell, who was participating in the court hearing via phone from her office in California, received an email during the hearing that said the mother and daughter were being deported.

During a brief recess, she told her colleagues the pair had been taken from a family detention center in Dilley, Tex., to the airport in San Antonio for a morning flight.

After being informed of the situation, Sullivan granted the ACLU’s request to delay deportations for Carmen and the other plaintiffs until the lawsuit is decided, and ordered the government to “turn the plane around.”

A spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, which implements deportations, did not respond to questions about why Carmen and her daughter were removed from the country.

“In compliance with the court’s order, upon arrival in El Salvador, the plaintiffs did not disembark and were promptly returned to the United States,” a U.S. Department of Homeland Security official said Thursday evening.

Eunice Lee, who is co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case and co-legal director at the University of California at Hastings’s Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, said: “It must have been absolutely terrifying for them to think they would be returning to a country where they raised very credible claims of persecution and death. It’s outrageous to me that while we were working around the clock, filing briefings for this case’s early morning hearing, that people in the government were actively arranging for Carmen’s deportation.”

The Justice Department declined a request for comment.

To qualify for asylum, migrants must show that they have a fear of persecution in their native country based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a “particular social group,” a category that in the past has included victims of domestic violence and other abuse.

Carmen fled El Salvador with her daughter in June, according to court records, fearing they would be killed by gang members who had demanded she pay them each month or suffer consequences. Several co-workers at the factory where Carmen worked had been murdered, and her husband is also abusive, the records state.

Under the fast-track removal system, created in 1996, asylum seekers are interviewed to determine whether they have a “credible fear” of returning home. Those who pass get a full hearing in immigration court.

In June, Sessions vacated a 2016 Board of Immigration Appeals court case that granted asylum to an abused woman from El Salvador. As part of that decision, Sessions said gang and domestic violence in most cases would no longer be grounds for receiving asylum.

The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of 12 migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala--three of them children--all of whom failed their initial “credible fear” interviews.

Asylum seekers previously had to show that the government in their native country was “unable or unwilling” to protect them. But now they have to show that the government “condones” the violence or “is completely helpless” to protect them, the lawsuit says.

#US asylum seekers #Immigrant deportations

3 notes · View notes