Copy

MIGRANT CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS



Providing Free and Low-Cost Legal Services to
Detained Asylum Seekers in Texas
 
Learn About Our Work

AUGUST

NEWSLETTER
 
In This Issue:

IMMIGRANT VOICE

Prolonged Detention Causes Extreme Emotional Distress

- By Sara Ramey, Esq. on behalf of Mouha (name changed to protect confidentiality)

Note: This is the first time in three years that the Migrant Center has not been able to bring you our monthly Immigrant Voice story directly in the words of the person affected.  Each month the Migrant Center invites an immigrant who is experiencing difficulties or successes in our immigration system to tell their story in their own words directly to you.

The Migrant Center reached out to Mouha to see if he would like to let you, the public, know about the difficulties he is facing due to his prolonged detention as, in prior discussions with him, we determined that it would be valuable for the public to know what he is going through. We still believe this is true and so are sharing his story here, albeit in a different format.

Mouha has been unable to advise us of whether he would like to collaborate with us in this month's newsletter due to the extreme emotional distress he is experiencing in detention. We have had several calls with him and he is so anxious, stressed, and distraught that he cannot focus on our conversation and process and respond to our questions. Instead he repeats that he just wants to get out, even if that means he is deported, and that he feels like he is dying in detention.

Mouha came to the U.S. from Niger in the summer of 2017 and was refused release from detention because he was scheduled for court without going through an asylum screening interview. The government cancelled his interview because they could not find an interpreter. While it is normally a good thing to skip the screening interview as the write-up of these interviews can later complicate someone's case, ICE has a parole memo (Memorandum on Parole of Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture) that establishes a policy of releasing immigrants who pass a credible fear interview. Mr. Mouha therefore did not fall squarely under this policy. However, there is nothing in this memo or anywhere else that limits ICE's discretion to release people who do not go through the credible fear interview process and they regularly do so for individuals who are not in expedited or reinstatement of removal. There is no appeal process.

Despite having a strong case Mouha received a final order of removal in July 2018. Nevertheless, two years later he remains detained. The Migrant Center has found a habeas corpus attorney for him. We are waiting to hear if federal litigation will push ICE into doing the right thing and deport or release him without further delay. The Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis said that it is presumptively unreasonable to detain someone after six months of attempting to deport them without success, triggering constitutional violations around the unjustified and illegal deprivation of liberty and due process. It is also well established in international law that prolonged detention can become arbitrary and unlawful in these circumstances, and a violation of an individual's fundamental human rights.

We have offered Mouha the opportunity to speak with a volunteer psychologist who could prepare a letter to support his habeas corpus petition / release on an Order of Supervision, as well as connections to our pen pal and visitation community of volunteers. During our calls, Mouha has been too upset to advise us whether he would like to take advantage of these opportunities. It is important to understand that our team has extensive experience working with people experiencing trauma and we usually have the necessary skills to move forward despite the hardships that the individual is experiencing. This is to say that the level of harm Mouha is living through after three years in ICE custody is extreme.

ICE is aware of the situation as Mouha has repeatedly gone on hunger strike, feeling like he might as well kill himself because that is basically what ICE is doing by not letting him be free. He would rather go home to a situation of danger than languish in jail forever.

Mouha has never had the right to a bond hearing because he did the so-called correct thing and presented himself at a bridge Port of Entry to seek protection. So he remains subject to the whims of ICE with no ability to have this decision reviewed by a neutral judicial body short of the federal habeas corpus process which often takes many months and for which he was only eligible after spending 1 1/2 years in detention.

The Migrant Center continues to offer Mouha a friendly ear, what support we can, and the knowledge that some people in the U.S. do care about him. Unfortunately, until we have more transparency, accountability, and justice in our immigration system our country will continue being complicit in human rights violations with immigrants and their advocates having little power to force the government to do the right thing.

Thank you for listening. These crimes cannot continue in darkness and silence or we will continue to foster a climate of impunity that will permit the continuation of these illegal acts. We hope that by shining light on what is happening in ICE detention, our leaders will understand that something must be done and take action. Nothing less than the moral fabric of our country is at stake.

Join the Migrant Center's petition for Congress to give all asylum seekers the right to a bond hearing. Real change happens when everyday people like you and me come together and stand up for what we believe in. Together we can raise this important issue to those in power and make it part of the national dialog.
.

POLICY ANALYSIS

Why Trump's Moves to Eliminate Asylum for All Refugees Traveling through Countries with Infectious Diseases is Unnecessary and Illegal

On July 9 DHS and DOJ issued a Proposed Rule to unnecessarily and illegally eliminate protection in the U.S. for all refugees who have traveled through a country that has a contagious disease of national significance. This Proposed Rule runs contrary not only to our fundamental American value of providing a safe haven to refugees fleeing persecution, and our laws that codify our values, but the Proposed Rule provides little benefit to the American people as there are reasonable, cost-effective safe testing and quarantine measures that can protect us from contagious diseases without taking away safety from those desperately in need.
In response to this unlawful proposal, the Migrant Center submitted a Public Comment to the Administration explaining the reasons why this proposal should be immediately withdrawn and why it is necessary to consider reasonable alternatives. Read our Press Release and Public Comment to learn more.
 

OUR UPDATES

Our COVID Work Continues

Our Executive Director spoke on a legal panel about filing medical release requests. Read our COVID Update from July for information about how we’re seeing COVID affect the immigrants we work with in detention, to learn more about how the Migrant Center is responding, and for an overview of COVID immigration news.

We Stand with the Community in Calling for Protecting Immigrants from COVID

On July 16 the Migrant Center joined organizations around the country in a letter to DHS calling for the immediate release of children from detention with their parents. The Administration had been forcing parents to waive their children's rights to be with them by offering parents the binary choice of having their children either leave detention without them or stay together locked up. 

On July 21 the Migrant Center joined in writing a 
letter to Congress calling for immigrants to be included in any COVID protection legislation, including that uninsured immigrants with low incomes have access to COVID testing, treatment, and vaccines. Immigrant families, workers, taxpayers, and their U.S. children and spouses, have been excluded from the CARES Act and other COVID recovery packages. We cannot protect the nation from COVID and its economic impacts if we deny health care and financial relief to a large segment of our communities.
Donate

Every dollar you donate goes towards supporting the human rights of detained migrants. We couldn't do this important work without you.
Thank you for your support.
 

IMPORTANT NEWS

Trump Administration Begins Work on Virtual Border Wall

July 2 – The Administration recently hired a California tech start-up, Anduril Industries, to pair the physical wall with a “virtual wall” using artificial intelligence. The tech company has signed a five-year agreement with CBP and plans to use solar-powered mobile surveillance towers which employ both cameras and thermal imaging to detect people and vehicles moving through rugged territory from miles away, sending the information directly to CBP agents. This development raises questions such as if a physical border wall, which has so far cost over $11 billion under the Trump Administration, is still necessary, and what types of effects this virtual border wall will have on migrants and the risks they might take in order to avoid detection.

District Court Rules ICE Fails to Consider Least Restrictive Setting for Those Turning 18

July 2 – Judge Contreras ruled that ICE has been systemically failing to follow the law by transferring thousands of teenagers to ICE facilities without considering the “least restrictive setting” at the time they “age out” of shelters for children, which are run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. In March 2018 when the case was filed, 75% of so-called “age-outs” were being sent to ICE detention. The judge found that when field offices put effort into finding housing for these teens almost all of them could be released to sponsors and that failing to put in that minimal effort constituted a failure to consider the least restrictive setting. The judge criticized ICE’s lack of oversight and appropriate legal training, which led to highly localized practices and varying results, as well as ICE’s use of misleading technology that never recommends release and doctoring documentation purportedly used to show compliance with the statute. The case is Garcia Ramirez, et. al. v. ICE.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down “Third Country Transit Rule”

July 6 – A federal appeals court struck down the Administration’s “Third Country Transit Rule” which barred immigrants who had traveled through a third country before reaching the U.S. from qualifying for asylum with limited exceptions INA 208 (b)(2)(C) and (d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158 (b)(2)(C) and (d)(5)(B). The court concluded that this rule did “virtually nothing” to make sure that another country was “a safe option” for those fleeing persecution. Read here for how this ban has affected detained asylum seekers and read our Practice Advisory for more.

DHS Waives Laws to Build Border Roads

July 7 – DHS issued notice that it is necessary to waive certain legal requirements – including environmental and historical preservation laws – in order to construct roads near the border in Starr County, Texas for “operational control” of the border. DHS reported 339,000 border crossings in this area in FY 2019, and 1000 drug incidents (or 1 / 339). The total number of border apprehensions / inadmissibles nationally was over 1.1 million (see the total criminal statistics).

Eight Circuit Rules It Cannot Review Mixed Questions of Law & Fact When Criminal Bar to Asylum Applies

July 7 – The Eight Circuit ruled, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, that it remained barred from reviewing the factual elements of petitions presenting mixed questions of law and fact when the criminal alien bar applies. The case is Sharif v. Barr.

ICE Offers “Citizens Academy” to Teach Citizens How To Arrest Immigrants

July 9 – In a recently published letter from ICE Chicago Field Office Director Guadian, ICE extends an offer of a six-day training course over six weeks starting in September to “shareholders” such as community groups, state/local elected leaders, Congressional staff, consular officials and business and religious leaders. The program is described as “a pilot for nationwide implementation,” and promises to train participants in the responsibilities of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, including scenario-based “defensive tactics, firearms familiarization and targeted arrests.” This program has been met with outrage, that it will result in racial profiling and serious harm for immigrants in the local community.

Ninth Circuit Affirms DOJ Cannot Deny Funds to Communities that Do Not Participate in Immigration Enforcement but Limits Nationwide Injunction to California

July 13 – The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s permanent injunction barring DOJ from withholding or denying Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants to the plaintiffs for alleged noncompliance with 8 USC §1373, stating that no one can restrict the federal government’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement activities but that DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the condition that communities assist in these enforcement activities. However, the court found that the district court had abused its discretion by issuing a nationwide injunction without determining whether the plaintiffs needed a nationwide injunction to fully recover, and thus limited the injunction to California. The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Barr, et al. See also, City of Los Angeles v. Barr, et al.

Attorney General Clarifies that Torture by Corrupt, Low-Ranking Officials Counts if They Use Their Government Authority to Carry Out the Torture Even if Done for Personal Reasons

July 14 – The Attorney General vacated the BIA’s decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-, ruling that a “public official or other person” who commits torture is “acting in an official capacity” under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, if the actions are performed “under color of law.” Matter of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002). A public official, regardless of rank, acts “under color of law” when he “exercise[s] power ‘possessed by virtue of . . . law and made possible only because [he was] clothed with the authority of . . . law.’” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 47 (1988). In other words “an act is under color of law when it constitutes a misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885, 891 (5th Cir. 2014). In Matter of Y-L- Attorney General Ashcroft had said that the acts of “corrupt, low-level agents” who “seek to exact personal vengeance . . . for personal reasons” do not constitute “torture”. This “rogue agent” rule is now overturned, as “[a]n act that is motivated by personal objectives is [still] under color of law when an official uses his official authority to fulfill his personal objectives” and the extrajudicial action by low-level officials cannot be excluded from the “official capacity” test simply because there is not evidence of high-ranking official consent. Matter of O-F-A-S-. The Attorney General, a political appointee, has authority to refer cases to himself under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i).

Elizabeth Detention Center Property Owner to Cut Ties with For-Profit Detention Company

July 16 – After months of protests, the Elberon Development Group, which owns the property on which the Elizabeth Detention Center sits, has announced that it will cut ties with CoreCivic. The Elizabeth Detention Center (EDC) has been known for its inhumane treatment of immigrants, and has long been denounced by advocates demanding the release of those detained there, as well as the creation of a reparations fund for all who have been impacted by facility mistreatment. 

Court of Appeals Issues Mixed Ruling on Asylum Standards

July 17 – The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the District Court’s permanent injunction against the enforcement of two of the government’s new credible fear policies, finding that the “condoned-or-completely-helpless” standard for non-state persecution claims was arbitrary and capricious, and that USCIS’s choice-of-law policy for credible fear interviews – that allowed DHS to initiate removal proceedings in any location even if the asylum seeker is not physically located there – was also arbitrary and capricious. However, the court vacated the District Court’s decision with respect to the circularity rule as described in Matter of A-B-, as well as with respect to the attorney general’s and USCIS’s statements regarding domestic- and gang-violence claims. The case is Grace, et al. v. Barr, et al.

District Court Rules DACA Rescission is Arbitrary and Capricious

July 17 –District Court Judge Grimm ordered that the Administration’s DACA rescission and related actions are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), and that the policy must be restored to its pre-September 5, 2017 status, voiding the information-sharing polices announced on September 5, 2017. The case is Casa de Maryland, et al., v. DHS, et.al.

Trump Issues Memo that Undocumented Immigrants Not be Counted in Census in Deciding Number of Representatives

July 21 – Trump issued a memo to the Secretary of Commerce stating that for purposes of the reapportionment of representatives following the 2020 census, any undocumented immigrants must not be counted. The Constitution – which empowers Congress with final authority over the census – requires a once-a-decade count of the "whole number of persons in each state" and that “[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.” Between January 3 and January 10 following a census year, the president is required to submit the census number to Congress after which Congress uses the number to reapportion seats between states for the House of Representatives. Trump claims he has the discretion to determine that the word “persons” does not include undocumented immigrants, comparing them to tourists, who aren’t counted, although international students are counted. However, the average undocumented immigrant has been in the United States for over 15 years. The 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law. Trump claims states that allegedly encourage immigration by passing sanctuary legislation “should not be rewarded with greater representation.” In 1982, in Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court made clear that the protections of the 14th Amendment also apply to undocumented immigrants. In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration cannot add a citizenship question to the census.

The Pew Research Center estimates that if undocumented immigrants are left out of the apportionment count, California, Florida and Texas are each likely to end up with one less House seat, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio are each likely to hold onto a seat they would have otherwise lost. Three lawsuits have been filed, including a complaint by a coalition of 20 states, plus some cities and other localities, claiming Constitutional violations and violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); a complaint by immigrant rights groups claiming an APA violation for ordering the Census Bureau to produce population data in a way that has not gone through the proper rulemaking process, and another complaint. There is also an ongoing legal challenge on this issue filed by Alabama in 2018 in order to not lose a house seat arguing against the Census Bureau's long-standing policy since 1790 of including unauthorized immigrants in the apportionment count. 

Canadian Court Rules U.S. No Longer Safe Third Country

July 22 –The Canadian Federal Court ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement, implemented in 2004 with the goal of “burden sharing”, which allows Canada to send asylum seekers without family ties in Canada back to the United States for case processing, is unconstitutional because the U.S. is no longer a safe country due to the risk of arbitrary detention and horrible conditions in violation of international standards and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The lawsuit argued the U.S. had ceased to provide meaningful protections, pointing to the turn back policy, the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers, and the one-year filing deadline. The court is holding its judgement in abeyance for six months to give Parliament time to respond.

USCIS Delays Furloughing Employees

July 24 – USCIS has agreed to postpone the furloughs of more than 13,000 USCIS employees from August 3 until August 31. Over 300,000 people currently have affirmative asylum applications pending with USCIS. Contact your member of Congress to ensure that any additional funding is conditioned on transparency, accountability, and efficiency.

Judge Gee Says Her Order to Release Children is Unenforceable

July 25 - Federal judge Gee ruled that her previous order to release the 100 migrant children from custody by Monday is now "unenforceable" as the children's parents had not agreed to release them, ICE had not agreed to release parents with their children, and another federal court with jurisdiction over the parents had declined to order the release of the parents. Gee underscored that ICE still has a duty to release children in a timely manner. There are 25 confirmed cases of COVID in Karnes and one in Dilley, two of the three family detention centers.

DHS Says It Won’t Accept Initial DACA Applications or Grant Advance Parole

July 28 – DHS Acting Secretary Wolf issued a memo, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding DACA, rescinding the 2017 and 2018 memoranda that cancelled DACA but that “pending full reconsideration of the DACA policy” rejects all pending and future initial requests for DACA, rejects all pending and future applications for advance parole – which can provide a pathway to legal residency – absent exceptional circumstances, and shortens the period of renewed deferred action to one year from two years (requiring applicants to pay the $495 fee twice as frequently and doubling USCIS’ case load).First-time DACA applications stopped being accepted on August 23, 2018 after a lower court ruling but, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, USCIS had resumed accepting first-time applications, including for youth who had reached the application age requirement of 15. There are an estimate 66,000 eligible first-time DACA Dreamers. There are approximately 640,000 DACA recipients total in the U.S.

District Court Enjoins Application fo Expansion of Public Charge Definition

July 29 – Judge Daniels granted the State of New York’s request to temporarily halt nationwide during the duration of the declared national emergency due to COVID-19 the Administration’s public charge rule that would bar green cards for anyone deemed likely to use evensmalls amount of supplemental benefits, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or food stamps for themselves or their U.S. citizen children. Judge Daniels ruled that the situation had changed enough since his original October 2019 order blocking the rule that was stayed by the Supreme Court in January to justify a new injunction as “ample evidence” from doctors and state and local officials suggested that the rule was discouraging people from seeking treatment and testing for COVID-19. When COVID-19 hit the U.S. plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to lift its stay but the Supreme Court declined saying that the lower court could issue a new injunction tailored to the pandemic. Judge Daniels wrote that “[n]o person should hesitate to seek medical care, nor should they endure punishment or penalty if they seek temporary financial aid as a result of the pandemic’s impact.” The litigation challenges the rule as being arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the statute, and contrary to congressional intent. More than 210,000 people submitted public comments, with the vast majority opposing it. Five similar cases were brought in the District of Maryland, the Northern District of Illinois, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of Washington.
 
Judge Daniels also granted a separate injunction blocking the Department of State’s version of the public charge rule and related changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual. He also blocked the Administration’s Health Care Proclamation requiring visa applicants to show proof of private health insurance. 

Administration’s Attempt to Cancel Immigration Judges’ Union Fails

July 31 – The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) issued a decision rejecting the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) petition to decertify the NAIJ, ruling that Immigration Judges “are not management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.” The FLRA had made a similar ruling in 2000. 
Donate

We work to ensure that all immigrants facing removal from the U.S. understand their rights under the law, have access to counsel, and are treated fairly and humanely.

Stay up to date on the latest news by liking our
Facebook Page or visiting us at https://migrantcenter.org

https://www.facebook.com/migrantctr/
Website
P.O. BOX 90382 San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: 210-802-6061
Copyright © 2019 Migrant Center For Human Rights. All Rights Reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.