What to Do If You Are Stopped by ICE

by Jason Dzubow

In order to “amplify” the President’s tough-on-immigrants campaign message and win votes, the Trump Administration is planning on conducting a series of ICE raids in “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as California, Denver, and Philadelphia. What should you do if ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) comes looking for you? Or if you get caught up in a raid?

Before we answer those questions, I want to note that people who have pending asylum cases, or who have cases in Immigration Court, are rarely targeted for arrest by ICE. The agency’s main targets are people who already have removal orders and people who have criminal issues (including very minor criminal issues). However, ICE also makes “collateral” arrests if they encounter other “illegals” in the course of pursuing their target. But unless you have already been ordered removed or you have criminal issues, it is unlikely that you will ever have to deal with ICE. That said, it never hurts to take precautions and to be prepared. So how do you do that?

In the old days, politicians would win votes by kissing babies. 

First, a couple general rules to keep in mind. If you are stopped by ICE or the police, do not run away or resist. Keep your hands where the officers can see them. Be aware that in some states, you are required to give your name to law enforcement. Do not lie about your immigration status or present false documents. Trying to lie your way out of a situation rarely works, and is more likely to cause additional problems. The better approach is to inform the officers that you wish to remain silent and that you wish to contact a lawyer and/or your family. As you probably know, in the U.S., you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say to ICE or the police can be used against you in court. So the less you say, the better.

If the officers want to search you, you have a right to say no. However, if the officers have probable cause (for example, they suspect that you committed a crime and are carrying a weapon), they can search you. If ICE or the police want to search you, you can repeat that you do not consent to the search, but do not resist.

Non-citizen in the U.S. are required to carry proof of immigration status at all times (Green Card, work permit, asylum receipt, passport and visa, etc.). If an ICE officer asks for your immigration papers, you are required to produce your documents. If you do not have your papers with you, you can inform the officer that you wish to remain silent or that you wish to call an attorney. You also have a right to call your country’s consulate in the U.S. (though for asylum seekers who fear harm from the home government, this may not be a great idea). You might also scan your immigration papers or take pictures of them, and keep them on your phone or in your email. That way, even if you do not have the originals, you can at least produce copies. In addition, non-citizens in the U.S. illegally (and who do not have an application pending) can be subject to expedited removal if they have been in the U.S. for less than two years. So make sure to carry proof (or have it on your phone or in your email) that you have been in the country for more than two years. If you have been in the U.S. for less than two years, do not admit that. Stay silent and ask to speak to a lawyer.

One common way people get detained is during a traffic stop. If you are stopped for a traffic violation, the police officer can require you to produce your driver’s license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. Once the police have your information, they often check for outstanding arrest warrants. In some jurisdictions, they also check for immigration warrants and can detain people with outstanding criminal or immigration issues.  

Today, politicians win votes by putting babies in jail.

It is less common for ICE to come to your home, but if that happens, you do not have to let them into your house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. You can ask to see the officers’ ID and any warrant. Also, be aware that sometimes ICE officers will try to trick you into leaving your house or allowing them to enter. If ICE officers or the police force their way into your house, do not resist. Tell them that you do not consent to them entering your home, and that you wish to remain silent and contact a lawyer.  

While it is probably unlikely that you will ever be detained by ICE, it is a good idea to have a plan in place just in case. What will you do about your children or other people that you take care of? Who will assist them? If you take medicine, make sure that someone can get it for you (including a copy of the prescription). What about bank accounts, vehicles, and property? You need to have someone to take care of your affairs in the event that you are detained, and that person needs to know what to do in case of an emergency.

In addition, keep your immigration and other legal papers somewhere where your family or friends can access them. Also, make sure your family members know or can find your Alien number. If you have a lawyer, your family members should have that lawyer’s contact information.

You can find more information (in many different languages) about encounters with ICE and the police at the ACLU “Know Your Rights” webpage.

Finally, if you are detained, you may be eligible for release on your own recognizance (meaning you are released and required to report back to ICE or an Immigration Court at some point in the future) or on a bond (meaning you pay money as a “guarantee” that you will appear for any future court date or for removal from the country). If ICE refuses to release you or set a bond, you can ask an Immigration Judge to do that. Depending on the circumstances, judges sometimes do not have the authority to release you. But in my experience, asylum seekers are almost always released unless they have criminal issues.

In short, while it is not impossible that a person with a pending asylum case will be detained by ICE, it is rare. Nevertheless, it’s a wise idea to have a plan in place and to be aware of your rights. That way, you will be ready for any eventuality.  

Continue reading

109 Comments

A Doctor’s Mission – and How You Can Help

by Jason Dzubow

Kate Sugarman is a family physician in Washington, DC. Here, she writes about her experience assisting detained asylum seekers who have health problems, and she invites you to join her and Doctors for Camp Closure for a lobby day and march on October 18 and 19, 2019.

In about 2005, I learned that if I can properly document scars of torture for someone who is seeking asylum, it greatly increases the odds of their being granted protection. So began my passion for human rights medicine and working to bring justice to immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. I have interviewed, examined, and written up forensic evaluations for well over 600 immigrants seeking asylum. All of these people have either been granted asylum or their cases are still pending.

Over the past several years, I have also been asked to go into ICE detention centers to document scars of torture for immigrants seeking asylum. Most of these people were detained upon entering the U.S. They have not committed any crimes, and are being held only because they have requested asylum in the United States.

Dr. Sugarman’s prescription for good health: Eat right, exercise, and stay away from ICE.

During the summer of 2018, like many other Americans, I became upset over family separations happening to those arriving at the ports of entry along the Southern border. I reached out to human rights doctors and lawyers and I became aware that many immigrants being detained in ICE facilities were being denied necessary medical care. I started building a medical-legal partnership, in which lawyers who were working with individuals being denied medical care while being held in detention could contact our group of doctors for an assessment of their client’s medical risk as a result of having appropriate care withheld. We then wrote medical letters to ICE to describe our findings, as a means of advocating for detainees to receive the care they needed and deserved. Some of our letters included medical assessments, such as “Denying HIV infected people their HIV pills would result in their getting sick and dying from a treatable illness,” “Denying surgery for a growing and painful inguinal hernia puts a patient in terrible pain and in grave danger,” and “Not treating a patient with a deep osteomyelitis that is now oozing large amounts of pus and giving her a fever will cause her to die from a treatable condition.”

Until a few months ago, more than half of these letters resulted in the person getting released. That is no longer the case, as ICE is now refusing to release asylum seekers, even if they are severely ill. As a result, I am shifting my energies, though I continue to work on behalf of detained immigrants who are being denied health care.

One case I worked on recently was for a man named Yoel, who is seeking asylum from Cuba and whose case was profiled on NPR. His lawyers contacted me because they were hoping I could get him released based on his untreated medical condition. He had been detained in Louisiana. He has a lung mass, which is quite suspicious for lung cancer. Instead of giving him a lung biopsy, which is the standard approach in this situation, ICE kept moving him back and forth from Louisiana to Mississippi. Despite a nationwide outcry from many doctors and members of Congress, he was deported, even though his wife is a U.S. resident living in Florida. Two days later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people arriving at the Southern border to request asylum have to wait in extremely dangerous conditions in Mexico without being allowed to enter the United States.

A few days later, I testified on behalf of a woman seeking asylum. Since she is not being provided appropriate medical care, her neurological degenerative disease is getting worse. The judge spent most of his time grilling me over details that had no relevance at all to what I was trying to tell him. In that case, we are still waiting for a decision and the asylum seeker is still behind bars.

Which leads me to why I joined D4CC – Doctors for Camp Closure. There is no healthy amount of time for any man, woman or child to be behind bars, denied the basics of human health and dignity. Seeking safety and asylum in the United States should not result in inhumane, dangerous incarceration. We have already seen the results with multiple adults and children dying in ICE custody.

Please join us Friday October 18, 2019 as we lobby Congress for the health and safety of immigrants. Our March for Migrants in Washington, DC on Saturday October 19 is open to everyone who shares our concerns. Spread the word and let’s work together to put an end to mass incarceration of people who deserve care, not condemnation.

You can find more information about D4CC and the upcoming events here:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/915776502154354/
Twitter https://twitter.com/Doc4CampClosure
Instagram: @Doctorsforcampclosure
Website: https://d4cc.squarespace.com

Continue reading

115 Comments

Asylum and the New Rule on Expedited Removal

by Jason Dzubow

The Trump Administration has implemented a new rule to reduce due process protections and make it easier to deport certain aliens who are in the United States unlawfully. Given its questionable legality, clumsy roll-out, and lack of notice, we can expect the new rule–which expands the use of “expedited removal”–to be challenged in court, and so whether it will remain in effect and how it will ultimately be implemented, we do not yet know.

While I don’t share the apocalyptic view of some of my colleagues, I do think there is a real danger that the rule gives too much authority to under-trained immigration agents, and that it will result in some non-citizens (and potentially some citizens) being improperly detained and deported in violation of the law. I also think it will further exacerbate the Asylum Office backlog. Worst of all, I expect the new rule will disproportionately impact and terrorize minority communities.

On the bright side, non-citizens will get some exercise carting around their papers.

Here, we will take a look at the new rule and what it might mean for asylum seekers and others. But first, we have to talk about “expedited removal.” The American Immigration Council describes expedited removal as follows–

Created in 1996, expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can quickly deport certain non-citizens who are undocumented or have committed fraud or misrepresentation. Since 2004, immigration officials have used expedited removal to deport individuals who arrive at our border, as well as individuals who entered without authorization if they are apprehended within two weeks of arrival and within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border.

Basically, a non-citizen who recently entered the U.S. either without inspection or through fraud, and who is encountered near the border, had less due process protections than someone who has been here for a longer time, who entered lawfully or who is in the interior of the country. People subject to expedited removal do not get to see an Immigration Judge–they are detained and deported quickly (though there are exceptions, discussed below). The new rule expands the use of expedited removal geographically and temporally–

As of July 23, 2019, expedited removal may be applied to individuals who are undocumented, or who have committed fraud or misrepresentation, and who are encountered within the entire United States and who have not been physically present in the United States for two years prior to apprehension

What does this mean in practical terms? If you entered the U.S. lawfully with a visa, and did not commit fraud, expedited removal does not apply to you. Even if you entered unlawfully or without inspection, expedited removal does not apply to you if you have been in the United States for more than two years. These criteria beg the obvious question: How does an immigration agent know whether you entered fraudulently or whether you have been here for less than two years? As I read the rule, it seems that the burden of proof is on the alien. So if you entered legally, keep a copy of your passport, visa, and I-94 with you. If you entered unlawfully more than two years ago, carry evidence showing your length of residency–tax and employment documents, school records, lease agreement, bills, etc. This type of evidence will not protect you from being detained if you are out of status, but it should at least allow you an opportunity to present your case to an Immigration Judge, rather than facing summary removal (for information about what to do if you encounter an ICE agent, click here).

Let’s say you are subject to expedited removal and ICE stops you. Then what? If you have a fear of returning to your country, you can express that fear to the immigration agents and you should be afforded a credible fear interview (“CFI”). The CFI is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum; it is conducted by an Asylum Officer. If you “pass” the CFI, your case will be referred to Immigration Court where you can present your full asylum case to a Judge. If you “fail” the CFI, you can request an Immigration Judge to review that decision and potentially reverse the negative determination by the Asylum Officer (unfortunately, the likelihood of success for such cases varies significantly depending on the particular Court that hears your case).

If everything were to work according to the law, the new rule should not be too bad: People with a fear of return can still seek asylum and those here unlawfully would be quickly removed (such people generally do not have any defense to being deported). The problem–which is completely predictable since we have seen it before–is that things often do not work according to the law. ICE agents frequently lie to prevent non-citizens from exercising their legal rights. They also make mistakes, which result in people being denied their rights. Further, ICE often engages in racial profiling, and so we know which communities will bear the brunt of the new rule.

In addition, there is the problem of politicization of our nation’s immigration enforcement. Every time the President puts out a tough tweet about “illegals,” ICE has to scramble to make it come true (or not). The result, of course, is distress and terror in immigrant communities. The new rule seems tailor-made to increase such fears.

Finally, with this new rule, there is the problem of execution. I’ve described the Trump Administration’s approach to immigration as malevolence tempered by incompetence, and this new rule is no different. According to the Migration Policy Institute, there are nearly 300,000 immigrants in the United States who could be subject to expedited removal. When ICE starts detaining these people, we can expect many to ask for a CFI (which is usually their only option). Since CFIs are conducted by Asylum Officers, the new rule will shift resources away from “regular” affirmative asylum cases and will likely exacerbate the backlog (ironically, the whole point of the LIFO system was to deter frivolous cases by making the process faster–the new rule will have the exact opposite effect). Further, people whose CFIs are denied can ask an Immigration Judge to review that decision, thus taking additional resources from the Courts and causing more “aimless docket reshuffling.”

The new expedited removal rule seems to me predicated on two myths: First, that there is a pressing danger from non-citizens living in our country. Empirical data does not support this conclusion; rather, it is based on racist and xenophobic stereotypes perpetrated by the current Administration. Second is the myth that our country would be safer if we traded some of our liberty for more security. And make no mistake, when under-trained immigration officials are given near carte blanche to investigate anyone deemed “foreign,” we are–all of us–giving up some of our liberty. As my favorite Founding Father, Ben Franklin, once wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The new rule reduces our liberty, does nothing to enhance our safety, and sows more fear among our immigrant neighbors. It is another sad step towards the degradation of our great country.

Continue reading

137 Comments

When the Counter-Terrorism Unit Comes Calling

by Jason Dzubow

My colleague Ruth Dickey recently accompanied one of our clients to an interview with the ICE Counter-Terrorism Unit, after the client was ordered to report for questioning. She writes about her experience here:

ICE has been in the news lately for its role in apprehending migrants, detaining parents, and increasing deportations. For the public, the agency has become synonymous with the current administration’s aggressive approach to enforcement. Rightly or wrongly, ICE agents are portrayed as a boogeymen, and the #AbolishICE hashtag continues to trend ever upwards.

Ruth Dickey, immigration attorney extraordinaire.

What many people do not know is that ICE has two divisions that work with the public: Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”), which is responsible for most of those gut-wrenching daily headlines, and Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”). HSI is usually seen as a “good guy” agency. Agents track down terrorists and pedophiles, counter human trafficking, and help interdict illegal drugs. They do important work that protects us from transnational criminal organizations and other bad actors. When ICE issues a press release about a success story, it’s usually for something that HSI has done. The fact is, HSI’s work is generally more brag-worthy than anything ERO is doing.

HSI, it turns out, seems a bit embarrassed to be associated with the notorious ERO. Indeed, a group of HSI Special Agents recently published an open letter to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen requesting to break off from the rest of ICE. In the letter, the agents explain that,

HSI’s investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens, instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross border crimes impacting our communities and national security. Furthermore, the perception of HSI’s investigative independence is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of ERO’s civil immigration enforcement.

The agents complain that cities and towns are unwilling to partner with HSI unless they hide the agency’s connection with ICE. It seems that HSI is eager to maintain the image of a law enforcement agency that helps, not hurts. Its association with ICE makes HSI less effective because localities are reluctant to work with HSI agents.

Give this background, we were surprised recently when one of our clients was contacted by HSI’s National Security Group-Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit. Our client had come to the United States for an education program. He had been thoroughly vetted prior to arrival, and was bright and ambitious enough to merit a scholarship funded by the U.S. Department of State.

While he was in the U.S., our client was outed as a gay man and he received several death threats from back home. All this took place shortly before his student status ended, and he hired us to file for asylum. His case was filed a few weeks after his classes finished (meaning that he had just fallen out of status). By the time HSI contacted him, our client’s asylum application was already pending, and he had received his receipt.

Our client is law abiding, and doesn’t have so much as a speeding ticket, so it was strange that HSI would have an interest in him, much less the counterterrorism unit.

I attended our client’s HSI interview in a drab office building near the airport. I went there not knowing what to expect. The agents obtained basic biographic information and took out client’s fingerprints. Then the agents told us that they were arresting the client, releasing him, and issuing him a notice to appear in Immigration Court (an NTA). In the ensuing discussion, the agents told us:

  • That the Immigration Court would decide our client’s case more quickly than the Asylum Office (apparently, the agents weren’t familiar with the LIFO policy, which went into effect in January).
  • That sending the case to court was not a waste of resources, since the case might have been referred to court anyway (that is, the agents inappropriately speculated about the merits of the case, even though they seemed to know nothing about it).
  • That our client would be required to attend regular check-ins at ERO to prove he was not a flight risk (despite his strong asylum claim, which he filed voluntarily).
  • Our client had to surrender his passport, and the agents would not give him a receipt or a certified copy of the document. Thus, he had no evidence that his passport was in HSI’s possession (inappropriate and incredibly inconvenient, given that the passport was his only form of ID).
  • That I (the lawyer) should not question the agents’ actions, since their children receive death threats (you would think that these alleged threats might generate some empathy for asylum seekers, but I digress).

Technically, the agents are correct that they have the power to send our client to court since he was already out-of-status. But here, I want to focus on why this approach is inefficient and inhumane.

First, our client already had a pending affirmative asylum application with USCIS at the time of his “arrest.” Such cases are less stressful on the applicant, as they consist of a (theoretically) non-confrontational interview. Contrast this with the adversarial hearing in Immigration Court. Also, under the new LIFO system, most new affirmative asylum cases (like our client’s) will be decided much more quickly than the average asylum case in Court. Further, Asylum Office cases are cheaper for the applicant in terms of lawyer’s fees, since such cases require less attorney time than Court cases.

Second, from the government’s perspective, affirmative asylum cases are less expensive and more efficient than Immigration Court cases. For one thing, the Asylum Office is funded by USCIS user fees (meaning, when you pay a USCIS fee, some of the money goes to the cost of running our affirmative asylum system). Immigration Court cases, on the other hand, are paid for by taxpayers. Court cases also involve more people: The Immigration Judge, the court-appointed interpreter, the Court staff, the DHS attorney, and—in my client’s case—ICE agents. Asylum Office cases involve fewer people, and so are less expensive. Indeed, the raison d’etre for the Asylum Offices is to reduce the burden on Immigration Courts by resolving asylum cases before they land in proceedings.

Third, one main purpose of the Immigration Court is to deport people who have no legal right to be in the United States. This includes people convicted of crimes and people who pose a threat to national security. The more the court system is clogged with cases like our client’s, the less able it will be to deal with people who may be a danger to our country.

So here is my advice for HSI: If you don’t want to be “perceived as targeting undocumented aliens,” then maybe you should try not targeting undocumented aliens, like my client. HSI should consider efficiency and humanity before tossing affirmative asylum applicants into the Immigration Court system merely because they are out of status. If they want to do the right thing, HSI can start by revoking our client’s NTA and allowing the Asylum Office to adjudicate his case.

Continue reading

158 Comments

From an Asylum Attorney to the Green Party’s Jill Stein: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Same as Donald Trump

by Jason Dzubow

Dr. Jill Stein is the Green Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States. In a recent appearance on Democracy Now!, she argued that there was little difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump:

Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate. Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things. Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing. She basically said, “No, bar the gates, send them back.” You know, so we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing.

CtuthuluDr. Stein says that, people are “very quick to tell you about the terrible things that the Republicans did, but they’re very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White House…. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good.”

I am a member of the Green Party. I am also an attorney who represents immigrants and asylum seekers. My clients have fled persecution in the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas. They are not people who have the luxury of idealism. They are people whose loved-ones have been killed by war and terrorism. Many of my clients have been attacked or threatened with death. Their first priority is to keep their families and themselves alive. By leaving everything behind–family members, friends, homes, careers–in order to find safety in America, they have already chosen the lesser evil that Dr. Stein speaks about.

We are now almost at the start (!) of the general election season. Are the two major candidates for President really the same, as Dr. Stein argues? My clients don’t think so. They are genuinely afraid of Donald Trump and of what he represents. When Mr. Trump threatens to ban Muslims from the United States, or when he refers to Mexicans (and Americans of Mexican decent) in a racist manner, my clients wonder whether there is a future for them in this country.

One of my clients is a women’s rights activist from Afghanistan. Will she be able to reunite with her young children, or will they be prevented from coming to the U.S. because of their religion? Other clients are a Syrian couple, both doctors, whose first child died in the war. Will they be able to keep their second child safely in the United States, or will they be forced to leave? What about my Iraqi client who was kidnapped and tortured by terrorists? Or my Pakistani-journalist client whose step-father was murdered in retaliation for the family’s democratic political views? And what about my Honduran client who was shot in the head by members of MS-13 because he refused to join their gang? If Mr. Trump had his way, I imagine all these people—and many more—would be blocked from seeking refuge in our country.

Contrast this with Hillary Clinton. Dr. Stein points out that Ms. Clinton supported a coup in Honduras that supposedly helped create the current refugee flow from that country, and that Ms. Clinton favors detention of asylum seekers, including families with children, who arrive at our Southern border. Based on the evidence I have seen, Dr. Stein’s claim about the coup is dubious: Violence was rising in Honduras before the coup, and it continued to rise after the coup. It is very difficult to pin the current waive of migration to the coup (or to credit Ms. Clinton with causing it). As for the detention of families at the border, I have yet to see a solution to this problem that is practically and politically viable. Should we simply throw open our border to all comers? My sense is that the large majority of Americans would oppose such a move. I personally think we should be using more alternatives to detention, but this is a policy tweak; not a complete solution. A leader’s first priority must be to protect our country. How that can be achieved without control of our border, I do not know. In sum, the “lesser evils” discussed by Dr. Stein are difficult policy choices, and reasonable people can differ on the solutions.

More important than her previous policy positions are the positions Ms. Clinton would likely take if elected President. The Democratic Party has moved to the left, and whatever policies Ms. Clinton advances will be determined largely by where the party stands politically. On immigration, it is in a different universe from the Republican Party and from Mr. Trump, whose hardline stance on immigrants is well known. For Dr. Stein to argue that the two candidates’ positions on immigration are similar is like saying that black is the same as white (ok, maybe it’s more like saying that dark gray is the same as light gray, but you get the idea).

I have been a member of the Green Party for over 15 years. I support many of it’s policies. But I have found it very difficult to support the top-down strategy that seems to have characterized the party since at least 2000, when Ralph Nader siphoned off votes from Al Gore. I have always felt that the Green Party should focus on state and local races. A “revolution” (whatever that means) will not come from the top down–it will come from the bottom up. So while I believe the Green Party should run a national campaign in order to raise awareness on various issues, I also believe it should ultimately endorse the Presidential candidate that represents the “lesser evil.” In the current election, that candidate is Hillary Clinton. There are major differences between her and Donald Trump, and those differences may determine whether people like my clients live or die. I hope Dr. Stein will keep such people in mind as we move through this election campaign.

Continue reading

27 Comments

Dilemma at the Gate: Family Detention vs. Open Borders

by Jason Dzubow

Since the surge of asylum seekers arriving at our Southern border began in 2013, the number of people held in family detention has increased dramatically. Men, women (including pregnant women), children, and infants are kept in secure facilities—jails—while their asylum cases are adjudicated. There have been plenty of issues at these facilities: Allegations of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by guards, inadequate food, suicide attempts. A recently-filed lawsuit claims that people are kept in freezing, overcrowded, and unsanitary cells. Many immigration advocates have been calling for an end to family detention, and recently 33 U.S. Senators signed a letter requesting a halt to the practice.

Powder blue is the new black.
Powder blue is the new black.

On the other side of the debate are those who believe that family detention does not go far enough. They argue that allowing anyone to arrive at the border, request asylum, and then receive entre into the United States is an abuse of the system, a threat to our security, and an inducement to others—many others—to try the same thing. The restrictionists, led by several House Republicans, believe that permitting asylum seekers into the United States is tantamount to an open borders policy: Anyone who wants to come to the U.S. need only say the magic words—“I am seeking asylum”—and they will be granted admission.

Is this, then, our only choice? Either we detain everyone who arrives here until their cases are finally decided, or we throw open our borders to all comers?

I can imagine circumstances where it would be justified to detain arriving asylum seekers–including children–and I think it is worth exploring the possible justifications, and whether they are legitimate. Let’s take a look at some of the reasons for family detention and whether they are justified:

1. Some of the people coming here are dangerous, and since we don’t know who the bad guys are, we should detain everyone – Detaining an asylum seeker (or any arriving alien) who poses a danger to the U.S. is perfectly legitimate. Given how little we know about people seeking entry at the border, it makes sense to be cautious when releasing people from detention. But in the case of detained families, it is highly unlikely that mothers and children present a threat to our country’s safety. For the most part, I don’t think the U.S. government views mothers and children as a security issue, and I don’t see how the widespread detention of such people can be justified on these grounds.

2. The only way to deter migrants from making the risky journey to the U.S. is to stop rewarding them with admission into our country – This argument at least has the pretense of concern for the migrants’ safety. Indeed, a bill floating around the House of Representative, which would make it more difficult for unaccompanied minors to seek asylum in the United States, is called the Protection of Children Act. Of course, the journey from Central America to the U.S. can be dangerous (though the danger is far less than that faced by asylum seekers who cross the Mediterranean to Europe). Despite its superficial good intentions, my feeling is that this argument is simply a pretext to keep people out. If lawmakers really cared about the fate of the young people coming to the U.S., they would ensure that each person receives a complete and fair hearing on the merits of her case.

3. Most Central American asylum seekers have weak cases, and so they will eventually be deported. If we allow them in, they will disappear and not abide by their removal orders – The validity of this argument depends largely on how frequently non-citizens abscond. As usual, we need more data to be sure, but Immigration Court statistics indicate that since 2005, only about 60.9% of minors appear for their court hearings (the appearance rate has improved somewhat in the last few years, and represented juveniles are much more likely to appear (92.5%) than unrepresented (27.5%)). Given that a significant percentage of unaccompanied minors will abscond, this seems to be a legitimate argument in favor of detention.

To make matters worse, many of the asylum seekers coming from Central America have weak cases and—assuming they appear for their hearings—they are likely to be ordered removed. While this argument presents a real challenge to immigration advocates, there is, I think, a more humane (and less expensive) response than jailing families.

Alternatives to detention (“ATD”)–such as electronic monitoring, bond, and intensive supervision (via telephonic or in-person reporting)–are effective ways to improve court-attendance rates. A recent GAO report indicates that between 95 and 99% of aliens on one ATD program reported for their hearings (the report also indicates that more data is necessary to fully evaluate the program). If more resources were shifted from detention to ATD, it would likely become an even more effective method of ensuring aliens’ appearance in court.

Also, while asylum cases from Central America are often legally weak, many of the applicants have a very legitimate fear of persecution in their home countries. The problem is that the fear of harm (from gangs, cartels or domestic partners) does not easily fit within a protected category for asylum. I remember one case where I did a bit of pro bono work: A gang member wanted to date the applicant’s sister. When the parents refused, the gang murdered most of the family. Applicant escaped the massacre and came to the U.S. An Immigration Judge denied asylum because the case did not fit into a protected category. That decision was ultimately reversed (by a federal court), but it illustrates the problem—just because you do not fit neatly into a protected category does not mean that you will be safe in your country. Because of the high stakes involved and the difficulty of demonstrating a “nexus,” asylum cases from Central America often need more—not less—attention from decision-makers and advocates. When applicants are detained and their cases are rushed through the system, it is often impossible to ensure that due process is respected and that we are fulfilling our humanitarian obligations (and sometimes, the results are deadly).

4. If we allow the migrants to enter, it will only encourage others to follow – Our geographic isolation has resulted in relatively few people seeking asylum in our country (compared with, say, Jordan, South Africa or Pakistan). This has allowed us the luxury of an elaborate (i.e., expensive) asylum system. Our system is not designed to handle large numbers of applicants, and indeed, the surge has threatened “the system” in at least two ways: (1) Delays throughout the system have become so interminable that many applicants simply cannot wait for a decision. Some are separated from close family members; others are under great psychological pressure. These delays—measured in years–have proved too much for many applicants, and they have left the country for fates unknown; and (2) The large numbers of arriving aliens have also attracted Congressional attention, and several bills have been introduced that would curtail the rights of asylum applicants.

The question here is whether detaining families and rushing court cases will deter would-be migrants, and thus save “the system.” 

As a general principle, I think it is a bad idea to deny certain asylum seekers due process in order to preserve the system for other asylum seekers. Part of the problem is that we have never had a real debate about who should qualify for asylum. Victims of gang violence and domestic violence are not traditional asylum seekers. Such people qualify for asylum as a result of creative lawyers pushing the boundaries of the law. Perhaps if there had been a rational policy debate about whether such people should qualify for asylum, or whether we should offer them some other type of humanitarian protection, we would not be faced with our current dilemma.

Finally, I doubt that the restrictionists will ever be satisfied with President Obama’s efforts related to border enforcement. Trying to preserve the asylum system by appeasing such people is pointless. While I believe we need to decide, as a country, who we will offer asylum to, I am not convinced that detaining families will convince those who oppose the asylum system to change their minds.  

In the end, while I believe there are reasonable arguments supporting family detention, I am not convinced. Given the alternatives to detention, we can better fulfill our humanitarian obligations and protect our borders without detaining families and children.

Continue reading

17 Comments

An Interview with “Juan” – Unaccompanied Minor, ISIS Supporter, and Ebola Carrier

by Jason Dzubow

In a recent press conference, the dynamic duo of Congressman Steve King and rich guy Donald Trump made some pretty frightening claims about the young people who have lately been arriving at our Southern border. Mr. King told the audience that America is becoming “a third-world country” because of “the things that are coming at us from across the border,” including illegal drugs, Central American children of “prime gang recruitment age,” ISIS… and the Ebola virus. These are some pretty serious charges, and so we here at the Asylumist decided to investigate for ourselves. What we found will shock you.

King and Trump: A couple of cards. Probably jokers.
King and Trump: A couple of cards. Probably jokers.

After flying down to Texas, I went to a detention facility that must remained unnamed. There, I met a 14-year-old boy, who we will call Juan. Juan hails from El Salvador–or so he says–and claims that members of a gang attacked his house, threatened his family, and tried to kill him. He then fled to the United States. It’s a sad tale, but is it true? I suspected that there was more to the story. You see, Juan has brownish skin, so he is likely a Muslim. Plus, when I met him, he was sweating. This, despite the fact that the detention facility is kept at a balmy 52 degrees Fahrenheit. In my book, Sweating = Ebola. I had some hard questions for Juan:

ASYLUMIST: Salaam Alaikum.

JUAN: [stares blankly]

ASYLUMIST: Salaam Alaikum.

JUAN: I am not sure what you are saying to me.

ASYLUMIST: Yeh, right. So tell me Juan, if that is your real name, why did you come to the United States?

JUAN: Actually, Juan is not my name. You just started calling me Juan for some reason. My real name is Alberto.

ASYLUMIST: For purposes of this interview, we will call you Juan. So tell me, Juan, why did you come here?

JUAN: In my town, the gang is very powerful. If you don’t join them, they threaten you, take your money, even kill you. Gang members have targeted my family because we are Evangelical Christians and we refuse to join the gang. My father is a Minister. Because we refused to join, the gang set our house on fire, they fired a gun through our window, they threatened me many times with guns and knives. Finally, they tried to kill me, so I had to…

ASYLUMIST: Blah, blah, blah. Everyone knows that you can’t get asylum in the U.S. if you are fleeing gang violence. There’s no nexus. It will open the floodgates. We have enough problems here already. We don’t need gangbangers like you messing up our country.

JUAN: But I am not a gang member! And I heard that in some cases, when a person is threatened on account of his religion, he can receive asylum in the U.S. even if the persecutor is not the government. There is a case about that called Matter of S-A-. Also, the gang targeted my whole family; not just me, and “family” is a protected category under U.S. asylum law. One case that discusses family as a social group is Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft. Besides these published decisions, there are many unpublished decisions where people like me have received asylum in the United States.

ASYLUMIST: You seem to know a lot about asylum for a 14-year-old Salvadoran boy. Very suspicious. Let’s shift gears. Why are you so sweaty?

JUAN: I don’t have Ebola.

ASYLUMIST: Ah Ha! I didn’t even mention Ebola. Why would you bring it up unless you had Ebola. Thou protesteth too much, dear Juan. Excuse me while I relocate myself outside your six-foot danger zone.

JUAN: You mentioned it at the very beginning! And I really don’t have Ebola. I’ve been detained here for two months. If I had Ebola, I’d be dead by now.

ASYLUMIST: You’re spitting when you talk. Please stop that.

JUAN: I was not spitting.

ASYLUMIST: If you don’t have Ebola, how do you explain the sweating?

JUAN: Maybe because I am stressed. I fled my country and I’m away from my family for the first time. The gang tried to kill me. Now, I’ve been detained for the last two months.

ASYLUMIST: I’m not buying it. Didn’t you come here to take our jobs and our women, collect welfare, and spread Ebola and Jihad? Is that a prayer rug you’re sitting on? And what’s that book next to you? It looks like a Koran.

JUAN: Huh?

ASYLUMIST: You’re sitting on a Muslim prayer rug. And that book looks like a Koran.

JUAN: No, I am sitting on a towel. There was no bed space for me, so they gave me a towel to sleep on. It is not very comfortable.

ASYLUMIST: And the book?

JUAN: Pep Comics # 224. It’s about Jughead Jones and his dog named Hot Dog. The dog used to belong to Archie, but somehow Jughead got him.

ASYLUMIST: I see. Anything else you want to add before I leave this godforsaken place?

JUAN: I am just hoping to get my case heard. I am afraid to return to my country. I want to live safely and in peace. I don’t have any diseases and I am not a terrorist or a criminal. I really don’t understand the United States. You are so powerful, and yet you are afraid of a 14 year old boy. I hope you will help me. And why are you on the floor in the fetal position?

ASYLUMIST: Please don’t unleash your Jihadi Ebola attack on me! Ahh! Run away!  

Continue reading

4 Comments

American Lawyer Assists Australian Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Michael “Dan” Mori is a former Marine Corp attorney who gained fame defending Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, an Australian national captured by the Americans in Afghanistan.  With Mr. Mori’s help, Mr. Hicks accepted a favorable Alfred plea (basically meaning that he did not admit guilt, but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him). He was sentenced to seven years in prison for supporting terrorists, a charge that he denies. All but nine months of the sentence were suspended. Mr. Hicks served most of his nine months in Australia and was released. The plea came after five years at Gitmo, under less than pleasant circumstances. The case gained quite a bit of attention, as it was the first conviction by a U.S. war crimes tribunal since World War II.

After the Hick’s case, Mr. Mori’s career in the Marines apparently stalled. He alleged (in a lawsuit) that the military retaliated against him for his work on Mr. Hick’s case. He eventually was promoted, but retired soon thereafter and moved to Australia. There, he started work at the plaintiff law firm Shine as a Social Justice Consultant.

It seems that Mr. Mori’s latest project is to help asylum seekers detained by the Australian government on the island of Nauru.

Come on, Mori, admit it - You took the Nauru gig for the beaches!
Come on, Mori, admit it – You took the Nauru gig for the beaches!

Nauru is a small island republic in a remote part of the Pacific Ocean. The country became wealthy in the 1960s and 70s by exploiting mineral resources, but when those ran out, the economy went bust. In 2001, Nauru entered into an agreement with Australia to house refugees seeking admission to Australia. In exchange, Australia provides Nauru with financial assistance and technical aid.

The refugee detention center on Nauru has been controversial, and it has closed and re-opened several times. The latest incarnation of the detention center  opened last year in August and holds about 400 men. After a visit to Nauru, Amnesty International described the camp as “a human rights catastrophe … a toxic mix of uncertainty, unlawful detention and inhumane conditions.”  

In September 2012, there was an alleged riot at the camp and property was destroyed. The government charged 10 detainees with rioting and destruction of property. The case of the “Nauru 10” is currently pending, and this is where Mr. Mori comes into the picture.

Mr. Mori and other defense lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition in Nauru, claiming that the detainees are being unlawfully held. The defense team convinced a Nauru court to adjourn the criminal charges until the habeas issue is resolved, and that issue remains pending.

“Whether or not you agree with the process… you have to agree that people being detained should have access to legal help,” said Mr. Mori, who compared the situation in Nauru with Guantanamo Bay. “You have to push the politics aside and remember, if someone’s detained they need access to the law.”

There is a lot at stake for Nauru, which has become dependent on the Australian aid, and for the asylum seekers, whose fate rests in the hands of the Nauru court system. I hope that Mr. Mori and the other lawyers can bring a measure of justice to this obscure corner of the globe.

Continue reading

5 Comments

CIVIC Works to Visit and Protect Detained Immigrants

by Jason Dzubow

CIVIC–Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement–is an organization that works to “end the isolation and abuse of men and women in U.S. immigration detention by building and strengthening volunteer-run community visitation programs.” The idea is that if ordinary people visit detained immigrants, the immigrants will feel more connected and more hopeful, and the detention facilities (many of which are run by private, for-profit corporations) will not be able to get away with abusing detainees. 

The protection aspect of CIVIC’s mission reminds me of Amnesty International, which calls attention to individuals at risk of abuse through letter writing campaigns. The hope is that if the abuser knows he is being watched, he is less likely to harm the victim. 

"Remember... Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
“Remember… Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”

Based on my experience with detained clients, it seems to me that CIVIC’s goals of offering hope and protection to detained immigrants are (unfortunately) very necessary. Many people in immigration detention have no criminal record and are not dangerous to the community. Some are minors. Others are asylum seekers who suffered persecution and torture in their home countries. These people remain detained for months and sometimes years. The emotional (and physical) toll of such detention can be quite devastating.

CIVIC is currently working to expand its visitation program, in accordance with ICE’s Visitation Directive, which was designed to help facilitate visits to detention facilities. In furtherance of this goal, CIVIC has released the following statement:

Every day, immigrants disappear and are detained by the U.S. government. For example, Ana is a human trafficking victim who was detained for over a year, locked in solitary confinement, and forced by a guard to sleep on the cement floor of her cell until CIVIC ended this isolation and abuse. Over 32,000 immigrants like Ana remain isolated in remote detention facilities today because no law protects a right to visitation, phone calls cost up to $5.00 per minute, and 46% of detained migrants are transferred at least twice during their detention–often out of state and away from their families.

CIVIC is changing this reality by building and strengthening community visitation programs that are dedicated to ending the isolation and abuse of men and women in immigration detention.  Visitation programs connect persons in civil immigration detention with community members. These volunteer visitors provide immigrants in detention with a link to the outside world, while also preventing human rights abuses by creating a community presence in otherwise invisible detention facilities.

CIVIC recently released A Guide to Touring U.S. Immigration Detention Facilities & Building Alliances, designed for communities across the country hoping to start a visitation program using ICE’s new Visitation Directive.  The benefit of this resource is that the general guidelines are tailored to the unique request of using the Visitation Directive as a tool to establish contact and set up a permanent visitation program. In addition, this manual provides an overview of some of the successes and roadblocks visitation programs have encountered in the first year of the Visitation Directive’s existence.

CIVIC is setting in motion a national movement to combat the isolating experience of immigration detention.  To get involved or for more information, please visit their website at www.endisolation.org.

In some parts of the country–like the DC metro area–we have a well established visitation program (thank you CAIR Coalition). But in many areas, detained immigrants are much more isolated. For people looking for an interesting and rewarding volunteer experience, CIVIC’s program offers an excellent way to get involved and to help people who are in great need.

Continue reading

Appointing Attorneys May Be Cheaper Than Detaining Disabled Aliens

by Jason Dzubow

The recent case of a Jamaican asylum seeker who was held in detention for over a year prior to trial because he was unable to communicate with the Immigration Judge illustrates why appointing attorneys to aliens may be more cost-effective in certain cases.

Derrick Cotterel came to the U.S. 10 years ago.  After being arrested for robbery, he landed in removal proceedings.  Mr. Cotterel requested asylum because he fears returning to Jamaica, where police allegedly failed to investigate his brother’s murder because of the brother’s political activity.

Mr. Cotterel has a severe stutter, which prevented him from communicating with the Immigration Judge.  He is also illiterate, so he could not communicate in writing.  As a result, he sat in the York County, PA detention facility for 10 months before an  IJ was able to decide his case (his application was denied).

Paying for attorneys may be cheaper than paying for fancy prison cells.

At about $96.00 per day, the cost to tax payers for Mr. Cotterel’s incarceration was approximately $28,800.00.  This seems like a big waste of money, especially considering that if we had paid a few thousand dollars for a lawyer, the case would likely have been resolved much more quickly, saving money for Mr. Cotterel’s detention, and helping to ensure a fair hearing.

One possible solution is to assign a public defender-type attorney to each major immigration detention facility.  These attorneys would be paid for by the government, and would represent detained aliens who could not represent themselves (for example, children or disabled people).  With attorneys representing the most problematic detained cases, the cases would move along more quickly and this would save money.  It would also help to protect the rights of the most vulnerable aliens in the system.

Another possibility would be to pass the Refugee Protection Act of 2010, which requires that detention facilities be located near cities with lawyers who can represent aliens pro bono.  In this case, perhaps the government could subsidize the pro bono attorney’s expenses in order to encourage more lawyer to help detained aliens.

It is in the best interest of everyone to find lawyers for detained aliens who are incapable of assisting themselves.  It will help protect immigrants’ rights, ensure that we fulfill our humanitarian obligations, and save money.

Continue reading

New BIA Decision Will Harm Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

I periodically complain about the ongoing failure of the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide guidance to Immigration Judges.  But the Board’s latest decision makes me think I should be more careful what I wish for.

In Matter of E-R-M-F- & A-S-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 580 (BIA 2011), the BIA held that, until an arrested alien is formally placed into removal proceedings by service of a Notice to Appear, immigration officers are not required to inform the alien of his right to counsel (at the alien’s own expense) or that his statements might be used against him.  Statements made by the alien after the arrest but before the alien is told of his right to counsel may be used against him in immigration court.

Not surprisingly, this decision has been roundly condemned by immigration advocates.  The American Immigration Counsel had this to say:

For decades, immigrants placed under arrest have been entitled to these critical advisals. Like “Miranda” warnings for criminal suspects, such notifications help to ensure that statements made during questioning are not the product of coercion. As a result of last week’s ruling, noncitizens under arrest will now be even more vulnerable to pressure from interrogating officers, and immigration judges will face greater difficulty determining whether statements made during questioning were truly voluntary.

Since this decision is bad for all noncitizens, it is–ipso facto–bad for asylum seekers and people with asylum.  In some ways, though, this decision might impact asylum seekers more severely than other immigrants.

I'd hate to see what the BIA would say about this interrogation.

For one thing, asylum cases often depend on an alien’s credibility.  If an alien makes a statement to an immigration officer, that statement might later be used to impeach the alien’s testimony.  I’ve seen this happen to some of my clients.  They speak to an ICE officer (sometimes through another detained alien acting as an interpreter) and say something that is inaccurate and that might later be construed as an inconsistency.  I’m not talking here about lies to gain asylum; I’m talking about non-material points, like whether the alien entered the U.S. in the day time or the night time, or what countries she traveled through to get to the United States.  Such inconsistencies are almost certainly honest mistakes, but since non-material inconsistencies can support an adverse credibility finding, such statements can destroy the asylum claim for a legitimate asylum seeker.  The E-R-M-F- decision will only exacerbate this problem.

Further, asylum seekers tend to be vulnerable people.  Many have been through traumas, often at the hands of officials from their home governments, and they have a particular fear of law enforcement officers.  Such people are susceptible to manipulation and will sometimes make false statements in order to please (or placate) an interrogating officer.  For these reasons, asylum seekers–more than most–need to be protected when they interact with immigration officers.  Again, the Board’s new decision is the exact opposite of what these people need.

My fear is that ICE officers will take advantage of the new ruling to question aliens before they serve the Notice to Appear, and that such statements will be unfairly used to damage asylum seekers’ credibility.  My hope is that the Ninth Circuit (which will likely review this matter) will see fit to overturn the Board’s decision.

Continue reading

1 Comment

ICE Should Fire Insubordinate Agents

by Jason Dzubow

I wrote recently about the ongoing insubordination at ICE.  The most recent flare up involves a dispute over a new memo, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.  The memo basically prioritizes who should be deported and directs ICE to target criminals and people who pose a security threat over aliens with equities in the U.S.  I read the memo, and it is pretty non-controversial.

Where's Trump when we need him?

The ICE Union disagreed and posited that the memo was a backdoor amnesty (this despite the fact that the Obama Administration has been deporting record numbers of illegal aliens and, as these statistics show, has re-prioritized deportations to focus on criminal aliens).  Chris Crane, President of the National ICE Counsel, had this to say about the memo and the Obama Administration:

Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what’s coming… this is just one of many new ICE policies in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the United States. Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy.

In my prior post, I tried to give the Union the benefit of the doubt, even though their claim seemed unfounded.  Now, several immigration experts, including a former general counsel of INS under President George W. Bush, have reviewed the controversial memo.  They conclude that the memo is “perfectly consistent with existing law on the use of prosecutorial discretion and serve[s] to guide its sound exercise in immigration law enforcement decisions.”

The experts’ conclusion–and a plain reading of the controversial memo–makes it painfully obvious that the Union’s complaints are baseless.  Worse, the attacks, such as the quote from Mr. Crane above, seem blatantly partisan in nature.  

It is frankly shocking that ICE and DHS would tolerate this type of insubordination.  My guess is that the Administration is too cowed by right wing bullies to do anything about the problem (witness the Shirley Sherrod fiasco).  It’s past time for the Obama administration to stand up to this sort of nonsense.  ICE should fire the insubordinate agents immediately.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Doctors, Detention, and Dual Loyalty

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report by Physicians for Human Rights (“PHR”) articulates the difficult dilemma faced by physicians who serve detained immigrants.  Such physicians have a “dual loyalty” problem:

Health professionals working in detention facilities run directly under DHS oversight, report to the federal agency charged with managing health care for detainees, the ICE Health Service Corps (HSC).  Like ICE, HSC is a division of DHS, and therefore, has objectives that tend to focus on deportation and security, rather than on providing comprehensive health care to immigrants in detention.  Review of the HSC mission statement clearly demonstrates that its mandate is prone to conflict with health professionals’ obligation to provide their patients with the best possible care.  The HSC website proudly proclaims: “We protect America by providing health care and public health services in support of immigration law enforcement.”

Perhaps Janus, not Asclepius, is an appropriate patron deity for DHS Doctors.

A doctor’s first loyalty should be to her patient.  However, there are many examples of third parties infringing on the doctor-patient relationship: insurance companies and hospital administrators being two of the most common.  In the case of detained immigrants, a doctor’s loyalty to her patient may be compromised by her loyalty to her employer–in this case, the Department of Homeland Security.  The PHR report points out that this should not happen:

While the term “dual loyalty” may imply equivalence between a medical professional’s loyalty to the patient and loyalty to third party interests [such as DHS], no such equivalence exists.  Ethically, with very rare and well-circumscribed exceptions, a health professional is obligated to act in the interest of the patient above all other concerns.

Great in theory, but not always easy to implement in reality.  The report offers several recommendations, including the following:

  • Require that health care professionals working in detention centers report to health organizations, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, so that they may maintain clinical independence.  They should not report to the Department of Homeland Security or to for-profit private contractors.
  • Create an independent oversight organization to monitor provision of health care in all facilities that house immigration detainees.
  • Create an ombudsman office to which detainees may easily report grievances regarding access to medical care.
  • Make the Performance Based National Detentions Standards (PBNDS) legally enforceable in all facilities that house immigration detainees.  Failure to adhere should result in contract cancellation.

DHS detains about 400,000 people each year.  The recommendations in the PHR report would help to improve medical care for these people and would also help to mitigate the “dual loyalty” problem faced by physicians in the system.  Further, PHR’s recommendations do not seem particularly costly.  Indeed, the primary recommendation–that physicians working with detained immigrants report to HHS instead of DHS–should cost next to nothing.  The recommendations are worthy of consideration by DHS.

Continue reading

Disgrace at the DRO

by Jason Dzubow

Sometimes it seems that the purpose of the ICE Detention and Removal Office is to make life so miserable that people would rather return to a country where they fear persecution than remain any longer in the United States.  At least that is what the DRO has been doing to one of my clients.  Here’s the story:

My client worked for her country’s government at an international organization in the United States.  She was politically active in favor of an opposition party.  Once her superiors learned about her activity, they ordered her to report to the home office.  She feared–for good reason–that her government planned to arrest her upon her return, and so she filed for political asylum.

The Asylum Office referred the case to an Immigration Judge because the client had not filed for asylum within one year of her arrival in the U.S. (she had been working here for several years before she filed for asylum).  At that point, she hired me, and we prepared a case for the IJ.  I planned to argue that the client’s failure to file for asylum within one year should be excused by “changed circumstances” in her case, but I knew this argument was weak. 

When we arrived in court, the DHS Attorney said he would agree to Withholding of Removal under INA 241(b)(3).  An alien who receives Withholding of Removal cannot be removed to the country where she fears persecution.  She is entitled to a work permit, which must be renewed every year, but if she leaves the U.S., she cannot re-enter.  I had already discussed the possibility of Withholding with my client, and she agreed.  In fact, she was relieved to avoid a trial.  With the consent of DHS, the IJ granted Withholding of Removal.

A few years later, my client is still here.  She is working hard and trying to make a life for herself. 

Recently, however, DRO has begun an effort to force her to relocate to a third country.  Why they have chosen my client for this attention, I do not know.  She has no criminal history and she is employed, and the DHS attorney and the IJ both agreed that she faces persecution in her home country.

The DRO has the legal authority to remove my client to a third country: Withholding of Removal protects an alien from removal to the country where she fears persecution, but it does not prevent ICE from removing her to another country.  Thus, every month for the last few months, DRO has made my client report to their office.  For the client, this means losing a day of work (and having to make excuses to her employer), waiting for hours, and then receiving a lecture about how she will be deported, how the DRO has “power” over her, how they can make her report every month, every week or every day; in short, how they can disrupt her life to the point where she can no longer remain in the U.S.  They leave her with instructions to find a visa to a third country, and to report back about her efforts to get a visa.  The repeated threats from the DRO officers are the worst part. They terrorize and demoralize the client, who, of course, has no where else to go.

My client has dutifully contacted different embassies, none of which offer her a visa.  More stress and wasted time.  She and I both know that no country will offer her residency.  The DRO officers know it as well.  Yet they persist in their efforts to make her keep looking.  As a result, my client is depressed and fearful, she may lose her job due to the frequent absences (to report to DRO and to visit embassies), and she has no certainty about her future in this country.

I suppose I should not speculate about the motivation behind the DRO officers’ actions, but I can clearly see the results of their behavior: They are harming a person who has been granted protection by our country. And to me, that is a disgrace.

Continue reading

1 Comment

UN to Review US Detention System

by Jason Dzubow

In November 2010, the United States will undergo its first Universal Periodic Review (UPR) with the United Nations Human Right Council.  This human rights mechanism, established in 2006, periodically reviews all member states regarding their compliance with their human rights obligations and commitments.  The UPR offers an opportunity to pressure the U.S. government to comply with those obligations. 

Fine dining in Batavia, NY

In preparation for the review, a number of U.S. NGOs have prepared a report about detention of immigrants in the United States.  From the report:

 The U. S. immigrant detention system lacks due process and subjects noncitizens to arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment, in violation of U. S. obligations under international human rights law.  To comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United States must:

(1)  Provide individual custody determinations, assessing if a noncitizen’s particular circumstances require detention; 

(2)  Provide judicial review over custody decisions; and 

(3)  Ensure that conditions in immigrant detention facilities reflect the civil nature of the government’s detention authority.

While we are thinking about improvements to the detention system, here are some items on my wish list:

 (1) Better access to counsel.  It’s bad enough that detention centers are in remote locations, but worse than that is the lack of communication with detained aliens.  Immigration detention is civil.  Therefore, aliens in detention should have access to phones (and why not cell phones?), computers, and faxes.  The problems caused by distance when preparing a case are multiplied exponentially by the inability to communicate with clients by phone and email.  This problem is particularly bad for asylum seekers, who often need to gather information from overseas, and who may not have family or friends in the United States to help prepare an asylum case.

(2) More procedural protections.  ICE personnel routinely convince detained aliens to “sign papers” agreeing to removal.  I have received many calls (as recently as last Friday) where family members relate how their detained relative was tricked or coerced into agreeing to removal.  Such aliens are rarely informed of their rights or questioned about any fear of return. 

(3) Better trained guards.  Poor training leads to many problems at the detention centers.  For example, several years ago, I represented a few immigrants detained at a facility in Virginia.  One guard at the facility routinely punched the detainees in the groin whenever he performed a pat down.  One man was injured so badly that he had to be hospitalized.  Despite repeated complaints, nothing was done about the guard.  Finally, I contacted an acquaintance on the House Oversight Committee for ICE Detention (one of the benefits of living in DC) and began cc’ing him on all my emails to the detention center.  The abuse promptly stopped, though as far as I heard, the guard was never punished.  Better training and oversight of detention center personnel would help to reduce abuse at the detention centers.

Nothing will make detention pleasant, but these suggestions would help to improve conditions and ensure the procedural protections that are integral to our system of justice.

Continue reading