Trump Administration Moves To ‘Disband and Destroy’ Immigration Judges Union

Posted by Melissa Cruz

Immigration judges around the country are denouncing the Trump administration’s latest move to “disband and destroy” their union. 

The judges’ union has been openly critical of the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition to the Federal Labor Relations Authority on Friday asking to revoke the National Association of Immigration Judges’ (NAIJ) union certification. Department officials claim that NAIJ members are “management officials” and therefore banned from collectively organizing. 

Judge Amiena Khan, vice president of NAIJ, says the step to decertify is a “a misguided effort to minimize our impact. We serve as a check and balance… and that’s why they are doing this to us.” 

Under their official capacity as DOJ employees, immigration judges cannot publicly speak out on issues that could be considered political. But representatives of the union can discuss—and criticize—DOJ policies on behalf of its members. They have done so since the union’s founding in 1971. 

But tensions between the department and immigration judges have only escalated in recent years. The union has even called on Congress to remove the immigration court system from the DOJ and establish it as an independent entity. 

In 2018, the Trump administration implemented case completion quotas as part of immigration judges’ performance reviews, compelling them to decide cases under strict deadlines. The quota was set in place to tackle the growing backlog of pending cases, which now totals more than 930,300. 

The quotas do not take the complexity of a case into consideration, nor the due process rights granted to all immigrants in court. Judges also risk termination if they do not complete the quota deadline. 

NAIJ called the move a “death knell for judicial independence in the immigration courts.” 

At the same time, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions stripped judges of their ability to manage their caseload by taking away a vital case management tool. He also made it more difficult for judges to grant asylum to domestic violence victims, as well as dismiss cases. 

These changes are amounting to a slower system with an increased backlog. Immigration judge and NAIJ President Ashley Tabaddor noted last month: 

“…It’s just a lot of chaos and counterproductive measures that undermine the ability of judges to use their expertise to help a case go through the system.” 

The call to dismantle the union appears to fall under that same goal of undermining and silencing immigration judges. 

NAIJ plans to respond to the administration’s petition once it receives an official notice from the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The agency will then likely investigate NAIJ to determine whether its certification can be revoked. 

The union once faced similar threats under President Bill Clinton and survived. For the sake of due process, the outcome will hopefully be the same this time too. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4393-Immigration-judges-are-denouncing-disband-and-destroy-their-union.html

Rushing Immigration Court Cases Through ‘Rocket Dockets’ Deprives Families Of Due Process

In an attempt to rush through immigrant families’ court cases, the government began implementing “rocket dockets” in September 2018 for parents and children who had recently entered the United States together without authorization. The program is intended to discourage Central American families from coming to the United States by quickly deporting those already here. But by drastically shortening the timeline of the court process, the dockets prevent many asylum-seeking families from accessing a meaningful day in court. 

As of June 2019, over 56,000 cases were on these dockets in 10 cities around the country. 

Some immigrant families are only given a matter of weeks to find a lawyer and prepare their cases, and many attorneys report that expedited cases are scheduled too quickly to prepare well. This compressed timeline increases the chances that a family will have to navigate our complex immigration detention and removal system without an attorney. Those who go into court with no representation are much more likely to lose their cases .

Additionally, judges are under increasing pressure to close cases due to strict completion quotas . This adds more incentive to rush through cases at the expense of due process. 

While testifying before Congress in June, acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan claimed that the majority of families did not show up for court. But in fact, 86% of families released from detention attended their hearings from 2001 to 2016. 

Rocket dockets are unnecessary to ensure that people attend their immigration hearings. Immigrant families are generally eager to attend their hearings. These hearings are the only way for them to obtain permanent protections in the United States. The consequences of missing a hearing are also exceptionally high. Immigration judges are generally required to issue in absentiaremoval orders when someone fails to appear. 

Most families who miss court do so by accident. Often, the government has failed to notify them properly. In 2018, judges overturned 44 of 46 in absentia removal orders. The families in those cases had not received notice of their hearing or presented “extraordinary circumstances” for missing court. Thousands of hearing notices arrived after the hearing or to the incorrect address. Others included a date that doesn’t exist , a date on which the court was closed, or no date at all. 

There are meaningful and more effective alternatives available to these rocket dockets. 

To increase court appearances, the Trump administration could restart the Family Case Management Program (FCMP). This program provided individualized comprehensive help to families in five cities at a cost of only $38 per day for a family of two, compared to $592 for family detention . FCMP had a 99% success rate for compliance with court hearings and ICE appointments, but the government nevertheless ended it in June 2017. 

Other simple methods like text or email reminders about hearing dates have proven effective. 

The administration said it aims to discourage parents from traveling with children. To do this, they could reinstate the Central American Minors Program . This program allowed certain children with parents with legal status in the United States to apply as refugees. Hope of a legal path to the United States later may prevent parents from bringing them on the dangerous initial journey.

Instead of fast-tracking the court process, immigration courts should give these families the chance to prepare their cases. The opportunity to seek asylum is an American value—these programs would help restore that value. 

Source: immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4386-Rushing-Immigration-Court-Cases-Through.html

What Happens To Dreamers Now That The Supreme Court Is Hearing The DACA Case?

By Brenda Solorzano

After months of speculation, the Supreme Court agreed to review three cases challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The Court is expected to issue its decision by June 2020, coming in the midst of the presidential race. In the meantime, current DACA recipients remain eligible to submit their renewal applications. 

Even if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, a long-term solution for Dreamers would not be provided. It would only restore the situation to the status quo before the Trump administration ended DACA, leaving many young people with lapsed or no protections. 

The cases reached the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice filed a special request for “certiorari before judgement,” which skips waiting on a federal appeals courts decision and requests to be heard by the Court. In total, four appeals courts have heard arguments on whether President Trump went through the proper procedure before ending DACA. Both the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit held that Trump’s decision to end DACA was improper. Decisions are still pending in the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit. 

Currently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to continue accepting and processing DACA renewal applications. Those who are currently granted renewals will continue to receive protection from deportation and work permits, unless the Supreme Court issues a decision otherwise. 

What does the Court’s future decision mean for DACA recipients? For most, continued and distressing uncertainty. 

If the Court rules in the Trump administration’s favor, nearly 700,000 DACA recipients would be left without permits to work legally and will be at risk of deportation. As a result, DACA recipients are left to wonder what their status will be in the future. 

DACA recipients are not the only ones that hope for an opportunity to stay in the country that they call home. In June, the House of Representatives took the opportunity to put forward definitive answers for the future of DACA by passing the American Dream and Promise Act. This bill provides a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, as well as those with Temporary Protected Status and protections under Deferred Enforced Departure. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the DACA cases emphasizes that Dreamers can no longer wait for more court decisions granting temporary relief of deportation. For them, hopes for a permanent solution currently lie in the hands of Congress. As polls show, the vast majority of Americans support Dreamers and want to give them an opportunity to continue to positively impact the country. That is why a long-term solution for Dreamers and others who live in insecurity is way past due.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4303-Now-the-Supreme-Court-Is-Hearing-the-DACA-Case.html

DACA Is Still In Effect As It Heads To The Supreme Court

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stinging rebuke to President Trump’s ongoing efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative last week, unanimously upholding a lower court injunction which had blocked the Trump administration from ending the program. 

Just three days before that hearing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals process and hear the DACA case before the Ninth Circuit issued a decision. Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the Supreme Court could take up the case as early as next spring—with DACA remaining in effect until they rule. 

Back in September 2017, the administration announced that it would be ending DACA, the initiative which allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to receive temporary permission to remain in the country. Multiple lawsuits challenging the termination of DACA soon followed. 

In one of those challenges, a federal court in San Francisco found that the administration’s termination of DACA was “based on a flawed legal premise” and ordered the government to continue processing renewal applications. Courts in New York and the District of Columbia soon followed suit with similar orders, which remain on appeal. 

The Ninth Circuit’s decision concluded the same. Though DOJ had argued the original DACA initiative was illegal and unconstitutional—supposedly giving the agency no legal ability to review or continue the program—the court found differently. The Ninth Circuit determined that it had the authority to review and reject the administration’s conclusions as to whether DACA was legal. 

Noting that many previous presidents (including Eisenhower, Reagan, and H.W. Bush) had provided discretionary immigration benefits to large groups, the Ninth Circuit declared that DACA “was a permissible exercise of executive discretion.” Since the administration had offered essentially no other reason for ending DACA beyond its claim that DACA was illegal, the Ninth Circuit held that the government had improperly ended DACA. 

Importantly, the Ninth Circuit was clear that the administration could have chosen to end DACA as a matter of discretion at any time—but had chosen not to, instead relying on the legal conclusion that it simply had no authority to continue the initiative. It is possible that the administration chose not to use its discretion to end DACA because in doing so it would have been forced to admit it was legal. 

Although judges ruled 3-0 against the government, at least one judge on the Ninth Circuit would have gone even further. In a concurring opinion, Judge Owens declared that the plaintiffs should have been granted an injunction due to the administration’s “unconstitutional racial animus” against DACA holders. Most DACA beneficiaries are Latino, people who have borne the brunt of the president’s attacks on immigrants. 

Now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the case is directly on path to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court issues a decision, individuals who have DACA can continue to apply for DACA renewals and the government will continue to process them. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it is likely that a decision would come at the end of the term in June. Until then, the initiative remains in place.

Última Actualización: Noviembre 19 de 2018
Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com