ICE needs a consistent system of discretionary release from detention

 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) need to establish clear guidance for when ICE should release someone from detention. So far, the Biden administration, like past administrations, has failed to issue this essential guidance. This inaction has left thousands of people needlessly detained.

On October 5, the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) sent a letter calling on the administration to release such guidance. It is a follow up to an initial letter sent in March.

The number of people trapped in immigration detention has exploded over the past two decades. In 1994, fewer than 7,000 immigrants were detained. In 2019, the population reached a record high of over 50,000 . The population declined significantly in early 2021, due primarily to restrictions at the border and the COVID-19 pandemic, providing the Biden administration an opportunity to permanently downsize ICE detention. Unfortunately, the population has increased by 70% since Biden’s inauguration.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5269-ICE-needs-a-consistent-system-of-release.html

Why Don’t Immigrants Apply for Citizenship?

 Many people wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply apply for citizenship while living here without authorization. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for current unauthorized immigrants and the “regular channels” are largely not available to prospective immigrants who end up entering the country through unauthorized channels. Even though most unauthorized immigrants have lived in the United States for nearly 15 years, many could live out the rest of their lives without any opportunity to become legal residents of this country.

No “line” is available for the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants.

Immigration to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis is generally limited to three different routes: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Each of these possibilities is highly regulated and subject to numerical limitations and eligibility requirements. As a result, most unauthorized immigrants do not have the necessary family or employment relationships and often cannot access humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylum status. This means that no matter how long they have been in the United States, most unauthorized immigrants have no path to legal status. Even those who pay taxes, work hard, and contribute to their communities, have no way to "get in line" unless Congress were to create a new path to legal status.

Many unauthorized immigrants are barred from obtaining legal status while inside the United States.

Unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States without being legally admitted and inspected are generally not eligible to obtain green cards while still inside the country. Even if there is a visa available, they are barred from "adjusting status" and getting a green card without leaving the country because of how they entered the United States.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5004-Immigrants-Dont-Apply-for-Citizenship.html

Trump New Healthcare Ban Threatens The Legal Immigration System

By: Aaron Reichlin-Melnick www.immigrationimpact.com/

President Trump invoked the same legal authority used for the Travel Ban to impose a sweeping new ban on legal immigration last week. Under the new ban, which analysis suggests could block as much as two thirds of all immigrants from coming to the United States, immigrants will be banned from entering unless they can prove they will be covered by private health insurance within 30 days of entry. The ban is set to go into effect on November 3, 2019.

Immigrants will also be permitted into the United States if they can prove they are wealthy enough to pay for any “reasonably foreseeable medical costs” out of pocket. However, the rule does not provide any guidance on what constitutes a “reasonably foreseeable medical cost” and leaves it up to the Secretary of State to create new rules implementing the Ban.

Depending on how those rules are written, the Healthcare Ban could impose a direct wealth test on immigrants; a stark rejection of the principles of immigration that have guided America for generations.

Like the Travel Ban which was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, this new ban invokes a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows the president to declare that the entry of “certain” noncitizens is “detrimental to the United States.” As with the Travel Ban, those subject to this ban will be denied visas and barred from entering the United States as permanent residents.

Under the new Healthcare Ban, immigrants must demonstrate that they will be covered by private health insurance. In addition, subsidized health insurance plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act exchange would not be counted. This could create a huge hurdle for immigrants lacking employer-provided health insurance.

The Healthcare Ban could lead to nearly 70% all legal immigrants being denied entry. According to the Migration Policy Institute, 34% of recent legal immigrants are uninsured, and an additional 31% have health insurance plans that wouldn’t qualify under the Healthcare Ban.

The requirement to purchase unsubsidized health insurance will provide a particular hurdle for immigrants.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the majority of individual health insurance plans purchased on the individual market are subsidized plans—which would not count as health insurance for the purpose of the Ban. Out of 13.7 million people who enrolled in the individual market in the first quarter of 2019, two thirds of the total (9.3 million) received subsidies.

The Healthcare Ban does provide some exceptions, including one for minor children of U.S. citizens and immigrants who are already in the United States. There is also a limited exception for parents of U.S. citizens, who still must prove that their healthcare “will not impose a substantial burden on the United States healthcare system.”

The Healthcare Ban comes just days before the Trump administration’s much-attacked new “Public Charge” rule goes into effect on October 15. That rule sought to limit legal immigration by expanding the groups of immigrants excluded as “public charges” because they might use public benefits in the future.

But the Healthcare Ban sweeps far more broadly than public charge, targeting even immigrants who would easily meet that rule’s new standards.

Given the extreme damage that the new ban would do to legal immigration, legal challenges are likely. President Trump has made his dislike for immigrants who use public benefits clear, and his general anti-immigrant attitude is likely to form one basis for the lawsuit. And unlike the Travel Ban, where much of President Trump’s statements occurred before he became president, challengers will be able to draw on a long list of anti-immigrant actions and rhetoric taken throughout his term in office.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4527-New-Healthcare-Ban-Threatens-The-Immigration-System.html

Welcoming Week 2019 Showcases America’s Inclusive Spirit

By Wendy Feliz www.immigrationimpact.com

Welcoming Week 2019 has arrived. Communities around the nation are spending the week of September 13 – 22 bringing together immigrants, refugees, and longtime residents in a spirit of unity and celebration.

Despite the daily news on immigration, Americans are far more welcoming than one might think. In fact, average Americans (the ones born here and the ones who weren’t) come together each day to build lives, provide for their families, and realize their American dream.

Welcoming America encourages every community in the nation to celebrate that inclusive spirit in all of us.

The events taking place across America include book talks, civil dialogues, art installations, and community-based improvement projects.

Americans increasingly recognize that building welcoming communities and a nation where everyone feels like they belong makes us stronger economically, socially, and culturally.

In fact, the movement is growing. Last year there were over 2,000 events in 400 communities with more than 80,000 people participating.

This is an important moment in our nation. At a time when political rhetoric has deepened divisions and hate crimes are on the rise, Welcoming Week 2019 reminds us to get involved and help build the kind of country we can all be proud of.

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com - YouTube Welcoming America 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4477-Welcoming-Week-2019-has-arrived.html

The Trump Administration’s Proposed “Mixed Status” Housing Rule Is Another Form of Family Separation

The world has watched in horror as migrant families have been forcibly separated, placed into camps, and subjected to the cruel conditions of detention, as part of the Trump administration’s sustained assault on immigrant rights. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) proposed “mixed status” rule is yet another form of family separation, with clear negative implications for survivors of domestic violence. That’s why today the ACLU, ACLU of California and other state affiliates filed public comments condemning the proposed rule, joining the ranks of the National Housing Law Project,, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and countless other advocates.

On May 10, 2019, HUD proposed a rule that will effectively evict tens of thousands of immigrant families, and jeopardize housing subsidies for millions of U.S. citizens. HUD’s new rule will ban “mixed-status” families — comprised of household members who are both eligible and ineligible for federal housing assistance — from living in public housing and Section 8 programs, even though assistance is already prorated, or decreased, to exclude ineligible members. Based on HUD’s own analysis, the new rule will threaten housing for 25,000 mixed-status families — including over 55,000 children who are U.S. citizens or green card holders. The proposed rule will also impose burdensome documentation requirements on over 9 million residents who receive housing subsidies, which will disproportionately impact low-income residents, >people of color, >Black individuals, >people with disabilities, and elderly Americans. 

Importantly, being “ineligible” for federal housing assistance does not always mean that a resident is undocumented. For example, domestic violence survivors who have U-Visas — which provide victims of abuse and other crimes with temporary immigration status — are not eligible for such assistance and will face eviction if HUD’s proposed rule is finalized. This new rule will be particularly devastating for survivors like Margarita, who are the sole providers for “eligible” children. After fleeing abuse in Mexico and the U.S. and battling homelessness for nearly a decade, Margarita was overjoyed when she and her children were finally able to move into a public housing apartment last year. Now Margarita fears that HUD’s proposed rule will force her family into homelessness yet again. As recognized by Congress in its enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, access to stable housing is critical to the wellbeing of domestic violence survivors and their families. HUD’s new rule would erect greater obstacles to such access, destabilizing families as they attempt to escape violence. 

If finalized, HUD’s new rule will force affected families to make an agonizing choice: either break up to allow eligible members to keep their benefits — a decision that the agency itself characterizes as “ruthless” — or forgo assistance to allow the family to stay together. Recognizing the impossibility of this choice, HUD’s own analysis predicts that the very “fear of the family being separated would lead to prompt evacuation by most mixed households.” 

No matter the decisions of “mixed-status” families, the consequences are grave. Forcing family members to live separately inflicts significant harm, promotes distrust of government actors, and discourages those in need from seeking assistance. For the majority of families that choose instead to forgo benefits, the housing instability prompted by the proposed rule will be costlyand may even result in temporary homelessness. Involuntary displacement frequently leads to employment loss, loss of material possessions, and lasting health issues, including substance abuse. Moreover, evicted families, often headed by women of color, will struggle to find stable housing as they are rooted out by landlord screening policies that force these individuals to seek substandard housing elsewhere or risk homelessness. 

Moreover, HUD’s proposed rule is administratively unwise. By HUD’s own analysis, the implementation of the new rule will cost between $193 to $227 million every year. This increased cost is associated with providing non-prorated housing subsidies to fully eligible families that take the place of mixed-status families. HUD also predicts that the proposed rule will diminish both quantity andquality of public housing. At a time when the Trump administration is threatening to slash the HUD budget, the move to inflate housing assistance resources is nonsensical, and suggests ulterior motives. 

Perhaps the most damning feature of HUD’s proposed rule is that it simply isn’t justified. HUD claims that the new rule is necessary to prevent undocumented residents from receiving federal aid and assistance, in accordance with Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. But the law already prevents ineligible immigrants from receiving HUD funds. Indeed, Section 214 explicitly authorizes a family’s housing subsidy to be prorated to account for ineligible household members. The true motivation behind this rule was clarified by HUD Secretary Ben Carson on May 21, who noted that this proposal would allow Congress “to engage in comprehensive immigration reform.” The proposed rule has never been about conforming with Section 214 — this is about engendering fear into immigrant communities. 

As the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda encroaches on the home, we cannot sit idly as our government attempts to make the most intimate arena of life as inhospitable to immigrants as the rest of our country. Today, we speak out against family separation in the home, just as we have in the case of family separation on the border. We urge HUD to immediately withdraw the proposed rule and advance housing policies that strengthen—not undermine—the ability of families to access stable, affordable housing.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4321-Mixed-Status-other-Form-of-Family-Separation.html

Immigrants Who Use Legal Marijuana Can Be Denied Citizenship For Lacking Good Moral Character

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Under a new guidance issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), immigrants may find themselves barred from obtaining citizenship if they possess or use marijuana—even if doing so is legal where they live. The new policy also clarifies that even employment in the industry can prevent an immigrant from being a naturalized citizen.

As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, immigrants may find themselves entirely left out. 

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Possession of even small amounts of marijuana can qualify as a federal misdemeanor. Giving marijuana to another person—even for no money—can qualify as trafficking. 

To be eligible to become a naturalized citizen, an immigrant must demonstrate they had “good moral character” for the past five years before filing their application. But the law presumes that a person does not have “good moral character” if they have committed any violations of controlled substance laws. This is the case even if they were never arrested or convicted. There is an exception for those with a “single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” 

Because the federal government hasn’t interfered with state legalization, many immigrants may have been unaware of these consequences. But USCIS has now made it clear that state laws do not prevent immigration consequences. 

According to the guidelines, “possession of marijuana for recreational or medical purposes or employment in the marijuana industry may constitute conduct that violates federal controlled substance laws.” 

This can be enough to tip the scales against them in judging whether they have “good moral character.” This means buying marijuana for personal use or even working as a cashier at a dispensary might bar an immigrant from citizenship. They will have to wait up to five years before being eligible to apply for citizenship again. 

Similar conflicts even get in the way of international travel. After Canada legalized recreational marijuana last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a warning to travelers. U.S. officials can now deny Canadians entry if they are going to the United States for “reasons related to the marijuana industry.” Those that work in the industry but are traveling for unrelated reasons won’t get turned away, although using marijuana in a legal state could disqualify them from future entries. 

As the legal marijuana industry expands, immigrants seeking to take advantage of the industry find themselves increasingly at risk. USCIS’s guidance is a clear sign that that Congress still needs to act on this state and federal conflict. This will ensure immigrants are not unfairly denied citizenship for partaking in something completely legal in their state. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4140-Immigrants-Who-Use-Legal-Marijuana-Can-Be-Denied-Citizenship.html

HUD Proposes To Evict Citizens And Immigrants From Public Housing If They Have Undocumented Family Members

Written by Ericka Cruz

An estimated 25,000 families in public housing are of mixed-status, meaning that at least one family member is a citizen, legal permanent resident, or refugee and another member is undocumented. Although undocumented immigrants do not qualify for housing benefits, current rules allow them to live with their families who do qualify. However, this may soon change. Under a new rule proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), citizens and legal immigrants in public or subsidized housing may be evicted if they have an undocumented family member living with them.

Under current law, a family only needs to declare the number of family members who are eligible or ineligible for the subsidies. If an undocumented family member lives in public housing with the eligible applicant, then the family only receives partial subsidies, which cover only the family members who are eligible citizens or qualifying immigrants. The current system ensures that undocumented family members do not receive any public housing assistance benefit. Because of these strict guidelines, mixed-status families usually end up paying close to market-rate for rent. 

HUD’s new proposed regulation would make it so that any family currently receiving a public housing benefit or subsidy, including Section 8 vouchers, would automatically be ineligible for any housing benefit if even one member of their family living in the house is undocumented. Under the new system, every family member’s immigration status would be screened through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system if they are under the age of 62 and currently live in subsidized housing. 

The new rule could affect as many as 32,000 people in mixed-status families who currently receive federal housing benefits. Those families would have to choose between eviction or breaking up the family. This puts at risk vulnerable Americans and immigrants who rely on these subsidies for their housing. 

HUD argues that these evictions will help reduce wait-lists for public housing, but many low-income housing advocates disagree. Very few, if any, apartments would open because many mixed-status families will opt to split up rather than lose their benefits completely. 

This is a mean-spirited attempt at addressing major issues with public housing, including long wait-lists and substandard housing conditions. In New York alone there are currently 209,180 people on line for public housing benefits, with an additional 148,000 on line for Section 8 housing. 

HUD’s proposed regulation has been sent to Congress for a 15 day review period before it is published for a 60 day public comment period. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4130-Proposes-to-Evict-Citizens-and-Immigrants-from-Public-Housing.html

The United States Must Embrace Global Talent, As High-Skilled Foreign Workers Go Elsewhere

 

Written by Walter Ewing

If the U.S. government closes the door to highly skilled foreign workers, other countries stand ready to embrace their contributions. For instance, while the Trump administration contemplates an overhaul of the H-1B temporary employment visa, a process that would make it more difficult to obtain them, the Canadian government is offering the opposite. Canada is promising a two-week turn-around time on work permits for skilled foreign workers who are in the United States, but who might like to try Canada instead.

The U.S. government and employers must create a welcoming environment that attracts skilled people from around the world, because the United States is no longer the default choice for foreign workers looking for new opportunities. 

This is one of the central conclusions of a new book, “The Gift of Global Talent, ” by Harvard Business School professor William Kerr. 

The book synthesizes much of the existing research on high-skilled immigration and reaches a number of important conclusions. Paramount among these is that “talent is the world’s most precious resource.” The accuracy of this statement becomes apparent if you consider that computers, cars, and factories would not exist if not for the creativity of engineers and other high-tech professionals. 

Moreover, talent is highly mobile. Talented workers can readily travel to any corner of the globe where opportunity beckons to them—meaning that forward-looking nations must actively compete for these workers and not take them for granted. 

“The Gift of Global Talent” argues that one unique feature of talented individuals is that they tend to congregate in a relatively small number of places—like Silicon Valley, or equivalent locations in Canada, Europe, and Asia. 

Contrary to conventional economic thinking, this tendency to collect in one city doesn’t drive down wages or produce a surplus of workers. Rather, it makes the place even more attractive to other talented professionals. In Kerr’s terminology, this process gives birth to “talent clusters”—and it is the talent clusters that fuel innovation. 

As the author notes, the degree to which foreign-born workers contribute to the growth of these clusters is readily apparent in a couple of statistics. Immigrants account for one-quarter of all U.S. patents filed. And more than half of all U.S. workers with doctorates in science and engineering fields are immigrants. 

The talent clusters that have taken root in the United States would not exist in their present form without immigration. Likewise, these immigrants would not have been able to come without visas specifically designed for highly skilled professionals, such as the H-1B. 

To succeed in such a global labor market, businesses must be nimble; quick to follow new ideas and attract the workers needed to develop those new ideas. For this reason, many businesses very deliberately set up shop in the middle of a talent cluster so that they will have ready access to whatever sort of talented workers are needed as the business moves forward. 

The primary obstacle to getting the workers they need rests in the inefficiencies of the U.S. employment visa system (particularly flaws in the H-1B, such as the fact that the visa is tied to a single employer and is not “portable” if the worker wants to get a different job in a different company). These obstacles would only increase with changes to the visa’s availability being contemplated by the Trump administration. 

At a broader level, the administration’s anti-immigrant policies have already caused the United States to lose some of its luster as a home for global talent. This is an economically self-destructive course of action that must be reversed. Workers who possess knowledge and ingenuity transcend borders. Rational immigration policies would recognize this basic fact. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3922-United-States-must-support-foreign-workers.html

Two Border Patrol Agents Charged With Murder Highlights The Need For Robust Hiring Standards

Written by Joshua Breisblatt

In rural communities throughout the United States , immigration has been a demographic lifeline that offsets—at least in part—the dwindling number of native-born Americans. In fact, as a report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) explains, there are many rural areas in which schools, hospitals, and businesses would have shut their doors if not for an influx of immigrants . 

CAP analyzes 2,767 “rural places”—characterized as such by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Of all the rural places that fit this definition and are the focus of the CAP report, 68 percent (or 1,894) have experienced a shrinking population since 1990 due to a declining number of native-born residents. Of these 1,894 locales, more than three-quarters (78 percent) would have experienced an even greater population decline if not for immigration. 

Places that are experiencing declines in population size eventually find that they are no longer able to sustain the same level of essential services that they could when the population was larger. As CAP explains, the result can be school consolidations or school closures; hospital closures and reductions in healthcare services more broadly; and closures of various small businesses and public institutions such as grocery stores, gas stations, and libraries. This downward spiral can be avoided if immigration offsets the shrinking native-born population. 

Citing the USDA, the CAP report notes that while immigrants are adding to the populations of rural areas in general, the number of native-born residents has declined due to falling birth rates (a trend also observed in the United States as a whole), the desire among many young adults in rural areas to move to larger cities with more opportunities, and a sharp increase in mortality rates among working-age adults (due in large part to the opioid crisis). Plus, as the USDA also observes, more than 500 rural counties nationwide have been absorbed by expanding urban areas since 1974. 

As the CAP report highlights, the contributions of immigrants to rural areas as a whole go far beyond simply increasing population size. There is no shortage of rural communities in which immigrants provide much-needed labor on farms , open new small businesses , and serve as healthcare providers in medically underserved areas. While it is true that some communities fight against these demographic trends, there are others that treat immigration as a vital economic resource to be managed—not feared. 

For instance, the CAP report singles out one rural place in particular—St. James, Minnesota—as an example of a community that actively seeks to integrate immigrants into its economic and social fabric. When Latino immigrants began arriving in St. James in the 1970s and 1980s to work at the Tony Downs Foods Company, political and business interests crafted a welcoming strategy so that immigrant workers and their families would feel at home. Among other initiatives, these leaders tried to make services more accessible to the newcomers through English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in schools and translation of important documents into Spanish. 

Unfortunately, some rural locales have not followed in the footsteps of St. James in treating immigration as a resource. CAP observes that one of the more notorious cases is that of Hazelton, Pennsylvania , where a local ordinance passed in 2006 fined landlords $1,000 per day for renting to undocumented immigrants and a five-year business license suspension for any employer hiring an undocumented worker. 

The ordinance was eventually struck down by a federal judge and the local government was ordered to pay more than a million dollars in legal fees. In hindsight, even some fervently anti-immigrant residents of Hazleton have reconsidered their positions. Mayor Joseph Yanuzzi, a supporter of the ordinance, came to realize that immigrants were revitalizing the small business community, filling what would otherwise be vacant apartments, and keeping school enrollments higher than they otherwise would have been. 

The CAP report emphasizes that many rural communities can and do devise smart strategies for integrating newcomers into the fabric of their economy and civic life. This speaks not only to the humanity of the native-born population in these locales, but to the economic (and demographic) importance of immigrants themselves. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3905-Two-Border-Patrol-Agents-Charged-With-Murder.html

Asylum Seeker Files Lawsuit After CBP Officers Falsify Paperwork And Then Deport Him

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Time and time again, immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border are never given a meaningful opportunity by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to explain why they fear returning to their country of origin. All too often CBP officers fail to follow the rules designed to protect asylum seekers at the border, and they sometimes insert untrue and nonsensical information into their deportation paperwork. 

An immigrant who was forced through a fast-track deportation at the border involving these unlawful practices sued CBP on Thursday. His deportation was based on paperwork that included fabricated answers, and he was never given the opportunity to apply for asylum. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeks to hold CBP accountable for its negligence and unlawful practices. 

José Crespo Cagnant, a Mexican immigrant who has lived in the United States with his U.S.-citizen partner for more than a decade, was arrested by CBP agents after entering the United States in 2012. Although he was afraid of persecution in Mexico based on his sexual orientation, Crespo was rushed through an expedited deportation process by a Border Patrol agent who couldn’t communicate in Spanish. 

The agent never gave Crespo an opportunity to explain whether he was afraid of returning to Mexico. They also made up inaccurate information about Crespo’s reasons for coming to the United States and his family history. The agent included that fabricated information in the deportation paperwork, pretending that Crespo had provided it. As a result, Crespo was quickly deported without ever getting the opportunity to speak to an asylum officer, which is required by law. 

Still fearful of remaining in Mexico, Crespo eventually returned to his partner—now husband—and sought to legalize his status. As a result, he was arrested and criminally charged with reentering the United States after deportation. 

A federal district court judge later dismissed the criminal case against Crespo, finding that the agent who deported him did not testify credibly about his ability to communicate in Spanish and whether he meaningfully informed Crespo of the charges against him. 

Despite this finding, the Border Patrol agent remains on the job. 

Sadly, these abuses are not unique. In interviews with Mexican immigrants in 2016 and 2017, more than half of those deported from the border reported that they were never asked if they feared return, were not allowed to read their deportation documents before being forced to sign them, or both. 

With this case, Crespo seeks to hold ensure CBP is liable for its officers’ fabrication of evidence and unlawful treatment of asylum seekers. As advocates have documented , CBP rarely takes any action in response to even the most serious complaints of abuse by its officers. Those officers make life-or-death decisions when they turn away individuals seeking protection in the United States from persecution and torture, and their actions in cases like Crespo’s must not go unchecked. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3819-Asylum-seekers-file-suit-against-CPB.html