IELR Blog

Official Blog of the International Enforcement Law Reporter

CARICOM HEADS ISSUE COMMUNIQUÉ ON SECURITY, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES

by Leave a Comment

At 39th meeting of the heads of government of the Caribbean Community in Montego Bay, Jamaica on July 4-6, 2018,   several significant actions occurred on international enforcement and security cooperation, as shown by the Communique.

Jamaica signed the CARICOM arrest warrant treaty, which enables Jamaica and CARICOM countries to more easily surrender individuals without need to extradite them.

After receiving an update on current and emerging Crime and Security issues in the region, the Heads mandated the Regional Security Agencies to work closely with the National Security Heads to address the various challenges emphasizing the need to strengthen the network of security head in the region to promote further information and intelligence sharing.

The Heads underscored the importance of strengthening the use of information and Communications technology in the fight against illicit trafficking in narcotics and firearms, trans-border criminal activities and cyber attacks.  They emphasized the importance of working more closely with their international development partners to help the region in this regard.

CARICOM Members were encouraged to urgently update all legal instruments to combat crime and enhance regional security.

The Heads observed with great concern the amendment approved by the UK House of Commons to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill requiring the UK Government to ensure that the British Overseas Territories, but not Crown Dependencies, establish public registers of beneficial ownership information by no later than December 31, 2020.

They expressed solidarity with the territories “adversely affected by this unfair and unilateral action to legislate in areas of domestic policy constitutionally devolved to the territories without the consent of the people.  Moreover, the action ran counter to an alternative arrangement to public registers earlier negotiated and agreed with the UK government and put in place at great cost to the overseas territories.”

According to the Heads, this they view as similar to the “unfair, unilateral and punitive extraterritorial measures such as blacklisting and de-risking taken against their own countries financial services sector, also a critical aspect of their economies, despite their best efforts at transparency and compliance.”

The Heads welcomed the report of the Regional Commission on Marijuana, which reviewed information and studies pertaining to marijuana legislation regulating its use and classification, findings related to research conducted on the medicinal use of marijuana as well as the economic and social impact and its implications for the region.

The Heads accepted in principle the need for changes in the classification of the drug which will make it more available for medicinal purposes and research.  The acknowledged the region must intensify its lobbying at the international level to facilitate reclassification.

The Communiqué shows that the Caribbean Single Market Economy continues to facilitate streamlined procedure to enforcement cooperation, such as the CARICOM arrest warrant treaty.  They continue to try to develop common approaches and policies to transnational criminal threats, such as illicit trafficking in narcotics and firearms, trans-border criminal activities and cyber attacks.

The Heads are also developing common approaches to efforts by extraregional actors to impose tax transparency and money laundering/counter-terrorism financial regulatory and enforcement policies on them.  They are especially supportive of the overseas territories because the same policies, e.g., the requirement to have corporate public registers, will undoubtedly be imposed on them, even as they continue losing their financial service markets to other jurisdictions, especially to states in the U.S. which do not even have any private registers and the Trump Administration has not prioritized or pledged to meet international standards in tax transparency or anti-money laundering.

CARICOM has developed a number of regional enforcement and security mechanisms, including CARICOM Implementing Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), the Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police, and subregional enforcement mechanisms, such as the Organization of East Caribbean States (OECS) Regional Security System.

 

Federal Judge Orders Separated Migrant Children to be Reunited with Families

by Leave a Comment

On Tuesday, June 26, a federal judge in San Diego issued a preliminary nationwide injunction ordering Trump administration officials to reunite separated migrant children with their parents within 30 days. The injunction was the result of a class action suit brought forward by the ACLU on behalf of numerous parents who had been separated from their children at the border. The order requires children over 5 to be reunited with their parents within 30 days, while children under 5 must be reunited within 2 weeks. Judge Sabraw’s ruling comes after a growing wave of uproar from both sides of the aisle over the Trump administration’s new policy to separate migrant families seeking asylum in order to deter illegal immigrants from trying to get into the country. This policy was put into place in response to a growing wave of asylum seekers crossing the border from Central America who are fleeing violence and instability in their home countries. After the increasing backlash, President Trump signed an executive order on June 20 that effectively ended the policy of separating families at the border, but little has been done thus far to reunite migrant parents with their children.

Despite the injunction and the fact that separations at the border ended over a week ago, the administration has still made very little progress in complying with the judge’s order. Officials have insisted that the process will be significantly more complicated than it appears, since the children and parents are under the custody of different government organizations. While the parents currently undergoing the asylum process are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, their children are being detained by the Department of Health and Human Services, and it would require collaboration between the two departments to reunite these families. Furthermore, due to a 1997 court settlement, the federal government is prohibited from housing children in immigration detention centers for more than 20 days. Since the process of seeking asylum typically takes much longer than 20 days, even if children were to be reunited with their parents in federal detention centers, they would have to be removed and placed into foster care or with relatives should the time limit expire. As of the day the injunction was given, there were 2,047 children under the care of HHS, only slightly less than the 2,053 who were being housed when the executive order ending the separation policy was signed.

This most recent crisis is just one in a series of decisions that the Trump administration has taken in order to demonstrate its “zero tolerance” policy towards illegal immigration. The problem with the DACA children, or DREAMERs, remains unsolved and the president has on more than one occasion displayed a desire to cut legal immigration as well, particularly from developing countries. Congress seems alternatively unwilling or unable to solve the immigration crises created by the administration. On Wednesday, June 27, the GOP failed to pass a broad immigration bill that would have covered issues ranging from DACA to the border wall, as well as addressing the family separation crisis. The bill ultimately died in the House after limited Republican support and no Democratic votes. Congress will leave for their Fourth of July recess having failed to solve the situation at the border, once again demonstrating their lack of effectiveness in standing up to the Trump administration.

The Answer to the Travel Ban Debate

by Leave a Comment

On June 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ended the great debate by ruling that President Trump’s travel ban is constitutional and within his power to implement.[1]  In September 2017, President Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645 after the first two versions of the travel ban were ruled unconstitutional for multiple reasons, most importantly being racial discrimination.  Speculation is mounting as to the effects this decision will have on U.S. national security and foreign policy.

The Decision

The current version suspends entry from certain individuals from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.[2]  Each country has varying degrees of suspension, meaning some countries are banned as immigrants and nonimmigrants, while others are just banned as immigrants but with multiple exceptions.[3]

In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the President lawfully exercised his power under §1182(f) of the Aliens and Nationality Act because the act conveys a large degree of deference to the President in such matters.  It gives the President the power to decide whether and when to suspend entry whenever he finds that the entry of aliens would be detrimental to the national interest.[4]  In addressing the plaintiff’s racial animus argument, the majority stated that the issue they dealt with was the significance of the President’s alleged racial statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.[5]  The majority held that there is persuasive evidence that the ban has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, apart from any religious hostility, and is therefore justified.[6]

The Implications

The U.S. judiciary already grants the U.S. government a large degree of deference in national security matters, but that appears to have increased even more.  The case sets the precedent that public and political statements made by the President shall not outweigh the language and structure of the proclamation itself.  While this principle exemplifies the judiciary’s responsibility to remain politically neutral, it could have national security and foreign policy ramifications.[7]  According to an amicus brief approved by 26 retired generals and admirals, the ban harms U.S. national security because it perpetuates hostility towards Muslims and Muslim majority countries.[8]  It could help increase anti-U.S. propaganda by terrorists within the countries on the list and undermine relationships with locals.[9]  Former national security and foreign policy officials wrote a separate amicus brief stating that the government has failed to produce any national security reason for the ban.[10]  The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, as Congress designated these countries as posing national security threats in the past.[11]

A major issue that has yet to be fully addressed is the impact this decision will have on refugees attempting to enter the U.S.  Under the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, signatory countries cannot turn away refugees who have a legitimate fear of persecution within their home country.  According to Chris Boian, a spokesman for the U.N. refugee agency in the U.S., “refugees will still be admitted under the vigorous vetting requirements,” including those from countries on the travel ban list.[12]  So the decision itself will not affect the inflow of refugees, but combining it with the reduction in the number of refugees the U.S. will accept, the backlog of refugee cases, and the four month suspension of the U.S. refugee program, it appears there could be a moderate to severe effect.

Going Forward

Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that this decision will allow the current President, and future ones, to protect the American people.[13]  Given the amount of deference granted to the President in matters such as this, the Attorney General’s statement appears true.  But Justice Sotomayor foresees a darker result.  In her dissent she equated this decision to the decision in Korematsu to detain Japanese-American citizens during WWII, implying that the amount of deference provides Presidents with ways to enact morally repugnant acts such as Korematsu.[14]  The exact effects remain to be seen, but this decision will either be celebrated in years to come, or haunt the U.S. Supreme Court.

—

[1] Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 2018 WL 3116337, slip op. at 2 (U.S. June 26, 2018).

[2] Griffiths, What it’s Like in the 7 Countries on Trump’s Travel Ban List, CNN Politics (June 27, 2018 6:32 A.M.) https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/trump-travel-ban-countries-intl/index.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Slip op. at 9.

[5] Id. at 3.

[6] Id. at 22.

[7] Stottlemyer, Ex-Military, Intelligence, and Foreign Policy Officials: Travel Ban Harms National Security, JUST SECURITY (Apr. 4, 2018) https://www.justsecurity.org/54506/ex-military-intelligence-foreign-policy-officials-travel-ban-harms-national-security/.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 2018 WL 3116337, slip op. at 3 (U.S. June 26, 2018).

[12] Amman, Supreme Court’s Nod to Travel Ban Heightens Refugee Worries, abcNEWS (June 27, 2018, 12:06 P.M.) https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/supreme-court-nod-travel-ban-crushes-syria-refugees-56197209.

[13] Stohr, Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban, Giving President Win on Signature Issue, Bloomberg (June 26, 2018, 10:17 A.M.) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-26/trump-travel-ban-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court-jivrzei4.

[14] Id.

Family Separation at the Border: Running Afoul of International Law?

by Leave a Comment

In April, the New York Times reported that U.S. immigration officials had separated more than 700 migrant children from adults claiming to be their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy was met with widespread criticism once revealed, with critics denouncing it as immoral, inhumane, and even unconstitutional. “It’s hard to conceive of a policy more horrific than intentionally separating children from their parents as a form of punishment,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “This is not what the United States of America should be.” In yet another rebuke of the policy, a district judge in San Diego denied a motion last week to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the child separations.

While criticism has mostly centered on whether the policy is morally inhumane or in violation of U.S. law, some organizations and experts have also suggested that the family separation policy violates international law. In particular, on June 5, a spokesperson for the U.N.’s Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Ravina Shamdasani, denounced the Trump administration’s family separation policy at the border as “arbitrary” an “unlawful interference in family life, and a “serious violation of the rights of the child.” Shamdasani noted that, while the U.S. is the only country not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it nonetheless has an obligation to adhere to generally accepted human rights principles. “The use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles,” Shamdasani stated. “The child’s best interest should always come first, including over migration management objectives or other administrative concerns. It is therefore of great concern that in the US, migration control appears to have been prioritized ahead of the effective care and protection of children.”

Respect for family unity is a core tenet of many international human rights treaties and agreements. Article 9(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” Similarly, Article 17(1) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights recognizes the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” that “is entitled to protection by society and state.” Lastly, Article 17(1) 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) declares that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

Of these international agreements, the United States has only signed and ratified the ICCPR. However, the extent to which the principle of family unity features in international human rights documents suggests that the principle may be considered part of the canon of customary international law. While states have a legitimate authority to control the flow of immigrants and asylum-seekers over their borders, they also have a duty to honor their international human rights commitments.

For more on the principle of family unity in international law, see the following:

“Governing Rule 8: Respect for Family Unity,” in Sohn, L. B., & Buergenthal, T. (Eds.). (1992, October). The movement of persons across borders. American Society of International Law.

Hathaway, James C. The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Starr, S., & Brilmayer, L. (2003). Family separation as a violation of international law. Berkeley J. Int’l L., 21, 213.

Van Bueren, Geraldine. The international law on the rights of the child. Vol. 35. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998.

Sessions’ Rules Against Woman Previously Granted Asylum On Grounds of Domestic Abuse

by 1 Comment

On June 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated a 2016 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that could have significant consequences for victims of domestic abuse and gang violence who are applying for asylum in the United States. The board had ruled in favor of a woman from El Salvador who had applied for asylum in order to seek refuge from her abusive husband. Typically a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals is binding as the board is considered the highest government authority on immigration law. However, since all immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice, the attorney general has the power to assign himself cases. Cases vacated by the attorney general usually end up back in the federal appeals court. In the case of this particular Salvadoran woman, it will return to the immigration judge who initially denied her application. If the judge denies her again, she will be able to appeal once more.

In order to successfully appeal for asylum in the United States, applicants have to demonstrate that they suffered from persecution in their home countries on the basis of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or their particular social group”. Victims of domestic violence usually claim persecution under the last category, a particular social group. If so, they must “share a common immutable characteristic” with other members of their group, and their group must be “socially distinct within the society in question”. Furthermore, if their persecutor is not affiliated with the government, the asylum seeker must prove their government is unwilling or unable to protect them from said persecutor. After the 2016 decision granting asylum to the Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, judges in the Obama administration followed the precedent that allowed other woman to claim similar fears of domestic abuse. Attorney General Sessions’ decision to vacate this ruling will make it significantly harder for those sorts of arguments to prevail in immigration court.

As a reason for his decision, Jeff Sessions emphasized that “the asylum statute does not provide redress for all misfortune” and that although he sympathized with the woman involved, the original language did not intend for “membership in a particular social group” to become a catch-all for unfortunate situations. Furthermore, he believes that the criteria for granting asylum has become too broad and that narrowing the scope of what constitutes a credible fear would help with the growing backlog of 700,000 cases currently making their way through the courts. Critics of the Trump administration, on the other hand, suggest that this is just another effort to deter illegal immigrants from coming to the United States by making the process of applying for asylum more difficult. Furthermore, they complain that this decision has overturned years of work towards providing abused women better protection under the law. Others suggest that Sessions’ intervention in this case was an abuse of power, and that immigration courts need to be independent from the Department of Justice.

For more on this:

Katie Benner and Caitlin Dickerson, Sessions Says Domestic and Gang Violence Are Not Grounds for Asylum, The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/us/politics/sessions-domestic-violence-asylum.html

Maria Sacchetti, Attorney General Jeff Sessions says victims of domestic, gang violence ‘generally’ won’t qualify for asylum, The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sessions-signals-that-victims-of-domestic-abuse-and-gang-violence-generally-will-not-qualify-for-asylum/2018/06/11/45e54602-6d9e-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ef9f31a18668

 

U.S. and Brazil Start Permanent Forum on Security

by Leave a Comment

 

On May 22, 2018, the United States and Brazilian governments issued a joint statement following the start of the U.S.-Brazil Permanent Forum on Security.

The initiative arose during a meeting in Brasilia at which U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan was accompanied by the Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Manisha Singh and Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Francisco Palmieri.

The Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Secretary General Marcos Garvão hosted the U.S. delegation in a working lunch and a meeting where they discussed several aspects of the U.S.-Brazil partnership.

The start of the Permanent Forum on Security arises from “consistent cooperation between the United States and Brazil on fighting transnational crime, and based upon the strengthening of collaboration of law enforcement and security agencies in both countries.”[1]

The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. State Department will coordinate the Forum, which aims to facilitate interagency teamwork and design operating strategies in six pre-defined areas:  drug trafficking, arms trafficking, cybercrime, money laundering and financial crimes, terrorism, and institutional cooperation.

The first working meeting of the Forum will occur later this year in Washington, D.C.

During the visit, the two sides also issues related to criminal cooperation, such as space cooperation and defense.  They discussed the recent exchange of diplomatic notes completing the process for the U.S.-Brazil Open Skies Aviation Agreement and welcomed the resumption of negotiations on a Technology Safeguards Agreement.  They exchanged ideas on regional issues, including the region’s response to the political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.

According to the remarks of Deputy Secretary Sullivan, the U.S.-Brazilian security cooperation has included the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

A future IELR article will include a more comprehensive discussion of the Forum, its scope and some of the implications.

 

[1]    State Department, Western Hemisphere:  U.S.-Brazil Bilateral Cooperation, May 22, 2018

While Montgomery County, MD, Fights to Provide Legal Aid to Immigrants, the DOJ Seeks to Remove It

by 1 Comment

Montgomery County is one of Maryland’s most diverse and populous jurisdictions, where on average three out of ten residents were not born in the United States. Council members are currently debating whether to implement a controversial proposal that would allocate nearly $400,000 from the county’s general fund to a non-profit that provides legal funds to immigrants in detention. The program would only be made available to Montgomery County residents who are facing deportation, have a household income well below the poverty line, and have not been convicted of any major crimes. Despite these limitations, as well as the county’s significant percentage of immigrants, council members are already expecting objections to the proposed plan.

Hans Riemer, the Montgomery County Council President, defended the proposal by pointing out that “‘the federal government is targeting our residents and our communities’”, and emphasizing the need to respond accordingly. Claudia Cubas, the litigation director of the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, the nonprofit in question, noted that it is the county’s duty to protect its diversity by allowing immigrants the right to due process. The issue is scheduled for debate at a public hearing on May 1st and, if passed, would join a series of similar efforts, including statewide programs for legal representation for immigrants facing deportation hearings in New York and California. In Maryland alone, Baltimore and Prince George’s County have already joined the SAFE Cities Network, which also provides publicly funded lawyers to immigrants in 11 jurisdictions.

While Montgomery County is seeking to provide legal assistance to immigrants facing possible deportation, the Department of Justice is attempting to do just the opposite. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is taking steps to end a federally funded Legal Orientation Program that was put into effect under President Bush in 2003, one which seeks to educate immigrants about their rights and options in court in both English and Spanish. In a memo published in November of last year, the Justice Department praised the initiative for providing assistance to all parties in detainee-deportation cases, and even provided access to lawyers and paralegals from the program to an additional 30 detention centers across the country. Now, according to another government memo, the DOJ is suspending the program to order to review its effectiveness.

Research into the initiative’s effectiveness at the time of the November memo showed that its beneficiaries were more likely overall to have legal representation and complete their cases more efficiently than other detainees who were not affiliated with the program. Although the program costs 8 million dollars a year, it saves the government millions more in detention costs by helping immigrants avoid unnecessary delays, according to the Institute of Justice. It is often the only assistance that immigrants are given outside the court, and provides them with access to attorneys and paralegals that otherwise would be impossible to afford.

In defending their decision to end the program, federal officials say that it is unnecessary since immigration judges already inform immigrants of their rights while in court. It is worth noting, however, that the Justice Department under President Trump has already expressed concerns about the backlog of immigration cases in the federal justice system, and has even placed quotas on federal immigration judges to complete a certain number of cases a year. If that is the case, then the department’s decision to end a program shown to make deportation cases more efficient calls into question their true motives for suspending the initiative.

Attorney General Delivers Remarks on Immigration Enforcement to Border State Sheriffs

by Leave a Comment

Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with a coalition of sheriffs from border states in Las Cruces, New Mexico, on April 11th to deliver a set of highly politicized remarks that illustrated the Trump administration’s hardline, fear-based approach to illegal immigration. Sessions wasted no time in portraying the immigration situation as a black and white, us versus them issue.  He thanked the sheriffs present for acting as “the thin blue line that stands between law-abiding people and criminals”, and praised them for protecting the country “from drugs and violence”.

The attorney general appeared to echo remarks made by President Trump on the campaign trail regarding immigrants from Mexico by describing the types of people who come across the border as drug traffickers, gang members, and “other criminals who bring drugs, guns, and gang violence into our communities.” He also made the claim that most of the drugs currently in the U.S., specifically heroin, cocaine, meth, and fentanyl, come from over the border. This is false, as the majority of these drugs are actually smuggled in through ports of entry, which a border wall would not fix. For more on Sessions’ attempts to blame the drug crisis on illegal immigrants, click here.

Attorney General Sessions also used the speech as an opportunity to promote one of the administration’s most controversial and as yet unrealized promises, the border wall. Sessions blamed Congress for failing to take action on the wall and for providing illegal immigrants with an open invitation to cross the border. He criticized the Obama administration for allowing immigrants to exploit the “credible fear” policy, which allows immigrants to remain in the country legally if they can prove that they were endangered in their home countries. The Trump administration, with Sessions at the helm, is already doing everything in their power to limit the number of asylum seekers allowed to remain in the country. One strategy, which the attorney general mentioned briefly in his speech, is to put quotas on federal immigration judges to complete a certain number of immigration cases a year. For more on Sessions’ attempts to expel illegal immigrants, click here.

To read Sessions’ full speech, click here.

Subscribe to the International Enforcement Law Report for more in-depth analysis on the Trump administration’s efforts to suppress immigration.

ICE Officials to End Obama-Era Policy Protecting Pregnant Women From Detention

by Leave a Comment

On Thursday, March 29, U.S. officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that the agency was withdrawing an Obama-era policy preventing pregnant women from being detained, unless in the case of mandatory detention or other “extraordinary circumstances”. Officials were quick to emphasize that they were only ending “‘the presumption of release for all pregnant detainees’”, and that cases for pregnant illegal immigrants would continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis. But there is no longer a guarantee that pregnancy would be sufficient to set a detained individual free. This new shift in policy comes as a result of President Trump’s executive order of January 2017 on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which called for immigration officers to crack down on detaining and deporting any and all illegal immigrants in the country.

Both immigration and human rights activists have expressed concern that this will lead to an increase in the amount of detained pregnant women, despite the agency’s promises to evaluate cases on an individual basis. Philip Miller, a senior executive at ICE, has stated that since the policy was implemented in December he is unaware of an increase in pregnant detainees. He added that there were currently around 35 pregnant women in ICE detention centers, all for reasons of mandatory detention under the law. Furthermore, the agency has promised not to detain women in their third trimester except for “‘extraordinary circumstances’”.

Although ICE has repeatedly ensured that it provides prenatal care and “‘remote access’” to all pregnant detainees, many activists insist that the process of detention for a pregnant woman, particularly if the pregnancy occurred from rape, can be traumatizing. Katie Shepherd from the American Immigration Council expressed concern that “‘detention of this particularly vulnerable population has been linked to serious health implications to the mother and unborn child’”. Other advocate groups have complained that women who had been raped or those who experienced high-risk pregnancies had been harmed as a result of the lack of adequate care at ICE facilities, in some cases to the point of miscarriage. These complaints were in most cases filed before the policy change, and conditions will likely worsen as a result of the Trump administration’s overall approach to immigration.

For more on this:

Maria Sacchetti, Trump administration ends automatic release from immigration detention for pregnant women, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/trump-administration-ends-automatic-release-from-detention-for-pregnant-women/2018/03/29/8b6b1bc0-3365-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.7f8ecd4c86d6

Abigail Abrams, Ice Will Now Detain Pregnant Women Because of President Trump’s Executive Order, http://time.com/5221737/ice-detain-pregnant-immigrants-donald-trump/

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FAQs: Identification and Monitoring of Pregnant Detainees, https://www.ice.gov/faqs-identification-and-monitoring-pregnant-detainees

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Eliminates Requirement on Full Hearings for Asylum Seekers

by Leave a Comment

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced plans this week to do away with a requirement from a 2014 ruling by the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals that demands that all asylum seekers be given a full hearing in front of an immigration judge. Once this rule is eliminated, immigration judges will have the power to deny asylum to those seeking it based only upon an initial review of their petition. While Sessions and others in the Justice Department claim that this will ease the backlog of cases currently in the court system that are preventing judges from providing relief to deserving candidates, there are others who have expressed concern at the possibility of endangering thousands of people by sending them back to their native countries without giving them adequate time to explain their situation.

Getting rid of this requirement causes particular concern for asylum seekers who file their initial petitions without help from an attorney. This group represents about twenty percent of all asylum seekers and without this rule become significantly more at risk for being turned away without a chance to adequately present their case. Furthermore, despite claims this this will speed up the court system by allowing judges to reject unmerited cases more quickly, Jeremy McKinney from the American Immigration Lawyers Association points out that this will lead to increased backlog in the federal court system. This is primarily because a large portion of denied petitioners turn to the court of appeals as a last resort.

This is just another step in a series of measures that the Trump administration has attempted to take in order to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the United States. In October 2017 the White House announced its decision to place “numeric performance standards” on federal immigration judges, which they also said was an effort to reduce the backlog of immigration cases. However this measure was an explicit effort to increase the judges’ ability to deport immigrants, an outcome that President Trump promised in the beginning of his term.

The suggested production quotas led to outcry from a number of federal judges, who insisted that these measures would negatively affect their judicial independence as well as their ability to decide these controversial, often life-and-death cases. It is clear from this previous case that the elimination of the full hearings requirement is another attempt by the Trump administration to expel as many illegal immigrants as possible, and not in order to make time for more worthy asylum seekers, as Justice Department officials claim.

For more on this:

Maria Sacchetti, Immigration judges say proposed quotas from Justice Dept. threaten independence, The Washington Post (October 12, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/immigration-judges-say-proposed-quotas-from-justice-dept-threaten-independence/2017/10/12/3ed86992-aee1-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.bfec32155fde

Antonio Olivo, Advocates say Sessions’s decision to toss rule on asylum hearings endangers thousands, The Washington Post (March 7, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/advocates-sessions-decision-to-toss-rule-on-asylum-hearings-endangers-thousands/2018/03/07/24b63b24-2214-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.6db1e24a8839

Disclaimer

Nothing in this blog constitutes or is intended to constitute legal advice. Neither transmission nor receipt of such materials creates an attorney-client relationship. Blog readers and subscribers should consult with an attorney. This blog may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of some states. The hiring of an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Pages

Categories

Sign up for our mailing list!
Get the latest blog posts, and an exclusive discount offer for one year's subscription to the International Enforcement Law Reporter.
We respect your privacy.