Thread by @NicoletteGlazer

Some more legal shenanigans from DHS: In an effort to stack the deck in Padilla v ICE, case challenging Matter of M-S- (the no bond for EWIs placed in sec 240 removal proceedings) ERO has not issued an across the board sec 212d5 parole interim final rule that took effect the 18th

1/ In Padilla the district court ordered EOIR to conduct bond hearing for class members within 7 days of receipt of bond request or release them if no bond hrg was held in that period of time.

2/ Govmt appealed the preliminary injunction to the 9th Circuit and last week the 9th Cir granted the Govt request to stay the decision pending briefing on stay.

3/ Now any EWI who after positive credible fear interview has been placed in full removal proceedings will be "eligible" for parole under section 212d5. On the surface it looks like a positive development but it really is not.

4/ ERO is not required to screen or consider ppl for release on parole affirmatively but only is required to decide formal requests. Ergo, unless you have a lawyer you are a sh*t out of luck.

5/ Under this new parole rule, ppl cannot be issued an order of own recognizance or placed on Order of Supervision but it is in the officer discretion ppl can be placed on ankle monitoring or other alternative to detention (there is a cost for those).

6/ Only 5 categories of asylum seekers will be eligible:

* pregnant women
* ppl w medical conditions
* juveniles
* needed as witnesses
* those for whom release is the the public interest.

7/ You would think that releasing people who have passed credible fear interviews is always in the public interest, right? Well, think again. No-No!
Ppl will be released 'in the public interest' if they establish they are not danger to commun, not flight risk & meet additional

8/ So, let me unpack this one first. Unless you can establish "identity" officers will not even have to consider anything else. This is a problem for a lot of ppl especially asylum seekers from Africa, India, Haiti etc. Smugglers also often take passports before dropping ppl

9/ The of course, to convince an officer that a person is not a flight risk you basically have to show where person will reside, with whom, and how would they support themselves, etc. Many ppl do have relatives here, but many do not.

10/ Recently, I had a case where the officer insisted on a 213 sponsor docs before even considering the request. Let's say, many ppl are not comfortable these days to come forward and act as co-sponsors for any immigration benefits, and parole req are not different.

11/ Then, once you meet general reqs 4 release asylum seeker must meet the following "non-exhaustive" list of factors (yep, anytime I see the "non-exhaustive" placed anywhere in immigrat regs I want to hurl expletives coz it is how they stash the "denied coz I said so" authority.

12/ The factors are:
* sole caretaker for an ill fam member, child, or elderly parent
* will be an organ donor in near future
* has a disability that render detention inappropriate or has been a vic of sexual assault and then ...

13/ ,,, we have this gem: a person will be released if "in light of available detention resources" it will free a bed space for a person "who may pose a greader risk of flight or danger to community". So basically the Govt priorities are as follows:

14/ 1st: make sure that private prisons are fully supplied w warm bodies they need to make a healty profit (right now it is at 52K quota --illigal). Then, we will rank ppl based on who "deserves" more to be detained & will release those of lower rank when we catch someone else

15/ So when you manage to get a grant on release for one person, you are basically assuring that someone else will be held in detention without bond until they get deported or win their case. Way to victimize everyone, A**holes!

16/ Only families detained together who have passed cred fear will affirmatively considered for parole and ERO must start the adjudication process within 2 days from the positive cred fear determination. Nice gesture but clearly inserted to support legal arguments before the Cts

17/ Ppl who were released prior to 15 July 2019 will not be re-detained unless there is an intervening event such as crim arrest or violation of condition of release.

18/ What puzzles me is the insistence on non-use of orders of recognizance which are issued under sec 246. I am not getting it. Is it coz its the sec dealing w bonds or there is something else that they want to cut off? #immigrationtwitter what is it that they are going after?

19/ The only thing I can come up is that it may be used under 241.4 for release after expiration of removal period but this is way too remote. Also, not issuing standard I-94 looks like a hyper technical insistence on reg precision not typical of DHS practice. Is something afoot?