Thread by @NicoletteGlazer

@TalKopan first broke the news of the EOIR replacement of in-person interpreter w a video advisals. I just read the scripts for detained and non-detained cases and they are so F*ing misleading. Just wow!

First, advisals are unduly long & complicated. Substantively they are mucho problematic. For example both detained & non-detained are told they have to select country of removal. They dont. In fact, selecting country of origins could be used as a factor undermining fear of return

Second, advising ppl that if they are ordered removed they would be removed to the country sected convey a misleading choice. If you are from Guatemala but just select to be removed to France, is just not gonna happen.

Third, the advisals for change of address are mindboggling.Detained noncitizen are told that they have *an obligation* to provide to EOIR a "good address" to receive mail. WTF is that! INA requires mailing/residence address. clearly this is the script to be used in #MPP cases.

Fourth, detained notice completely omits advisal for excuse of non appearance for exceptional circumstances. It is a deliberate effort to hide important statutory safety valve when a person misses court date bc of unanticipated occurrence or events beyond their control.

Ppl returned to MX under #RemaininMexico have been bused away from the border & they rely 100% on CBP letting them in for court hrgs. Surprise, surprise CBP f*cks up often, so ppl are prevented from attending hrgs or are not even notified of new dates.

Calibrating the advisals to not emphasizing the ability to reopen under the exceptional circumstances exception is an evil attempt to prevent reopening or ppl even trying to reach out for help.

Fifth, neither notice advises ppl that they have one year to file their application for asylum. How is it that they missed this tidbit? #asylumisaright.

Sixth, both notices tell ppl that they "may be eligible for free legal services". The use of *eligibility* misleadingly convey a sense of entitlement and I think was inserted to vilify the few providers left on the pro bono lists.

For those not familiar w immigration courts: at their first hrg all non citizens appearing without an attorney are given list of pro-bono legal providers, who are mostly local NGOs.

Noone is eligible for pro bono services, these NGOs take the cases they select & can accommodate. THEY ARE BEYOND BRAKING POINT.
***
By telling desperate ppl that they are "eligible" gives them the wrong sense that by calling the providers they will obtain free legal help ...

... they so desperately need. They are devastated when they try to call the NGOs only to be told that they cant handle any more cases. EOIR knows very well, but included this language to flame discontent towards the providers on the list. SHANEFUL.

sorry, SHAMEFUL.