The Boston Immigration Court will do another five Credible Fear Review hearings by VTC from Dilley, TX this morning. Before Judge Marna Rusher.
These are often tough to listen to.
Thread from last week:
These are often tough to listen to.
Thread from last week:
As with last week, these hearings might be closed to the public if the migrants request it. So not clear how much of this I'll be able to view. They're scheduled to start at 9am Eastern.
Judge Rusher is a newly minted IJ here in Boston. (Although really, they're all "new to me"; I've not spent much time in this court.) She was a former DHS trial attorney for ICE. 
We have no clerk today, and the judge is having trouble finding the Dilley courtroom in the VTC system's phone book. We may be dialing by number.
We dialed in by number. And connected.
And unfortunately my presence has triggered questions about whether the hearings are open or closed, requiring research and a brief delay.
I'm not sure why inquiring of the migrants+attys is not sufficient, but apparently…not?…sigh.
And unfortunately my presence has triggered questions about whether the hearings are open or closed, requiring research and a brief delay.
I'm not sure why inquiring of the migrants+attys is not sufficient, but apparently…not?…sigh.
We're beginning the first of 5 (2nd one on the calendar). The migrant consents to my presence, so that's easy.
IJ Rusher is explaining the process, how she is reviewing as asylum officer's decision, and her decision is final either way.
1st case: cartel kidnapped her husband, fears they will kidnap her or her daughter, and she was kidnapped en route to Laredo. The cartel will ask her for money, she thinks. She has seen the mayor hanging out with the cartel.
Credible Fear NOT FOUND. No nexus to Gov. action.
Credible Fear NOT FOUND. No nexus to Gov. action.
Everyone on today's list is from Mexico.
I also misread the calendar (as did the IJ!), apparently the last two cases are set for 2pm Eastern. So only three this morning.
I also misread the calendar (as did the IJ!), apparently the last two cases are set for 2pm Eastern. So only three this morning.
IJ Rusher's style is to read paraphrases from the written DHS AO's report and ask "Is that a true statement?" rather than seeking independent oral narratives. This gets a lot of Si/Yes and I'm not sure it's the best way to draw out new/more/additional information.
Video occasionally cut in/out during the 1st hearing, but was mostly fine. But it cut out completely a few seconds into the 2nd hearing, and we're proceeding full steam ahead, after Asst. Chief Judge Sanchez (who is observing) said it would be fine.
2nd case: woman+daughter threatened 6 times by a cartel; the first 3 while her ex-husband was still present. Threatened to take her daughter away. Reported to police, the police did not do anything.
The attorney for all these cases, Kate Sigafoos, earlier asked for permission to make a closing statement; Rusher suggested she'd likely allow it.
But then Rusher determined CREDIBLE FEAR NOT FOUND before Sigafoos has the opportunity to do so. Sigafoos inquired and, well…
But then Rusher determined CREDIBLE FEAR NOT FOUND before Sigafoos has the opportunity to do so. Sigafoos inquired and, well…
Rusher said Sigafoos could do so after Rusher was finished. So Rusher concluded no credible fear based on lack of a nexus to 1 of the 5 protected grounds, and then let Sigafoos make her argument. But of course, it did not change Rusher's decision against credible fear.
Sigafoos argued there was a familial relationship ground because the cartel specifically targeted the migrant's family's business, motorcycle sales, "as a way to monitor the community."
Rusher said the cartel will target any business and sustained her decision.
Rusher said the cartel will target any business and sustained her decision.
Next up, the 3rd and final case of the morning. A mom with 2 children. Unlike in previous cases, the 2 children are not in the courtroom (and it's not particularly clear why, nor was there any inquiry about it).
3rd case: Son has been discriminated against because of an injury that limits mobility of the right side of his body. Aunt kidnapped by cartel 8yrs ago, tortured for 3yrs before being released. Mom was threatened by cartel in June 2019 after witnessing torture of a young man…
…none of these threats reported to the police. Travelled to Tijuana & stayed there for 6mo before seeking asylum at San Ysidro. Believes the cartel works with the police and does so throughout the entire country of Mexico.
CREDIBLE FEAR DENIED (0 for 3)
CREDIBLE FEAR DENIED (0 for 3)
IJ expressed her genuine sympathy over the son's medical conditions, and in listed the 5 protected grounds not met: race, nationality, political opinion, membership in a Particular Social Group, religion. "The court is duty-bound to follow the laws of the United States."
Only after the decision was rendered did the atty ask, "Would it be appropriate for me to offer a summary?"
"No, because I've made my decision & I just don't see the nexus."
I'm puzzled why she waited rather than inquiring before the decision was rendered.
"No, because I've made my decision & I just don't see the nexus."
I'm puzzled why she waited rather than inquiring before the decision was rendered.
It would be better, of course, if the IJ had offered a clear break after her questioning before beginning her decisions. Or had asked, "Do you have anything to add?" as some judges do.
Maybe this is something learned after being a judge for longer? Or just style? Or other?
Maybe this is something learned after being a judge for longer? Or just style? Or other?
That's it for this morning. I'll try to come back this afternoon.
Oh yes: It was particularly clear that IJ Rusher had reviewed the files in detail, and she leafed through them and read from them, and also had to go back for more after the calendar/scheduling interruption.
So consequently, as always, it's challenging to render a fair view or summary of these cases from sitting in the gallery without access to the full information.
One would hope for more stronger advocacy by the attorney, though.
One would hope for more stronger advocacy by the attorney, though.
New thread for this afternoon:
