Back at the Boston Immigration Court for more Credible Fear Review hearings. Two are expected.
See this morning's thread for some background:
It's ridiculous, but my favorite part of the JFK Building in Boston is this time machine on the bike rack in front. 
The 4th case (1st of the afternoon) has no objection to my presence in the courtroom, so I get to remain. It is a mother with her two tween/tween children. IJ Rusher is going over the process. Same attorney as this morning, Kate Sigafoos.
In the gallery with me is an unrelated attorney, who was just using the courtroom as a quiet workspace. I'm not sure if she is staying for the duration.
This time I did catch the name of the interpreter. She is a different interpreter than last week, but the same as this morning. Yet her voice is astoundingly similar; it makes me question my powers of observation, honestly. Weird.
4th case: Threatened by gangs, who want her to sell drugs, fears for her daughters. She fears them being raped, as she herself was at 9yrs old. She did not tell anyone about the attack or report it to the police, because her cousin reported a threat to the police & disappeared.
She's not sure what actually happened to her cousin, and doesn't know if it was connected to gangs. She is a afraid to return anywhere in Mexico.
She is offered the chance to confer with her attorney (which wasn't so clearly offered this morning). The attorney raises a concern that the asylum interview was conducted more than 7 days ago, on Jan 6. IJ asks why, says her certificate says Jan 16. Atty withdraws argument.
Credible fear denied: "I agree w/ the AO's decision; no nexus to any of the 5 protected grounds; your fear of gangs+drug cartels are not covered by the asylum laws in the United States…not establish persecution based on a protected ground or nexus to Gov. action or inaction."
[ Procedurally, I found this to be smoother and hopefully more understandable to the migrant. Although crushing nonetheless. ]
After this determination, the attorney asked if the IJ was open to a short summary from counsel. "No, because I've made my decision."
Again, I'm not sure why the attorney did not inquire earlier. There are not a lot of second chances here.
Again, I'm not sure why the attorney did not inquire earlier. There are not a lot of second chances here.
For the final (5th) case, the IJ did not initially have the Asylum Officer's order. But staff in Dilley were able to email it to her. She just returned from the printer with a copy, and we'll be beginning.
Also, apparently there are more of these (Dilley by VTC to Boston; Credible Fear Review) hearings tomorrow. Not sure when/exactly.
5th case: The migrant is a mom with 2 kids, a young boy and a teenage girl.
5th case: The migrant is a mom with 2 kids, a young boy and a teenage girl.
The migrant consents to my presence. This case seems to involve domestic violence; the children are afraid of their father, who has hit the daughter, but not hit the mother.
The mom also was kidnapped by a cartel, because they thought she had hit another women, which she did not. They let her go, but claimed she was the lover of a man they were seeking. They beat her with a board until she almost passed out;
They released her & expected her to take pictures of the man they were seeking. She was afraid to file a complaint, even when authorities came to her mother's house seeking she file a complaint; she did not file.
She then opened a bakery with her husband and started to get verbal (not physical) abuse from him, as well as him hitting her daughter because she had a boyfriend (possibly only once?). The boy testified he's afraid of his father and that his father hit his sister once.
Before this hearing, the attorney inquire about making a statement. IJ Rusher said she'd like those filed on paper in advance, but would accept it orally this time. So she got her chance in this case, finally (5th of 5 cases).
Attorney argues the children have a family-based persecution case & the family is socially distinct because of the bakery business. Only threatened because of their mother.
For the mom, the atty argues she has been treated as property, kidnapped, used for work, refused to work for the gang—all elements of political opinion or rejection of gang recruitment, which is a social group as well.
IJ Rusher doesn't buy it, saying there no evidence but the mom's testimony, which she finds credible, & that it was interesting she didn't file a formal complaint given the opportunity. And that the record doesn't establish persecution base on a protected ground or a nexus…
So, five out of five cases (or 13 out of 13 if you include children) denied Credible Fear today by Judge Rusher. She will be doing more of these both tomorrow morning and afternoon, I think, but I've not seen the calendar.
On my way out, I see that Thursday's calendar is indeed posted. There are 2 cases on for 9am (Brazil/Portuguese & Mexico/Spanish) and 1 for 2pm. Not sure why the hearings are quite so sparse. They are involved but they don't take hours, more like tens of minutes?
