Thread by @johnhawkinson

Another day of Dilley TX Credible Fear Reviews here in Boston at the JFK Building. Only a handful of cases, however.

1st we have the joy of Polycom videoconferencing. For some reason we dial into a DC (202) -based conference bridge that connects us to Dilley. I don't understand why it always says we're the first to join but then the other side appears 4 seconds later. Each time. 6th try…

It's also great that when each call connects there's a loud 60Hz BUZZZZZZZZ for half a second and then a fast beep-boop-boop 1980s "scrambling" noise. I suppose this is intended to assure us that encryption is being engaged, but it is just…goofy.

On the 2nd try, we got connected but Dilley could not see our video. And then we weren't able to connect. And the frequent (local) screen glitches. We rebooted. Now we connect and we get no incoming video.
Now on the 8th [?] try, we call and the bridge immediately disconnects us

9th try fails. 10th, we again connect, no incoming video, unclear if we have an audio connection. Rebooting a second time.

Also, in the brief time we were connected with 1-way video, 10 minutes ago, we learned that neither a Portuguese nor Spanish interpreter were present, against IJ Rusher's expectation. Ah, the joys of VTC of continue.

We're going to have a telephonic attorney appearance as well?

11th try: We have successfully connected to the conference bridge! But.

Our own video is being looped back to us [this is new].
Assistant Chief Judge Sanchez has arrived although it's not clear whether he has the magic VTC touch, either.

Now ½ an hour from when we started. Still on the 11th call, with loopback video. ACJ Sanchez left & returned w/a laptop. He's typing and now calling a San Antonio phone # on the landline, & seems stuck in a phone tree.

From a technical process standpoint, it's oddly fascinating.

9:44am, we have switched to Dilley Courtroom 4, for which we connected to the DC-based VTC bridge immediately (well, as immediate as it gets).

There is no attorney for the 1 Spanish family (mom+daughter) in the Dilley courtroom this morning. There's a remote telephonic attorney the 1 Portuguese family case this morning.

At least we have a Spanish interpreter in the Dilley courtroom now (unlike half an hour ago).

We also managed to find a Portuguese interpreter here in Boston, so we won't have to have telephone interpreter and a telephone attorney at the same time.

Now starting in on the first case.

Interestingly, despite no attorney for the first case, there is an observer in the Dilley courtroom. (I did not realize that was actually possible for the public to get there.) Not sure if she is with the Dilley Pro Bono Project or what.

Applicant consents to 2 open courtrooms.

It's a mom with a 5-ish year old daughter who is playing in the gallery. Threatened with extortion by "an unknown group of people"; did not report to the police, because she thought the cartel would find out & harm her or her daughter.

She only has family in Mexico City, & can't go there because her brother-in-law was killed. She has seen her local police take bribes in the street from the cartel. Her uncle was hurt when he previously reported something to the police.

IJ Rusher finds that credible fear is NOT FOUND. "You have legitimate fears but they do not have a nexus to nor are they covered by our asylum laws." Not 1 of the 5 protected grounds, no nexus to Government action or inaction, since you never reported. The court wishes you well.

2nd case: A Brazilian woman who has an attorney on the phone. She has a daughter who is not present—she is in school. Portuguese interpreter in the Boston courtroom.

This is the last case for this morning. We're doing the introduction explaining the law and process.

This is especially interesting because the mom is testifying that the interpreter cut her off during the Asylum Officer interview. It turns out her husband, who she divorced in Nov., was a police officer. This really gets IJ Rusher's attention.

The mom had been raped by her husband and separated from him in May, went to live with her parents. The husband had threatened her over the phone, one time only, but not in person.

The mom testifies she did not report the threats to the police because her husband was a police officer.
Rusher: YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED PERSECUTION BASED ON A PROTECTED GROUND. I am therefore VACATING the Asylum Officer's decision.

Credible fear found.
That's it for this morning.

There's only one of these ICFR cases this afternoon, I'm not sure I'll be back for it. A Mexican woman with two children (1 case with 2 rider cases).

I returned to the Boston Immigration Court this afternoon for the 1 remaining Credible Fear Review hearing today at 2pm. Delayed-tweeting this now:

As usual, it began with VTC problems. We could see and hear Dilley but they couldn't hear us and didn't seem to see us.

It was a mom from Mexico and her 2 daughters. No attorney, though again someone was sitting in the gallery. Same Spanish interpreter as yesterday and this morning.

In June, she was at the home of her mother and father-in-law, & armed men arrived & held them all at gunpoint. They pistolwhipped her father-in-law, told them not to say anything, & took him away. Told the family to leave the house or be killed.

She did not report to the police, because she believed they would not help, and if they investigate, their families would be at risk. She is afraid to return to Mexico, because "a large number of hit men live in Mexico."

She explains the Asylum Officer didn't ask about what happened with the father of her 2nd child. IJ Rusher elicits testimony about this. He would beat her up—a lot. For half a year.

"Until one time he really hurt me badly, and that is when I left the house."

"He said that wherever we went he would find us and he would kill us." She did not report it to the police, because he has friends that work for the police, "they wouldn't do anything to him."
She stayed w/ a neighbor for 15 days & then decamped to Tijuana in August w/ a cousin.

Asked if the father of her 2nd child attempted to threaten her, "he would dial my phone" (unclear if she answered?).
He came to her relative's house once during the 15 days and that is when she fled. He tried to drag her away by force but she+her cousin managed to close the door.

IJ Rusher: "I believe what you are telling me, and the Court most assuredly does not condone a man beating the mother of this children. Esp. in front of the children. I see from the interview they did see the beatings."

"However, although I believe you are afraid,…

Rusher: "…I must tell you that I am duty bound to agree with the asylum officers's decision and I'm affirming that decision. Although you have legitimate fears, they have no nexus and are not covered by our immigration laws. You do not fit in the category of a refugee,…

Rusher: "…none of your legitimate fear sare based on a fear that encompasses a protected ground. This is a final decision."

CREDIBLE FEAR DENIED (0/3 found today. 1/8 over the past 2 days)

"The court is sincerely sorry…I do wish you very well. I hope you find safe haven."

That's it for these proceedings today.

As I understand it, the next time we'll have these is all day on Friday Jan. 31 before Judge Furlong, 8 days from now. Hopefully we'll see a schedule tomorrow afternoon (unlikely?) or perhaps late next week.

Oops. The thread got split. This resumes at

https://twitter.com/johnhawkinson/status/1220468643575799810