Thread by @HMAesq

I've debated whether to share what happened the night I went back to Dulles Airport to help two travelers arriving from Iran who were detained for nearly 7 hours.

Retaliation is certainly something I've considered as an immigration lawyer, but these days it just seems so real.

The advocate in me knows how important it is to tell stories. The lawyer in me doesn't always agree.

But there are marching orders to deny entry to anything remotely Iranian...

So, here goes. And to all journalists, unfortunately my clients' identities must remain confidential.

I faxed over entry of appearance forms to CBP. For one client who had a green card, ok. But I had to file another one for the second client, who was a US citizen.

They detained him anyway.

A United States citizen. He wasn't of Iranian heritage.

They had already completed several hours of interrogation with no access to counsel.

When I got there, my forms were handed back to me, dishonored. CBP said the US Supreme Court ruled they weren't valid.

There is no such ruling. CBP lie #1. But I'm just getting started.

I spoke to 2 officers, with 2 more bouncer-size guys in the back.

I was told "they'll be admitted." So what was the holdup?

"We're not telling, and we'll be done when we're done."

I asked about the green card holder, and was told he was being regarded as "seeking admission."

Why? I had quoted the law (INA 101(a)(13)(C)) in my fax, specifically noting a GC holder cannot be regarded as seeking admission.

They said he was because he wasn't coming in from a contiguous land border.

CBP lie #2. The law doesn't say this at all.

I corrected them, and reminded them the appearance form had a box to check for CBP.

"Oh, that was just recently added for the border tent courts."

CBP lie #3. The box has been on the form for years.

I reminded them they were breaking the law by not admitting my clients and denying them access to counsel.

They didn't care, saying, "we do a lot more than admissions here."

Mostly a lie. They do admissions, but called the FBI to do interrogation.

I continued to argue points of law, and finally one officer said, "we're not going to argue points of law with you, you clearly know it."

That was the smartest thing I heard them say all night.

The excuses and misstatements of law are all things I've heard before.

I gather these are part of standard CBP officer training.

We decided to put together a non-exhaustive list affectionately called "CBPBS."

Feel free to append!

Refusal to admit client exists

Refusal to admit client exists “on basis of privacy”

Refusal to pass message that attorney is trying to reach client

Refusal to admit G-28 (entry of appearance) fax received

Refusal to accept G-28 because “this isn't immigration court”

Refusal to accept G-28 because client has not signed it

Refusal to give G-28 to client to let them sign it

Lying to client and telling them that their attorney has misfiled documents

Lying to client and telling them that they are not eligible for any relief

Erroneous statement that SCOTUS has ruled that these don't have to be accepted

Erroneous statement that SCOTUS has ruled there's no right to counsel at the border

Irrelevant statement that “we do a lot more than admissions here”

Erroneous statement that CBP adjudicates green card applications “all the time”

Erroneous statement that LPRs are regarded as seeking admission “because they are not coming from a contiguous land area”