🚨 New! A.G. Barr takes ANOTHER whack at the asylum process, issuing a new precedential decision in Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020) and giving both immigration judges and the BIA more leeway to deny asylum claims.
Before I go through this latest attack on the asylum process, please enjoy a picture of Petra, who is a Very Good Cat. I hope this softens the blow a tiny bit.
A.G. Barr begins his decision (issued under authority to set precedent in immigration court) by basically saying that the Board of Immigration Appeals hasn't been digging deeply enough in every single case to find ways to deny people asylum. It's hard to read it otherwise.
In the underlying decision, the respondent was found to be credible and to have suffered past persecution on the basis of membership in a particular social group. Because of changed circumstances, the judge found no well-founded fear, but granted humanitarian asylum.
Notably, DHS did NOT appeal the grant of humanitarian asylum. Instead, they only appealed the IJ's finding that the respondent was credible and that the IJ shouldn't have found past persecution.
The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision in a very brief order.
Despite the fact that DHS did NOT appeal the grant of humanitarian asylum, A.G. Barr believes that the BIA should have evaluated whether or not the IJ should have granted humanitarian asylum anyway.
A.G. Barr lays out here the role he sees the BIA as playing in asylum cases under what he articulate as "de novo review."
Basically, question everything, dig through the record, and find ways to deny applicants.
In the decision, Barr basically tells the BIA to utterly ignore all normal rules of appellate procedure. Who cares if the government didn't raise an issue—or even stipulated to an issue! The BIA should ignore all of that and go digging through the record.
This decision makes even more clear that the immigration courts are fully broken. They have been politicized to death and are now fundamentally incompatible with due process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In every single major immigration raid so far, the MAJORITY of people arrested by DHS officers have no criminal record whatsoever — not even any traffic violations or misdemeanors.
In Washington, DC, it was 84% of all those arrested. In Los Angeles, 57%. In Illinois, 66%.
That is simply not true. Not only is being undocumented not a crime, but to have a criminal record requires someone to have been arrested for an offense in the past.
Neither of those offenses are relevant to the question of whether being undocumented is a crime, nor the question of whether a person who may have committed a crime for which they weren't charged can accurately be described as "having a criminal record."
This is FALSE. As the Supreme Court spelled out very clearly 125 years ago, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to three categories of exceptions, two ancient and one uniquely American.
- Children of diplomats
- Children of occupying soldiers
- Native Americans
Mr. Wong’s parents were ineligible for citizenship in a way today’s permanent residents are not. And the Court was clear that the 14th Amendment codified the ancient rule of birthright citizenship.
Also, Trump’s EO claims to bar citizenship even for children of ppl here legally.
That is exactly what the excerpt says. Read it again. “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment … would appear to have been to exclude … (besides children of members of the Indian tribes…), the two classes of cases” recognized in common law.
Obviously I have little sympathy for this guy, given his offenses. But I do want to explain why it is that this man was still in the country and not deported under any previous admin, including the first Trump admin.
In short - because for 50+ years, Cuba refused deportations.
Florida's sex offender registry says that Mr. Milian has two convictions relating to a single court case from 1996. So he's been deportable for at least 29 years.
But from 1965 to 2017, Cuba refused to accept any deportations of people who were inside the United States. Period.
The result of this diplomatic impasse means that for 50+ years, Cuban noncitizens convicted of a crime in the U.S. and ordered removed were mostly treated like regular American ex-con. After they did their time they'd be transferred to immigration custody and eventually released.
THREAD: Judge Ellis is the first federal judge to review extensive body cam video of DHS's actions in Chicago. She finds that DHS *repeatedly* misled the public and made claims that were disproven by agents' own videos.
I'll go through some of the most egregious ones here.
On October 28, @DHSGov claimed that days earlier "rioters" had "shot at agents with commercial artillery shell fireworks," thus forcing agents to deploy tear gas and riot munitions.
Judge Ellis reviewed the video. This was completely false. The explosions were DHS's flashbangs!
@DHSgov DHS claimed that agents were forced to use riot munitions to disperse an "unruly mob" on Sept. 19.
In fact, "the scene [was] quiet," and then "almost immediately and without warning, agents lob flashbang grenades, tear gas, and pepper balls, stating 'fuck yea!' as they do so."
Rep. Jayapal is correct -- it is not a crime to be undocumented. Here's the Supreme Court saying as much.
Plus, less than 10% of the undocumented population has a removal order, and would only be chargeable if they had willfully disobeyed it, and many don't know they have one.
As for 8 USC 1325, illegal entry applies only to the undocumented population that crossed illegally, meaning visa overstays or people who came via humanitarian parole commit no crime -- and the statute of limitations is 5 years, so most people couldn't even be criminally charged.
Two things can be true at once:
1. It is not a crime to be undocumented, as the Supreme Court itself has noted. 2. A subset of the undocumented population (far less than half) is theoretically criminally chargeable for specific immigration violations.
🧵Today a federal judge is looking into horrific conditions inside ICE holding cells in Chicago, which until January were for stays under 12 hours absent exceptional circumstances.
People are now held for days — and ICE uses the threat of longer stays to get deportation orders.
The excerpts I'm posting are taken from over a dozen sworn declarations submitted in a lawsuit seeking to force ICE to improve conditions. I'll link to the docket at the end of the thread.
One thing comes through clearly in these declarations: the cells are FILTHY.
Multiple immigrants detained at the facility say ICE officer demanded that they sign deportation paperwork, refused to let them talk to lawyers, and threatened them when they wouldn't sign documents in English that they couldn't read.