🚨 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
Not sure exactly what @whstancil is suggesting but a couple thoughts:
1. Migration is rising globally. The United States is not unique in dealing with this trend, despite many US-centric media takes. 2. A key part of the current problem is Congress's decade-long refusal to act.
People are frustrated with migration not only because of the media's myopic and overdramatic views of the issue (remember the morning show filmed at the border wall in March 2021?), but also because policymakers keep suggesting this is an easy problem with an easy solution.
We have a 2,000 mile land border that people have been crossing in the millions for 50+ years. We have an economy built on the labor of people who are more likely to be exploited and less likely to have a recourse. And we don't let even those here for decades "fix their papers."
This is wrong. ICE’s non-detained docket includes many people whose cases ended years ago and who can’t be deported due to legal, diplomatic or humanitarian issues.
The number of people on the docket with convictions rose just 15% in 9 years — while the docket itself rose 225%.
Here is Tom Homan's testimony to Congress in support of Trump's FY 2018 budget request, noting that in June 2017, there were 177,000 people on ICE's non-detained docket with prior convictions AND final orders.
As I said—many have been here for decades. This isn't some new thing.
Here is some further context on *why* someone might be on ICE's non-detained docket with a serious conviction but not deported.
I explained some scenarios where this might happen yesterday in the below thread.
This report by @BillMelugin_ gets facts wrong and omits essential context: that millions of people on ICE's non-detained dockets have been here for decades.
By FY 2015, already 368,574 people on the docket had convictions. Many can't be deported, often for diplomatic reasons.
In the report, Bill repeatedly refers to people on ICE's non-detained docket as "illegal immigrants."
In fact, the non-detained docket contains many people who came here with green cards and then lost their status due to a criminal conviction. Some have been here for decades.
Many of those on ICE's non-detained docket who have a final order of removal but haven't been deported yet come from countries which refuses deportations.
As of 2022, there were 40,000 post-order Cubans living in the US. Many got out of jail decades ago. miamiherald.com/news/nation-wo…
Trump here uses the phrase "remigration." I was unfamiliar with the term, so I googled it.
Wikipedia describes it as a "far-right and Identitarian political concept" largely used to describe the mass deportation of non-white immigrants and their descendants from Europe.
Needless to say, the use of such a loaded far-right term suggesting a purge of non-white people in the US far greater than described would itself be newsworthy in a normal world. But given how much else has happened just in the last 24 hours, it's barely even been noticed.
Yep, though given how poorly Operation Janus did the first time around and how tough it is for the US government to denaturalize people, I suspect that’s more about driving support from the base than actual policy (which is not to say it shouldn’t be taken seriously).
The overwhelming majority of migrants didn't want to stay in Texas. They wanted to go elsewhere. So if the question was the most efficient way to help them leave the state, the answer would be just buy them tickets and not pay millions to bus them to NYC.
They are able to live wherever they want while they go through the court process. It's just that many people used up every last cent to get here, so a free bus from Abbott was a very enticing option, especially since it was going to known option like NYC.
It's here! The biggest executive action since DAPA/Extended DACA in 2014 just dropped on the Federal Register in the form of a "Notice of Implementation." Here's a 🧵on the Biden admin's new program for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of US citizens. public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-18725.pdf
Before I dive into the fine details, a reminder of why this new program matters.
Even though spouses of US citizens are eligible to apply for green cards, a 1996 law keeps that process out of reach for many undocumented immigrants. Read 👇 for more.