🚨 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
Wait, sorry, so now the Trump admin is attempting to strip green cards from people just because of who their families are?! And people are cheering this on?
People with DACA came here as children. Every one of them has been here for a minimum 19 years. They grew up here. They went to school here. Many speak English with no accent. They are working legally, paying taxes, doing everything right.
Because that's not something a President can do. Only Congress can provide a path to permanent legal status for most DACA recipients. And Congress has sat on its ass for years, even though huge majorities of the American public supports the DREAM Act.
In 2018, the Supreme Court said DACA might be legal if it only protected against deportation, not provided work permits. The 5th Circuit, the most conservative in the country, upheld that version and limited their ruling only to Texas (the plaintiff).
Here I was thinking that what mattered was every single judge who has ruled on the issue, 125+ years of accepted understanding of the 14th, and centuries of common law on the contours of jus soli. But if you have SEVEN law professors, man, WOW.
Less sarcastically, this article has a GLARING flaw: dual citizenship. Many children of U.S. citizens acquire foreign citizenship at birth under jus sanguinis and so would not have an "exclusive" allegiance to the US under this theory. That can't be right.
If "exclusive allegiance" is required, then how could that cover Wong Kim Ark himself, who was a dual national?
Hamburger's answer is that U.S. law at the time did not recognize dual nationality. That's a bizarre answer that raises more questions than it answers.
The overwhelming majority of Americans (polls show over 80%) oppose the deportation of people like this woman. In every previous administration, including Trump's first, this woman would not have been a priority for enforcement.
You can't get a fiancé visa from inside the country, and thanks to failed laws Congress passed 30 years ago, getting a green card through her husband could be either near-impossible or could take 3-5 years minimum. It's not as simple as most people think.
In 1996, Congress said that people wanting to get a green card through a US citizen spouse, who had originally entered illegally, had to leave the US and get a visa, which triggers a 10-year ban on reentry.
A truly AWFUL situation; last week Border Patrol dropped a “nearly blind” Burmese refugee off in front of a random donut shop in Buffalo, five miles from his house.
He was just found dead, having never made it home.
It is truly enraging. To take someone so vulnerable and to drop them off so far from their home in the middle of winter without notifying family? It was a recipe for disaster. And I doubt anyone will be held accountable.
The largest federal prison in the nation is Fort Dix, which has a rated capacity of 4,600 people. The largest of these warehouse camps may hold more than twice that number of people.
The federal government hasn't operated a prison camp that large since Japanese Internment.