Court Blocks Illegal “Death to Asylum” Trump Rule

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
Brianna Krong, CGRS (415-581-8835, krongbrianna@uchastings.edu)

Sabi Ardalan, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (617-384-7504, sardalan@law.harvard.edu)

Court Blocks Illegal “Death to Asylum” Trump Rule

San Francisco, California (January 8, 2021) - Today the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction blocking a sweeping Trump administration rule that would gut protections for people fleeing persecution and torture. The injunction halts the new rule’s implementation nationwide ahead of its scheduled effective date of Monday, January 11, while the court considers a lawsuit brought by several immigrant rights groups.

The case, Pangea Legal Services II v. Barr, was filed by organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition following the rule’s publication in December. The groups are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP.

The rule at issue was signed by Chad Wolf, who has been filling the role of Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security since November 2019. Today’s ruling from U.S. District Judge James Donato builds on multiple court decisions finding that Wolf lacks the legal authority to head his agency and promulgate regulations, and that this requires nullification of the rule.

“This monstrosity of a rule would erect nearly insurmountable obstacles to protection for people fleeing life-threatening violence,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, who argued the case on Thursday. “We are grateful that the court has taken swift action to stop this dangerous rule from taking effect – and placing courageous refugees in harm’s way.”

“This is the most far-reaching of the midnight asylum regulations unveiled in the Trump administration’s final days,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “But try as it may, this administration cannot destroy our asylum system and rewrite our laws by executive fiat. We are confident that this rule will ultimately be struck down for good.”

Today’s ruling also applies to the related case Immigration Equality et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, argued by Omar Gonzalez-Pagan on Thursday.

Pangea and Partners Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum

For Immediate Release

December 24, 2020

Pangea and Partners Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum

San Francisco, California – Four immigrant rights organizations – Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition – have requested a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new rule that will eviscerate access to protection for people seeking refuge in the United States. Set to take effect on January 11, 2021, the rule completely transforms the asylum process, severely limiting the availability of asylum and related protections to individuals fleeing persecution or torture. The plaintiff organizations are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.

“Published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, this rule marks its most far-reaching attempt to end asylum yet, and a death knell to our country’s longstanding commitment to offer safe haven for the persecuted,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The rule violates our laws, flouts our treaty obligations, and upends decades of legal precedent. If the mammoth rule is permitted to take effect, it will result in people being deported to face persecution, torture, and even death in their home countries.”

The rule deprives asylum seekers of any semblance of due process, imposing many barriers to relief before they even have the opportunity to present their case in immigration court. Among its numerous harmful provisions, the rule allows judges to deny an asylum application without holding a hearing. The rule also establishes 12 new “discretionary” factors that will bar many asylum seekers from life-saving protection. These include a de facto bar to asylum for applicants who pass through another country en route to the United States, effectively codifying and expanding the Trump administration’s third country transit bar, which the courts have already struck down as unlawful.

For those who are able to get their case before a judge, the new rule radically redefines who qualifies as a “refugee,” distorting the law so thoroughly that adjudicators can deny relief to virtually all applicants. The rule explicitly excludes from protection survivors of gender-based violence, children and families targeted by gangs, and people fleeing other abhorrent abuses. It also redefines “persecution” in such a way that judges will be directed to deny asylum even to individuals who have been detained and threatened with death due to their beliefs.

“Despite its enormous scope, the administration rushed this rule through the regulatory process without regard for its life-or-death implications for asylum seekers,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “The administration chose to brush aside nearly 90,000 public comments raising serious concerns with the proposed rule.”

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are nonprofit organizations that provide immigration legal services and have previously come together to stop other Trump administration attempts to erect unlawful barriers to asylum. They contend that the new rule will make it far more difficult to assist asylum-seeking clients and cause serious harm to the immigrant communities they serve.

The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent nationwide injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the United States’ duty under international law not to return people to persecution or torture. On Wednesday the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the rule while the court considers the case.

The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is procedurally invalid, as it was co-issued by Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, whom multiple courts have declared was unlawfully appointed to his position and lacks the authority to promulgate such a rule.

###

Immigration Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration Efforts to Bar More from Asylum

For Immediate Release

November 2, 2020

Groups Say Broad Rules Could Bar Asylum Seekers Convicted of Low Level Offenses and Even People Who Are Not Convicted of a Crime 

New York/Washington/San Francisco - Four immigrant rights organizations—Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, challenging a new rule dramatically restricting asylum eligibility. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (“NIPNLG”), the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.

The lawsuit challenges proposed rule changes to the U.S. asylum process which are slated to go into effect on November 20. These rules are the latest step in the Trump Administration’s effort to drastically cut down the number of applicants and recipients of asylum protections in the U.S. 

The U.S. has obligations under international law to make asylum broadly available, and to make any exceptions narrow and reserved only for the most serious offenses. The new rules drastically expand the current, narrow set of bars related to criminal convictions. The rules further restrict asylum eligibility by creating bars based on broad categories of low-level offenses, including using a false ID, that would bar asylum seekers from even getting a hearing on their application irrespective of the threat of persecution they face. Under the newly published regulations, an asylum officer or immigration judge can also categorically deny relief based on mere allegations of domestic violence even without a conviction, or based on convictions that are vacated or expunged. 

The complaint filed today asserts that the new rule conflicts with the asylum statute, which incorporates international law obligations, and unlawfully “threatens to send bona fide asylum-seekers to countries where they will likely face violence, torture, and even death.” Plaintiffs also assert that the rule is invalid because it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and U.S. Constitution in multiple respects, and ask the court to hold the rule unlawful, set it aside, and enjoin its enforcement. 

The rules build on the systemic racism of U.S. immigration and asylum policies that have become increasingly harsh and narrow over the past several decades. These laws rely increasingly on fear-mongering and criminalization of immigrants. As the plaintiffs assert in their complaint, the rule will disproportionately impact individuals who are subject to racist policing and surveillance.  

“This Administration’s relentless onslaught of attacks on asylum seekers continues to chip away at the limited due process available in immigration courts," says Etan Newman, Co-Director and Immigration Attorney at Pangea Legal Services. “The rule prohibits immigration judges from acknowledging the totality of a person's humanity and ability to rehabilitate. Because of our sanctuary policies that prioritize the health and safety of our communities, the San Francisco Bay Area has been a primary target of this Administration, and our communities would suffer particular harm under this rule."

“The new rule is another transparent attempt to demonize and deny protection to the most vulnerable individuals seeking protection in the U.S.,” said Katherine Mahoney, Litigation Director at Dolores Street Community Services. “It is a vast departure from decades of legal precedent, policy, and international norms, and an insult to what little due process still remains in our immigration system.” 

“These rules take the administration’s tactic of demonizing asylum seekers to a new extreme,” said CLINIC Managing Attorney Victoria Neilson. “They are unlawful and immoral.”

“The United States is a country where the rule of law and access to asylum protection for those fleeing for safety cannot be tossed aside for political whims. This new rule seeks to erect yet another unjust barrier to protection for many of the individual asylum seekers we fight alongside with at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (“CAIR”) Coalition and further entrench false narratives about immigrants who are Black, indigenous, and/or people of color,” said Claudia Cubas, Litigation Director at CAIR Coalition.  

“This drastic and unprecedented expansion of categorical bars to asylum eligibility is part of the Trump Administration’s vicious targeting of immigrants of color. It is illegal and inhumane, designed only to further the Administration’s agenda to end asylum as we know it,” said Sirine Shebaya, Executive Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

“The new asylum rule is the most recent attempt by the Trump Administration to place insurmountable barriers on the asylum process to push its xenophobic agenda. It will place countless lives at risk. Together with our partners, we will continue to fight against the push to criminalize and deport our community members,” said Leila Kang, IDP’s Supervising Litigation Attorney.   

“The new asylum rule is yet another example of the Trump Administration’s obsession with criminalizing immigrants and shutting down our country’s asylum system. Not only does the new rule violate a litany of federal laws, but it also stands in stark contrast to our nation’s long history of protecting refugees,” said Philip Torrey, Managing Attorney of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and Director of the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic.  

###

Pangea Legal Services is a San Francisco Bay Area-based nonprofit whose mission is to stand with immigrant communities and to provide services through direct legal representation, especially in the area of deportation defense.  In addition to direct legal services, we are committed to advocating on behalf of our community through policy advocacy, education, and legal empowerment efforts. Visit www.pangealegal.org and follow us on Twitter @PangeaLegal.

Dolores Street Community Services is a San Francisco-based non-profit organization that serves low-income and unstably housed individuals in and around San Francisco, California.  DSCS’s legal team strives to advance the rights of immigrants through direct legal representation, primarily through deportation defense, as well as advocacy, policy, and litigation. Visit www.sfdeportdefense.org and follow us on Twitter @sfdeportdefense.

The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition strives to ensure equal justice for all immigrant adults and children at risk of detention and deportation in the Capital region area and beyond through direct legal representation, know your rights presentations, impact litigation, advocacy, and the enlistment and training of attorneys to defend immigrants. More information can be found at www.caircoalition.org.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., or CLINIC, advocates for humane and just immigration policy. Its network of nonprofit immigration programs — almost 400 affiliates in 48 states and the District of Columbia — is the largest in the nation. CLINIC provides substantive legal, trial skills, and program management training and resources, legal challenges to anti-immigrant policies and regulations, advocacy support at state, local and national levels, and remote-based crisis response models to immigration enforcement.

The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) is a national non-profit membership organization of lawyers, law students, legal workers, advocates, and jailhouse lawyers working to defend and extend the rights of all noncitizens in the United States, regardless of immigration status. We pursue all forms of legal advocacy on behalf of immigrants and provide technical assistance and support to legal practitioners, community-based immigrant organizations, and advocates seeking and working to advance the rights of noncitizens. Learn more at nipnlg.org. Follow NIPNLG on social media: National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild on Facebook, @NIPNLG on Twitter.

The Immigrant Defense Project (IDP) is a New York-based nonprofit that works to secure fairness and justice for immigrants in the racially-biased U.S. criminal and immigration systems. IDP fights to end the current era of unprecedented mass criminalization, detention, and deportation through a multi-pronged strategy including advocacy, litigation, legal support, community partnerships, and strategic communications. Visit www.immigrantdefenseproject.org and follow @ImmDefense.

The Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program is one of the oldest immigrants’ rights programs in the country. Established nearly forty years ago at Harvard Law School, the Program represents immigrants seeking immigration protection in administrative tribunals, pursues impact litigation seeking to advance immigrants’ rights, and engages with community-based organizations on policy advocacy strategies. Follow the Program on Facebook and Twitter @HLS_Immigration.

Major defeat for ICE, GEO as court upholds AB 32

For immediate release: Oct. 8, 2020

Major defeat for ICE, GEO as court upholds AB 32

San Diego, CA - Today, U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino issued a final ruling largely upholding AB 32, California’s ban on private prisons and detention centers, except as applied to private US Marshal facilities. Under the ruling, five immigration detention centers in the state would be phased out in the coming years. 

In another setback for ICE and the GEO Group, the judge also refused to affirmatively uphold a number of 15-year, multi-billion contracts which prison corporations entered into with ICE in order to expand immigration detention in the state. Signed days before AB 32 went into effect, the contracts drew condemnation from community groups and Members of Congress.  

The judge also granted a request by California to “dismiss” or throw out portions of the ICE/GEO lawsuit entirely, another significant legal defeat. Extensive arguments by the Trump administration and the GEO Group at a July hearing failed to sway the court. Over 100 community members and formerly detained individuals packed the phone line to listen to the July hearing, a strong showing which the judge recognized.    

In response to this development, the Dignity not Detention coalition issued the following statement:

Today’s ruling is a major rebuke to both ICE and the GEO Group, and a set-back for their illicit scheme to subvert popular legislation. As this fight continues, it is clear we have the Constitution on our side. 

Meanwhile, medical neglect and abuse are worsening in ICE detention, from the spraying of toxic chemicals to rampaging COVID outbreaks. Despite this, Black and brown immigrants are continuing to organize for freedom, and our state leaders must hear their voices. 

The Attorney General’s office cannot simply pat themselves on the back. AG Becerra must take further action - including investigating and holding accountable the prison corporations that profit at the expense of community health and well-being. 

At the same time, even with the ruling largely upholding AB 32, we are disappointed by the exclusion of US Marshal facilities.  As we face the twin crises of COVID and systemic racism, we affirm: whether cages are run by a corporation or the government, incarceration is wrong, abusive, and must end.

Background: Pushed by a grassroots movement and signed by Gov. Newsom in October 2019, AB 32 went into effect on January 1, banning private prisons and private detention centers in California. Previous legislation had already frozen government-run ICE detention in the state; only one such facility remains. Since contracts for three of the then four private ICE detention centers in the state were set to expire in March 2020, the facilities would have closed prior to the onset of COVID-19. 

But in December 2019, days before AB 32 went into effect, ICE inked new contracts to keep the California detention centers open and expand detention into facilities which California had been leasing from one of the corporations, The GEO group. Days later, GEO filed a lawsuit, followed by the Trump administration. 

In a rare move, at the July hearing on the lawsuit, the court invited comment from advocates filing amicus briefs. Jackie Gonzalez, Immigrant Defense Advocates Policy Director, delivered searing remarks, denouncing the “dirty hands” of GEO Group. Gonzalez stated at the hearing: “It is directly against the public interest to allow private corporations to enter into sham contracts with local governments in order to circumvent federal and state laws all while evading oversight and transparency.”

Prior to July’s hearing, advocates held a zoom press conference featuring representatives from the Cameroon American Council; Human Impact Partners; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; and two formerly detained community leaders. 

###

Press Release: Court Partially Blocks Rules Limiting Work Permits for Asylum Seekers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 13, 2020 

Janis Jin | (949) 378-9668 | press@asylumadvocacy.org 

 Court Partially Blocks Rules Limiting Work Permits for Asylum Seekers

Court enjoins rules limiting access to work permits for CASA, ASAP members 

Greenbelt, MD – Late Friday night, Judge Paula Xinis of the District Court of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction in CASA de Maryland v. Wolf, enjoining provisions of two new immigration rules that would limit asylum seekers’ ability to obtain work authorization. While this relief is limited to members of CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), it will help hundreds, if not thousands, of asylum seekers who will be able to apply for work authorization before Judge Xinis decides the outcome of this lawsuit. 

The Court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in this case for many reasons, including because the government “never wrestled with the fundamental implications of deferring or denying advance work authorization” to asylum applicants, and because Defendant Chad Wolf likely lacked the authority to issue the rules in the first place, as he was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Court also recognized that the new rules are causing irreparable harm to asylum seekers. The decision finds that the new rules will make it difficult for asylum seekers to afford basic necessities or hire legal counsel to aid them in pursuing asylum. 

“I have been waiting anxiously to find out whether I would be able to apply for work authorization, and I am so relieved the answer for me is yes - soon I will have a work permit,” said W.L., an ASAP member. “Having a work permit will change my life and the lives of my children. But I believe everyone seeking asylum should have these same opportunities. They also need to work legally, and they should be able to.”

“This important ruling is yet another repudiation of the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrant communities, including vulnerable asylum seekers.  Not only has the Court recognized the tremendous harm of these new barriers to work authorization on asylum seekers, but it found that Chad Wolf is likely serving illegally as the head of DHS, a role he has used to attack immigrant families and communities across the United States.  We will continue to fight to protect our members and build the power of working class communities of color, so that everyone is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve,” said Gustavo Torres, Executive Director of CASA.

Members of CASA and ASAP will no longer be subject to the following provisions of these new rules:

• The new 365-day waiting period for asylum applicants to file work authorization applications. Instead, members of ASAP and CASA members will be able to request work authorization 150 days after filing for asylum.

• The one-year filing rule, which makes asylum applicants ineligible for work authorization if they filed their asylum application more than a year after arriving in the United States (unless an immigration judge finds they qualify). ASAP and CASA members will be eligible for work authorization regardless of whether they filed for asylum after more than a year of arriving in the United States.

• The repeal of 30-day processing of work authorization applications. ASAP and CASA members will have work authorization applications adjudicated within 30 days.

• The “deemed complete” provision, which previously meant that if an asylum application was pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for more than 30 days without agency action, it would be deemed complete. ASAP and CASA members whose applications have been pending with USCIS for more than 30 days will be deemed complete, ensuring that they can request employment authorization 150 days after submitting their asylum application.

• A provision stating that work authorization for asylum applicants is discretionary. ASAP and CASA members who are eligible for work authorization must receive that authorization.

• A new biometric information requirement (including fingerprints), which imposes a biometrics requirement and an $85 fee on asylum applicants applying for work authorization in addition to the biometrics requirement for filing an asylum application. ASAP and CASA members will not be required to submit additional biometric information if they have already done so for their asylum application, nor will they be required to pay $85 for fulfilling the new biometrics requirement.

"We are pleased that the court has issued this interim relief, recognizing that these rules are likely unlawful and already harming asylum seekers,” said Mariko Hirose, Litigation Director for the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP). “Nevertheless, we are disappointed that the Court disagreed with some of our arguments and issued a remedy short of fully postponing the rules, which is a remedy specifically provided by the law. We will continue fighting to obtain broader relief that will protect all asylum seekers as soon as possible."

Unfortunately, the Court’s decision will only apply to members of CASA and ASAP. As such, asylum applicants who are not members of CASA and ASAP will still be subject to all provisions of the new rules. This means that they: 

• Must wait almost 7 months longer to submit their initial work permit application than if they had filed their work authorization application before August 25, 2020.

• Are ineligible for work authorization if they filed their asylum application after August 25 and had been here for more than a year before filing, unless an immigration judge finds they qualify.

• Have no guarantee as to how long it will take the government to process their work authorization application unless it was filed before August 21.

"We are very encouraged that the Court recognizes that these cruel and counterproductive rules were illegally issued with complete disregard for the devastating impact they are having on asylum seekers," said Oasis Legal Services Legal Program Director, Rachel Kafele. "Nevertheless, we are disappointed that our clients, and vulnerable LGBTQ+ asylum seekers around the country, are left with no protection and must continue to live in poverty compounded by the crippling effects of the pandemic, natural disasters, and ongoing economic devastation. 

“Centro Legal de la Raza celebrates the decision issued by District Court Judge Paula Xinis correctly recognizing the destructive impact of DHS's new rules, which seek to dramatically limit asylum seekers' ability to obtain authorization to work while their cases are pending, said Julie Hiatt, Immigrants' Rights Managing Attorney for Centro Legal de la Raza. “We are gratified that Judge Xinis held DHS accountable for its failure to follow the law in enacting these devastating restrictions, and, notably, that she found that Acting Secretary of DHS Chad Wolf appears to have been acting without authority in issuing these new rules. We will continue to fight to protect our ability to further our mission to advance the rights of our low-income immigrant clients, and we will continue to fight to ensure that all asylum seekers are afforded fair opportunities to work in the United States.”  

“The pandemic and the fires that blaze throughout the Bay Area and the West Coast disproportionately impact asylum seekers, their families, and their ability to work,” said Jehan Laner, Co-Director and Immigration Attorney at Pangea Legal Services. “While it is encouraging that the Court recognized the unlawfulness of these rules, this decision does not extend to our clients, nor protect them from the irreparable harm that makes the difference between life and death. We will keep fighting to ensure that these politically motivated regulations are overturned and that asylum seekers have the ability to earn a livelihood.”

“We are proud to stand with our members, who have stood up to this administration and won,” said Swapna Reddy, Co-Executive Director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). “But the fight is far from over. I have no doubt that our members will keep fighting until every asylum seeker has the ability to work and live in safety in the United States.”

"We are pleased the Court recognized that DHS repeatedly 'sidestep[ped]' law requiring an agency to consider evidence and provide rational reasons for its rules," said Richard Mark of Gibson, Dunn. "It is heartening that the Court recognized that Chad Wolf's appointment as Acting DHS Secretary was likely invalid so that he was 'without authority' to issue these rules." Joe Evall, also of Gibson, Dunn, added, "The Court issuing this extraordinary relief is a testament to just how serious and impactful these violations of the law have been for asylum applicants.  Although the Court's order does not protect everyone affected by these rules, we are glad that it will provide meaningful relief for many asylum applicants who will be able to work legally as a result."

The immigrant rights organizations that brought the case are CASA, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Centro Legal de la Raza, Oasis Legal Services, and Pangea Legal Services. The case was filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), ASAP, and the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. The lawsuit challenges the legality of these new rules, including the legal authority of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf to have issued them. 

The Court’s opinion on the preliminary injunction is here.

For more information on how to join ASAP, visit our website here. For more information on how to join CASA, visit our website here.

###

USCIS Imposes New Obstacles to Family Reunification for Survivors of Persecution, Document Released in FOIA Litigation Shows

Contact:

Trina Realmuto, 617-819-4447, trina@immigrationlitigation.org      

Etan Newman, 415-652-0907, etan@pangealegal.org

Edwin Carmona-Cruz, 415-652-0663, edwin@pangealegal.org

For immediate release

USCIS Imposes New Obstacles to Family Reunification for Survivors of Persecution,

Document Released in FOIA Litigation Shows

San Francisco, CA – Today, Pangea Legal Services (Pangea) and the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) released a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) document revealing increased scrutiny of petitions to permit spouses and minor children of refugees or asylees to immigrate to the United States or, if already present, to legalize their immigration status. The document reflects an unannounced March 2019 change in agency policy regarding adjudication of these petitions, commonly known as I-730 petitions because they are filed on Form I-730. Among other procedural changes, it reveals that USCIS adjudicators must refer certain I-730 petitions to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to decide whether to pursue enforcement action against the beneficiary before USCIS will adjudicate the family reunification petition. As a result, some I-730 petitions have been lingering for years. The document further indicates that USCIS adjudicators will ask beneficiaries to release confidential information from their asylum applications, which the adjudicators will then use to deny I-730 petitions. 

“Approval of I-730 petitions are crucial in allowing our clients who suffered persecution and were granted asylum to remain in the United States with their families,” said Etan Newman, Immigration Attorney and Co-Director at Pangea. “Yet several of our clients have been waiting on a decision by USCIS for years. We now know that the Trump Administration’s singular focus on deportation and family separation is the likely culprit. Even when ICE takes no action, our clients remain stuck in indefinite bureaucratic limbo.”

“USCIS’ policy not only raises serious concerns regarding its ability to safeguard protected information but also explains the extraordinarily lengthy delays in I-730 adjudications that Pangea and other legal service providers have been reporting,” said Trina Realmuto, Executive Director of NILA. “USCIS should have made this policy change public when it was adopted so that Pangea and others could advise petitioning families accordingly.”            

The internal agency document was released in litigation filed in federal district court in San Francisco by NILA and Pangea under the Freedom of Information Act after USCIS failed to respond to Pangea’s inquiries about the policy. The internal document does not identify which USCIS component or entity issued it, and the agency has yet to provide any information about authorship.

A copy of the guidance document is available here.

A copy of the complaint is available here.

###

The National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) is a non-profit organization that seeks to realize systemic change in the immigrants’ rights arena through federal court litigation. NILA engages in impact litigation to extend the rights of noncitizens and to eliminate systemic obstacles they or their counsel routinely face. In addition, NILA builds the capacity of social justice attorneys to litigate in federal court by co-counseling individual federal court cases and by providing strategic advice and assistance to its members.

Pangea Legal Services (Pangea) is a non-profit organization that provides low-cost and free legal services to immigrants in removal proceedings. In addition to direct legal services, Pangea also advocates on behalf of the immigrant community through policy advocacy, education, and legal empowerment efforts. Pangea envisions a world where the fundamental right to move is respected and appreciated by all.

Press Release: VICTORY! Navy Vet Becomes U.S. Citizen After Years of Community-Legal Defense Against ICE

For immediate release

San Francisco, CA -- Pangea Legal Services released the following statement on behalf of Joaquin Sotelo and his family, after a socially-distant oath ceremony took place in Fresno, CA on Saturday:

After a more than five year struggle to defend himself against ICE’s aggressive deportation campaign, U.S. Navy Veteran Joaquin Sotelo was sworn in as a naturalized U.S. citizen on Saturday, June 27. Joaquin’s story of service and rehabilitation gained attention from the media, and galvanized the support of the immigrant community and allies, who came together to demand that the government recognize his right to remain with his family in the country he calls home. Over his years-long struggle, Joaquin’s court appearances in immigration, superior, and federal courts were filled with community members for whom Joaquin’s story was a prime example of how ICE’s efforts to tear people from our communities on the basis of past mistakes and without any regard for personal growth and rehabilitation is misguided, cruel and counter-productive. Our efforts to keep Joaquin’s family together were felt across the Bay Area, Central Valley, and beyond.

“I cannot thank you all enough for the endless love and support - from San Francisco to Merced and the Central Valley. This journey was tough and challenging. My family and community held me up when I wanted to give up. They reminded me that this fight is bigger than me, it is for everyone who is out in the streets, packing the courtrooms or city hall chambers demanding justice. This campaign has shown us that when we come together to raise up our common humanity, our possibilities are endless,” said Joaquin Sotelo. “ICE’s aggressive campaign to re-detain me caused so much uncertainty. But now, my family and I can finally move on with our lives.”

“To think that only six months ago, the Trump Administration was fighting tooth and nail to  re-incarcerate Joaquin in immigration detention, and now their hand was forced to recognize him as a U.S. citizen. It demonstrates the billions of dollars our government wastes annually to prop up the ICE detention and deportation machine,” said Etan Newman, Joaquin’s immigration attorney at Pangea. “Throughout Joaquin’s fight, the community has repeatedly showed up to remind the judges and elected officials that criminalization and deportation of people of color is not the answer. As Joaquin has shown, when people get the mental health support they need to recover from trauma and take full responsibility for their mistakes, they can become positive examples in their community. It’s time our government focused its resources on supporting rehabilitation for our community members rather than incarcerating and banishing them.” 

Joaquin uplifts national calls to defund police, ICE, and prisons and reinvest in community mental health services and job training, especially in the Central Valley. Due to social distancing guidelines and family privacy, at this time Joaquin will not provide additional comments aside from this statement.

###

BREAKING: Community Brings Oumar Home, Two Hunger-Strikers Win Bonds, While ICE Demands Ransom in Exchange for Freedom

For immediate release

San Francisco, CA -- After weeks of legal advocacy and community pressure amidst a global pandemic, two hunger strikers detained at the for-profit Mesa Verde Detention Facility won bonds for release, but ICE is demanding  astronomical bonds for their freedom despite their risk of death from COVID-19. Meanwhile, our beloved community member, Oumar Yaide, was finally brought home after nearly eight months of detention, an unlawful deportation, traveling through three continents, and six airports. 

Pangea Legal Services releases the following statement:

“Even in this time of darkness, we know that our communities are the glimmer of hope to help us get through it. It is incredible to know that Oumar, Everardo, Luis Alberto, and so many of our loved ones will have the ability to shelter-in-place with those that matter to them the most. COVID-19 has highlighted everything that is morally wrong about immigrant detention: making profits with no regard to human life.”

"‘ICE is literally holding these people's lives for ransom,’ said Pete Weiss, immigration attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow. ‘There's no other word for it. They are demanding huge sums of money from their families to release them, even as they acknowledge that these people face a high risk of death from COVID-19 in detention.’”

“The fight continues to free them all. Over 200 hunger strikers continue to protest conditions at Mesa Verde, and shed light on ICE’s desperate attempt to keep thousands of individuals detained. We will keep the pressure up to ensure the release of every individual until we shut these facilities down.”

###

Press Release: As hunger strikes spread in detention facilities, detained immigrants, community advocates decry inaction from Governor

For immediate release

Community pressure and ongoing hunger strike at privately-owned Mesa Verde Detention Facility  push ICE to release elderly man over fear of COVID-19 exposure, while others remain at risk; Pressure mounts on Gov. to halt expansion of immigration detention and transfers from jails and prisons to ICE detention. 

BAKERSFIELD, CA-- As the threat of COVID-19 grows in immigration detention facilities across California, a rising tide of hunger strikes within detention facilities and community protests is placing mounting pressure on California Governor Gavin Newsom to take executive action to save lives.

As many three detention centers across California have now joined a hunger strike which began last week at a women’s dorm inside the Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Bakersfield, demanding health safety protocols be initiated to respond to COVID-19. The sustained efforts across the state come as the privately-owned Otay Mesa Detention Center, just 250 miles south of Bakersfield, became the detention center with the largest COVID-19 outbreak at a detention facility in the U.S.

Though the hunger strikers demand they all be released immediately to respond to the pandemic, their immediate asks include: ending the transferring of people from jails and into detention facilities, that all staff working with them wear preventive items like masks and gloves, that ICE provide COVID-19 testing for those inside experiencing symptoms, and that on-site medical assistance be provided to those who've contracted it.

As of this morning, the strike and growing community pressure on the outside has resulted in the release of at least one man whose health and age place him at high risk of dying should he contract the virus. Luis Alberto Escobar, the man to be released as soon as bond is placed, 63-year-old man who recently underwent spinal surgery that left him with limited physical motion and suffers from incontinence, high blood pressure, and shortness of breath.

The strikers say this is not enough, however. Nearly 100 organizations across the state have signed onto a letter the strikers drafted demandingGovernor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has the power to oversee the standards of care in the facility, to take immediate action.

One of the strikers, Marcos Alejandro Reyes, says this is a plea for their lives. "I’m afraid of getting sick," said Reyes, "We are locked in here together, crammed in, just packed in. Where I am now, there are 100 people in one big room. We try to take care of each other, and we try to clean, but there is little we can do. Please help us get out of here."

 Mr. Reyes has cirrhosis which weakens his immune system. He also has esophageal varices, which could rupture and bleed due to respiratory symptoms of COVID-19.

 Previously, over 150 organizations outlined the Governor’s broad authority to save lives, called upon him to halt a controversial attempt by private corporations to expand immigration detention in the state, and also to halt transfers of community members from state or local custody to ICE custody. 

ICE systematically deprives tens of thousands of immigrants of liberty, creating a system of detention across the country which did not exist a few decades ago. Detention is rife with medical neglect and had seen multiple deaths from medical neglect even prior to COVID19. Thousands of doctors have urged release of people from immigration detention, jails, and prisons given that the conditions of confinement inherently make social distancing impossible. 

###

Community Responds to ICE’s Lies on Mesa Verde Hunger Strike, Demands Freedom for Detainees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 11, 2020

ICE has made a statement denying that a hunger strike is taking place in the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, which is owned and operated by the for-profit entity GEO. The statement by ICE was provided less than a day after a hunger strike was announced in this facility.

ICE and GEO have a stated policy in which a hunger strike is not recognized until nine consecutive meals are missed. This would normally require three days of missed meals to pass before a hunger strike is recognized. This abhorrent policy allows ICE to falsify what is taking place in these detention facilities, and distort reality according to their own inhumane protocols. 

ICE’s track record of spreading lies is well documented, with their own spokesman resigning rather than continuing to spread falsehoods. In this case their furious rhetoric is aimed at breaking the solidarity between those inside the facility and the community, and seeks to distort the truth for the press that is paying attention.

In true Orwellian fashion, ICE has responded by accusing those who amplify the demands of detainees as being involved in “deceptive tactics” which “exploits the plight of detainees.” ICE levies these charges against grassroots organizations, while it contracts with private operators who pay detainees $1 a day for labor.

Individuals organizing inside the facility  have confirmed that they are in fact engaging in a hunger strike. According to ICE’s own stated policy, it is both premature and inappropriate for them to issue a determination that a hunger strike is not taking place.  Instead of dealing with the facts, ICE has chosen to lash out against detainees and the community. This is an indication of their desperation to hide the truth as the world watches.

The people in these facilities are facing a deadly pandemic and fighting for their lives, while being kept in chains by a corporation who profits from their detention. Their bravery and solidarity has been met with a vicious rhetoric from an agency that is systematically depriving them of their liberty and humanity, and the ability to protect themselves during a pandemic. ICE and GEO must set them free. 

Signatories

California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance (CIYJA)

Centro Legal de la Raza

Immigrant Defense Advocates 

Kern Welcoming and Extending Solidarity to Immigrants (KWESI)

Kern Youth Abolitionists (KYA)

Pangea Legal Services

UFW Foundation

BREAKING: ICE THREATENS TO RE-DETAIN OUMAR YAIDE UPON ARRIVAL TO U.S.

For immediate release

Community members and leaders call on elected officials to demand ICE release Oumar to his community

San Francisco, CA - After nearly two months of noncompliance with a federal court order, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) plans to bring Oumar Yaide back to the United States on Saturday, February 29, 2020. A federal court had ruled in December 2019 that DHS had possibly violated Oumar’s rights by erroneously deporting him to Chad, where Oumar faces violence, imprisonment, or even death for being a member of the LGBTQ community. 

The DHS has not disclosed exactly when or where Oumar will arrive in Northern California, but did inform Oumar’s legal team that they planned to re-detain him. Oumar’s community and his legal team are advocating for him to be released to his chosen family.

“There is no reason to place Oumar in custody again after ICE erroneously deported him in the first place,” says Sean Lai McMahon, Oumar’s immigration attorney at Pangea Legal Services. “Oumar has a pending motion to reopen his case, and does not pose a flight risk or danger to the community.” Edwin Carmona-Cruz, a Co-Director at Pangea Legal Services says, “Elected officials across the country should be outraged and alarmed that, after what he has been through, DHS seeks to detain Oumar again.  ICE must exercise prosecutorial discretion and release Oumar to his chosen family and community in San Francisco!”

###