Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Other’ Category

Federal Judge Smacks Down William Barr’s Attempt to Indefinitely Detain Asylum Seekers

In Matter of M-S (27 I. & N. Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) , Attorney General William Barr, who has turned out to be a reliable anti-immigrant, anti-rule-of-law tool for Donald Trump, tried to allow DHS to indefinitely detain immigrants during their asylum hearings before Immigration Judges.

A U.S. District Court just ruled that Barr’s actions were illegal: M-S- violates the United States Constitution. Here is the modified decision and order from the case:

Class Action Victory! R.F.M. v Nielsen

Special Immigrant Juvenile Status is a remedy for immigrant children who are under the age of 21, and have been abandoned, abused or neglected by one or both parents.  The remedy is dependent on each state’s law on the age of majority.  On February 2018, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) began to deny all Special Immigrant Juvenile Cases of children between the ages of 18 and 20 at the time their Family Court orders of abandonment, abuse and neglect were issued, based upon the misinterpretation of New York Law, asserting that the age of majority is 18.  USCIS had in fact approved such cases for almost a decade before this change, even though the law on the age of majority had not changed.

After a little over a year of denials and notices of intent to deny based on this change of adjudication, federal judge John G. Koetl of the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in the class action lawsuit, R.F.M. v. Nielsen, 18-cv-5068.  “Because the agency’s policy is contrary to the plain language of the SIJ statute, lacks a reasoned explanation, is premised on erroneous misinterpretations of state law,  and was not enacted with adequate notice, the policy is arbitrary and capricious, ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction,’ and ‘without observance of procedure required by law.’  Accordingly, the policy must be set aside.”

Plaintiffs have until March 22, 2019 to submit a proposed order for declaratory and injuctive relief.  The government may respond by May 29, 2019.  This nightmare soon ends, and immigrant children can remain protected in New York.  We look forward to many victories beginning in April.

Click Here to Read Order in R.F.M. v. Nielsen

El estatus especial de inmigrante juvenil es un remedio para los niños inmigrantes menores de 21 años, y han sido abandonados, abusados o descuidados por uno o ambos padres. El remedio depende de la ley de cada estado en la mayoría de edad. El 2018 de febrero, los servicios de ciudadanía e inmigración de los Estados Unidos ( “USCIS “) empezaron a negar todos los casos especiales de inmigrantes juveniles de niños entre las edades de 18 y 20 años en el momento en que se emitieron sus órdenes de abandono, abuso y negligencia de la corte de familia, con base sobre la mala interpretación de la ley de Nueva York, afirmando que la mayoría de edad es de 18 años. USCIS había aprobado de hecho tales casos durante casi una década antes de este cambio, a pesar de que la ley sobre la mayoría de edad no había cambiado.

 
Después de un poco más de un año de negaciones y avisos de intención de negar basado en este cambio de adjudicación, el juez federal John G. Koetl del distrito sur de Nueva York otorgó un juicio sumario en la demanda colectiva, R.F.M. v. Nielsen, 18-CV-5068. “Debido a que la política de la Agencia es contraria al lenguaje llano del estatuto del SIJ, carece de una explicación razonada, se basa en malas interpretaciones erróneas de la ley estatal, y no fue promulgada con suficiente antelación, la política es arbitraria y caprichosa, ‘ en exceso de la jurisdicción legal, ‘ y ‘ sin observancia del procedimiento exigido por la ley. ‘ En consecuencia, la política debe ser anulada. ”

 
Los demandantes tienen hasta el 22 de marzo de 2019 para presentar una propuesta de orden de alivio declaratorio y perjudicial. El gobierno puede responder el 29 de mayo de 2019. Esta pesadilla pronto termina, y los niños inmigrantes pueden permanecer protegidos en Nueva York. Esperamos muchas victorias a partir de abril.

Federal Judge Denies Trump’s Request To Indefinitely Detain Children Under Flores

Judge Dolly Gee shot down, with gusto and venomous contempt, the Trump administration’s frivolous request to modify the Flores agreement to enable them to indefinitely detain children with their parents.

Here is are some key excerpts, followed by the decision:

On July 24, 2015, the Court denied Defendants’ motion seeking to modify the Flores Agreement on the same grounds now raised anew in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application. See Defs.’ Motion to Amend at 13, 17–21, 27–28, 30–33 [Doc. # 120]; July 24, 2015 Order at 19–25 [Doc. # 177]; Ex Parte Appl. at 15–16 [Doc. # 435-1] (repeating Defendants’ position that detaining family units in unlicensed family residential facilities deters others from unlawfully entering the country). In short, Defendants have run afoul of Local Rule 7-18 because the Ex Parte Application “repeat[s] . . . oral or written argument made in support of” the earlier Motion to Amend. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.

It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying wellestablished principles of law. Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount.

To the extent Defendants claim that the Ms. L Order supports their request for modification, their argument fares no better because they have not shown that Ms. L required Defendants to violate the Flores Agreement or that compliance with the Ms. L Order would “directly conflict” with the Flores Agreement’s release and state licensure provisions. See Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863, 874 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting that this is the standard for modifying a decree on change of law grounds). Absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion. See Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. at 29435; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) (providing that the Attorney General has the discretion to release certain aliens