U.S. Government Tells Federal Judge They Cannot Produce the Names and Identities of All Immigration Detainees Held for More Than 6 Months

In response to a Federal Court Order in Case No. 11-Civ.-3786, ACLU v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, federal prosecutors told the judge they can't meet a his demand that they quickly deliver documents about thousands of immigrants who've been detained nationwide for months or years as their immigration statuses are reviewed.

The office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara laid out the government's position to U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman in a letter made public just before Christmas.

The letter, dated December 23, 2013, came five days after the judge criticized the government, saying it had been on notice since the American Civil Liberties Union requested the documents nearly five years ago.

The ACLU eventually filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in Manhattan federal court in 2011 seeking documents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The ACLU questioned the practice of "prolonged immigration detention — for months, if not years — without adequate procedures in place to determine whether their detention is justified." It cited a dramatic increase in the number of immigration detainees in recent decades, noting they weren't serving criminal sentences but were being detained by the thousands to ensure they're available for removal from the country if removal is ordered and appeals are exhausted.

The judge said the government's continued refusal to produce documents had stymied efforts to reform a system in which thousands of immigrant detainees, some applicants for asylum, languish in immigration jails longer than six months.

He also attacked as "painstaking and riddled with further delay" the government's process for releasing documents, saying the government hasn't produced any documents since his Sept. 9 order to release documents and had at times claimed it would take seven years to produce 100 files.

The government, though, said in its letter it is "not feasible" to produce documents from more than 22,000 individual files as ordered but said it can produce a reliable sample of 385 files within 15 months, with rolling releases within eight weeks of a revised order.

In 2009, The Associated Press conducted a computer analysis of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement database obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, finding there were 32,000 immigrants from 177 countries detained, including more than 18,000 with no criminal convictions.

The analysis showed that nearly 10,000 had been in custody more than a month, that 400 of those with no criminal records had been locked up more than a year, that a dozen had been held for three years or more and that one man from China had been incarcerated more than five years. Many of the longest-term non-criminal detainees were asylum seekers.

The analysis was referenced in the ACLU lawsuit.

According to a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, immigrants are supposed to be deported or released within about six months. The steady increase in the number of immigrants held behind bars grew considerably after Congress passed a pair of laws in 1996 requiring immigrants who committed crimes be locked up for deportation. The numbers continued to rise after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and amid anti-immigrant political rhetoric.

Pro Bono Asylum Cases - Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

Last week, I received an email from the new asylum coordinator at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco. Contained in the text of the message were the brief synopsis of the cases that need a pro bono attorney to take over the client's representation. Currently, I am swamped with work in my practice as well as the appointed criminal appellate cases I take from the Court of Appeal.

But just to give you a sampling of the horrific cases floating around in the immigration courts, refugees crying out for justice and relief, here are a few of the cases.

*********************************************************

Honduran woman, 29, as teenager became partner to violently possessive man in his 40s who threatened to kill her if she left. She fled to Mexico, but her partner found her and took her back to Honduras, where he continued to abuse her and threatened to kill her family. In Mexico, she was also raped by a police officer. Must qualify for exception to one-year application deadline. Master Calendar hearing January 23, 2014.

Client is a Mayan Guatemalan woman, 20. Her alcoholic partner beat her even when she was pregnant, and would call her an “ugly hag.” When he got a new woman, he forced her from home. She returned to parents with her newborn son. Her partner, having joined a gang, tried to claim the son, cursing her and firing a gun at her. His gang member friends then molested her and told her that her partner had said they could kill her at any time. On their most recent encounter, her partner told her that he would not leave her alone until he killed her. Stockton resident. Must ask Immigration Judge to advance master calendar (preliminary) hearing to on or before June 8, 2014, for timely filing of asylum application.

Client is a Guatemalan survivor of domestic violence who met and married a man when she was 15-years old. He began abusing her, continuing when she became pregnant and she miscarried as a result. His family, whom they lived with, was also emotionally abusive towards her. After becoming pregnant again, she left to stay with family members but he found her and beat her for it. Her partner later left for the United States after which her father-in-law began sexually abusing her. Her partner then came back from the United States and raped her, from which she got pregnant, and continued to beat her even threatening her with a machete. He threatened her life and that of her mother. She decided to come to the United States and fears for her life, especially because her partner has also sometimes come to the United States. The asylum application is largely prepared and the case just needs to be advanced so that the client may file in court.

Client is a gay Jordanian man who comes from a fairly well-off religious family; his father would sometimes beat him when he made mistakes. In August 2013, his family found out he was gay through a Facebook message a friend posted on his wall. His father hit him on two separate occasions, threatened future punishment, and threw him out of the house. He stayed with a friend for three weeks, then raised money from friends and flew to the United States, where he had a visa from a previous work trip. He fears that his father and possibly other extended family members will further harm him if he returns, and that the police will not help him, because they do not protect gay people or involve themselves in internal family matters of honor. His deadline for an affirmative asylum application is November 4, 2014.

Client is a 30-year old Peruvian woman who endured almost a decade of abuse at the hands of her domestic partner, who would beat her and allowed his cousin to molest their 4-year old daughter. Afraid, she left moved to another town, where she was tracked down by the partner. When she went to the police to report him, they discouraged her and said they did not have paper to take a report. The client continued to be harassed by her partner, and decided to come to the United States. Her partner has told her recently that if she does not return to him, he will find her and he will kill her. Her Master Calendar hearing is scheduled for May 19, 2015, but this must be advanced to meet a filing deadline of August 4, 2014 to meet the one-year filing deadline.

California Governor Brown Signs TRUST Act

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill on Saturday limiting the state's cooperation with federal immigration authorities, a direct indictment and rebuke of the Obama administration's enforcement policy that has led to record deportations from the state.

As the Congress stalls on immigration reform, action continues in the states, and advocates and politicians in California hope they can serve as an example of how to do it right.

“While Washington waffles on immigration, California’s forging ahead,” Brown said in a press release after signing the legislation into law. "I’m not waiting.”

The new California law, known as the Trust Act, limits the state's cooperation with Secure Communities, a federal program that allows the Department of Homeland Security to access fingerprints taken by local police, to screen detained individuals for immigration status and to request that law enforcement agencies hold them if they're found to be undocumented.

Democratic Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, the top sponsor of the Trust Act, said before Brown's signature that he hopes state actions like California's will put more pressure on Congress, rather than drawing attention to the legislative fights there.

"It makes it all the more important that California be on the lead on this," he said. "If we get the governor's signature, it will be really a benchmark. It will be one of the first states that has gone on record about this program. ... And hopefully, it will signal to D.C. that they need to start moving."

Advocates have been pushing for the Trust Act for years, and finally succeeded in getting the bill to limit Secure Communities past both houses in 2012.

But Brown vetoed last year's version of the legislation, calling the bill “fatally flawed.” Brown faulted the earlier version of the Trust Act for barring the state from detaining individuals on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement even when they were charged with or convicted of significant crimes, including offenses involving child abuse, drug trafficking and gang activity. This year’s version of the Trust Act addressed those concerns by making the list of crimes classified as serious offenses more extensive.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who recently because president of the University of California system, shifted on the Trust Act and urged Brown earlier this week to support it -- even though the Secure Communities expanded across the country under her watch.

California isn't the typical state on immigration and the population is now about 38 percent Latino, compared to the roughly 17 percent of the population made up by Latinos nationwide. California is also among the most immigrant-friendly states in the country. The legislature passed a bill last month to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, following steps taken by 10 other states.

Yet California isn't the only state or locality that has at least attempted to limit the scope of Secure Communities. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois and the District of Columbia either attempted to opt-out of the program or passed laws instructing law enforcement to ignore orders to hold individuals. But no area was exempted from the program -- Secure Communities is now implemented nationwide, in 3,181 jurisdictions.

ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen previously declined to comment on the California legislation while it was pending, but said the agency has made identifying and removing criminal offenders its "highest priority" and has implemented reforms toward that end. ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.

Supporters of the Trust Act say Secure Communities makes immigrant communities fearful of police and less likely to report crime, in case in doing so they reveal their undocumented status and get into trouble.

"This is more a law enforcement issue than an immigration issue," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who has criticized Secure Communities, recently told HuffPost in an interview. "What this will do for law enforcement in California is that it will ensure that immigrants collaborate with law enforcement."

Secure Communities -- or S-Comm, as its opponents refer to it -- isn't designed to ensnare people without criminal records who get into fender benders. Despite reforms aimed at limiting holds for non-serious offenders, a report released Tuesday by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that plenty of people were held even when it was against ICE policy to do so.

The program is also expensive when used on a broader basis, beyond serious criminals. Requests to detain are supposed to last 48 hours at most, but law enforcement officials sometimes keep people longer, according to reports. A report from Justice Strategies in August 2012 found that Los Angeles County was spending more than $26 million a year to hold undocumented immigrants who it would otherwise release if it weren't for ICE requests to hold them. Justice Strategies estimated that California taxpayers were spending $65 million each year to hold immigrants for ICE.

National groups opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group against legalization for undocumented immigrants, urged supporters to contact California lawmakers and ask them to oppose the Trust Act. "This bill would undermine public safety in my community and impede the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law," the group's suggested script read.

But advocates of the bill said it is a major step forward toward broader immigration reform in the U.S., and applauded its passage.

Jorge Sosa, Ex-Guatemala Soldier, Found Guilty In Denaturalization Case Today in Federal Court

As being reported out of Riverside, California today, A former Guatemalan soldier was convicted Tuesday of lying on his application to become an American citizen about his role in the massacre of at least 160 people more than three decades ago.

A federal court jury found former Guatemalan army officer Jorge Sosa guilty of making false statements and obtaining citizenship unlawfully. The 55-year-old former second lieutenant could face both a prison sentence and loss of his U.S. citizenship when he is sentenced.

Prosecutors said Sosa was a member of a special forces patrol that went to the village of Dos Erres in December 1982 on a search for weapons believed stolen by guerrillas. The weapons were never found and prosecutors say the patrol decided to kill the villagers, throwing their bodies into a well, after some of the soldiers began raping the women.

More than two decades later, Sosa failed to mention his military service or role in the massacre on his application to become an American citizen even though the paperwork inquired about affiliations and past crimes, prosecutors said.

Sosa's lawyer, Shashi Kewalramani, said authorities knew Sosa was in the military because he told them about his service when he unsuccessfully sought asylum in 1985, and referred to this application when he later sought to naturalize. He said prosecutors failed to prove Sosa knew other former soldiers were being tried in Guatemala for the killings in Dos Erres.

While not a war crimes trial, the case brought haunting accounts of the 36-year long civil war that claimed 200,000 lives in Guatemala to the courtroom in Riverside County, where Sosa previously lived and taught martial arts classes.

During the trial, two former soldiers testified they saw Sosa standing near the well in Dos Erres where they were ordered to bring villagers to be killed and that he fired his rifle at the screaming, dying victims inside. One of the few survivors of the massacre recounted the horror of watching soldiers bash small children into a tree and toss their bodies into the well and seeing his mother yanked from the family as she pleaded for her life.

Sosa listened to a Spanish translation of the testimony through headphones and appeared to take notes.

Sosa left Guatemala in 1985 and sought asylum in the United States, claiming he was fleeing Guatemalan guerrillas. When he was denied, he went to Canada, where he became a citizen. He later married an American and got a green card, and applied to naturalize in 2007.

Sosa is one of four former soldiers allegedly involved in the Dos Erres massacre who have been arrested by U.S. homeland security officials. One of them is serving time for lying on his naturalization application about the killings while another has been held as a material witness in the case against Sosa.

A fourth was deported from the U.S. and prosecuted in Guatemala. He is one of five former members of the special forces who have been sentenced there to more than 6,000 years in prison for the killings.

Guatemalan authorities say they hope Sosa will be extradited to face similar charges.

In 1994, Guatemala opened an investigation into the Dos Erres massacre and several years later authorities issued arrest warrants for more than a dozen former soldiers. But the cases languished until the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2009 ordered Guatemala to prosecute the perpetrators of the killings.

The following year, the U.S. – which had supported Guatemala's military governments during the country's civil war – arrested three former soldiers and searched Sosa's home before he left for Mexico and later Canada. He was arrested there and extradited to the U.S. last year.

High rate of deportations continue under Obama

In an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart on Tuesday, President Obama said that it would be difficult to halt the deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally without the approval of Congress.

Immigration rights advocates have pushed the president to halt deportations through an executive order, especially of immigrants who haven’t committed any serious crimes.

Last summer the administration did just this for young unauthorized immigrants brought to the country illegally as children with the creation of the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program. Known as DREAMers, more than 500,000 young unauthorized immigrants have taken advantage of the administration’s program. Our 2012 survey of Hispanic adults found wide approval (89% approved of this new policy). A Pew Research Center survey of the general U.S. public found that 63% of U.S. adults approved of this program as well.

But deportations of unauthorized immigrants continue at record levels. In 2011 some 392,000 immigrants were removed from the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security. Among them, 48% were deported for breaking U.S. laws, such as drug trafficking, driving under the influence and entering the country illegally.

The Obama Administration has deported more immigrants annually than the George W. Bush Administration.

Most Hispanics disapprove. When asked about the Obama administration’s handling of deportations in a late 2011 Pew Research Center survey, 59% said they disapproved while 27% said they approved. According to the same survey, 41% of all Hispanics, and 55% of Hispanic immigrants, were aware that more immigrants had been deported under the Obama Administration than the Bush Administration.

The Latino vote played an important role in the 2012 presidential election. A record 11.2 million Hispanics voted, supporting the president over challenger Mitt Romney 71% to 27%, according to exit polls. For Latino voters, the issue of immigration ranks as an important issue (though in 2012 it trailed others such as the economy, education and health care).

California Assembly Bill Will Burden Immigration Attorneys With New Requirements 1159 (AB 1159)

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez recently introduced Assembly Bill 1159 (AB 1159) in February 2013, which has raised the ire of many immigration attorneys because of several drastic new provisions. The bill, initially introduced earlier this year, contained language on Education but was (entirely) amended instead in July 2013 to regulate immigration services in the State of California.

While controversial bills affecting immigration attorneys aren’t entirely new, it is the way in which AB 1159 (in its current incarnation) has evolved that raises many questions. The effect of this bill would be to encumber legitimate immigration practioners with regulatory burdens which would only raise the costs for those attorneys complying with the law, but would do little to deter people acting outside the law.

The national organization for immigration attorneys, American Immigration Lawyers Association, "AILA" has released a public statement in opposition, which is quoted below.

By contrast, gratuitous measures contained in the proposed legislation will only deplete the number of well-intentioned, competent professionals from one of the most humanitarian areas of the practice of law.

The misplaced focus on unprincipled lawyers already operating in violation of the existing regulatory scheme misses addressing the real threat: the victimization of vulnerable immigrants by notarios and unscrupulous immigration form-preparers (a fact which is of great concern to law enforcement and borne out by the Bar’s own reports). The bill places onerous business and procedural requirements on immigration lawyers far in excess of what is imposed on other attorneys in California. The attempt to micro-manage the attorney-client relationship impedes the immigration attorneys’ effective representation while the non-attorney perpetrators go undetected and continue to scam immigrants with impunity.

As noted above these requirements are at best redundant and at worst unnecessary, increasing the costs compliant attorneys will face. Rushing into short-sighted proposals to address very real concerns about the potential for large-scale immigration fraud will severely hinder the ability of the private bar and community-based legal assistance providers to serve the legal needs of immigrant communities. An inevitable result of the proposed requirements would make hiring qualified legal help so cumbersome and costly that it will actually drive people away from qualified lawyers and legitimate service providers and into the arms of fraudulent practitioners. Nonprofits who rely on outside attorneys to provide assistance will find fewer lawyers able or willing to provide pro bono and low bono services.

What concerns me the most personally, is the fact that the immigration courts are a federal court, meaning that any attorney licensed in any state has the right to practice before the court. The regulation proposed in this bill would only apply to California licensed attorneys and anyone from outside the state would not be subject to these news rules.

Sponsoring a Legal Immigrant by Signing an Affidavit of Support, USCIS Form I-864, Could Leave You Vulnerable to Support the Immigrant Indefinitely

Great story out of Texas as reported by Bret Crandall of valleycentral.com. A Lawful Permanent Resident ("LPR" or "Green Card" Holder) sued her former husband for spousal support. The former husband was the person who signed the USCIS Form I-864 Affidavit of Support agreeing under a binding contract with the U.S. government that he would support his intending immigrant.

Here Is the Story

Steve Summers is being sued in federal court by his ex-wife Evangelina Zapata de Summers.

After six years of marriage they divorced in 2009.

Now, she is taking her ex back to court for breaking his contract with her and the U.S. government.

Since the mid-90's the law has required U.S. citizens like Summers to sign the I-864 affidavit to bring a non-U.S. citizen, like a spouse, into the country.

To ensure immigrants do not become a burden on social welfare programs, the sponsor must sign the document in which they essentially agree to support the immigrant at 125 percent of the federal poverty level if they have no income. But if the two parties divorce --- the affidavit of support still stands.

“A U.S. citizen can really get screwed under these circumstances," Summers said.

Zapata is suing to obtain alimony for the rest of her life.

Summers' attorney Marcus Barrera tells Action 4 even though they are divorced, and she's lived in the U.S. for about a decade, he may still have to pay up.

"The problem is these permanent residents come back and sue their sponsors and they sit at home and do nothing and the law makes it pretty clear that you have to support them at 125 percent of poverty,” Barrera said. “There is no mechanism built into this situation that forces the person to get a job as a permanent resident and become a citizen or you will be deported."

According to Summers, his wife can work, but she doesn't.

The only way to nullify the I-864 affidavit is if the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, works for 10 years, fails to keep permanent residency status or dies.

Even though Zapata has remarried and divorced, the contract remains.

"There is no incentive for them to become a U.S. citizen, no incentive to work. There is nothing where I can get out of that contract,” Summers said.

"So they stay here in limbo and basically become a parasite to the original person that signs the affidavit of support,” Barrera said.

Summers says he is doing all he can to bring attention to this part of immigration reform that is rarely spoken about and often misunderstood by lawmakers and attorneys.

"I had a very hard time finding an attorney. I went to attorneys who specialize in immigration and I was told this was a figment of my imagination -- 'you don't have anything to worry, Steve' -- only to find out that it has started to happen,” Summers said.

“The law is fairly ambiguous and I think there is some clarification that could be made,” Summers said.

"Any immigration bill should have something in there that forces a permanent resident, if they aren't going to work to become a permanent, productive member of U.S society they need to be deported back to where they came from or the rest of the U.S. citizens, including the sponsor, will have to continue supporting them and we just can't continue that,” Barrera said.