Immigration Issues

United States

Asylum: Newspaper Study Ranks Immigration Judges

On October 17, the San Jose Mercury News obtained a 1,134 page printout from the Justice Department showing how frequently each of the nation's Immigration Judges granted requests for asylum. The data was entered into a computer and analyzed by DMR Associates of Springfield, Virginia. The data revealed that of over 175,000 requests for asylum which were made to Immigration Judges, just under 30,000 (17%) were approved, less than 100,000 (56%) were denied, over 12,000 were abandoned and a little more than 37,000 were withdrawn. The study indicated that the Immigration Judges in some courts were much stricter than others. Ranked as "Unsafe Harbors" by the newspaper were the courts in Seattle, Los Angeles, Houston, Oakdale (Louisiana), Atlanta, Arlington (Virginia), Newark, Elizabeth (New Jersey), New York (Varick Street) and Detroit. More lenient courts included San Francisco, El Paso, Dallas, Harlingen (Texas), Miami, Baltimore, York (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia, Jamaica Wackenhut (New York), and Chicago. Since there are 52 cities with Immigration Courts, the others fell in the in-between group. However, since there are often many judges in a particular Immigration Court, moving your residence from one city to another does not necessarily improve your odds of obtaining asylum. For example, the Court in New York is the home to three of the "Ten Most Lenient Judges" (Judges Terry A. Bain, Victoria Ghartey and Margaret McManus) as well as two of the "Ten Strictest Judges" (Judges William F. Jackun and Noel Anne Ferris). A link to the San Jose Mercury story is available at http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html under "Asylum Statistical Charts For Immigration Judges".

For a statistical analysis applicable to every Immigration Judge in the U.S., see http://shusterman.com/rankings.html

Supreme Court To Hear Cases Regarding Indefinite Detention

What happens when the INS is unable to deport a person back to his country? Can the agency imprison the person for the rest of his life? This is a question which has been troubling me since I served as an INS Trial Attorney in the early 1980s. I would accompany Immigration Judges into federal prisons around the country to represent the government in exclusion proceedings involving persons who committed crimes in Cuba. Fidel Castro was not willing to allow the U.S. to deport these people back to Cuba. Now, 20 years later, Cuba still refuses to accept deportees from the U.S. Does the INS have the authority to keep deportees whose countries will not accept them back locked up forever? The Supreme Court of the United States never ruled on this question in the 1980's, but is about to do so now. The Court has agreed to decide the legality of indefinite detention because two the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have issued contrary decisions on this important issue. In 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans considered the case of Kestutis Zadvydas. Mr. Zadvydas was born in a displaced persons camp in post-war Germany. His parents, both of whom were Lithuanian nationals, brought their son to the U.S. in 1956 as a refugee. When he was ordered deported by the INS in 1994 because of a narcotics offense, neither Germany, nor Lithuania, nor the Dominican Republic, the country of birth of Mr. Zadvydas' wife, were willing to accept him into their countries. A Federal Judge freed him briefly in 1997 granting his request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Judge ruled that "the probability of permanent confinement" was "an excessive means" of accomplishing the law's purpose of protecting the public from one found deportable because of a criminal conviction. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled this decision and held that Mr. Zadvydas would not necessarily be imprisoned forever since the INS would periodically review the need for his detention, and would attempt to find a country to which he could be deported. The second indefinite detention case is Ma v. Reno. On April 10, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California issued a decision which was contrary to that of the Fifth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ordered the release of a 22-year-old Cambodian named Kim Ho Ma. Mr. Ma had served a two-year sentence for a gang-related killing. He was ordered deported, but the Cambodian government refuses to accept deportees from the U.S. As a result, Mr. Ma had remained in INS custody for another two years. The Federal Appeals Court ordered Mr. Ma freed, holding that his detention was so much longer than the 90-day "removal" authorized under the immigration laws as to be unreasonable and unauthorized by statute. Mr. Zadvydas applied for review by the Supreme Court arguing that since he entered the U.S. legally, he has "due process rights including a fundamental liberty interest in personal freedom under the Fifth Amendment." The Justice Department, in Reno v. Ma, also applied for review by the Supreme Court, arguing that the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling "cannot be reconciled" with precedent decisions by the Supreme Court which require courts to defer to the Attorney General regarding immigration matters. The Justice Department calls attention to the hundreds of similar cases for release from detention which have been filed in the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court's decision on this issue promises to be a landmark decision. To read the complete text of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Zadvydas v. Underdown, see http://shusterman.com/zadvydas.html To read the complete text of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ma v. Reno, see http://shusterman.com/mavreno.html

Private Bill: Against All Odds - Guy Taylor Granted Green Card
President Clinton signed a dozen private immigration bills in November. One of them was a bill to grant our client Guy Taylor permanent residence in the U.S. Reading about Guy's incredible story may be beneficial to other persons seeking permanent residence as well as to other immigration attorneys. Read More About This!!!

CADS is an independent, non-governmental organization whose purposes are also to provide a forum for collective reflection, and to encourage a mutually educating dialogue on development issues at all levels. The program was founded to evolve into several interlocking networks and projects - including its membership and chapter organizations across Africa, and in Europe and North America - which link individuals and institutions.
	Home \| Our Constitution \| Our Projects \| Business Opportunities \| Links \| Annual Reports May PEACE Prevail in Sierra Leone! May PEACE Prevail on Earth! United States Asylum: Newspaper Study Ranks Immigration Judges On October 17, the San Jose Mercury News obtained a 1,134 page printout from the Justice Department showing how frequently each of the nation's Immigration Judges granted requests for asylum. The data was entered into a computer and analyzed by DMR Associates of Springfield, Virginia. The data revealed that of over 175,000 requests for asylum which were made to Immigration Judges, just under 30,000 (17%) were approved, less than 100,000 (56%) were denied, over 12,000 were abandoned and a little more than 37,000 were withdrawn. The study indicated that the Immigration Judges in some courts were much stricter than others. Ranked as "Unsafe Harbors" by the newspaper were the courts in Seattle, Los Angeles, Houston, Oakdale (Louisiana), Atlanta, Arlington (Virginia), Newark, Elizabeth (New Jersey), New York (Varick Street) and Detroit. More lenient courts included San Francisco, El Paso, Dallas, Harlingen (Texas), Miami, Baltimore, York (Pennsylvania), Philadelphia, Jamaica Wackenhut (New York), and Chicago. Since there are 52 cities with Immigration Courts, the others fell in the in-between group. However, since there are often many judges in a particular Immigration Court, moving your residence from one city to another does not necessarily improve your odds of obtaining asylum. For example, the Court in New York is the home to three of the "Ten Most Lenient Judges" (Judges Terry A. Bain, Victoria Ghartey and Margaret McManus) as well as two of the "Ten Strictest Judges" (Judges William F. Jackun and Noel Anne Ferris). A link to the San Jose Mercury story is available at http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html under "Asylum Statistical Charts For Immigration Judges". For a statistical analysis applicable to every Immigration Judge in the U.S., see http://shusterman.com/rankings.html Supreme Court To Hear Cases Regarding Indefinite Detention What happens when the INS is unable to deport a person back to his country? Can the agency imprison the person for the rest of his life? This is a question which has been troubling me since I served as an INS Trial Attorney in the early 1980s. I would accompany Immigration Judges into federal prisons around the country to represent the government in exclusion proceedings involving persons who committed crimes in Cuba. Fidel Castro was not willing to allow the U.S. to deport these people back to Cuba. Now, 20 years later, Cuba still refuses to accept deportees from the U.S. Does the INS have the authority to keep deportees whose countries will not accept them back locked up forever? The Supreme Court of the United States never ruled on this question in the 1980's, but is about to do so now. The Court has agreed to decide the legality of indefinite detention because two the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have issued contrary decisions on this important issue. In 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans considered the case of Kestutis Zadvydas. Mr. Zadvydas was born in a displaced persons camp in post-war Germany. His parents, both of whom were Lithuanian nationals, brought their son to the U.S. in 1956 as a refugee. When he was ordered deported by the INS in 1994 because of a narcotics offense, neither Germany, nor Lithuania, nor the Dominican Republic, the country of birth of Mr. Zadvydas' wife, were willing to accept him into their countries. A Federal Judge freed him briefly in 1997 granting his request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Judge ruled that "the probability of permanent confinement" was "an excessive means" of accomplishing the law's purpose of protecting the public from one found deportable because of a criminal conviction. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled this decision and held that Mr. Zadvydas would not necessarily be imprisoned forever since the INS would periodically review the need for his detention, and would attempt to find a country to which he could be deported. The second indefinite detention case is Ma v. Reno. On April 10, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California issued a decision which was contrary to that of the Fifth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ordered the release of a 22-year-old Cambodian named Kim Ho Ma. Mr. Ma had served a two-year sentence for a gang-related killing. He was ordered deported, but the Cambodian government refuses to accept deportees from the U.S. As a result, Mr. Ma had remained in INS custody for another two years. The Federal Appeals Court ordered Mr. Ma freed, holding that his detention was so much longer than the 90-day "removal" authorized under the immigration laws as to be unreasonable and unauthorized by statute. Mr. Zadvydas applied for review by the Supreme Court arguing that since he entered the U.S. legally, he has "due process rights including a fundamental liberty interest in personal freedom under the Fifth Amendment." The Justice Department, in Reno v. Ma, also applied for review by the Supreme Court, arguing that the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling "cannot be reconciled" with precedent decisions by the Supreme Court which require courts to defer to the Attorney General regarding immigration matters. The Justice Department calls attention to the hundreds of similar cases for release from detention which have been filed in the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court's decision on this issue promises to be a landmark decision. To read the complete text of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Zadvydas v. Underdown, see http://shusterman.com/zadvydas.html To read the complete text of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ma v. Reno, see http://shusterman.com/mavreno.html Private Bill: Against All Odds - Guy Taylor Granted Green Card President Clinton signed a dozen private immigration bills in November. One of them was a bill to grant our client Guy Taylor permanent residence in the U.S. Reading about Guy's incredible story may be beneficial to other persons seeking permanent residence as well as to other immigration attorneys. Read More About This!!! Home \| Our Constitution \| Our Projects \| Business Opportunities \| Links \| Annual Reports