7th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Decision Blocking Withholding of Federal Grant to Sanctuary Cities
An April 19 ruling by the Chicago based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot withhold public safety grants to cities with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Commonly referred to as “sanctuary cities,” they have long been feuding with the Trump administration over whether immigration enforcement should be conducted at a state or federal level.
Asserting the United States as a nation which “jealously guards the separation of powers,” the Court of Appeals ruled to prohibit Attorney General Jeff Sessions from imposing conditions which would need to be met in order to receive federal funding. According to the conditions proposed by the Attorney General, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, a federal grant utilized by local law enforcement, would be given only if the city provided the government with a 48-hour notice ahead of the scheduled release date and time of any alien in the jurisdiction’s custody and provided the federal government access to inquire about the immigration status of any individual at any correction or detention facility, among other requirements. In the 35-page opinion, Appellate Judge Ilana Royner described the separation of powers issue being decided as “one of the bedrock principles of our nation.” Royner expounded on this, stating that although, “The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement,” it was Congress which held the true authority for providing the funding and, “which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement condition on the receipt of such funds.”
For more information, view the full article.
***
Immigration Judges Face New Quotas from Justice Department
The United States Justice Department announced that its evaluation of immigration judges will be based on quotas it has established, with the hopes of expediting immigration court proceedings and minimizing the extensive backlog of over 700,000 cases. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that the backlog is detrimental to removal efforts. Opposition to this measure asserts its threat to immigration judges’ autonomy and its threat to unjustly affect the judges’ decisions.
Under the new evaluation parameters, which are not to take effect until next fiscal year on October 1, immigration judges will be required to complete no fewer than 700 cases annually and see less than 15 percent of their decisions sent back to a higher court. Over the past five years, immigration judges have completed an average of 678 cases per year, though the range in this sample was wide, including outliers of up to 1,500 completed cases. In addition to these requirements, specific judges will also need to adhere to other metrics based on their particular workload. One such standard will require an 85 percent completion rate for cases for detained individuals within three days of a hearing based on the merits of the case. Another metric holds that judges complete 95 percent of merit hearings on the initial scheduled hearing date.
“This is a recipe for disaster,” according to Los Angeles immigration attorney A. Ashley Tabbador, who believes that the new protocol will, “at a minimum impact the perception of integrity of the court.” Many who are also critical of this new approach believe not every immigration court is the same, and thus should not be judged by the same measure. Courts close to the U.S. Mexico border, for example, hear cases that can be resolved quite quickly compared to other areas, so judging judges from each area by the same parameters would be irresponsible.
For more information, view the full article.
***
CA11 Finds Government Did Not Meet Burden to Show Asylum Petitioner Could Relocate Within China
Li Chao Shi, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision which upheld the ruling of an Immigration Judge (IJ) who denied Shi’s application for asylum and cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Shi was born in China and lived there until leaving in 2014. In December 2013, Shi began attending underground Christian church gatherings at his uncle’s house. Later that month, claiming that the group was engaged in an “evil cult gathering,” police raided one of the religious gatherings, and Shi was subsequently arrested. After confiscating Bibles and crosses, the officers interrogated and assaulted Shi at the police station. When Shi would not confess to being part of a cult, the officers punched his chest, stomach, and shoulders, and slapped his face. As Shi continued to deny his involvement in a cult, the officers continued their assault, including hitting him with batons. While suffering from extreme stomach pain as a result of the beatings, Shi asked for medicine, to which the officers reportedly replied, “you better ask God to give you the medicine.” Shi stated that the police would not release him until he signed a letter which stated that he would abstain from any future underground religious gatherings, which Shi reluctantly agreed to sign. Shi reported having bruises all over his body as the result of the 8-day detainment but did not seek medical attention due to such care being too expensive and too far.
Shi returned to the underground church following his release, and in January 2014 was recognized by police while distributing flyers on the Gospel of Matthew in a park with other members of the church. The officers arrested Shi after confiscating the “antigovernment” flyers, and having recognized him from the previous arrest, assaulted and interrogated Shi. This period of detainment lasted 15 days, ending when police convinced Shi’s wife to sign another letter assuring Shi would no longer attend the underground church gatherings. Fearing for his personal safety, Shi never returned to the religious gatherings, instead fleeing China in hopes of finding a place where he could freely practice his religion. Shi arrived in the United States on March 16, 2014 and was detained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shortly thereafter. DHS released Shi after the completion of a credible fear interview.
Shi filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge denied Shi’s petition, citing a lack of reasonable corroborating evidence. The IJ also ruled that the government sufficiently demonstrated that, assuming Shi’s persecution did take place, he could have relocated elsewhere in China, pointing to evidence provided by the government which stated, “officials in many large urban areas, for example, increasingly allowed services in unregistered places of worship provided that they remain small in scale and did not disrupt social stability.”
Shi appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing that he had indeed supplied adequate reasonable corroborating evidence, and the IJ erred in its conclusion that the government met its burden of establishing the possibility for relocation within China. Shi specifically argued that the report relied on by the government stated that the Chinese government was not accepting of underground churches, and places which were accepting of underground churches “only tolerated when they are out of sight.”
The BIA dismissed this appeal, not due to a lack of reasonable corroborating evidence, as concluded by the IJ, but rather the alternative conclusion of the IJ that the government sufficiently established the possibility for Shi to relocate within China without fear of persecution based on his religion. The BIA found that Shi, “would be able to practice Christianity in parts of China, particularly in large urban areas, provided that the services are small in scale and do not otherwise disrupt social stability.”
The Court of Appeals based on this argument purported by the IJ and affirmed by the BIA which acknowledged Shi adequately demonstrated his persecution but failed to adequately address the government’s claim that he could have relocated within China to escape said persecution. When filing for asylum, the onus is placed upon the petitioner to demonstrate that he or she was persecuted in the past based on a protected ground, such as religion as in Shi’s case and that a well-founded fear exists that future persecution based on this protected ground is likely. Once a petitioner demonstrates a past persecution, it is presumed that future persecution is likely, and the onus is placed on the government to discredit this likelihood. One effective method for this is to establish that relocation within the petitioner’s home country would be possible and reasonable, or that it could feasible occur and that there would be no likelihood that the petitioner would face other serious harm in the proposed place of relocation.
Shi correctly pointed out that in the reports cited by the government asserting the reasonability of relocation, it is also mentioned that, “authorities still regularly harassed and detained small groups that met for religious purposes in homes and other locations.” Additionally, the report stated that the Chinese government bars Christian groups and, “considers several Christian groups to be ‘evil cults.’” The Court of Appeals determined that these reports failed to adequately prove the possibility for Shi to relocate within China without any serious harm as the result of his religious beliefs.
Because the BIA determined that Shi had experienced previous persecution, it was then the responsibility of the government to demonstrate that relocation within China was both possible and reasonable. The evidence provided by the government did not support this claim, and thus the Court of Appeals granted Shi’s petition for review and remanded the agency for further proceedings.
For more information, view the full case.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.