Author Archives: Richard Irwin

NY Dreamer Suing Government to Implement Obama Immigration Relief Heads to Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Daniel Altschuler, Make the Road New York, [email protected], 917-494-5922
Susanna Evarts, Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, Yale Law School, [email protected], 207-653-9499

NY Dreamer Suing Government to Implement Obama Immigration Relief Heads to Court

First federal court hearing held in lawsuit seeking order that Obama administration’s immigration program should proceed

NEW YORK, NY — Today, Martín Batalla Vidal, an immigrant New Yorker and Make the Road New York member who filed suit against the federal government to challenge a Texas federal court’s nationwide injunction stopping President Obama’s 2014 immigration relief initiatives, had his first appearance in court. Before the pre-motion conference began, immigrant New Yorkers, elected officials, and allies rallied outside of Brooklyn Borough Hall to show support for Mr. Batalla Vidal’s case and applaud his courage in coming forward to stand up for his community.

Batalla Vidal, a 26-year-old New York City resident who initially obtained a three-year work permit under the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration relief initiatives, later had his permit limited by one year when a federal judge in Texas, Andrew Hanen, issued a sweeping, nationwide preliminary injunction in Texas v. United States. Batalla Vidal’s case argues that Judge Hanen’s injunction should not apply in states like New York, as they were not party to the suit blocking the immigration initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). New York, along with fifteen other states and the District of Columbia, filed a joint brief in Texas v. U.S. that argued against the injunction and emphasized the benefits that DAPA and expanded DACA would have for their states.

Immigrant New Yorkers, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and New York City Councilmembers Carlos Menchaca and Antonio Reynoso rallied together outside Brooklyn’s Borough Hall before the hearing Thursday to show solidarity with Batalla Vidal and to express support for this case, which would create a path for the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of immigrants in New York and across the nation.

Batalla Vidal is represented by Make the Road New York (MRNY), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic (WIRAC) at Yale Law School.

“We stand proudly with Martín as he proceeds with this case, which is a light in the darkness for millions of immigrants like me,” said Magdalena Brito, a Make the Road New York member with two U.S.-citizen children, who would benefit from DAPA. “We hope the judge will rule correctly and permit expanded DACA and DAPA to move forward, which will help keep my family, and millions of families like mine, together and bring economic improvement to New York and dozens of other states.”

In 2015, the federal government relied on Judge Hanen’s injunction to wrongfully revoke or limit three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of expanded-DACA recipients across the country, including Batalla Vidal. This case challenges the scope of Judge Hanen’s injunction, arguing that it should not apply to states like New York, which had not filed suit against the programs in the first place.

“Judge Hanen denied security and stability to thousands of New Yorkers without even hearing from them,” said Amit Jain, a law student intern in the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School. “Martín is standing up to ensure that his voice is heard. We are thrilled to stand with him today.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants, such as Batalla Vidal, who came to the U.S. as children, to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to additional immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S.-citizen and lawful-permanent-resident children to live and work in the country temporarily. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three-year, rather than two-year, periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expanded DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both programs. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June of 2016 deadlocked 4-4, with no decision issued.

“An overly broad injunction has unjustly denied millions of immigrant families an opportunity to leave fear and uncertainty behind and move on with their lives,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director at the National Immigration Law Center. “Thanks to our inspiring plaintiff, Martín, there’s now a chance that at least some of them will be able to get relief. We are grateful for his willingness to speak out for himself and others.”

Batalla Vidal’s home state of New York, and many others, have attested to the benefits of DACA and DAPA, including before the U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 60 percent of individuals eligible for DAPA and expanded DACA live outside of states involved in the Texas case.

# # #

Share

NILC Responds to Obama Administration’s Policy Shift on Haitian Refugees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

NILC Responds to Obama Administration’s Policy Shift on Haitian Refugees

LOS ANGELES — In a sudden policy shift, the Obama administration announced today that it will move to swiftly deport survivors of Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake who have sought refuge at the U.S.-Mexico border in recent months.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Haiti’s massive earthquake in 2010 created one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history, and its impacts are still being felt today. With their country still reeling from the aftermath, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would move to deport refugees who were displaced by this devastating natural disaster. Just days ago, President Obama was on the world stage talking about our moral obligation to help people around the world who have been displaced by unlivable conditions. These people don’t just come from oceans away—they also live here in our hemisphere.

It’s troubling that the administration has not learned from the criticism for how it has treated Central American families. Rather than continuing with its failed deterrence approach of detaining and deporting those seeking refuge in our country, the administration should consider granting these families humanitarian relief. The Obama administration should not turn its back on these families who have fought so hard to seek safety here. “

# # #

Share

Civil Rights Groups: House Hearing Just Another Anti-Immigrant Sideshow

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 21, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Adam Luna, United We Dream, [email protected]
Carl Lipscombe, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, [email protected]

Civil Rights Groups: House Hearing Just Another Anti-Immigrant Sideshow

Political Leaders Should Move Past Xenophobic Rhetoric

WASHINGTON – As the House Judiciary Committee plans for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) oversight hearing with ICE Director Sarah Saldaña tomorrow at 10 a.m. ET, we call on those looking to be leaders on immigration to cast aside harmful and xenophobic rhetoric that divides our communities and instead focus on realistic, humane and just reforms. House Judiciary Committee members, along with Ms. Saldaña, have a long history of using irresponsible rhetoric that paints our country’s diverse and vibrant immigrant communities in a sweeping and denigrating light and ignores their enormous social and economic contributions.

Avideh Moussavian, Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center: “Anyone serious about ICE oversight should be asking why ICE is criminalizing immigrant communities through aggressive tactics like home raids that create a ripple effect of fear. Why is ICE targeting vulnerable populations of women and children seeking asylum in the U.S. and flagrantly violating due process by denying immigrants any meaningful opportunity to present their case to a judge? Meaningful oversight means ensuring that ICE is held accountable for complying with civil rights laws, and that there is transparency for how the agency operates.”

Carl Lipscombe, Policy & Legal Manager, Black Alliance for Just Immigration: “ICE policies are destroying black and brown immigrant communities. On one hand, you’ve got lawmakers on all sides calling for criminal justice reform, and the Department of Justice saying it rejects destructive labels like “felon” and “convict” and that it wants to cut ties with prison profiteers. In alarming contrast, DHS continues to incarcerate immigrants at record levels and promote damaging stereotypes about our communities.”

Greisa Martinez Rosas, Advocacy Director, United We Dream: “Our country needs fewer deportations and more relief on immigration. Instead, this Congressional committee is demanding more deportations and less relief. Director Saldaña leads an agency that is guilty of abusing our communities. Director Saldaña and her agency should be held accountable for this abuse but instead, Congressional leaders are berating her for not separating families quickly enough.”

Tomorrow’s hearing will be streamed on https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/oversight-united-states-immigration-customs-enforcement/.

###

Share

Arizona Attorney General Issues Opinion Establishing Constitutional Standards for Enforcement of Key SB 1070 Provisions, Ending Lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-492-8540, [email protected]
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU National, 212-284-7347, [email protected]
Sandra Hernandez, MALDEF, 213-629-2512 ext. 129, [email protected]
Armando Carmona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 951-966-6500, [email protected]

Arizona Attorney General Issues Opinion Establishing Constitutional Standards for Enforcement of Key SB 1070 Provisions, Ending Lawsuit

Immigrants’ and civil rights groups vow to monitor enforcement of “show me your papers” law

PHOENIX — The Arizona Attorney General’s Office today issued an opinion establishing guidelines for the implementation of two remaining provisions of the state’s 2010 racial profiling law, SB 1070.

With the opinion, the organizations that brought Valle del Sol et al. v. Whiting et al. have agreed to conclude this challenge to SB 1070, which the courts have largely rendered unenforceable.

Every criminal provision of SB 1070 has been blocked, and today’s attorney general opinion, which will be sent to law enforcement agencies across the state, sets down narrow guidelines for how two remaining provisions of the law, sections 2(B) and 2(D), can be enforced. The opinion dictates that officers may not use race or ethnicity to develop reasonable suspicion that someone is unlawfully present in the United States, may not stop people solely to investigate immigration status, and may not hold people in order to investigate immigration status if it will extend the stop beyond the time necessary to address the state law basis for the contact.

“Arizona blazed a trail of mean-spirited policies intended to starve and isolate immigrants six years ago, and many states followed this flawed path,” said MALDEF’s National Senior Counsel Victor Viramontes. “After millions of dollars spent on lawyers, multiple federal decisions blocking key provisions of the law, and finally a state-issued opinion severely constraining local law enforcement, Arizona’s policies have failed to serve anyone living in Arizona.”

“This last step in the SB 1070 litigation makes it clear that what the legislature intended—and much of the immigration enforcement that police in Arizona previously engaged in—is unlawful,” said Omar Jadwat, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The attorney general’s legal opinion makes it clear that no one can be detained based on suspected immigration status, and no one can be targeted because of their race. Officers who do not pay scrupulous attention to the limits of their authority will be held accountable, just as Sheriff Arpaio has been held accountable.”

“Thanks to the inspiring people who brought this lawsuit, the state of Arizona is finally making a public commitment to permanently uphold basic civil rights protections threatened by its misguided 2010 anti-immigrant law,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director at the National Immigration Law Center. “While this important agreement marks an end to a hard-fought legal battle, we will continue to be vigilant to ensure that local law enforcement doesn’t violate these important protections. A recognition of the rights of communities of color on paper is not enough until it is reflected in the lived experience of all Arizonans.”

Plaintiffs in the case include Valle del Sol, the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Service Employees International Union, the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church of Tucson, Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, the Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, the Arizona Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League, and Tonatierra Community Development Institute.

Counsel on the case include the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Day Labor Organizing Network, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Ortega Law Firm, P.C., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The Arizona Attorney General opinion filed today is available here: www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1297-1-Exhibit-A-Proposed-Attorney-General-Opinion.pdf

The joint agreement to end Valle del Sol et al. v. Whiting et al. is available here: www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1297-Joint-Case-Disposition.pdf

# # #

Share

Immigrant and Civil Rights Groups Challenge Arizona Policy Denying Driver’s Licenses to Survivors of Domestic Violence and Other Immigrants

FOR IMMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 13, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, NILC, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Sandra Hernandez, MALDEF, 213-629-2512, ext. 129, [email protected]

Immigrant and Civil Rights Groups Challenge Arizona Policy Denying Driver’s Licenses to Survivors of Domestic Violence and Other Immigrants

Class-action lawsuit filed in federal court on behalf of five immigrants who received deferred action and work permits

PHOENIX — Immigrant and civil rights groups have filed a legal challenge to Arizona’s policy of denying certain lawfully present immigrants access to driver’s licenses.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the Ortega Law Firm filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Phoenix on behalf of five individuals, including a mother of two who is currently battling cancer. All five individuals received deferred action and have work permits. Four await processing of visas for survivors of domestic violence and other serious crimes. Another has deferred action to care for her child with spina bifida.

The lawsuit alleges that Arizona’s policy, which fails to provide driver’s licenses to all deferred action recipients, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Federal law prohibits arbitrary and unsupported discrimination against groups of people; there is no basis for denying licenses to recipients of deferred action.

“Arizona is unjustly preventing some of its most vulnerable residents from driving lawfully, impeding their ability to live safely apart from their abusers and hindering their prospects for a better life,” said Nicholas Espíritu, a staff attorney at NILC. “As we’ve seen, these discriminatory policies not only run afoul of the law, they’re also bad for public safety and well-being.”

“Arizona continues to double down on its anti-immigrant campaigns that directly harm Latinos in all walks of life,” stated Victor Viramontes, MALDEF’s National Senior Counsel. “Like before, a federal court will have to tell Arizona that it cannot discriminate against its own residents.”

Before 2012, all individuals with federal work authorization were able to obtain a driver’s license in Arizona. However, after President Obama’s announcement of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, then-Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order mandating that DACA recipients be denied driver’s licenses. Brewer’s policy was eventually struck down by a federal judge.

Arizona officials, however, are now denying driver’s licenses to other immigrants who, like DACA recipients, are federally authorized to be present in the United States, according to the lawsuit.

Among the women challenging the state’s policy is Maria del Carmen Cruz Hernandez, a single mother of two who is battling cancer. Hernandez received deferred action and a work permit last year but was denied a driver’s license this year. Without a license, Cruz has found it hard to attend necessary medical treatment. Moreover, she has struggled economically. Cruz has also lost out on several employment opportunities that would pay more than her current job cleaning houses, because they would require her to drive.

“I need a driver’s license primarily for work and to live my daily life,” said Cruz. “Even regular errands take a significant amount of time when you’re limited to commuting by bus. That’s time I could be spending with my family.”

Another plaintiff, Guadalupe Nava, attempted to get a driver’s license three times using a work permit she received after applying for a visa for domestic abuse survivors. Each time she was turned away. As a single mother of two small girls, Nava has had to drive without a license on occasion to keep up with her job and family responsibilities.

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in this case, Osaria, et al. v. Ducey, et al., is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Osoria-v-Ducey-complaint-2016-09-12.pdf.

# # #

Share

New York Dreamer Challenges Nationwide Immigration Injunction

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 25, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Daniel Altschuler, Make the Road New York, [email protected], 917-494-5922
Will Bloom, Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, Yale Law School, [email protected], 610-570-0806

COMPLAINT (PDF)

New York Dreamer Challenges Nationwide Immigration Injunction

Suit alleges order by Texas judge not binding in NY, president’s program should proceed

NEW YORK — A first-of-its-kind lawsuit today opened up a new front in the defense of the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration relief initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (expanded DACA).

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Martín Batalla Vidal, a DACA recipient, challenges the reach of the unlawfully broad injunction in United States v. Texas, the case brought by Texas and 25 other states challenging DAPA and expanded DACA. If successful, the new lawsuit would fix a wrongdoing suffered by thousands of DACA recipients who are not party to the Texas case and could reinstate both initiatives in some parts of the country, providing relief for millions of families.

“When I first filed for DACA, I was excited to get a three-year work permit and move forward with my life,” said Batalla Vidal, a member of Make the Road New York who is studying to be a medical assistant and also works to help support his family. “That was taken away by one judge in Texas, and it’s not fair for me and for thousands of others affected. I’m filing this lawsuit for myself and the thousands of others like me who have been wronged by this judge’s decision.”

Batalla Vidal, 25, is a longtime resident of New York who came to the U.S. from Mexico when he was seven years old. He is represented by Make the Road New York (MRNY), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic (WIRAC) at Yale Law School.

In February 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Batalla Vidal for a three-year work permit under newly issued rules for DACA. That same month, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the federal district court in Southern Texas, issued an injunction that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA nationwide based on claims of incurred costs by Texas. The federal government relied on that injunction to wrongfully revoke three-year work permits that had been issued to thousands of DACA recipients across the country, including to Batalla Vidal.

“Martín and many others like him are being hurt by a lawsuit in which Texas is the only state that any court has said could stand to lose as a result of the DAPA program,” said Melissa Keaney, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “But, the burden of this injunction is painfully real for Martín and the many others impacted. Filing for a renewal of DACA every two years is costly and time-intensive, and it can prevent people from fulfilling academic and professional goals or taking on other major life steps that require advance planning.”

Through this lawsuit, Batalla Vidal seeks reinstatement of his three-year work permit because its revocation on the basis of the overbroad injunction was unlawful. Furthermore, by challenging the scope of the Texas injunction, the lawsuit could lead to the reinstatement of DAPA and expanded DACA for millions of families in states that are not part of the Texas lawsuit.

“The government itself has said the judge in Texas lacked jurisdiction to apply his injunction here in New York,” said Will Bloom, a law student intern in the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School. “Judge Hanen has confused Brownsville, Texas, with Brownsville, Brooklyn.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants such as Batalla Vidal who came to the U.S. as children to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements.

In November 2014, the Obama administration sought to build on the success of that initiative by expanding eligibility requirements to more immigrant youth and by creating the DAPA program, which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident children to live and work in the country temporarily. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced that new and renewing DACA applicants would be approved for three- rather than two-year periods. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began issuing three-year work permits that same month.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states sued to stop the implementation of DAPA and expansion of DACA. In February 2015, Judge Hanen issued a nationwide injunction blocking both programs. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June of this year deadlocked 4-4 on the case, issuing no decision.

Batalla Vidal’s own home state of New York has attested to the benefits of DACA and DAPA, including before the Supreme Court.

“New York and its leaders have embraced immigrant communities and President Obama’s immigration relief,” said Javier H. Valdes, co-executive director of Make the Road New York. “There’s no reason the injunction from Texas should block progress in New York and similar states. It’s time to right the wrong done to these families by Judge Hanen and take long-overdue steps to keep families together.”

Approximately 60 percent of individuals eligible for DAPA and expanded DACA live outside of states involved in the Texas case.

The complaint filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Batalla-Vidal-v-Baren-et-al-complaint-2016-08-25.pdf.

# # #

Share

Court Orders Release of Graphic Photos of Arizona Border Patrol Detention Facilities and Damning Expert Witness Testimony

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 18, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Wendy Feliz, American Immigration Council, 202-507-7524, [email protected]
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-773-6007, [email protected]
Travis Silva, LCCR, 415-543-9444×207, [email protected]
Hayley Home, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 415-268-6021, [email protected]

Court Orders Release of Graphic Photos of Arizona Border Patrol Detention Facilities and Damning Expert Witness Testimony

Order follows attempts by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to keep evidence of unconstitutional detention conditions from the public

LOS ANGELES — Today, groups made public damning evidence, including expert testimony and video stills illustrating the deplorable and unconstitutional conditions detained individuals are subjected to in Border Patrol custody in the agency’s Tucson Sector.

The court rejected the Border Patrol’s effort to conceal evidence of inhumane and abusive detention practices from the public. Accepting the position of the plaintiffs and the Arizona Republic, which intervened to argue for the release of the materials, the court recognized that access to court proceedings and to basic information about governmental practices are fundamental First Amendment rights.

The video stills and expert testimony released today reveal that the Border Patrol holds individuals—among them traumatized asylum-seekers and mothers with infants and small children—for days at a time in cold, overcrowded, and dirty cells that are designed to detain people for only a few hours. Graphic photographs show detainees packed head-to-foot in filthy, overcrowded rooms. One image captures a mother changing an infant’s diaper on a trash-strewn concrete floor.

Also among the unsealed documents is testimony from an expert for the plaintiffs who wrote that, in his 35 years of experience working in correctional facilities, he had “never been in one that treats those confined in a manner that the CBP treats detainees.”

Among other conclusions about the poor treatment of individuals detained in Border Patrol facilities, he said that “[t]he absence of medical screening upon arrival is unthinkable,” and that he had never before witnessed an attempt to “cram” so many people into so little space, without beds and bedding. He concluded, “The CBP [is] housing people in conditions that are unnecessarily harsh, dangerous and contrary to accepted industry practices and standards.”

“Every step the government has taken in response to this lawsuit has been designed to delay this suit and hide the conditions present at these facilities,” said Louise Stoupe of Morrison & Foerster. “The government should be using the resources they are wasting in court to provide basic human necessities to those in its custody.”

“Migrants detained in the Tucson sector have long suffered horrific conditions,” said Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the ACLU of Arizona. “It is unconscionable that the federal government continues to detain people, including infants, in this manner. The Border Patrol continues to operate in violation of U.S. and international law as well as its own standards without being held accountable for these egregious abuses.”

“These photos show the harm people suffer in these facilities, from having to sleep on the floor for days to needing to huddle together just to stay warm,” said Travis Silva, attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “These conditions should not exist in a facility operated by the United States government.”

“The images unsealed by the court leave no room to debate the fact that thousands of immigrants are subjected to inhumane and unconstitutional conditions by the Border Patrol,” said Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “We urgently need meaningful and lasting reforms that put an end to these abuses, hold the agency accountable, and ensure that people are treated with dignity.”

“Mothers should not be forced to change their babies’ diapers on cold concrete floors or warm them with flimsy aluminum sheets. Border Patrol’s treatment of men, women and children in its custody is simply inexcusable,” said Mary Kenney, senior staff attorney for the American Immigration Council. “We are seeking immediate relief from the deplorable detention conditions in CBP holding facilities for the thousands of individuals who are or will be held there while this case progresses.”

In December, attorneys representing the plaintiff class of detained immigrants sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Border Patrol’s unconstitutional detention practices while the case is being litigated. The injunction is based on compelling evidence of inhumane conditions in Tucson facilities—much of which was disclosed after the court sanctioned the Border Patrol for destroying video recordings from these facilities and failing to turn over other relevant documentation.

Jane Doe, et al. v. Johnson, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Attorneys on the case include Harold J. McElhinny, Colette Reiner Mayer, Louise C. Stoupe, Kevin M. Coles, Pieter S. de Ganon, and Elizabeth Balassone of Morrison & Foerster LLP; Nora Preciado, Linton Joaquin, and Karen C. Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center; Mary Kenney and Melissa Crow of the American Immigration Council; Travis Silva of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; and Katie Brody, Brenda Muñoz Furnish, and Dan Pochoda of ACLU of Arizona.

The images and expert testimony are available at www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/hieleras/.

More information about this case is available at www.nilc.org/jdoe1vjohnson/.

# # #

Share

Dreamers Defend Themselves in Judge Hanen’s Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Anna Núñez, ACLU of Texas, [email protected], 713-325-7010

Dreamers Defend Themselves in Judge Hanen’s Court

“Fearless Four” respond to judge’s demand for their personal data with amicus brief

LOS ANGELES — Four young immigrants whose private information was ordered disclosed by a federal judge in U.S. v. Texas filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case today, arguing that the judge’s order violates their constitutional right to privacy, runs contrary to precedent, and is unjustified.

The group, known as the Fearless Four, includes Juan Escalante of Florida, Angelica Villalobos of Oklahoma, and two others who filed anonymously. They are just a few in a group of about 50,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients who would be impacted by an outlandish order by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in the case challenging the Obama administration’s immigration executive actions.

“I applied to DACA in 2012 with the understanding that my private information would be kept confidential, and in good faith provided every detail about my life the federal government requested,” said Escalante, whose DACA renewal was approved in December 2014. “Judge Hanen’s order seeks to undermine my constitutional right to privacy and could potentially expose personal information to individuals who may wish to retaliate against my family and me. Private means private.”

In addition to constitutional rights violations, the brief points to relevant case law that requires the courts to exercise discretion and restraint when it comes to forced disclosure of an individual’s highly sensitive information, even in cases of alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the brief argues that even if Hanen’s order was not precluded by precedent, it is not justified since it punishes individuals who are not party to the case, not those who committed the perceived misconduct, and would therefore not deter future misconduct.

“There’s no question Judge Hanen exceeded his authority with this order,” said Justin Cox, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “But most importantly, he has not given sufficient weight to the privacy concerns of tens of thousands of individuals who have no connection to this case. Courts are allowed to sanction attorneys for misconduct, but this order is not aimed at the attorneys Judge Hanen said misbehaved—it’s aimed at DACA recipients.”

Announced in 2012, DACA allows some young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to live and work in the country temporarily if they meet certain eligibility requirements. In November 2014, the Obama administration announced that new and renewing applicants could get DACA for three rather than two years, and that the Department of Homeland Security would modify eligibility requirements to expand the applicant pool. At the same time, the administration announced another initiative, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would similarly allow some undocumented parents of American children to live and work in the U.S. temporarily.

Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government to block the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA shortly after they were announced. That case, now known as U.S. v. Texas, was first heard in Hanen’s court in Brownsville, Texas, and eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In February 2015, before DAPA and the expansion of DACA went into effect, Hanen issued a nationwide injunction that blocked both initiatives. However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had begun issuing three-year work permits to people whose DACA applications were approved as of November 24, 2014, in accordance with the policies laid out in the Dept. of Homeland Security memo accompanying the announcement.

In May 2016, Hanen issued an order in which he claimed the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers representing the federal government had misled him and the suing states by not disclosing that the government was issuing three-year work permits. As punishment, he demanded that the federal government turn over the names, locations, and other private identifying information of about 50,000 individuals who live in the 26 states involved in the lawsuit and who had received three-year work permits between November 2014 and March 2015. He also ordered all Justice Department lawyers who appear in court in any of the 26 states to attend a yearly ethics course for five years.

“It is shameful and sad that Judge Hanen would even try to abuse his power to violate my constitutional rights and the rights of 50,000 other DACAmented youth, with no real justification,” said Villalobos, a mother of four whose DACA renewal was approved in November 2014. “Our privacy should not be sacrificed for one judge’s political crusade against those in power.”

The Justice Department asked Hanen to stay his order while the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating in U.S. v Texas. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Texas also filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Fearless Four. A writ of mandamus allows impacted individuals to initiate a new action in the court of appeals to seek redress for a lower court order.

“Common sense and the Constitution lead to one conclusion: nothing that has happened in this case could possibly justify the massive invasion of DACA recipients’ privacy that the order would cause,” said Omar Jadwat, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

On June 7, Hanen granted the Justice Department’s motion to stay his order, and he set a hearing to reconsider the sanctions for Aug. 22. Last week, he rescheduled that hearing for Aug. 31.

The amicus brief filed today is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Villalobos-Amicus-Brief-2016-08-12.pdf.

# # #

Share

Expanded Medi-Cal for undocumented kids: What it means and how to apply

Expanded Medi-Cal for undocumented kids
What it means and how to apply

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Gabrielle Lessard, NILC health policy attorney
JULY 28, 2016

This summer, California kids have access to more than the state’s famous beaches. Under a new law that took effect this spring, all low-income California residents under age 19 are eligible to receive comprehensive health care through Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Children and youth who did not meet immigration status requirements were previously eligible for only “restricted scope” emergency and pregnancy services.

California is not the first state to provide comprehensive health care to low-income children regardless of their immigration status—New York, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts and Washington, DC, all preceded California. However, the number of undocumented residents in California is significantly higher than in the other states. Just prior to the implementation of the Medi-Cal eligibility expansion, there were close to 135,000 children and youth enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal. These beneficiaries are being transitioned into full-scope coverage without having to submit an application; however, they need to choose a primary physician and, in some counties, a health plan.

Many newly eligible children and youth were not enrolled in restricted scope coverage and will need to submit a Medi-Cal application. These include a significant number of children served through a program operated as a charitable activity of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, children enrolled in county-operated programs, and those without a current source of health care or coverage.

Advocates for children, immigrants, and access to health care recognized that outreach and education were needed to reach families whose children were not currently connected to the health-care system. Resources were required both to inform families about the Medi-Cal expansion and to reassure them that it was safe to enroll their children. The advocates collaborated in the development of a Health4AllKids website that provides information in English and Spanish and a toolkit for community-based organizations to use in doing outreach. The California Endowment, a statewide health foundation, developed and distributed signs, shirts, flyers, and other resources to support outreach, and produced and placed advertisements informing consumers of the expansion.

Expanding Medi-Cal to all kids was an important step forward for California. But until all California residents have access to comprehensive, affordable health care, our children and youth will continue to suffer the financial insecurity and emotional pain of having family members without insurance. NILC and our partners will continue working until we have #Health4All

Share

The Ties That Bind: The Supreme Court and the U.S. v. Texas Deadlock

The Ties That Bind

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Alvaro Huerta, NILC staff attorney
JULY 19, 2016

There’s an oft-quoted aphorism about the United States Supreme Court written by the late Justice Robert H. Jackson: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

The words reflect Justice Jackson’s recognition that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of vexing national questions, not because the justices of the Court are always right, but because they get the final say.

Yet, in one of the most significant cases before the tribunal this term, the Supreme Court passed the buck. In United States v. Texas, a case examining the Executive’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion to defer the deportation of immigrants with strong ties to our country, the Court could not garner a majority. Due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, the Court currently has only eight justices. The result: a handful of 4–4 tie votes and the uncertainty that comes with inconclusiveness.

The 4–4 tie in Texas resulted in an order from the Supreme Court that reads, in full, “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” This solitary, nine-word sentence dashed the hopes of millions — immigrants and their citizen family members — who anxiously await clarity about their fate in this country.

The Court failed them. It failed all of us.

But is the Supreme Court to blame? The Senate has gone a record-breaking 125 days without granting a hearing to determine whether President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia is fit to serve on the nation’s highest court. That is downright shameful.

Neither infallible nor final, the Texas nondecision was a striking disappointment. And, more than any other case this year, Texas showed how the Court — without the full complement of its nine justices — has had its hands tied by Congress. The Supreme Court, like the country, seems a house divided.

But it wasn’t always this way. The Court has managed to decide a number of major, groundbreaking cases with five of nine justices carrying the day. Important civil rights, many of which we now take for granted, have been won by what might feel like the skin of their teeth.By 5–4 decisions, the Supreme Court has established a suspect’s right against self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona), the ability of universities to diversify their student bodies (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke), and the right to marry the person you love (Obergefell v. Hodges).

The Court also split 5–4 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld major provisions of the Affordable Care Act and thereby allowed millions of Americans to keep the health insurance they need to live healthy and productive lives.

To be sure, many of our most treasured civil rights have been established by stronger majorities. But the Court has proven time and again that, when it’s at its full nine-justice capacity, it can get the job done. And the recognition of these inalienable rights has moved our country forward along the path toward justice.

We need a full Court in order for justice to be realized. The Senate must fill the vacancy left by Justice Scalia’s death more than five months ago. As the 4–4 tie in Texas proves, the political dog-and-pony show currently playing itself out in the Senate and being pushed by Republicans who will go to great lengths to stymie the president’s nominee has tied the hands of the Supreme Court. Justice, and all of us, suffer for it.

There’s a silver lining, at least when it comes to the Texas case. The Department of Justice has requested that the Court rehear the case. With any luck, the Court will grant the request and bring much-needed resolution to an issue that affects the whole country. But without a ninth justice, the Supreme Court is in danger of finding itself bound by further ties, and more nondecisions are sure to result.

Justice should not be left undone by stalemate. The stakes are far too high and the political maneuvering has hit a disappointing new low. It’s time for the Senate to do its job so that nine Supreme Court justices can do theirs.

Share