Category Archives: March 2018

Federal Court Rules Legal Challenges to DACA Rescission Can Continue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 29, 2018

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Daniel Altschuler, Make the Road New York, [email protected], 917-494 5922
David Chen, WIRAC at Yale Law School, [email protected], 908-240-6252

Federal Court Rules Legal Challenges to DACA Rescission Can Continue

NEW YORK — A federal district court in Brooklyn today ruled that Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, the first legal challenge filed challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, can proceed. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that several of the claims presented may continue. The court is simultaneously hearing a similar case brought by 17 state attorneys general led by New York, which will also proceed.

The court ruled that two constitutional claims should proceed: 1) that the Trump administration violated the equal protection guarantee by discriminating against Latinos and Mexicans in terminating DACA; and 2) that the Trump administration violated the procedural due process clause in unfairly denying certain renewal requests.

The same court in February found that the plaintiffs, six New Yorkers with DACA and Make the Road New York, are likely to succeed on their claim that the decision to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court at the time issued a preliminary injunction allowing anyone who previously had DACA to apply for renewal. A separate court in California had ordered a similar injunction in January. Both injunctions remain in place.

Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen is brought by Martín Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcon, Eliana Fernandez, Carolina Fung Feng, Mariano Mondragon, Carlos Vargas, and Make the Road New York. They are represented by the National Immigration Law Center, Make the Road New York, and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in Batalla Vidal issued the following statement:

“The court again has acknowledged that our brave plaintiffs present important claims, including that the decision to terminate DACA was rooted in Trump’s bias against Latinos, especially Mexicans. We are encouraged that the court continues to recognize the harm caused by the Trump administration’s reckless and unlawful termination of DACA.

“The court’s preliminary injunction allowing anyone who previously had DACA to apply for renewals remains in place. Eligible DACA recipients should consult with a legal service provider to decide whether to submit a renewal application now, while USCIS is accepting applications.

“While the court injunctions have allowed limited, temporary relief for some, hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth are in urgent need of a permanent solution. We will continue to fight alongside our clients and with immigrant youth and allies to ensure Dreamers have a secure future in this country, their home.”

###

Groups Respond to Court Ruling Allowing Refugee Ban Lawsuit to Continue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 29, 2018

CONTACTS:
Adela de la Torre, NILC, 202-384-1275, [email protected]
Henrike Dessaules, IRAP, 646-459-3081, [email protected]
Gabe Cahn, HIAS, 202-412-1678, [email protected]
Deb Frockt, Jewish Family Service of Seattle, 206-861-3148, [email protected]
Mindy Berkowitz, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley, 408-357-7455, [email protected]

Groups Respond to Court Ruling Allowing Refugee Ban Lawsuit to Continue

SEATTLE — Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion by the government to dismiss the appeal and vacate the injunction in JFS v. Trump, which challenges the Trump administration’s Oct. 24 ban on refugees that suspended the admission of refugees from 11 countries and stopped the follow-to-join process for family members of refugees already in the United States. The Court rejected the administration’s argument that the appeal and the injunction are moot because the challenged ban has ended, after the plaintiffs had argued that they are entitled to find out whether the suspensions were continuing in another form.

The case will now return to the district court, where in December Judge James Robart largely blocked the restrictions from being implemented for refugees with “bona fide” relationships to the United States. While the judge’s decision should have brought relief to many of the affected individuals, including the plaintiffs, it is still unclear, even months later, how the administration is implementing the order. The plaintiffs will therefore be seeking discovery.

The individual plaintiffs, including an Iraqi man hiding in Egypt who had worked as a translator for the U.S. military, and a Somali refugee trying to be reunited with his wife and son, have not gotten closer to finding relief. Instead, the United States is slated to accept the lowest number of refugees since the modern refugee program began in 1980.

Jewish Family Service v. Trump was brought on behalf of Jewish Family Service of Seattle, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley, and nine individual plaintiffs by attorneys at the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP); the National Immigration Law Center (NILC); Perkins Coie LLP; HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that protects refugees; and individual attorneys Lauren Aguiar, Mollie M. Kornreich, and Abigail Shaheen Davis.

In response to the ruling, the counsel and plaintiffs issued the following statements:

Rabbi Will Berkovitz, Chief Executive Officer, Jewish Family Service of Seattle: “We are gratified the Ninth Circuit has remanded our case. Allowing this process to continue ensures our government remains accountable to the rule of law and to the people it represents. Right now, it is not only the American refugee admission program that is under attack but also our core American values. During this time when our Jewish community recalls our plight as refugees we feel even more resolved in our efforts to support those who are seeking a place of safety and security for their families and the principles that have made our country a beacon of hope to so many across the world.”

Mindy Berkowitz, Executive Director, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley: “On behalf of the families in our community who have waited for years to be reunited with their relatives, we are grateful for the court’s decision. Our American values call on us to protect the neediest among us. As our Jewish teachings continually remind us, we were once strangers in the land of Egypt. We must ensure that those who need our help and support the most, get it.”

Mark Hetfield, President and CEO, HIAS: “We are encouraged that the government’s motion for dismissal has been denied, but remain concerned that the tens of thousands of refugees who have been impacted by this executive order still face undue challenges to finding the safety and welcome that our country has traditionally offered to those who flee persecution. HIAS, our partners, and our supporters in the American Jewish community will continue to challenge the Trump Administration’s discriminatory policies until the refugee admissions program is resuscitated and the U.S. starts showing humanitarian leadership again.”

Mariko Hirose, Litigation Director, IRAP: “We applaud the court’s decision to deny the motion for dismissal. Contrary to what the government stated, this dispute is not over. It certainly isn’t over for our plaintiffs, who have seen no end to their suffering. We demand transparency from an Administration that is actively trying to ban Muslims at every opportunity and will continue to challenge their attempts at freezing refugee resettlement.”

Esther Sung, Staff Attorney, NILC: “We commend the court for allowing this case to continue so that the Trump administration can be held accountable for its ongoing effort to ban Muslims and refugees from this country. Our plaintiffs remain in dangerous and life-threatening situations. On behalf of them and thousands of other refugees like them, we will continue to fight the administration’s attempts to block refugee resettlement and erode our country’s humanitarian values.”

###

Washington Wastes More Money Criminalizing Immigrants, While Keeping Dreamers in Limbo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 21, 2018

CONTACT
Hayley Burgess, [email protected]

Washington Wastes More Money Criminalizing Immigrants, While Keeping Dreamers in Limbo

WASHINGTON — After weeks of intense negotiations, the U.S. House of Representatives has reached an agreement to fund the federal government for six months. The $1.3 trillion proposal includes funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to hire several dozen Homeland Security Investigation agents. The proposal also earmarks $1.6 billion for border security measures and funds the hiring of 135 new immigration agents and attorneys.

Absent from these proposals is any effort to provide temporary or permanent immigration relief to immigrant youth who have or may be eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Below is a statement from Kamal Essaheb, the National Immigration Law Center’s policy and advocacy director.

“Our government already spends more money to track, detain, and deport established and contributing members of our communities than it does for all other federal criminal law enforcement combined. This proposal throws more money at a problem that doesn’t exist. It would increase resources for the criminalization of people, without providing any real benefit in terms of public safety or investment to better our immigration system.

“And, in doing so, this proposal furthers the Trump administration’s race-driven mission to terrorize immigrants and communities of color, to tear families apart, and to deport millions of people who are integral to their communities.

“Despite Trump’s constant tweets about DACA, this agreement makes clear that his priorities lie in getting his border wall built, not in protecting immigrant youth, who are once again left out of this must-pass legislation.

“And the truth is that if Trump had had his way, this bill could have been much worse. The unrelenting efforts of advocates and community members fighting alongside our immigrant communities have largely stifled, for now, attempts to further militarize the border and supercharge President Trump’s mass deportation machine.”

###

111