Tag Archives: ice

Benach Ragland Submits Brief in Mandatory Detention Case

21 Feb

Earlier this month, Benach Ragland authored a brief on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in the case of Michael Sylvain v. Attorney General before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In Sylvain, the court must decide whether the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) requires the detention of individuals convicted of certain offenses regardless of how long it has been since they were released from criminal custody. On behalf of AILA, Benach Ragland argued to the court that people released from custody prior to Immigration & Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) assumption of custody are entitled to a bond hearing where an immigration judge can make a determination as to whether they are flight risks or dangers to the community.  ICE argues that the INA gives immigration judges no authority to consider the release such individuals and that they must be detained for the duration of their removal proceedings regardless of how long it has been since they were convicted of an offense.

In Sylvain, the government defends a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of Rojas.  In Rojas, the BIA decided that the mandatory detention provisions of the INA require detention without possibility of release on bond regardless of when that person was released from criminal custody.  However, the INA mandatory detention provision states that certain individuals shall be taken into custody “when the alien is released.”  The BIA decided in Rojas that that language did not limit ICE to apply mandatory detention to individuals regardless of when they were released.  Under Rojas, an individual would be subject to detention without any sort of review by a judge even if they had been released from prison a decade earlier.  As immigration judges around the country cited Rojas and explained that their hands were tied, advocates went to U.S. District Courts around the country and sought habeas corpus review.  Almost uniformly, the federal courts told the immigration service that Rojas was wrong and that the detained individual was entitled to a bond hearing.  The immigrant was then released.   ICE rarely appealed these decisions to the courts of appeals.

However, they did so in Hosh v. Lucero.  In that case, a district court judge found that Rojas was wrongly decided and ordered an immigration judge to hold a bond hearing.  However, this time, the government, sensing a possibly friendly court in the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, a court known for giving the government wide berth to operate, appealed the judge’s decision.  The government’s gamble paid off and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court judge and deferred to the BIA’s decision in Rojas, foreclosing habeas relief in the states of the 4th Circuit (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia).  Although district courts in the Fourth Circuit must follow Hosh, district courts outside of the Fourth Circuit have not found Hosh terribly persuasive.

Now this issue is before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, in Sylvain.  A decision rejecting Rojas would create a split between the Third and the Fourth Circuits, possibly leading the way to Supreme Court review.  Oral argument is coming next month and we will report from the argument and when a decision comes down.

Hey FAU! Drop GEO!

20 Feb

geo-group-splash-13

Yesterday, after receiving a gift of $6 million, Florida Atlantic University announced that it was renaming its stadium “The Geo Group Stadium,” after the for-profit prison company, best known for operating detention facilities on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement.  It is remarkable that any university would name a stadium after a prison company, but simply stunning that Florida Atlantic University, which sits in South Florida, a community that has been decimated by the overuse of civil immigration, would be so tone deaf as to think this was a good idea.  Although $6 million can certainly affect one’s “hearing,” FAU’s renaming of its stadium displays a failure of a university’s most cherished obligation, to empower students to make intelligent, ethical and moral decisions in a complex world.

FAU is a public school with over 30,000 students and boasts that 44% of its students are “minority or international students.”  Twenty-three percent of FAU students identify as “Asian” or Latino.”  And FAU sits in Southern Florida, where GEO operates a notorious link in the immigration gulag, the Broward Transitional Center, in FAU’s hometown of Boca Raton.

Universities have long been at the forefront on civil and human rights issues.  Universities nurtured the civil rights movement, the women’s and gay liberation efforts.  Universities divested from South Africa during apartheid and universities have led the charges against foreign sweatshops that made apparel sold in college bookstores.  And it is no surprise that universities have been actively involved in the immigrant rights movement.  Leading educators have stood up for the DREAM Act, have supported efforts to get individuals out of detention and deportation proceedings, and have led urgency to the need for a better system for employment-based immigration.  So, why would FAU accept a donation and so prominently highlight a company who makes it profits off the maintenance of an immigration detention apparatus that is morally dubious if not downright repugnant?

The GEO Group operates 73,000 “beds,” but it is not the Best Western.  “Beds” is corrections-speak for “places where detainees can try to sleep.”  It has a ignominious track record.  Before they were GEO, they were they were the Wackenhut Correctional Corporation.  British journalist Greg Palast wrote of Wackenhut’s operation of private prisons in New Mexico, “New Mexico’s privately operated prisons are filled with America’s impoverished, violent outcasts — and those are the guards.”  The Wackenhut name was so tarnished with scandal that the board changed the name in 2003.   Yet, transforming the way that they did business was much more elusive. Some of GEO’s greatest hits include:

In addition, the GEO groups lobbies for punitive immigration laws and resists efforts to introduce more discretion for judges to release detained individuals.  After all, the trough must be refilled.  It has a very cozy relationship with ICE.  Just last week, we learned that a former ICE bureaucrat David Venturella, who had some ambitious ideas about pumping up removal numbers, has left ICE for his payday at GEO.  The revolving door between government and for profit incarceration is quite lucrative for ICE bureaucrats, but there is no such door for detainees.

It is simply stunning that a university would agree to name a stadium after this behemoth.  It is especially galling in South Florida, where brave immigrant activists Marco Saavedra and Viridiana Martinez infiltrated the Broward Transitional Center to document abuses and conditions.  Would FAU name their stadium after the Bushmaster assault rifle? Or after Phillip Morris (rebranded as Altria)?  No university in their right mind would ever be associated with such corporate pariahs.  The goal for immigrants rights communities is to make the name of GEO as toxic as those names.  The devastating impact that GEO has had on the immigrant community in South Florida simply makes it an unacceptable choice for naming rights at a stadium.  Especially one in South Florida.  FAU must know that GEO is as much a pariah as gun manufacturers and cigarette pushers.  How many FAU students have been detained by GEO?  How many FAU student’s parents and loved ones languished in GEO’s dungeons?  How many kids never got a chance to attend a football game because GEO got them first?

Dream Activist has started a petition.  Please sign.  Please share on all your networks.  While FAU may be intoxicated with GEO’s money, they need to be reminded that their community or “customers” reject GEO’s profiteering on detention misery.

The Whine of the ICE Bureaucrats

3 Feb

agents-overview

It has been a tough week for the ICE bureaucrats who have sought to undermine the political leadership of this country to pursue their own restrictivist and nativist agenda.  Regular readers of this blog (my wife and my mother), will know that we have sought to document the efforts of bureaucrats within ICE to stymie intelligent immigration enforcement through insubordination, lawsuits, leaks, and more generic tactics like refusal to complete trainings and sick-outs.  But, like their pals Kris Kobach, Steve King, Jeff Sessions, and Joe Arpaio, time has passed them by and they continue their ignominious descent into laughable irrelevance.

Last week, we saw politicians competing to put forward the most comprehensive immigration reform.  The President outlined a plan.  We saw Republicans and Democrats, who could not agree on anything for close to four years, all agree that immigration reform is needed and that a path to citizenship is an essential to that effort.  We learned that the even the House has a bipartisan working group planning to develop its own immigration legislation.  Simultaneously, a federal judge in Dallas, Texas dealt a near fatal blow to the ICE agents lawsuit, where they alleged potential injury if they refused to follow the DHS secretary’s directives regarding DACA.  While the Judge did not entirely dismiss the lawsuit, FOBR Ben Winograd at the Immigration Policy Center described the lawsuit as” hanging by a thread.”  Bad week to be on the losing side of history.

Increasing the hope that immigration reform will finally happen in 2013 is the largely unanimous support of reform by the country’s major labor organizations.  The AFL-CIO and the SEIU, the country’s two largest union organizations, are major supporters of immigration reform.  But just when you thought that the unions had finally come together with the business community, there is one union that wants you to know that they are not on board.  Guess who?  The American Federation of Government Employees National ICE Council issued a press release to declare that the AFL-CIO does not speak for the ICE union.  The union wrote: “Respectfully, we see a lot of problems with the recently proposed reforms and we plan to exercise our rights as American’s to participate in the democratic process and voice those concerns publicly in the upcoming months; we hope to do so without groups like the AFL-CIO demonizing us for expressing a different opinion.”

Screen-shot-2012-01-08-at-8.22.32-AM

With all due respect, the position of the ICE agents union is crystal clear.  They so believe in an anti-immigrant policy where their actions are not subjected to meaningful review that their views are meaningless in an effort to reform the immigration law in a way to break their power.  The ICE bureaucrats are afraid of being demonized for participating in the democratic process.  Well, welcome to the arena, folks.  You can’t continue to say outlandish and self-interested garbage and not be called out on it.  The bureaucrats have always had a weak grip on the basics of democracy.  While begging to be treated with kid gloves, the ICE bureaucrats union has staged a vote of no confidence in ICE’s political leadership, sued the Department to stop DACA, and has encouraged its members not to follow the direction of their management.  In the military and any other law enforcement agency, that is known as insubordination and can result in dismissal or, in the case of the military, the brig.  But ICE bureaucrats ask not to “be demonized.”

If the ICE bureaucrats do not want to be demonized, they should stop resisting efforts to create intelligent immigration policy and participate in implementing immigration law, both today’s and tomorrow’s in a more humane and useful way.

Does President Obama want to drop the one year asylum rule?

1 Feb

 

There is a single line in the President’s immigration proposal that has escaped a lot of attention.  As the idiotic “back of the line” concept and the path to citizenship dominate the headlines, the language of the proposal indicates that the administration would like to eliminate one of the most onerous obstacles to asylum for thousands of applicants- the notorious one year rule.  If this became law, the President will preside over a vast improvement in U.S. refugee and asylum law through a procedural change that will make thousands of people eligible for asylum.

At the very end of the President’s proposal, the administration writes that the proposal “better protects those fleeing persecution by eliminating the existing limitations that prevent qualified individuals from applying for asylum.”  To us, this can only be referring to the one-year rule for applying for asylum.  The one year rule requires an individual to apply for asylum within one year of the date of admission in order to qualify for asylum.  While there are regulatory exceptions to the one year rule, these are stringently applied and many people who have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group have been unable to receive the protection of asylum.

The one year rule has been disastrous for many people who have fled harm.  It is applied regardless as to whether the applicant knew of the rule and generally fails to take account of all but the most serious forms of post traumatic stress disorder.  In addition, it discourages many people from seeking asylum when they do not believe that they can meet one of the exceptions to the one year rule.  It has also made a mess of the immigration courts.  Here is how it works in practice.  An individual in the U.S. for over a year applies for asylum with the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service.  The asylum office can not grant the application unless the applicant can establish that he qualifies for one of the exceptions.  If the asylum office denies the application for asylum, they place the applicant into removal proceedings.  (Of course, the asylum office calls this the much nicer, yet misleading “being referred to the immigration judge”)  An immigration judge then may review the application for asylum.  If the judge decides that a person is ineligible due to the one year rule, the judge must consider whether it is more likely than not that the applicant will be persecuted or tortured.  Under such circumstances, a judge can enter an order of removal but withhold removal to the country of persecution or torture.  So, the government is allowed to deport such an individual, just not to that individual’s home country.  Realistically, there is no other country where the individual may be deported to, so the individual is allowed to remain in the U.S. with work authorization, often being required to report to ICE, but never being able to travel or get a green card.  So, individuals who fail to apply for asylum within one year of the date of entry are provided with the same form of humanitarian protection as people convicted of “particularly serious crimes” or who have participated in the persecution of others.  Clearly, these are not equivalent infractions, yet the result in the same.

The profusion of asylum cases that can only become withholding or torture cases due to the rigid interpretation of the one year rule has contributed to the immense backlogs in immigration courts.  Since the asylum office must refer every single one year rule case to the court, many cases that should be resolved at the asylum office now wind up in court.  And why?  Because they did not apply at the first instance possible?  The one year rule reflects an erroneous belief that a person who truly fears persecution will apply immediately upon arrival and that failure to do so is an indicator of fraud.  The one year rule reflects Congress’ lack of faith in the asylum officer and immigration judges who try thousands of cases every year.  An asylum officer or immigration judge is almost always able to tell between someone opportunistically and cynically seeking asylum improperly as opposed to a legitimate asylum seeker, regardless of when they filed.

Immigration reform that gets rid of the one year rule and lets the asylum officer and immigration judges do their job would be a tremendous improvement in asylum law and we hope that this little-noticed provision makes it into any final bill.

What do Dostoyevsky and Sam from Zambia have in common?

18 Jan

On December 23, 1849, Fyodor Dostoevsky, who went on to become Russia’s greatest novelist, and several other members of the so-called Petrachevsky Circle were taken out into the courtyard of the Semonyonov Prison in St. Petersburg.  The tsarist government had sentenced them to death.  Men were blindfolded and tied to posts.  The firing squad was locked and loaded when a cart with a reprieve from the Tsar himself commuted the sentence to exile and hard labor.  The execution, minutes away from proceeding, was stopped.

B_pokrovsky_kazn_1949

This morning, around 10:15, I received a phone call from Immigration & Customs enforcement (ICE) informing me that our request to stay the removal of our client, Sam from Zambia, had been granted and that ICE agents had removed him from a plane bound to depart the U.S. at 10:30.  Like Dostoevsky, Sam was all set and ready to go.  Seat beat buckled.  Tray in upright and locked position and all luggage safely stowed.  And while the stakes were much higher for Dostoyevsky, it is not hyperbole to wonder how Sam would survive in Zambia, an extraordinarily poor country where he has not lived in twenty years and has no family.  However, ICE granted the stay at the last minute and Sam was removed from the airplane.

This is the second time I have been lucky enough to have the remarkable emotional experience of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat by having a person removed from an airplane bound to deliver them to an unknown fate in a country that has become foreign to them.  Years ago, over the Christmas holidays, I, and FOBR Nadeen Aljijakli, worked day and night to stop the removal of our client to Haiti.  They flew her out of Baltimore to Miami, where she was to board a plane to Port-au-Prince,a  charter full of deportees.  The Board of Immigration Appeals granted our stay while the plane was en route to Miami.  She was taken onto the plane in Miami when the ICE agents got the word of the stay.  They came onto the plane and pulled her off.  As she struggled to get her bags, the entire plane, full of people living through the tragedy of their own deportation to Haiti, cheered for the one lady who avoided their fate.  I wish I could have seen and heard that.

I knew that they were planning on removing Sam today.  We had been on it for two days.  He had a final removal order, but, as the victim of a serious crime, potentially qualified for a U visa, available to foreign nationals who have been the victim of a serious crime and were helpful in the investigation and/or prosecution of that offense.  A prerequisite for seeking a U visa is obtaining a signed certification from the law enforcement agency that investigated or prosecuted the crime.  Obtaining that certification is often a challenge as many agencies do not have established or easily ascertainable policies on signing off on certifications.  They take weeks or months.  However, due to the presence of some outstanding people in the Baltimore County Police Department, we got one turned around in an hour and sent it to ICE.  That was about 4:30 yesterday and it appears that the decisionmakers on the stay had gone for the day.

Friday morning is pancake morning in the Benach household.  By 7:30 AM, we had pancakes on the table and I was on the phone with ICE.  I knew Sam was either at or on the way to the airport.  At that point, the pancake breakfast turned into a war room.  My oldest Paloma, was writing down phone numbers as I barked them out from the phone.  Teddy, the youngest, kept me supplied with coffee.  And Alex, sensed opportunity and ate everyone’s pancakes.  Not only were the Benach children conscripted into helping Sam from Zambia, but I abused my colleagues in the immigration bar.  I love being a part of this community of lawyers who care about their clients and will help you at the drop of a hat.   So many people made this happen.  When I needed to find someone  in Baltimore County, Paula Xinis of the amazing Baltimore firm of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy got a partner there to make calls to people he knew on behalf of a young man he never met.  This morning, when I needed phone numbers and emails, FOBRs Sandra Grossman, Jay Marks and Michelle Mendez of Catholic Charities rode to my rescue.  Let me just say that this is not the first time that Sandra Grossman delivered for me in a huge way.  Jay helped me keep a sense of humor with his infectious laugh.  And, for Michelle, I will root for the Ravens this weekend in your honor.  Now, that is no biggie as they are playing the Patriots, but I will be loud for the Ravens

Ravens

Finally, the stay was filed yesterday only because BR’s own Liana Montecinos is charming and delightful and she convinced the ICE officials to take the application even after the official cashier had left for the day.

Sam’s fight is not won.  So much of immigration is living to fight another day.  But now, with the gift of time, we can do for Sam what he needs and give him a chance to stay.

The Provisional Waiver and Removal Proceedings

17 Jan

 

Over the last few weeks we have answered dozens of questions about the provisional waiver.  One group of questions keeps appearing- questions about how people in removal proceedings or with a removal order can qualify for the provisional waiver.  Whereas, the initial rule announced by the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the provisional waiver would be unavailable to people in removal proceedings, the final rule is somewhat more forgiving.  The final rule states that an individual in removal proceedings can not seek a provisional waiver with the Citizenship & Immigration Service (CIS) unless proceedings have been administratively closed or terminated.

brockes-600

As Julie Andrews sang, let’s start at the very beginning as it is a very good place to start.  Removal proceedings are initiated when the DHS issues a charging document known as a Notice to Appear (NTA) and lodges it with the Immigration Court.  Any of the three immigration agencies, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Citizenship & Immigration Services and Customs & Border Protection has the authority to issue NTAs.  Usually, the time between DHS issuing an NTA and filing it with the court is close to simultaneous.  However, on occasion, the NTA is issued and not filed with the court for days, weeks, months or even years.  An individual is not “in removal proceedings” until an NTA has been filed with the court.  Until the NTA is filed with the court, DHS has exclusive authority to choose not to bring removal proceedings against an individual.  In cases where an NTA has been issued and not filed with the court, that individual is not in removal proceedings and should remain eligible for the provisional waiver.  Removal proceedings continue until the immigration judge grants relief and terminates the case or the person departs the U.S. either under an order of voluntary departure or an order of removal.  In cases where there is a final order of removal, but the individual has not been removed yet, even though there are no more proceedings before the court, that individual is still “in proceedings” and would be ineligible for the provisional waiver.

Once a person is in removal proceedings, the provisional waiver rule is clear that those proceedings must be administratively closed or terminated before that individual can seek the provisional waiver.  Termination of removal proceedings can happen in one of two ways.  First, proceedings are terminated where the immigration judge grants relief, allowing an individual to remain in the U.S. in some sort of legal status.  Second, and this is the rarer form of termination, ICE may elect to terminate proceedings because it has decided that seeking removal in a particular case is no longer in the interests of the government.  Although the DHS has exclusive authority to issue and to decide whether to file a Notice to Appear in immigration court,  once proceedings have been initiated, DHS becomes a party to litigation and only the immigration judge has the authority to terminate removal proceedings.

Administrative closure is a tool of convenience for immigration courts.  Administrative closure allows the court to take a case off an active docket and place it into “hibernation.”

clipart_sleepingbearBy administratively closing a case, the case remains pending before the immigration court, but it is taken off the active calendar.  When a case is pending before the court, it is on an active calendar and at the end of each hearing another hearing must be calendared.  When a case has been administratively closed, it is not on any calendar and no hearings are scheduled.  The case remains before the court, but the court is not acting on the case.  In order to get the case back on the active docket, one of the parties must file a “motion to recalendar” the case.  Cases can be administratively closed for months or years at a time.  Either party may request administrative closure and the immigration judge has authority to grant it.  Until recently, the law required the concurrence of both the foreign national and the government to allow for administrative closure.  However, last year, in Matter of Avetisyan, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an immigration judge may grant administrative closure over the objection of one of the parties.  In other words, DHS can not unilaterally deny the foreign national’s  ability to obtain administrative closure.

People currently in removal proceedings who would otherwise qualify for the provisional waiver can seek both termination and administrative closure.  We expect that ICE, who represents the government in removal proceedings, will be fairly accommodating to requests to terminate or administratively close cases where the foreign national can present a prima facie case for eligibility for the provisional waiver.  In these cases, your lawyer ought to prepare a motion to terminate or administratively close demonstrating that you qualify for the provisional waiver and that the pending removal proceedings are the only impediment.  These individuals should be able to demonstrate that they are the spouse, parent or children of a U.S. citizen and that their only violation of law relates to entering illegally.  By presenting evidence to the government of qualification for the provisional waiver and readiness to file it, it seems that ICE would exercise its discretion to administratively close the case to allow the applicant to file the provisional waiver application.  Upon approval, termination seems appropriate.  If the case is not approved, it is reasonable to expect that ICE would seek to recalendar the case and proceed with removal proceedings.  Should the government refuse to join a motion for administrative closure, the immigration judge has the authority under Matter of Avetisyan to close the case nonetheless upon the motion of the foreign national.

People with old orders of removal who have not yet departed the United States would need to reopen removal proceedings so that removal proceedings can be administratively closed or terminated.  This is a heavy lift.  If the removal order is more than 90 days old, a foreign national will, generally, need the government to agree to reopen for the purpose of closing.  Makes sense, right?  However, there may be circumstances where the hardship is so clear and extreme and the facts are so compelling that the government agrees to this.  By asking the government to join a motion to reopen, an individual with a final order of removal, who may or may not be on the government’s radar screen for removal, makes herself vulnerable to enforcement of the removal order should the government prove unwilling to join in reopening.  While there are limited circumstances in which an immigration judge can reopen on his own motion, those instances are rare and should not be, generally, relied upon.

Finally, people who have been deported or departed the U.S. under an order of voluntary departure or removal are ineligible for the provisional waiver and must seek the waiver through the traditional means at the consulate in their home country.

The provisional waiver has the potential to help thousands of people in removal proceedings.  Many of them may be waiting for hearings on cancellation of removal which requires a much higher level of hardship than the provisional waiver’s standard of extreme hardship.  It is not really conceivable that anyone can navigate this thicket without experienced counsel.  Visit us at BenachRagland.com or check with your local bar or the American Immigration Lawyers Association to find qualified attorneys to assist you.

 

Someone(s) at ICE Needs to Be Fired

11 Jan

ht_erika_andiola1_mom_130111_wg

Those of us on the East Coast woke up this morning to the news that Maria Arreola and her son Heriberto Arreola were arrested in their home Thursday night by Immigration & Customs enforcement in Phoenix, Arizona.  Another day in immigration, where ICE enters people home’s homes and removes individuals who have done little more than entered into or remained in the country without permission.  Yep, this was a normal case except that Maria is Erika Andiola’s mother and Heriberto is her brother.  And Erika is one of the most, to paraphrase Junot Diaz, activistingest activists of activism on immigrant rights and reform and by the time ICE officials in Washington had their morning coffee, their inboxes were full of email, the phones full of messages and their press representatives scrambling to figure out what happened in Arizona.  Why is it always Arizona?

Well, it did not take long for the ICE brass to realize something was dreadfully wrong.  After all, the Director of ICE states that ICE has priorities and those priorities were securing the homeland, protecting the national security, keeping our communities secure, and maintain the integrity of the immigration system.   Memos have been written!  Trainings have been held!  Testimony has been given!  ICE is going to focus on the worst of the worst.  ICE is going to engage in smarter law enforcement and target those who threaten our national security and our public safety.  Fifty something women who entered illegally and never left and their teenage son are not considered priorities!

So, what happened in Phoenix?  Was this the action of local ICE agents who were just going about business as usual?  Was this the action of local ICE agents who had an axe to grind against Erika Andiola?  Did they even know that Maria was Erika’s mother?  If they knew, did they clear this with headquarters?  Did they consult the guidance on enforcement priorities before acting?

Evidence seems to point to another circumstance where ICE agents in a district far away from Washington went about their business without regard to the multiple expressions of policy from headquarters.   As readers of this page know, much of the ICE bureaucracy has been in open rebellion against the political leadership since the President took office and his ICE Director assumed controlIn addition, by mid morning, ICE had reversed itself.  An ICE spokeswoman stated: “One of two individuals detained by ICE in Phoenix, AZ has been released. The other individual will be released imminently. Although one individual had been previously removed from the country, an initial review of these cases revealed that certain factors outlined in ICE’s prosecutorial discretion policy appear to be present and merit an exercise of discretion. A fuller review of the cases is currently on-going. ICE exercises prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances in an individual case.”  Maria was on a bus heading to Mexico when she learned of the stay of removal.  Looks like Phoenix ICE was trying to get her out as fast as possible before Washington could react.

I really hope that there was a lot of anger at ICE headquarters when they learned of the actions.  I hope that phones were slammed down and much screaming occurred.  I hope that people within ICE headquarters said “This is it!  This is the last straw.  Heads are going to roll!”  By now, it should be perfectly clear to the ICE political leadership that they are dealing with a rogue agency of bureaucrats who are in open contempt of the policy decisions of their bosses.  Moreover, the ICE bureaucrats do not have the courage to quit their positions and make a political stand.  They sabotage from the inside.  This is known as contempt and insubordination and it can no longer be tolerated.  ICE Director John Morton should demand the resignations of the Phoenix Field Office Director and anyone else who participated in this tragicomedy.  And if he can not do this, the President is the one who should be demanding Morton’s resignation.