Darfur, GTMO, and Immigration
First of all, my apologies to the writers for the absence/not pulling my weight. I wrote a letter to Steve, but the short version is my computer’s hard drive became unreadable two short weeks before my end of first year exams, losing all my notes and outlines. Quick PSA: If you haven’t recently, back everything up NOW – five minutes now saves 2 weeks of torturous catch-up. As I’m in exams and still a bit behind the curve, my blogging will probably be light for another week or so.
That said, the recent coverage of Darfur (another petition here) made me think of a question relevant both to the victims there and those still detained in Guantanamo even though we have decided they are not enemy combatants. Why aren’t they (or lawyers on their behalf) applying for refugee/asylum status? While granting of the status is discretionary, a cursory examination of the law suggests that both groups certainly meet the requirements. This is especially in the GTMO detainees case, where we have already granted non-refoulement status because of admitted fears of torture on repatriation. Is there a downside to making this argument that I am missing?
April 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
With regard to the GTMO detainees: The lawyers wanted this. The judge wouldn’t grant it. Judge Roberston of the D.C. District court ruled that their continued detention was illegal, but he couldn’t do anything about it, because:
1) they can’t be sent to their native countries as they will be tortured
2) the U.S. has asked other countries to take them but those countries refused
3) it was beyond his authority to order the President to admit someone into the United States.
I disagree with the ruling–I think he would’ve been perfectly within his authority to issue an injunction saying: end their illegal detention, without specifying the means of ending it. If it’s impossible for the government to do that, well, cross that bridge when you get to it, and don’t hold them in contempt.
In suits where an agency isn’t meeting a statutory deadline in an environemental law, it’s not so uncommon for a court to order them to do something that the gov’t says is impossible, and may actually be impossible–why not here?.
April 30th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Katherine
Thanks for the great reference, but thats actually not the process I was thinking about. The D.C. District Court (or any D.C. for that matter) has no jurisdiction in immigration matters.
What I was wondering was why no lawyer had helped the victims or detainees fill out INS Form I-590 (for those in GTMO, theres an argument for INS Form I-589 and asylum rather than refugee, but thats a sidepoint.)
The rest of this is directly quoted from here:
After filing the appropriate INS Form and Declaration, the INS will schedule an interview with an Asylum Officer who will question the applicant. These interviews may last from 45 minutes to several hours depending on the case and the interviewing Officer. The Asylum Officer has the authority to grant an asylum application, but may not deny one. If the Asylum Officer does not believe that the applicant has met the legal requirements for asylum, the Officer will refer the case the Immigration Court which will set a hearing date.
If the Immigration Court denies the applicant’s petition, the order of appeals is to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit having jurisdiction over the geographical area where the applicant made the petition. If the United States Court of Appeals denies the claim, the United States Supreme Court has the discretion to hear the petition, but is not required to hear it.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Although I appreciate the author’s warm zeal advocating for Saddiq, this part was a bit much…
“One day the sordid history of Guantanamo will be written. There will be chapters on torture, chapters on the how the courts turned a blind eye, chapters on cruelties large and petty, on the massive stupidity and uselessness of the place. Many pages will illustrate the great lie of Guantanamo — that it is a “terrorist detention facility” — with accounts of goatherds and chicken farmers and stray foreigners sold by Pakistani grifters to the United States for bounties. Saddiq may have one of the oddest chapters of all: jailed first by the Taliban as an enemy of its regime, then by us.”
One might add, it’s a secret place that makes outsiders’ imaginations run wild. I’m sympathetic to the plight of those like Saddiq, but I am not convinced GTMO is like a Nazi death camp.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
He doesn’t say it is, does he?
Turqistani’s story makes me pretty furious–according to a 12/01 Washington Post story he was waterboarded and tortured by Al Qaeda and the Taliban until he confessed to a plot to kill Bin Laden, then send to a prison of theirs for four years. Somehow we screwed up and sent him and four other Taliban prisoners to GTMO, where three of them remain.
Then there’s the case of the other Uighurs, who have suffered less but are still innocent and screwed.
Frankly, I’m glad that they drew a habeas lawyer who is also a novelist & is somewhat inclined to florid prose in his op-eds. They’ve had no one else on their side, God knows.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I don’t know about I-590. It’s virtually certain to be rejected but there’s little harm in trying.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:16 am
Katherine,
No, the author did not explicitly call GTMO a Nazi death camp. But that florid prose certainly infers that the place exists only for eeeevil purposes and, incidently implies that our troops at GTMO are doing ignoble work. In the course of advocating for the client that florid prose easily turns into a complete fiction that maligns the reputation of good soldiers. In my line of work I see this type or lawyer-craft on a regular basis and it stinks. I’d be satisfied with… just the facts, ma’am.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:41 am
well just turn them out in america and say you do not know where they are. they would just be undocumented workers right?