1/13/20

By Glenda S. McKinney

At training for observing the tent courts, I learned some things that are making me angry-cry:

• Judges are video-conferencing into the courts. Judges are questioning asylum seekers directly, even when federal attorneys are present and would ordinarily be doing that. An observer suggested that this procedure is used because the judge is only seeing the asylum seekers on a TV screen, so they are less likely to see the asylum seekers as human.

• Judges can set arbitrary rules to prevent visitors from being able to enter: no pencils, must have closed-toe shoes, etc. and these rules are enforced by the personnel who assign and escort observers to court rooms.

• No cell phones are allowed into the court rooms, but an attorney and interpreter were allowed to put theirs into a locker.

• Some courts allowed note taking, others did not.

• Visitors cannot approach or speak to asylum seekers, attorneys, interpreters.

• One observer who had been a public defender said that the judge he was observing would ask, “Do you understand that…?” repeatedly until asylum seekers gave up trying to get clarification or information about what they did not understand. This was to make appeals difficult.

• Asylum seekers are all given a list of pro bono attorneys, but the list seems to be outdated. This is to make appeals difficult.

• Asylum seekers are asked if they understand English or if they need a Spanish interpreter. No other languages are offered, even though Guatemalans are likely to be the plurality of asylum seekers and few of them speak Spanish as a first language. Once that they agree that they understand English or Spanish, however, the lack of meaningful interpretation cannot be used for an appeal.

• An attorney cannot represent an asylum seeker for one appearance. Being attorney of record means that they have to represent the asylum seeker for the rest of the process. This is being done to discourage attorneys from helping at initial appearances.

• Judges are being assessed by their superiors based on efficiency and rejection rates. The judges who turn away the most asylum seekers are rewarded with advancement.

• Only about 5% of non-refoulement cases are approved. Asylum seekers who tell border guards about previous kidnapping and rape and other reasons to fear being returned to Mexico are not being told about the non-refoulement possibility. [Non-refoulement refers to the principal under international human rights law of not returning asylum-seekers to countries where they would be in danger of persecution.] Also, having been previously kidnapped or raped is not necessarily evidence that you would be kidnapped or raped again, so you’d have to prove that.