Via Harvard Law Today

At an HLS event, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic directors will discuss legal strategies for fighting back on DACA deadline

Credit: Rose Lincoln/Harvard Staff Photographer
HGSE Professor Roberto Gonzales is one of the organizers of the DACA seminar at Harvard, a series of events exploring questions about the termination of DACA and TPS, deportations, and the current state of immigration policy.

Between 60 and 80 undocumented students are studying at Harvard, and though they’re a small fraction of the student body, some could have their lives eventually turned upside down.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had pegged March 5 as the end date for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which legally shields young immigrant students from deportation. It has been unclear what the government would do after the deadline passes. However, the Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not rule on the administration plan to end the program. Since federal district judges in New York and California previously issued injunctions against its quick end, the March 5 date likely is now too soon for a program phase-out. Still, the students’ worries remain.

To draw attention to the students’ quandary, three Harvard professors and a Ph.D. student in African and African American studies launched the DACA Seminar, a series of events on campus aimed at sparking conversations about the future of DACA and immigration policy and reform, while working to understand the students’ options.

Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Last week, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program filed two amicus briefs in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits to challenge President Trump’s most recent iteration of the travel ban. The briefs were written in collaboration with Fatma Marouf (HLS ’02), Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law, Nate MacKenzie (HLS ’17),  and current HLS students Dalia Deak (HLS ’19) and Niku Jafarnia (HLS ’19).

Read the full amicus briefs: Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit.

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

On October 4, 2017, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) filed a request for a hearing with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to discuss the human rights situation of refugee claimants under the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States.

Under the agreement, Canada bars refugee claimants attempting to enter the country from the United States at border ports of entry on the premise that the United States is a “safe” country for refugees, with certain limited exceptions. But as HIRC made clear in its hearing request sent to the Commission, “the United States is not a safe country of asylum for persons fleeing persecution and violence.”

In the nine months since President Donald Trump’s executive orders on interior and border enforcement took effect, human rights conditions for refugee claimants in the United States have deteriorated drastically. HIRC analyzed the effects of these orders in detail in a report issued in February 2017. Refugee claimants who are returned to the United States are now more likely to face prolonged and indefinite detention; expedited removal proceedings without due process; a more stringent credible fear interview process; increased and aggressive criminal prosecution for immigration-related crimes; and return to their home countries in violation of the obligation of non-refoulement under the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol to the Convention, as well as under domestic law incorporating those obligations.

Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

As you may have heard, there have been nationwide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting people living in areas that have designated themselves as ‘sanctuary cities.’ The sweeps have resulted in several hundred arrests across the country, and it is believed that approximately 50 people were arrested in Massachusetts. We have information that one person in Boston was arrested, but we do not know of anybody in Cambridge having been arrested. We are not aware of anyone affiliated with Harvard having been arrested.

We want to let the Harvard Community know that we stand ready to provide legal and social work support to members of the Harvard Community who are affected by this raid or any other ICE enforcement practices. We also want to reiterate that the Harvard University Police Department does not play any role in enforcing federal immigration laws, and federal authorities would need a warrant in order to access private spaces on campus. Should any member of our community be approached by immigration authorities, they should be referred to the HUPD.

We want to reiterate that we have not heard of a specific sweep that has affected anybody at Harvard or affiliated with Harvard. We will do our best to keep the Harvard Community informed as we obtain any further information.

Please feel free to reach out to us at 617-495-6648 or on our 24 hour hotline at 857-242-6755 walk in hours remain after 3:00 pm. For students in Harvard College, you may also wish to be in touch with the Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion for advice and support at kderzon@fas.edu 617-496-4731.

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

On September 24, President Trump issued a new proclamation restricting travel to the United States from eight countries— Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea. On Monday, the Supreme Court cancelled oral arguments scheduled for October 10 on the consolidated cases related to the previous iteration of Trump’s travel ban and will consider whether that case is rendered moot by the new proclamation.

The new travel ban, like the previous ones, exceeds the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as HIRC set forth in an amicus brief filed last week. The brief filed by immigration law scholars in the Supreme Court against President Trump’s Executive Order 13780, commonly referred to as the “Muslim ban” or “travel ban.”

The Court consolidated two related cases: Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Projectand Trump v. State of Hawaii, the former brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC); the latter filed by the State of Hawaii to challenge President Trump’s March 6 Executive Order.

Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Via Current Affairs Magazine article “At the Border”

For the past two summers, HIRC student Brianna Rennix (JD ’18) has traveled to Texas to represent mothers and children struggling to obtain humanitarian protection. As a part of the CARA Pro Bono Project, Brianna worked alongside immigration lawyers to provide free legal aid to women and children at family detention centers. Read about her experience in Current Affairs Magazine:

“When women and children first began appearing at the border in significant numbers, during Obama’s presidency, they were detained and processed in a highly clandestine manner. Women, along with their children, were locked up without access to legal counsel. Exhausted, traumatized, terrified, most of them were rapidly deported without any substantive opportunity to appeal the decision to a judge. The purpose of this high-speed deportation mill was to get people out the country as quickly and unpleasantly as possible, in the hopes that rumors of this poor reception would deter future border-crossers.

Then some immigration lawyers got wind of the situation and decided to set up permanent shop right next to the family detention centers. Since the lawyers got involved, rates of positive credible fear determinations have gone up exponentially, indicating that a lot of the people who were deported under the earlier system almost certainly had viable asylum claims.” Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Harvard Law School Report offers strategy for enhancing security, job creation, and equal treatment for all

Cambridge, MA (June 28, 2017) – At a time when the U.S. refugee admissions program is under serious threat and the world’s displaced population is at its highest, over 65 million, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program has released a far-reaching Report. The Report, made possible by a grant from the Howard and Abby Milstein Foundation and catalyzed by the current situation facing Syrian refugees, contains extensive recommendations regarding the United States’ historical role in protecting vulnerable refugees, safeguarding foreign policy interests, advancing American job creation, and complying with humanitarian and legal obligations.

The Report, “Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement,” offers new and critical information to Congress and the Executive Branch. The Report

• Reviews U.S. legal and moral commitments under domestic and international law that together safeguard people fleeing persecution and fearing return to torture;
• Identifies key national security reasons for supporting and enhancing the refugee program, in keeping with the U.S. foreign policy priorities of preserving regional stability in the Middle East;
• Provides an in-depth discussion of the robust, multistep security assessment mechanisms already in place for screening refugees—who are already subject to the highest degree of security screening and background checks of any category of traveler to the U.S.—to make it more efficient and effective;
• Offers viable policy solutions to improve the integration of resettled refugees through enhanced collaboration among government agencies, private resettlement agencies, and sponsors involved in domestic resettlement; and
• Demonstrates the positive economic impact of refugee resettlement in the United States.

The Report also encourages non-governmental organizations to build on existing public-private partnerships to marshal more resources for resettlement. Drawing on the perspectives of longtime domestic refugee resettlement experts, the Report provides fresh insights into how these public-private partnerships work and the ways in which they can be strengthened.

Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

By Marissa Yu, J.D. ’17, and Zoe Egelman, J.D. ’18

Earlier this week, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) co-authored a brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on the “material support” bar to asylum, arguing that the word “material” must be given independent meaning in order to ensure that victims of terrorism are not unfairly denied humanitarian protection.

The material support bar in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prevents individuals who have afforded “material support” to terrorist activity or foreign terrorist organizations from obtaining asylum.

Over the past several years, federal courts of appeals have asked the BIA to clarify how much support triggers the bar. Is “material support” a term of art that includes any amount of support, even de minimis contributions to foreign terrorist organizations? Or does “material” have independent meaning such that de minimis contributions will not trigger the bar? To resolve this issue, the BIA issued a call for amicus.

HIRC took the call to advocate for asylum seekers unjustly affected by the failure to give meaning to the “materiality” requirement of the bar. These include innocent civilians who give minimal amounts of good or services to rebel or terrorist groups that they dislike or fear but with which they are obligated to interact on a regular basis because the conditions in their home countries offer them no realistic alternative. They also include refugees who have limited dealings with groups they see as their protectors against more abusive, typically governmental, forces, and to which they make contributions that can hardly be considered criminal acts.

Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

HIRC staff and students with organizers of a Know Your Rights workshop at a school in Somerville.

By Jin Kim, JD ’18

“Welcome home, Mr. Kim.”

My heart still flutters whenever I come back to the United States after a trip abroad and the Customs and Border Protection officer welcomes me home. It’s the same feeling I had at my naturalization ceremony five years ago. I was overwhelmed with emotion when the federal judge handed me my naturalization certificate and congratulated me on becoming a U.S. citizen. Although I was not born in the U.S., I love this country and am so proud to call it my home.

And so it has been disheartening to see it become increasingly hostile to immigrants in the recent months. President Trump’s executive orders on immigration have set the tone, operating on a range of false assumptions about the criminality and extremist tendency of people who contribute so much to our country.

Unfortunately, this exaggerated, baseless fear of immigrants is not new. In 2001, my parents and I moved from Korea to the United States – the land of freedom and opportunity – in search of a better life after losing all our savings to the 1997 Asian financial crisis. A couple months after our move, we watched on our local news channel in Atlanta as two airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers. Then, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, as fear of immigrants swept across the nation, my family’s immigration process got delayed indefinitely. I remember the sense of hopelessness I felt after learning that we could not leave the country to attend my beloved grandfather’s funeral in Seoul because our Green Card applications had been stalled.

Continue reading

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

By Tess Hellgren, J.D. ’18, and Emma Rekart, J.D. ’17

The Crimmigration Clinic at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program recently filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a lawsuit arguing that it is unlawful for state law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain an individual in Massachusetts solely for immigration enforcement purposes.

The appellant, Sreynuon Lunn, is represented by the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the National Immigrant Justice Center.  Mr. Lunn argues that compliance with a request to arrest and detain an individual for immigration purposes violates both Massachusetts and federal law because these “ICE detainer requests” lack sufficient due process protections.

In its brief, the Crimmigration Clinic argues that Massachusetts law enforcement officials are not authorized to arrest and detain individuals pursuant to an ICE Detainer request because the Massachusetts legislature has not granted such authority.  Unlike several other civil arrest statutes in Massachusetts, ICE Detainer Requests fail to provide even basic due process protections, such as notice, findings of particularized facts, and oversight by a judge or neutral arbiter.