New US asylum policy dealt setback in immigration court

Associated Press ^ | 21 Mar 2019 | ELLIOT SPAGAT

[blueplum]

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Scheduling glitches led an immigration judge to deny the Trump administration's request to order four Central American migrants deported because they failed to show for initial hearings Wednesday in the U.S. while being forced to wait in Mexico...

...Judge Scott Simpson told administration lawyers to file a brief by April 10 that explains how it can assure migrants are properly notified of appointments. The judge postponed initial appearances for the four no-shows to April 22, which raised more questions about how they would learn about the new date.'

Government documents had no street address for the four men in Tijuana and indicated that correspondence was to be sent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Simpson asked how the administration would alert them.

"I don't have a response to that," said Robert Wities, an attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

[blueplum]

what a cluster....

how about we just close the border until we can figure this out?

[fruser1]

Sounds like a justification for not releasing them to begin with. Isn’t that a condition for bail? Strong ties to the community - that would include an address.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

For the rest of the world, not showing up for a court date means a default judgment or a failure-to-appear warrant. The defendants should have been proactive in following their own case. But you know, Latino and all that … mañana, mañana, mañana …

[Buckeye McFrog]

Sounds like another one that wants to RESIST

[VanShuyten]

From the article:

“A 48-year-old man said under the judge’s questioning that he had headaches and throat ailments. The judge noted that migrants with medical issues are exempt from waiting in Mexico and ordered a medical exam.”

I hate this “judge”.