Source: http://www.ijdh.org/resources/haip/criminal-deportees/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 03:15:45+00:00

Document:
“Haitian Jean,” Petitioner v. AG of the United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18183 (3rd Cir., Aug. 30, 2010) (denied) (risk of physical abuse by prison guards because of his mental illness and his political beliefs).
Lysaire v. AG US, 368 Fed. Appx. 329 (3rd Cir., March 5, 2010) (denied) (mental illness).
Matter of BB, Decision of the BIA (February 2, 2010) (“Accordingly, we find that he has sufficiently established that an inability to have access to insulin and other medications, which will trigger psychotic symptoms, in combination with his lack of familial resources and the presence of tattoos, will more likely than not result in the respondent being persecuted by other inmates or security guards, who will either punish the respondent for his behavior or acquiesce in the other inmates’ behavior”).
Cherichel v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir., January 12, 2010) (denied) (insufficient specific intent).
Louis v. AG, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14114 (3rd Cir., June 29, 2009) (denied) (diagnostic latent Tuberculosis; Rastafarian).
X v. Y, Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (March 10, 2009) (“Given the respondent’s history of mental illness and insulin-dependency, when combined with the harsh prison conditions present in Haiti and the lack of representation in any prior motions presented by the respondent”).
Thomas v. AG, 308 Fed. Appx. 587 (3rd Cir., January 22, 2009) (denied) (lack of specific intent).
Castel v. AG, 295 Fed. Appx. 492 (3rd Cir., Oct.7, 2008) (denied) (diabetic).
Mary Holper, Case of Respondents Who Fear Imprisonment as Criminal Deportees in Haiti: Updates in the Law since Matter of J-E-(Boston College Immigration and Asylum Project, October 2, 2008).
Dalegrand v. AG, 288 Fed. Appx. 838 (3rd Cir., July 28, 2008) (denied) (schizophrenia).
Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Attorney General, 500 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (granted) (undisputed evidence seems to show that the petitioner likely will be singled out for crawl-space confinement, kalot marassa, and beatings with metal rods as a result of AIDS-related mental illness).
Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir., Sept. 11, 2007) (denied) (“notwithstanding Pierre’s medical condition [diabetes], Pierre has not adduced the evidence that he will likely be subjected to torture”).
In re J-E – (Board of Immigration Appeals, Mar. 22, 2002): Though it is maintained by Haitian criminal deportee advocates that the treatment of criminal deportees in Haiti is more egregious than purported in this opinion, In re J-E continues to be followed by immigration judges in denying Haitian deportees withholding. See the Advisories by Alternative Chance for current information about the treatment of Haitian deportees.
In 2002 in In re J-E-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 291, 300 (B.I.A. 2002), the BIA required the proof of Haitian government specific intent in the precise purpose of causing severe pain or suffering. In In re J-E, specific intent has been defined as “purposeful”. This case switched the focus on the alleged torturer. The author explains why such understanding of specific intent constitutes an insurmountable obstacle. The author then suggests a revision of the definition of specific intent (more consistent with the purpose of article 3 CAT): knowing that severe pain or suffering is foreseeable OR knowledge of foreseeable consequences.
Henry Mascia, A Reconsideration of Haitian Claims for Withholding of Removal under the Convention Against Torture, 19 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 287 (2007) (describing the adoption of the FARRA, the conditions in Haitian Jails, and how the “intentionally inflicted requirement has been interpreted in Re J-E and its dissents, by the 3rd Circuit Court and by other courts: criterion of purpose of causing severe pain or suffering).
Amicus Briefs Challenging the Validity of Mandatory Deportation Laws These amicus briefs challenge the legality of classifying crimes that are neither aggravated nor felonies as aggravated felonies for purposes of mandatory deportation. The briefs further challenge the practice of mandatory deportation and refoulement.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights statements opposing criminal deportation, etc.
Michelle Karshan, Executive Director, Alternative Chance/Chans Altenativ, michelle.karshan@gmail.com, 917 853 0433, http://alternativechance.org/ . Ms. Karshan is the leading expert on the fate of criminal deportees on return to Haiti and frequently testifies as an expert witness on their behalf. Alternative Chance’s website has extensive recent information.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.