Source: https://ihumanrights.wordpress.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:40:59+00:00

Document:
On March 7, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Diouf v. Napolitano that an immigrant facing long-term detention pending resolution of their motions to reopen immigration proceedings is “entitled to release on bond unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk of a danger to the community.” In so holding, the appellate court reversed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the petitioner, a citizen of Senegal who was granted voluntary departure from the United States in 2003, after overstaying his student visa, but later sought to reopen proceedings and remain in the country as the spouse of an American citizen.
Diouf was represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Southern California, and Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. History of the litigation is available here.
The petitioner, Mr. Amadou Lamine Diouf, did not leave the country within the timeframe for voluntary departure specified by the immigration judge because he intended to move to reopen proceedings. Before he moved to reopen or for an extension of the period for departure, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2005. After being detained, Diouf moved the immigration judge to reopen proceedings. This motion was denied and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Diouf appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which granted a stay of removal pending consideration of his petition for review of the BIA decision.
Diouf’s detention, from March 2005 onward, was subject to review on two occasions, pursuant to federal regulation (8 C.F.R. Section 241.4). In these reviews, Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined that he was a possible flight risk and continued detention was justified.
Diouf then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. Section 2241) before the U.S. district court, requesting a preliminary injunction for his immediate release on the grounds that his continued detention violated 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – or in the alternative, ordering an immigration judge to hold a hearing requiring the government to justify his detention. In February 2007, the district court required a bond hearing before an immigration judge, who then determined that Diouf did not present a sufficient danger to the community or flight risk and ordered his release.
However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction because both the district court had assumed that Diouf was held under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) (decision on removal pending), when in fact he was being held under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) (inadmissible or criminal aliens). Additionally, the Circuit Court “held that Diouf’s detention was authorized by statute because, although it was prolonged, it was not indefinite”. Diouf v. Napolitano at 3158. The Circuit Court remanded for the district court to determine whether aliens held under Section 1231(a)(6) were also entitled to receive bond hearings and be released unless they were proven to be a danger to the community or a flight risk. The district court answered in the negative and, on appeal, the Circuit Court reversed.
Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, notably Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), detention of immigrants pending removal may be extended beyond the 90-day limit following the order of removal for a reasonable period of time where removal is foreseeable (e.g., the immigrant’s home country is willing to take him and there is no other legal barrier to his return); such detention may not be indefinite.
This decision will mean that the legality of continued detention will be determined by an immigration judge, rather than by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, and the burden will be on the government to prove that the individual is a danger to the community or is likely to flee if released.
The government had argued that immigrants like Diouf who are collaterally attacking their orders of removal through motions to reopen should be treated differently than those challenging a removal order through the ordinary (direct) appeals process. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that the liberty interest of the two groups is “comparable” and both channels serve to ensure that immigrants’ rights are not violated and to properly dispose of their claims.
The DHS regulations governing the 180-day review, however, do raise serious constitutional concerns. When the 180-day review takes place, the alien has been detained for approximately six months and the review, if unfavorable to the alien, authorizes detention for an additional year. At this point, the alien’s continuing detention becomes prolonged. When the period of detention becomes prolonged, “the private interest that will be affected by the official action,” is more substantial; greater procedural safeguards are therefore required. […] Thus, at the 180-day juncture, the DHS regulations are appropriate but not alone sufficient to address the serious constitutional concerns raised by continued detention. The regulations do not afford adequate procedural safeguardsbecause they do not provide for an in-person hearing, they place the burden on the alien rather than the government and they do not provide for a decision by a neutral arbiter such as an immigration judge.
Id. at 3170-71 (internal citations omitted).
Diouf’s own case illustrates why a hearing before animmigration judge is a basic safeguard for aliens facing prolonged detention under § 1231(a)(6). The government detained Diouf in March 2005. DHS conducted custody reviews under § 241.4 in July 2005 and July 2006. In both instances, DHS determined that Diouf should remain in custody pending removal because his “criminal history and lackof family support” suggested he might flee if released. In February 2007, however, an immigration judge determined that Diouf was not a flight risk and released him on bond. If the district court had not ordered the bond hearing on due process grounds, Diouf might have remained in detention until thisday. To address these concerns, aliens who are denied release in their 180-day reviews must be afforded the opportunity to challenge their continued detention in a hearing before an immigration judge.
Id. at 3172. Diouf’s motion to reopen removal proceedings is still pending review.
Today, the international community celebrates Human Rights Day 2010. The United Nations festivities will focus on human rights defenders and ending discrimination, as detailed in UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay’s message.
Worldwide, the 60th annual commemoration of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly 62 years ago today, focused particular attention on two activists: detained Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo and detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony took place in Oslo today without the presence of Liu Xiaobo or his family members; instead, an empty chair marked his absence and reminded those in attendance that the laureate sits in prison, having been sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for his role in the publication of Charter ’08, a call for peaceful democratic reform in China published two years ago today.
Similarly, while WikiLeaks‘ release of U.S. government documents providing confidential details on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and U.S. diplomacy prompted government efforts to shut off WikiLeaks’ funding and online presence, WikiLeaks supporters demonstrated their opposition to such efforts and to Assange’s arrest in London this week.
Read Amnesty International’s profile of Liu Xiaobo here, and The New Yorker profile of Julian Assange here.
A brief history of the drafting and adoption of the UDHR can be found here. For an animated depiction of the Declaration’s provisions, see Amnesty International‘s 1988 film.
For information on the state of human rights guarantees around the world, visit the Human Rights Conditions page.
CCA, which operates more than half the immigration detention centers in the country, has been criticized for its employment practices and conditions of detention, and has been on the receiving end of numerous civil rights complaints by prisoners and other litigation, including a class action suit filed in 2000 to enjoin CCA’s alleged practice of colluding with telephone companies to increase the cost to inmates to make phone calls, with financial gain going to CCA. [Tucscon Citizen; CCR; Mother Jones].
A constitutional challenge brought by the Federal government against enforcement of the Arizona law is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments this week on Arizona’s appeal of the District Court’s injunction against several provisions of the law. The Arizona Republic reported that the judges seemed inclined to rule in favor of Arizona on some provisions, but in the Federal government’s favor on others.
Relatedly, the Latin America News Dispatch reports that deportations of undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions are at a record high in the United States and have increased 70% under the Obama Administration, due in large part to the Secure Communities program, through which local law enforcement provides biometric data to federal immigration authorities to determine the immigration and criminal backgrounds of individuals arrested by local authorities, with a view to increasing deportation of removable aliens convicted of violent or drug-related offenses. However, the program has been criticized as encouraging racial profiling, distracting local law enforcement from their primary duties, and accelerating deportations – including of thousands of migrants arrested for petty offenses such as traffic violations who have no prior criminal history – without waiting for legislative overhaul of immigration law. [ACLU; NYT] Last week, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights and Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic of Cardozo Law sought an injunction in federal court to require the federal immigration agency, ICE, to disclose information on how communities may opt-out of the Secure Communities program. [Florida Independent; CCR] Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has stated that opt-out is not available and all local law enforcement agencies must begin participating in the program by 2013.
For more information on immigration policy and immigrant detention in the United States, see the IACHR’s Special Rapporteurship on Migrant Workers and Their Families, the ACLU, Amnesty International, the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Migration Policy Institute, and the International Organization for Migration.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has published two merits reports so far this year, having to do with deportation of non-citizens without consideration for humanitarian factors (against the United States) and impunity in the death of a journalist (against Brazil). In addition to the two merits reports, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has published thirty-six favorable admissibility decisions, seven inadmissibility decisions, two friendly settlement reports, and thirty-seven decisions to archive petitions with unresponsive petitioners or in which the grounds of the petition no longer subsist. The seven members of the Commission meet three times per year to review and decide upon admissibility and merits reports prepared by the attorneys of the Executive Secretariat, meet with petitioners, and discuss internal procedures; at two such sessions, the commissioners hold hearings on cases and on issues of concern. The decisions published in 2010 were adopted at the Commission’s 138th Period of Sessions held in March. The Commission can be expected to publish additional reports this year, which it may have adopted at its summer or fall sessions.
In Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz, et al v. United States (mentioned previously on this blog here), the Commission concluded that “the United States violated Wayne Smith and Hugo Armendariz’s rights under Articles V [private and family life], VI [family], VII [protection for mothers and children], XVIII [fair trial], and XXVI [due process] of the American Declaration, by failing to provide an individualized balancing test in their removal proceedings”. IACHR, Report No. 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz, et al. v. United States, 12 July 2010, par. 66. The petitioners in the case were the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), immigration law firm Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Center for Global Justice. In 2006, the Commission published its admissibility decisions in the separate petitions presented on behalf of the two men, and decided to consolidate their cases.
Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan was executed by lethal injection late last night in Arizona following the U.S. Supreme Court’s order yesterday, allowing the execution to proceed despite the unknown origin of one of the drugs, sodium thiopental, to be used by Arizona. [Arizona Republic] The unnamed British drug manufacturer had not received approval from U.S. regulatory agency the Food and Drug Administration for its version of the drug, as would generally be required to broadly market it in the United States. [National Post] In a 5-4 decision in favor of vacating the Arizona District Court’s stay of execution (temporary restraining order), a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices held that the plaintiffs were required to provide “evidence that the use of the drug is ‘sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering’” and had not met their burden. Mere speculation on the part of the District Court judge that use of a non-FDA approved drug could cause pain and suffering was insufficient. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan favored denying the application to vacate the stay. Reprieve founder Clive Stafford Smith wrote yesterday in the Guardian that the British company supplying the sodium thiopental “should be named and shamed”.
Former Arizona trial judge, Cheryl Hendrix, who sentenced Landrigan to death in 1990 has since advocated commutation of his sentence in favor of life imprisonment, saying she had no choice but to impose the death penalty in the absence of evidence of mitigating circumstances. Judge Hendrix said she would have sentenced Landrigan to life had she been presented with such evidence, including Landrigan’s history of mental illness, the brain damage caused by his mother’s alcohol use while pregnant, troubled childhood and a family history of violence. [Boston Herald] For his part, Landrigan has argued that, had he fully understood the implications, he would have allowed such evidence to be presented. Amnesty International recently issued an Urgent Action appeal highlighting Judge Hendrix’ comments and the importance of the mitigating circumstances in Landrigan’s case.
Landrigan’s case also involves allegations of innocence, based on DNA evidence showing someone other than Landrigan was at the crime scene, which Landrigan argued excluded him as the actual killer or a major participant in the murder. [Boston Herald] Those claims were heard by the Arizona Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit denied Landrigan’s request for a stay of execution, finding that the new DNA test results tending to show that someone else was present at the crime scene did not support the prima facie showing required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 that new facts which could not have been discovered earlier exercising due diligence “if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense”. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
In its May 2007 judgment in Schriro v. Landrigan, a 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision, and held that the District Court had not abused its discretion in refusing to grant Landrigan an evidentiary hearing in his post-conviction federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate mitigating circumstances. The Court found that Landrigan had specifically instructed his defense counsel not to present mitigating evidence at sentencing and, therefore, the state court was entitled to conclude that Landrigan would not have allowed any mitigating evidence to be presented, regardless of its nature; accordingly, he would be unable to demonstrate that his counsel’s actions prejudiced the outcome of the sentencing hearing and was therefore not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights begins holding hearings today in its 140th Period of Sessions. Issues to be discussed today include the Situation of Environmentalists in Mesoamerica, and Discrimination against the Transsexual, Transgender, and Transvestite Population in Brazil. See the week’s schedule of hearings here. Webcast of some hearings is available here.
The role of humanitarian aid in contributing to or furthering humanitarian crises and human rights abuses has been in the news frequently over the past month. Human Rights Watch last week accused the Ethiopian government of using international aid to suppress dissent. The New Yorker, The Economist and Huffington Post each published reviews of Linda Polman’s new book, The Crisis Caravan, which highlights the negative consequences of the humanitarian aid industry, painting its growth as a self-serving struggle by NGOs and armed groups to win funding and contracts on the one hand and media attention and supplies on the other, while often causing harm to those the aid is ostensibly gathered to benefit and making peace and stability harder to attain.
The IACHR has called on the United States to suspend the execution of Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan, following its grant of precautionary measures in Landrigan’s favor last week. The Commission subsequently held that the U.S. violated the rights of Landrigan, who is scheduled to be executed tomorrow, when he was sentenced to death by a trial judge rather than a jury using a procedure later found to be unconstitutional, but was never granted a new sentencing hearing. The Commission requested the immediate suspension of his execution. [IACHR] Amnesty International USA questioned Landrigan’s defense counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence of his neuropsychological health and raised concerns that the state of Arizona may have obtained the drug used for lethal injections, sodium thiopental, from a non-FDA-approved source. [AI USA] Landrigan’s application for stay of execution and habeas petition – on the grounds of possible actual innocence – are pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The European Court of Human Rights has found Russia in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for arbitrarily and discriminatorily denying authorization for gay rights marches in Moscow, in its judgment in Alekseyev v. Russia.
Canadian Omar Khadr has pleaded guilty to war crimes charges before a Military Commission in Guantánamo, as part of an agreement which will likely limit his prison sentence and provide for his return to Canada, while avoiding the controversy of trying Khadr for crimes he allegedly committed as a juvenile. [AI] Amnesty International urges the U.S. government to comply with its obligations to investigate Khadr’s allegations of torture and abuse while in custody.
The ICC Trial Chamber III has rejected former DRC vice president Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo’s double jeopardy claim, making way for his trial to begin on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges related to the Movement for the Liberation of Congo’s activities in the Central African Republic in 2002 and 2003. [RNW] The situation in the CAR was referred to the ICC prosecutor in 2005 and the warrant for Bemba’s arrest was issued in 2008.
The French Court of Cassation has ruled that terrorism suspects must have immediate access to a lawyer during interrogation, rejecting the practice of questioning such suspects for up to 72 hours without counsel as incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rightss. [Washington Post] For more on French court decisions on the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, see the International Commission of Jurists’ most recent E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism & Human Rights.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily stayed enforcement of the District Court’s injunction against the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy regarding sexual orientation in the U.S. armed forces, in order to consider the federal government’s appeal in Log Cabin Republicans v. USA.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants and Working Group on the Use of Mercenariesreport being “deeply concerned over reports of the death of a passenger being deported from the United Kingdom on a British Airways flight to Angola, while in custody of the private security company, G4S”.
A New York Times editorial questions U.S. government treatment of material witnesses in terrorism cases, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hearAshcroft v. al-Kidd, a suit by an American citizen held in detention and subjected to strict probation-like restrictions for fifteen months, as a material witness. [SCOTUSblog] Former Attorney General John Ashcroft appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding he was not entitled to absolute immunity against the suit.
Human rights groups have called on Kenya to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, in compliance with the ICC’s outstanding warrants for his arrest on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, if he returns to Kenya for a meeting. [VOA] Article 86 of the Rome Statute, to which Kenya is a State Party, requires States to cooperate with ICC investigations and prosecutions.
The European Commissioner for Human Rights calls attention to the plight of institutionalized persons with disabilities in his latest comment.
Canadian citizen Omar Khadr may have reached a plea agreement with the U.S. government, ending his prosecution by a Military Commission at Guantánamo. [Human Rights First] Khadr was detained in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old and recently turned 24 while in U.S. custody. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declined to confirm the status of Khadr’s case, but reports indicate that the deal would require Khadr to plead guilty to the war crimes charges against him – including murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy – and serve eight years in prison, the final seven years being served in Canada, contingent on the Canadian government’s agreement. [CBC News] Khadr’s case has drawn attention because of his young age, but also as one of a handful of cases in which Guantánamo detainees have argued that their home country governments have an obligation to use diplomacy to secure their nationals’ release from Guantánamo. See INTERIGHTS’ third party intervention in Boumediene before the ECHR for relevant jurisprudence and an example of the analysis used in such cases.
The IACHR has released its hearing schedule for 140th Period of Sessions, to begin later this month. [IACHR] The Commission’s thematic hearings will address issues ranging from camps for the internally displaced in Haiti to prosecutions for crimes against humanity in Argentina, while the hearings on the admissibility and merits of individual cases will include that of Guantánamo detainee Djamel Ameziane. Livestreaming and/or recordings will be available for most hearings.
A Peruvian court has convicted Vladimiro Montesinos, former aide to ex-President Alberto Fujimori and de facto head of security, as well as members of the Colina death squad, on charges of extrajudicial killing and injury of 29 individuals in separate incidents, including the massacre of Barrios Altos. The court (Sala Penal Especial de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) found the acts constituted crimes against humanity, as it similarly found in the case of Alberto Fujimori. [CEJIL] The Barrios Altos case has been reviewed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found Peru responsible for the deaths and lack of investigation or reparation (merits decision here).
International Human Rights Law keeps tabs on universal, regional, and domestic tribunals and other bodies charged with interpreting public international law relevant to human rights, as well as on human rights conditions around the world.
Visit the International Justice Resource Center website to access additional resources for understanding and researching international human rights law and mechanisms.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1231
 § 241
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2244
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.