Source: http://mjbimmigration.com/2019/10/10/article-how-to-challenge-gang-designations-in-asylum-cases-by-beau-baumann-and-stephen-yale-loehr/
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 10:49:37
Document Index: 17404007

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 235', '§ 1232', '§ 1231', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 71', '§ 240', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 240', '§ 1229']

Article: How to Challenge Gang Designations in Asylum Cases By Beau Baumann and Stephen Yale-Loehr*
October 10, 2019 By // by wpadmin
<div itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Article”>
<h3 itemprop=”name”>
<!–ARTICLE TITLE START–>
How to Challenge Gang Designations in Asylum Cases
<!–END ARTICLE TITLE–>
</h3><h4><i>by <a href=”http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?7114-Article-Private-Refugee-Sponsorship-Gains-Crucial-New-Support-by-Matthew-La-Corte#bio”>
<span itemprop=”author” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Person”>
<span itemprop=”name”>
<!–AUTHOR NAME START–>
Beau Baumann and Stephen Yale-Loehr*
<!–END AUTHOR NAME–>
</a></i></h4><br/>
<div class=”post-content”>
A familiar story plays out every week in U.S. immigration courts. A Latinx
male has a removal hearing. The young man presents a plausible case for
asylum or restriction on removal (better known as withholding of removal).
To defeat the young man’s claims, the government produces a report alleging
that he is a member of a gang. The report originated in a so-called
“fusion” center.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn1″
name=”_ftnref1″
[1] </a>
The report is short on detail but invariably determines that the young
man’s tattoos and social media accounts indicate gang membership.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn2″
name=”_ftnref2″
[2] </a>
The report relies on the immigrant’s red hat with the letter “B” on the
front (never mind that it is a Chicago Bull’s hat).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn3″
name=”_ftnref3″
[3] </a>
Although gang membership is irrelevant to the young man’s claim, his
testimony that he is not a gang member destroys his credibility in the eyes
of the immigration judge. Alternatively, the immigration judge will deny
the young man asylum as a matter of discretion on the basis of his
purported gang membership.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn4″
name=”_ftnref4″
[4] </a>
Even if the young man is successful before the immigration judge, the
government will appeal to the BIA.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn5″
name=”_ftnref5″
[5] </a>
The use of gang databases and gang designations is not new. Municipalities,
states, and federal fusion centers have built a network of gang databases
that are used in both the criminal and immigration systems.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn6″
name=”_ftnref6″
[6] </a>
Over the last ten years, immigration advocates have written about the use
of gang designations in the contexts of both the deferred action for
childhood arrivals (DACA) program and bond for detained immigrants.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn7″
name=”_ftnref7″
[7] </a>
While the Obama administration used gang designations in the immigration
system, the Trump administration’s innovation is the use of these
designations in asylum and withholding proceedings across the country.
At the start of the current administration, the use of gang designations in
asylum and withholding proceedings was obscured by the use of gang
designations in the context of pre-trial bond. Over the last two years,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched a series of raids
targeting suspected gang members. In one such raid, “Operation Matador,”
ICE officials arrested 475 alleged gang members in New York.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn8″
name=”_ftnref8″
[8] </a>
Some of the alleged gang members were unaccompanied minors, meaning that
the government had to place them in the “least restrictive setting that is
in the best interest of the child” under the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn9″
name=”_ftnref9″
[9] </a>
The Office of Refugee Resettlement initially determined that the plaintiffs
were not threats to the public, and they were subsequently released.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn10″
name=”_ftnref10″
[10] </a>
Later, the government alleged that the plaintiffs were gang members,
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn11″
name=”_ftnref11″
[11] </a>
and used these designations to rearrest the plaintiffs and transport them
to a secure facility in California.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn12″
name=”_ftnref12″
[12] </a>
The American Civil Liberties Union later sued on behalf of minors swept up
in Operation Matador.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn13″
name=”_ftnref13″
[13] </a>
The court issued a preliminary injunction after concluding that the
government’s procedures did not justify rearresting and detaining the
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn14″
name=”_ftnref14″
[14] </a>
Increasingly, gang designations are playing a role in asylum and
withholding proceedings. In a nationwide poll of immigration attorneys
conducted by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), forty-three
percent of respondents had at least one asylum or withholding case that
involved a gang designation.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn15″
name=”_ftnref15″
[15] </a>
More anecdotally, unpublished and redacted opinions discussing gang
designations have been slowly dripping out of the BIA and the immigration
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn16″
name=”_ftnref16″
[16] </a>
The ILRC has discussed these cases with practitioners and concluded that
the gang designations are especially damaging in asylum cases because of
how they impact the noncitizen’s credibility.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn17″
name=”_ftnref17″
[17] </a>
If a noncitizen attempts to contest a gang designation, an immigration
judge will often defer to the government’s representations and find that
the noncitizen lacks credibility.
The rise of gang designations in asylum and withholding cases is troubling
because of a reoccurring fact in the literature: gang designations and gang
databases are fundamentally unreliable.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn18″
name=”_ftnref18″
[18] </a>
The spike in the use of gang designations across a variety of immigration
contexts is directly related to the rise of a national network of gang
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn19″
name=”_ftnref19″
[19] </a>
Immigration designations are often made by local police, who then filter
data up to local gang databases, state fusion centers, and other federal
agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn20″
name=”_ftnref20″
[20] </a>
Unfortunately, almost every portion of this web is riddled with errors. The
Chicago Police Department’s gang database was recently revealed to be prone
to errors.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn21″
name=”_ftnref21″
[21] </a>
An audit of California’s gang database revealed that twenty-three percent
of the database’s designations were unsupported, that hundreds of
designations were improperly maintained, and that seventy percent of
designated juveniles received no notice from the state.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn22″
name=”_ftnref22″
[22] </a>
Gang reports produced by federal “fusion centers” have also come under
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn23″
name=”_ftnref23″
[23] </a>
The inaccuracies of gang designations have several downstream effects.
First, the errors from gang designations disproportionately affect
immigrants and young men of color.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn24″
name=”_ftnref24″
[24] </a>
Because immigrant communities are disproportionately affected, designations
have become a key tool for DHS and ICE.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn25″
name=”_ftnref25″
[25] </a>
Second, gang designations perpetuate the harmful stereotype of the criminal
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn26″
name=”_ftnref26″
[26] </a>
Both effects are immutable and flow from the fact that defining gang
membership is a notoriously difficult and subjective enterprise.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn27″
name=”_ftnref27″
[27] </a>
Gang designations in asylum and withholding cases are often difficult to
challenge in immigration courts. Gang designations are often supported by
form documents that rely on social media posts, tattoos, and clothing.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn28″
name=”_ftnref28″
[28] </a>
One redacted designation report alleged that a Latinx noncitizen was a
member of MS-13.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn29″
name=”_ftnref29″
[29] </a>
This report was only supported by (1) a picture of the noncitizen with a
Chicago Bull’s hat, (2) a picture of the noncitizen wearing Nike Cortez
shoes, (3) a Boston police officer’s assessment, and (3) a social media
post where the noncitizen appears to be making a “peace” hand gesture.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn30″
name=”_ftnref30″
[30] </a>
A comparison with other reports indicates that it was largely a form
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn31″
name=”_ftnref31″
[31] </a>
Despite the weakness behind many gang designations, many are used to deny
asylum and withholding of removal.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn32″
name=”_ftnref32″
[32] </a>
A new program started by the Trump administration exacerbates issues
surrounding gang designations. On July 8, 2019, ProPublica published an
article alleging that federal officials are relying on a transnational gang
database to detain noncitizens at the border and separate families.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn33″
name=”_ftnref33″
[33] </a>
According to ProPublica, officials at the border use data collected by
Salvadoran police and military officials to detain purported gang members.
In one case, an erroneous gang designation in the system caused U.S.
authorities to separate a man from his two children and detain him in a
maximum-security facility.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn34″
name=”_ftnref34″
[34] </a>
The scope of this transnational gang database is unknown because the
government has hidden it from the public. The database is instead managed
by a fusion center called Grupo Conjunto de Inteligencia Fronteriza (GCIF).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn35″
name=”_ftnref35″
[35] </a>
ProPublica later reported that GCIF had expanded the database into
Guatemala, Mexico, and Honduras.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn36″
name=”_ftnref36″
[36] </a>
Immigration advocates now must navigate not only the complex web of
domestic databases and fusion centers, but also the GCIF database and
foreign designations. The GCIF database will likely become an important
fixture in asylum proceedings.
Several characteristics of asylum and withholding proceedings create
difficult, but navigable, barriers. Because these are civil proceedings,
the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause is not a proper basis for excluding
designation reports that rely on unnamed and vague third party testimony.
Additionally, immigration judges may be unfamiliar with the inaccuracies
that plague gang databases and will accordingly give designations undue
weight. Furthermore, the DHS has repeatedly introduced gang designations in
cases involving persons with borderline competency issues.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn37″
name=”_ftnref37″
[37] </a>
These individuals have the additional burden of cognitive issues when
testifying that they do not belong to a gang.
Despite these hurdles, immigration attorneys have successfully countered
gang designations in several cases. The goal of attorneys should either be
to (1) exclude gang designations or (2) bolster their client’s denials of
gang membership so that an immigration judge will not make an adverse
credibility finding. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in
immigration courts, immigration attorneys have experimented with
challenging the introduction of gang-related evidence.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn38″
name=”_ftnref38″
[38] </a>
For tips on excluding gang reports and for a helpful guide to the mechanics
of challenging gang designations in immigration court, attorneys should
review the toolkit produced by CUNY School of Law’s Immigrant &amp;
Non-Citizen Rights Clinic (INRC).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn39″
name=”_ftnref39″
[39] </a>
The following routes for challenging gang designations have emerged in a
few cases and may supplement the approaches outlined by the INRC.
First, there are federal privacy regulations that, if violated by a gang
database, may weaken a designation submitted by the government. In a
redacted case from the Boston Immigration Court, immigration judge Mario
Sturla granted the respondent’s application for adjustment of status
despite the government’s submitted gang designation.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn40″
name=”_ftnref40″
[40] </a>
Judge Sturla’s opinion was influenced by the expert testimony of Professor
Thomas Nolan, who pointed out that the relevant gang database used for the
designation did not comply with 28 C.F.R. § 23.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn41″
name=”_ftnref41″
[41] </a>
That regulation governs the communication of information having to do with
criminal charges. It was implemented to assuage concerns that “the
collection and exchange of intelligence data necessary to support control
of serious criminal activity may represent potential threats to the privacy
of individuals.”
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn42″
name=”_ftnref42″
[42] </a>
The regulation specifically requires that designations in gang databases be
supported by “reasonable suspicion or criminal predicate.”
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn43″
name=”_ftnref43″
[43] </a>
Professor Nolan testified that there was no evidence supporting the gang
designation’s conclusory assessment and that the government’s designation
was entitled to very little weight.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn44″
name=”_ftnref44″
[44] </a>
For instance, the government concluded that the respondent was a gang
member because he had a “503” tattoo, but the government failed to explain
the connection between the tattoo and gang membership.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn45″
name=”_ftnref45″
[45] </a>
Ultimately Judge Sturla accepted Professor Nolan’s testimony, concluding
that the gang designation was unreliable.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn46″
name=”_ftnref46″
[46] </a>
Even though the regulation was promulgated for the criminal context, it was
successfully used to suggest that DHS’s reliance on the relevant gang
database in an immigration case was unreliable.
Second, criminologists are increasingly being used as expert witnesses to
combat gang designations. Criminologists can support an 28 C.F.R. § 23
argument (like Professor Nolan, as discussed above) or they can combat the
evidence of gang affiliation directly. In a<em> </em>DACA case, for
instance, an expert named Martin Flores testified that the government
incorrectly evaluated a noncitizen’s tattoos.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn47″
name=”_ftnref47″
[47] </a>
In that case, the court gave Mr. Flores’ testimony significant weight.
However, experts who can accurately attest to gang membership are rare. The
same issues that make gang databases unreliable—the fluid nature of gangs
and the subjective criteria for evaluation—mean that true experts are rare,
limiting the availability of expert testimony.
Third, reports detailing the inaccuracies of gang databases area
increasingly available and can be used to argue that gang designations
arising from certain gang databases should be excluded. Public audits of
gang databases are available at the state and local level.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn48″
name=”_ftnref48″
[48] </a>
They are usually produced by neutral public officials and have uniformly
found massive errors. Where possible, immigration attorneys should submit
these reports and audits to immigration judges to contextualize the issues
surrounding gang databases.
Fourth, consider a procedural due process challenge to the use of hearsay
gang designations. While the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in
immigration proceedings, the use of hearsay to support a gang designation
could be so extreme as to be fundamentally unfair and thus violate due
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn49″
name=”_ftnref49″
[49] </a>
Fifth, consider requiring the government to provide proof of the
reliability of the gang allegation report in immigration court. Both the
immigration statute and some federal courts have recognized that immigrant
respondents have the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses in certain
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn50″
name=”_ftnref50″
[50] </a>
Also, immigration judges have regulatory authority to issue subpoenas for
documents and witnesses.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn51″
name=”_ftnref51″
[51] </a>
Immigration judges may be reluctant to issue such subpoenas, but you have a
right to ask for them.
The impact of these reports will be greater depending on how direct they
are. For instance, a case turning on a designation from California should
cite the CalGang audit.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn52″
name=”_ftnref52″
[52] </a>
If no government-produced reports are available that apply to the relevant
gang database, media reports may provide an alternative (although we
suspect that these press findings will be less impactful).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn53″
name=”_ftnref53″
[53] </a>
Immigration attorneys should also support the grassroots movements across
the country for more audits and studies of error-rates such as the
CalGang-specific audit performed by the state.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn54″
name=”_ftnref54″
[54] </a>
These efforts are churning out an increasing number of reports that will be
useful in a variety of immigration contexts.
With these options in mind, it is important to recognize that gang
designations are likely to play an outsized role in several immigration
contexts for the foreseeable future—at least, until more systematic
litigation is successful. Although many of these tools have been successful
in isolated cases, immigration judges are very likely to admit gang
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn55″
name=”_ftnref55″
[55] </a>
This reality is precisely why immigration attorneys must systematically
litigate the inherent flaws in gang designations. In the DACA context, a
federal court in Washington state recently held that DHS’ reliance on gang
designations with little or no evidence was arbitrary and capricious under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn56″
name=”_ftnref56″
[56] </a>
Given that gang databases have been shown to be error-prone in most
studies, reliance on them when deporting nonimmigrants may reflect an
absence of the “reasoned decisionmaking” required by a line of cases in the
immigration context.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn57″
name=”_ftnref57″
[57] </a>
Reliance on such gang databases may also fail the “clear and convincing”
evidence requirement in removal proceedings.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn58″
name=”_ftnref58″
[58] </a>
The designations produced by the new GCIF database may be especially
susceptible to challenges. In one case, a GCIF designation caused U.S.
authorities to separate a man from his family and detain him in a
maximum-security facility for months.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn59″
name=”_ftnref59″
[59] </a>
In that case, the man’s family in El Salvador tracked down his criminal
record and discovered that there was an active gang member with the same
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn60″
name=”_ftnref60″
[60] </a>
When the man’s attorney discovered this information, the government made no
attempt to support the gang designation, apparently not wanting to shed
light on this still secretive program.
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftn61″
name=”_ftnref61″
[61] </a>
Usually, the government continues to use designations when they are
challenged in immigration court. The government’s surrender in this case
indicates that DHS is not eager to litigate the still-secretive database,
perhaps because foreign designations will not be entitled to the same
deference as domestic ones. For that reason, litigation focusing on the
accuracy of foreign designations may be especially effective.
Until the DHS’ reliance on erroneous gang designations is challenged
directly, immigration attorneys must continue to explore new ways of
combating such designations.
<strong>* Beau J. Baumann</strong>
(bjb335@cornell.edu) graduated from Cornell Law School in 2019 and is <strong> </strong>a law clerk at Weil, Gotshal &amp; Manges LLP in New York
City. In 2020, he will clerk for federal court judges Scholer and Barker in
Texas<strong>.</strong>
<strong>Stephen Yale-Loehr</strong>
(swy1@cornell.edu) is co-author of <em>Immigration Law and Procedure</em>,
the leading twenty-one-volume immigration law treatise, published by
LexisNexis. He is also Professor of Immigration Practice at Cornell Law
School and of counsel at Miller Mayer LLP in Ithaca, New York.
Copyright © 2019 Beau Baumann and Stephen Yale-Loehr. All rights reserved.
This article originally appeared in 24 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 1169 (Oct. 1,
<br clear=”all”/>
<hr align=”left” size=”1″ width=”33%”/>
<div id=”ftn1″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref1″
name=”_ftn1″
<em>See </em>
Nat’l Security Council, National Strategy for Information Sharing:
Successes and Challenges in Improving Terrorism-Related Information
Sharing (2007),
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi…ing/index.html
(describing the trend towards “fusion centers,” whose purpose is to
“develop . . . national networks that promote . . . the adoption of
vertical information sharing between federal, state and local
agencies.”; U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Fusion Centers,
https://www.dhs.gov/fusion-centers (“Fusion Centers are state-owned
and operated centers that serve as focal points in states and major
urban areas for the receipt, analysis, gathering and sharing of
threat-related information between State, Local, Tribal and
Territorial (SLTT), federal and private sector partners.”).
<div id=”ftn2″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref2″
name=”_ftn2″
<em>See, e.g.</em>
,<em> </em>Matter of [name not provided], File No. A205-734-146
(BIA<strong> </strong>Dec. 17, 2018) (discussing a gang designation
supported by the clothes the respondent was wearing and the
accusations of an anonymous source), <em>available at</em> <strong> </strong>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P-r…ew?usp=sharing.
<div id=”ftn3″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref3″
name=”_ftn3″
Jonathan Blitzer, <em>How Gang Victims Are Labelled As Gang Suspects</em>, The New
Yorker (Jan. 23, 2018),
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-…-gang-suspects
(“One student was . . . detained by ICE because he posted a
Salvadoran flag on his Facebook page; another was caught wearing a
Chicago Bulls T-shirt to school.”); Sarah Betancourt,
Boston Police Face Lawsuit Over Listing Hats and Selfies as
, The Guardian (Nov. 21, 2018)<strong>, </strong>
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/…grants-lawsuit
(“For [the] Boston police department, the Chicago Bulls hat was a
sign.”).
<div id=”ftn4″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref4″
name=”_ftn4″
Matter of V-A-C- (BIA<strong> </strong>Nov. 15, 2017) (reversing an
immigration judge who used discretion to deny a designated gang
member’s cancellation of removal)), <em>available at</em>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1olk…ew?usp=sharing.
<div id=”ftn5″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref5″
name=”_ftn5″
Immigr. Legal Resource Ctr., Understanding Allegations of Gang
Membership/Affiliation in Immigration Cases 1 (2017), <em>available at</em>
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/f…y-20170509.pdf
(noting that immigrants with gang designations have become an
enforcement priority for the Department of Homeland Security).
<div id=”ftn6″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref6″
name=”_ftn6″
Beau J. Baumann &amp; Greg Mina,<em> </em>Note, <em>Clowning Around With Final Agency Action</em>, 28 Cornell J. L.
&amp; Pub. Pol’y 329, 330–31 (2019) (describing the rise of
interconnected gang databases under the post-9/11 national security
apparatus).<em></em>
<div id=”ftn7″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref7″
name=”_ftn7″
, Katherine Conway,
Fundamentally Unfair: Databases, Deportations, and the
Crimmigrant Gang Member
, 67 Am. U. L. Rev. 269 (2017) (describing the system of gang
designations used by the Obama and Trump administrations to target
alleged gang members); K. Babe Howell,
Fear Itself: The Impact of Gang Affiliation on Pre-Trial
, 23 St. Thomas L. Rev. 620 (2011) (impact on pre-trial
detentions); Rebecca A. Hufstader, Note,
Immigration Reliance on Gang Databases: Unchecked Discretion
and Undesirable Consequences
, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 671 (2015) (impact in the context of DACA).
<div id=”ftn8″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref8″
name=”_ftn8″
Preston Huennekens, <em>Operation Matador Nabs 475 Gang Members in N.Y. City Area</em>,
Ctr. For Immigr. Studies (Apr. 4, 2018),
https://cis.org/Huennekens/Operation…s-NY-City-Area.
<div id=”ftn9″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref9″
name=”_ftn9″
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Pub. L. No.
110–457, § 235, 122 Stat. 5044, 5074–82 (2008) (codified at 8
U.S.C. § 1232).
<div id=”ftn10″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref10″
name=”_ftn10″
Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
<div id=”ftn11″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref11″
name=”_ftn11″
<em>See id. </em>
at 1178–80.
<div id=”ftn12″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref12″
name=”_ftn12″
<em>See id.</em>
<div id=”ftn13″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref13″
name=”_ftn13″
Saravia v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018).
<div id=”ftn14″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref14″
name=”_ftn14″
<em>Id.</em>
<div id=”ftn15″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref15″
name=”_ftn15″
Immigrant Legal Resource Ctr., Deportation By Any Means Necessary:
How Immigration Officials are Labeling Immigrant Youth as Gang
Members 7 (2018), <em>available at </em>
https://www.ilrc.org/deportation-by-any-means-necessary
[hereinafter ILRC Report].
<div id=”ftn16″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref16″
name=”_ftn16″
, Matter of [name not provided], File No. A205-734-146 (BIA <strong> </strong>Dec. 17, 2018) (discussing a gang designation in
the bond context), <em>available at</em><strong> </strong>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P-r…w?usp=sharing;
Matter of V-A-C- (BIA<strong> </strong>Nov. 15, 2017) (evaluating
an immigration judge’s reliance on the respondent’s designation as
an “active criminal gang member”), <em>available at</em>
<div id=”ftn17″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref17″
name=”_ftn17″
ILRC Report, <em>supra</em> note 15,<em> </em>at 8.
<div id=”ftn18″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref18″
name=”_ftn18″
, Joshua D. Wright, <em>The Constitutional Failure of Gang Databases</em>, 2 Stan. C.R.
&amp; C.L. 115 (2005).
<div id=”ftn19″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref19″
name=”_ftn19″
Baumann &amp; Mina, <em>supra </em>note 6, at 330.
<div id=”ftn20″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref20″
name=”_ftn20″
<div id=”ftn21″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref21″
name=”_ftn21″
City of Chicago Office of Inspector General, Review of the Chicago
Police Department’s “Gang Database” 2 (2019),
https://igchicago.org/wp-content/upl…ase-Review.pdf
(“Over 15,000 individuals designated as gang members by CPD had no
specific membership listed and no reason provided for why the
individual was listed as a gang member.”).
<div id=”ftn22″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref22″
name=”_ftn22″
California State Auditor, The CalGang Criminal Intelligence System
2, 4 (2016), https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-130.pdf.
<div id=”ftn23″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref23″
name=”_ftn23″
<em>See</em>
Baumann &amp; Mina, <em>supra </em>note 6, at 330–33 (discussing
legal challenges to a federal fusion center’s decision to label
fans of a heavy metal ban as gang members). <strong></strong>
<div id=”ftn24″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref24″
name=”_ftn24″
Sean Garcia-Leys et al., Univ. Cal. Sch. L. Immigrant Rights
Clinic, Mislabeled: Allegations Of Gang Membership and Their
Immigration Consequences 1 (2016), <em>available at </em>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UXC…ew?usp=sharing
(“This high risk of error is corroborated by the fact that these
allegations are overwhelmingly made against African-Americans and
Latinos.”). <strong></strong>
<div id=”ftn25″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref25″
name=”_ftn25″
Chicago’s Inspector General Finds the City’s Gang Database is
, ProPublica (Apr. 11, 2019),
https://www.propublica.org/article/c…general-report <strong> </strong>(noting that immigration authorities have
accessed the Chicago Police Department’s gang database 32,000 times
over the last ten years).
<div id=”ftn26″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref26″
name=”_ftn26″
Conway, <em>supra </em>note 7, at 272–73 (linking trends in
immigration enforcement with the stereotype of the “crimmigrant”).
<div id=”ftn27″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref27″
name=”_ftn27″
,<em> </em>Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1024, 1046 (9th Cir.
2013) (“Determining whether an individual is an active gang member
presents a considerable risk of error. The informal structure of
gangs, the often-fleeting nature of gang membership, and the lack
of objective criteria in making the assessment all heighten the
need for careful factfinding.”).
<div id=”ftn28″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref28″
name=”_ftn28″
Blitzer, <em>supra </em>note 3 (detailing officials’ focus on
Chicago Bulls hats and social media posts);<em> see also </em>CUNY
School of Law Immigrant &amp; Non-Citizen Rights Clinic, Swept up
in the Sweep: The Impact of Gang Allegations on Immigrant New
Yorkers 21 (2018),
https://www.law.cuny.edu/wp-content/…rt_Final-1.pdf
(“These allegations are seldom corroborated by independent evidence
and thus the evidence presented raises serious reliability issues
in any court of law.”) (internal citation omitted).
<div id=”ftn29″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref29″
name=”_ftn29″
ILRC Report, <em>supra </em>note 15, Appendix B. <em></em>
<div id=”ftn30″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref30″
name=”_ftn30″
<div id=”ftn31″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref31″
name=”_ftn31″
New York Civil Liberties Union et al., Stuck with Suspicion: How
Vague Gang Allegations Impact Relief &amp; Bond for Immigrant New
Yorkers 3, 15 (2019), <em>available at </em>
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/…c-report_0.pdf
(giving a formula that gang designations seem to invariably
<div id=”ftn32″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref32″
name=”_ftn32″
An immigration judge can deny an asylum case on several grounds,
including a lack of credibility or as a matter of discretion. While
an immigration judge cannot deny withholding of removal as a matter
of discretion, ICE allegations of an applicant’s gang involvement
in their home country could convince the judge to deny the
applicant withholding of removal because there are “serious reasons
to believe” that the immigrant has committed a “serious
non-political crime outside of the United States.” INA
241(b)(3)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii); Matter of E-A-,
26 I. &amp; N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2012).
<div id=”ftn33″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref33″
name=”_ftn33″
Immigration Officials Use Secretive Gang Databases to Deny
Migrant Asylum Claims
, ProPublica (July 8, 2019),
https://www.propublica.org/article/i…-asylum-claims.
<div id=”ftn34″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref34″
name=”_ftn34″
(“An attorney in Texas recently discovered that her Salvadoran
client had been falsely accused of being in the MS-13 gang based on
intelligence from the center. The man was jailed in a
maximum-security facility . . . for six months, and his two
children were taken away.”).
<div id=”ftn35″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref35″
name=”_ftn35″
<div id=”ftn36″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref36″
name=”_ftn36″
The Case That Made an Ex-ICE Attorney Realize the Government
was Relying on False “Evidence” Against Migrants
, ProPublica (Aug. 13, 2019),
https://www.propublica.org/article/l…ainst-migrants).
<div id=”ftn37″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref37″
name=”_ftn37″
, Matter of [name redacted] (IJ Mario Sturla, Boston, Mass. June
22, 2018), <em>available at</em>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sPH…ew?usp=sharing)
(last visited Sept. 1, 2019) (finding that a noncitizen’s gang
designation was not sufficiently supported by the evidence) (on
file with authors) [hereinafter Matter of [name redacted]).
<div id=”ftn38″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref38″
name=”_ftn38″
Maya Leszczynski et al., CUNY School of Law,
Evidentiary Objections to Challenge Commonly Introduced
Evidence Used in Support of Gang Allegations
(July 2019),
https://www.law.cuny.edu/wp-content/…tions_2019.pdf.
<div id=”ftn39″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref39″
name=”_ftn39″
CUNY School of Law,
Toolkit to Challenge Gang Allegations against Immigrant New
https://www.law.cuny.edu/academics/c…rkers-toolkit/.
<div id=”ftn40″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref40″
name=”_ftn40″
Matter of [name redacted], <em>supra </em>note 37, slip op. at
<div id=”ftn41″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref41″
name=”_ftn41″
<em>Id. </em>
at 29 (discussing the expert testimony of Professor Thomas Nolan).
<div id=”ftn42″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref42″
name=”_ftn42″
28 C.F.R. § 23.20; <em>see also </em>Benjamin E. Rosenberg,
Statutory and Constitutional Limitations on the Preservation of
, 4 Va. J. Crim. 116, 126–29 (2016) (discussing when 28 C.F.R. § 23
applies and what limitations it places on the government).
<div id=”ftn43″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref43″
name=”_ftn43″
28 C.F.R. § 23.20(c).
<div id=”ftn44″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref44″
name=”_ftn44″
<div id=”ftn45″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref45″
name=”_ftn45″
<div id=”ftn46″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref46″
name=”_ftn46″
at 29.
<div id=”ftn47″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref47″
name=”_ftn47″
Medina v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1237, 1250
(W.D. Wash. 2018).
<div id=”ftn48″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref48″
name=”_ftn48″
,<em> </em>City of Chicago Office of Inspector General, <em>supra </em>note 21; California State Auditor, <em>supra</em>
<div id=”ftn49″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref49″
name=”_ftn49″
<em>See generally</em>
Charles Gordon et al., Immigration Law and Procedure § 71.02[3][b] (discussing procedural due process requirements in removal
<div id=”ftn50″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref50″
name=”_ftn50″
INA § 240(b)(4)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); <em>see also</em> <em> </em>Karroumeh v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 890, 897 (7th Cir. 2016)
(finding that respondent’s procedural right to cross-examination
was violated where government failed to make a “reasonable effort”
to secure a witness’ presence in court for cross-examination);
Ching v. Mayorkas, 725 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding
that due process required a hearing with an opportunity for the
respondent to confront the witness against her); Murphy v. INS, 54
F.3d 605, 611 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Most prejudicial to [the
respondent], there was no testifying witness subject to
cross-examination to verify the source of the information….
[W]ithout the officer’s testimony on cross-examination, the
statement is subject to speculation and hardly worthy of full
evidentiary weight”) (citations omitted).
<div id=”ftn51″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref51″
name=”_ftn51″
8 C.F.R. § 1003.35(b).
<div id=”ftn52″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref52″
name=”_ftn52″
California State Auditor, <em>supra</em> note 22.
<div id=”ftn53″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref53″
name=”_ftn53″
, Alice Speri,
NYPD Gang Database Can Turn Unsuspecting New Yorkers Into
, The Intercept (Dec. 5, 2018),
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/05/nypd-gang-database/.
<div id=”ftn54″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref54″
name=”_ftn54″
<div id=”ftn55″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref55″
name=”_ftn55″
Leszczynski et al., <em>supra </em>note 38, at 4 (“Generally,
immigration judges tend to admit almost all of the evidence
introduced.”).
<div id=”ftn56″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref56″
name=”_ftn56″
Medina v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1237, 1250
<div id=”ftn57″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref57″
name=”_ftn57″
at 1246 (citing Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011); Inland
Empire-Immigrant Youth Collective v. Duke, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
203307 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)).
<div id=”ftn58″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref58″
name=”_ftn58″
INA § 240(c)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C § 1229a(c)(3)(A) (in removal
proceedings the government “has the burden of establishing by clear
and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been
admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision
on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence.”).
<div id=”ftn59″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref59″
name=”_ftn59″
del Bosque, <em>supra </em>note 36.
<div id=”ftn60″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref60″
name=”_ftn60″
<div id=”ftn61″>
href=”file:///C:/Users/ILW.COM/Desktop/ILW%20gang%20designation%20article.docx#_ftnref61″
name=”_ftn61″
<p>Reprinted with permission.</p>
<hr/><h4>
<a name=”bio”></a>
About The Author<br/>
<!–AUTHOR BIO START–>
<a href=’https://millermayer.com/lawyers-ithaca/steve-yale-loehr-immigration-law/’ target=’_blank’> Stephen Yale-Loehr </a> is an Attorney Of Counsel in Miller Mayer’s Immigration practice group. He brings 30 years of immigration law experience to bear in advising corporate and individual clients on a broad array of family- and employment-based immigration matters.
In addition to his work at Miller Mayer, Mr. Yale-Loehr is an active and internationally renowned member of the immigration law community. He teaches immigration and asylum law at Cornell Law School as a Professor of Immigration Practice. He also founded and was the original executive director of Invest in the USA (IIUSA), a trade association of EB-5 immigrant investor regional centers. He is listed in Who’s Who in America and is annually listed in Chambers Global, Chambers USA, and An International Who’s Who of Corporate Immigration Lawyers as one of the world’s best immigration lawyers. He is frequently quoted in the press on immigration issues and has often testified before Congress. He is the 2001 recipient of AILA’s Elmer Fried Award for excellence in teaching and the 2004 recipient of AILA’s Edith Lowenstein Award for excellence in advancing the practice of immigration law. He is also a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a Nonresident Fellow of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, DC.
Mr. Yale-Loehr has co-authored or edited many books, including Immigration Law and Procedure, the leading 20-volume treatise on U.S. immigration law; Green Card Stories; America’s Challenge: Domestic Security, Civil Liberties and National Unity After September 11; Balancing Interests: Rethinking the Selection of Skilled Immigrants; Global Business Immigration Practice Guide; J Visa Guidebook; Understanding the Immigration Act of 1990; and Understanding the 1986 Immigration Law, and numerous law review articles.
Mr. Yale-Loehr is a member of the New York State bar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He received his J.D. from Cornell Law School and his B.A. from Cornell University.
<!–END AUTHOR BIO–>
<div class=”ilwFinePrint”>The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of <span itemprop=”publisher” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Organization”>
<span itemprop=”name”>ILW.COM</span></span>.</div></p>
Previous Post: « Oct 9 – EB5 Market Update – October
Next Post: News: USCIS Publish Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background »