DHS and Mentally Ill Respondents: Why Is the Fox Guarding the Hen House?

by Jason Dzubow

I recently learned about the removal case of mentally ill man from Africa.  Several years ago, the man was granted Withholding of Removal from his country because he faced persecution there.  His immigration case was recently re-opened after he committed a crime rendering him ineligible for Withholding.  He might still be eligible for relief under the UN Convention Against Torture, if he demonstrates that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in his country.   

Based on an expert report, the Immigration Judge found that the man (who cannot be identified here) was not competent to represent himself.  At the IJ’s insistence, DHS appointed a custodian, an ICE Detention and Removal Officer.  At the hearing, the ICE officer failed to appear, so the IJ dismissed the case.  The IJ found that, because the alien could not represent himself, the absence of a custodian violated his right to due process of law.  DHS appealed and the case is currently before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

What concerns me is not the failure of the custodian to appear for the hearing (it seemed to be an honest mistake), but the fact that the custodian was an ICE Detention and Removal Officer.  Why is the person charged with physically detaining and removing the alien the same person who is supposed to represent the alien’s interests in court?  Clearly, something needs to be done.

According to the Immigration Policy Center, over the last year or so, DHS has been working with stakeholders to improve the situation for mentally ill aliens in immigration court.  Some issues are: (1) The absence of a formal mechanism to identify mentally ill aliens in immigration court; (2) Mentally disabled aliens are not appointed counsel in immigration court; (3) Aliens with mental disabilities cannot effectively represent themselves in court; and (4) Immigration judges have too many cases to effectively address the needs of aliens with mental disabilities.  Perhaps DHS will issue some standards to protect mentally ill aliens, though it is unlikely that the standards currently under consideration would satisfy advocates for the mentally ill.  (The Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Counsel has an informative website about this issue).

In the mean time, the BIA might take matters into its own hands.  In the pending case of Matter of L-T-, the Boards has requested briefing on issues related to mentally ill aliens in immigration court.  An amicus brief filed in this case by the Legal Action Center (formerly AILF) is available here.

Mentally ill aliens in immigration court face many difficulties.  At the minimum, we should try to ensure that their due process rights are protected.  As things stand now, that is not the case. 

Continue reading

2 Comments

Amicus Brief on Protecting Mentally Disabled Respondents

by Jason Dzubow

Human Rights Watch and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP recently filed an amicus brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals in the case of an alien with a mental disability.  The brief is based on a year-long, joint investigation by HRW and the American Civil Liberties Union concerning violations of the rights of people with mental disabilities in the U.S. immigration system.  The report is called Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System.

Our view of the mentally ill continues to evlove, but we've still got a way to go.

In the amicus brief, HRW argues that all respondents in immigration and removal proceedings, including those with mental disabilities, are entitled to a fair hearing and a chance to defend their rights.  From the brief: 

“‘The [incompetency] doctrine [where a defendant can not stand trial if he can’t comprehend the charges against him, can’t effectively consult with counsel, and can’t assist in his defense] . . . has been characterized by the Supreme Court as ‘fundamental to an adversary system of justice.'”  Removal proceedings must respect human rights, honor U.S. human rights commitments, and ensure fair and accurate decision-making.  A fair hearing is central to the protection of a person’s rights and is the hallmark of a functioning justice system. 

To meet the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under international human rights law, meaningful safeguards are necessary to ensure such a fair hearing and protect the rights of individuals with mental disabilities.  Among these safeguards are (1) the respondent’s right to counsel, (2) the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) ability to terminate proceedings, (3) the IJ’s power to order a competency hearing, and (4) the right to be free from arbitrary and prolonged detention. 

In order to comply with international human rights obligations, individuals with mental disabilities must be guaranteed the right to counsel in removal proceedings.  Even then, in certain circumstances, if the IJ determines that a respondent with a mental disability cannot explain the reasons against expulsion, even with counsel, the IJ must be empowered to terminate proceedings. 

U.S. immigration law currently provides no right to appointed counsel for individuals with mental disabilities and remains confusingly unclear as to whether and under what circumstances an IJ may terminate proceedings or order a competency evaluation.  Moreover, in the absence of these important safeguards to ensure a fair hearing, many immigration detainees with mental disabilities remain in prolonged detention during their immigration hearings.  Accordingly, U.S. immigration law currently violates international human rights standards. 

If this case is anything like the cases I’ve litigated in the BIA, we won’t have an answer until late 2012, but it will be interesting to see whether the BIA responds in a positive way to the brief.  The power of the BIA is limited, but at a minimum, it could issue guidance about terminating cases where a respondent is unable to defend himself due to a mental disability.  However, my guess is that the laudable goals set out in the brief are above the pay grade of the BIA. 

Continue reading

Third Circuit Grants Relief to Mentally Ill Respondent

by Jason Dzubow

In a long running case that has received attention in the Guyanese press, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reversed the BIA’s denial of Torture Convention relief for a mentally ill man from Guyana. See Soobrian v. Attorney General, Case No. 08-4626 (3rd Cir. July 23, 2010).

Ronald Soobrian came to the United States from Guyana in 1974 as a lawful permanent resident.  He was eight years old.  Over time, he developed a mental illness and was convicted of attempted assault, an aggravated felony, which landed him in removal proceedings.  Mr. Soobrian argued that if he were returned to Guyana, he would face persecution on account of his mental health, his status as a criminal deportee, and his Indo-Guyanese ethnicity.  His conviction made him ineligible for asylum (or any other relief), and so he sought Withholding of Removal and withholding under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).  He also asked for an indefinite continuance so that his competency could be determined. 

The IJ (in York, Pennsylvania) denied the motion for a continuance.  The IJ also denied the application for Withholding of Removal after he found that Mr. Soobrian did not face persecution “on account of” a protected ground.  However, he granted Ms. Soobrian’s application for CAT relief, finding that it was likely that the police would arrest and torture him due to his mental illness.

The BIA affirmed the denial of Withholding, but reversed the CAT grant, holding that there was “no evidence that the authorities intentionally create and maintain poor prison conditions in order to inflict torture.”  Mr. Soobrian filed a Petition for Review in the Third Circuit.  Based on an unopposed motion, the case was remanded “for consideration of whether the class of mentally ill persons is a ‘particular social group’ for purposes of withholding of removal and to clarify the standard of review used to decide whether Soobrian established that he was ‘more likely than not’ to be tortured if removed.”

On remand, the IJ held that “mentally ill persons” could constitute a particular social group.  However, he found that the government of Guyana did not persecute mentally ill people; at worst, the government neglected them due to lack of resources.  He also found no evidence that the government could not or would not protect such people.  As such, he denied Withholding of Removal.  Once again, the IJ found that Mr. Soobrian would face arrest and torture in Guyana, and he granted CAT relief.

On appeal, the BIA again affirmed the IJ’s finding vis-a-vis Withholding of Removal.  The Board did not rule on whether “mentally ill persons” constitute a particular social group.  Instead, the Board found that even if this were a cognizable social group, the evidence did not support a finding that the government persecutes such people on account of their mental illness.  The BIA again reversed the CAT grant, holding under a de novo standard of review that “the evidence was not alone sufficient to demonstrate that his prospective torturer will have the required specific intent of inflicting severe pain or suffering.” 

In his second Petition for Review, Mr. Soobrian raised several issues, including (1) whether the BIA improperly disturbed the IJ’s decision on Mr. Soobrian’s CAT claim by reviewing the factual findings de novo, and (2) whether Mr. Soobrian should have been granted a mental competency evaluation to determine if he understood the nature of the proceedings.

As to the CAT claim, the Third Circuit agreed with Mr. Soobrian and held that the BIA erred when it reviewed that claim de novo.  Whether or not Mr. Soobrian would face torture in Guyana is a mixed question of law and fact.  Under those circumstances, “the BIA must break down the inquiry into its parts and apply the correct standard of review to the respective components.”  Because the Board did not give proper deference to the findings of the IJ, the Court granted Mr. Soobrian’s Petition concerning the CAT claim.

The Court also held that Mr. Soobrian’s due process rights were not violated when the IJ refused him a continuance due to his mental health issues.  The Court reasoned:

Under our immigration laws, there is only a passing reference to an alien’s mental competency at a removal hearing.  If it is impracticable by reason of an alien’s mental incompetency for the alien to be present at the proceeding, the Attorney General shall prescribe safeguards to protect the rights and privileges of the alien.

The Court ultimately found that Mr. Soobrian had received sufficient procedural protections.  In dicta (and relying on a Tenth Circuit decision), the Court also found that “the statute and the regulation facially appear to require no procedural safeguards if an unrepresented, mentally incompetent alien is nevertheless able to be present at his removal proceeding.” 

Fortunately for Mr. Soobrian, his family members were present at the hearing to assist him, and he seems to have been represented by excellent legal counsel.  Most mentally ill respondents will not be so lucky.  For such aliens, the minimalist procedural protections endorsed by the Third Circuit do not bode well.

Continue reading