board

Mounting Legal ⁤Challenge to Trump-Era “No Bond” Policy for‌ Immigrants

A recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ​(BIA) has solidified a Trump administration policy of mandatory detention for immigrants,⁢ sparking a legal battle over due process and judicial‌ discretion. The policy, initially implemented through a July memo, removes the ability of immigration judges to grant bond to individuals facing deportation, effectively mandating⁤ detention throughout their removal ⁣proceedings.

The‍ BIA ruling⁣ stemmed from the case of a Venezuelan immigrant ⁣who initially qualified ⁣for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) ⁢but lost⁢ that status after the Trump‍ administration terminated the programme – a decision currently being challenged in court. The board resolute that individuals “present in the united States without admission” must be detained for the⁤ entirety of their legal proceedings. This interpretation equates​ long-term‌ U.S. residents wiht those recently crossing the border, possibly​ leading to swift deportation without⁤ the opportunity for release on bond.

The‌ policy’s impact is already being⁤ felt.Advocates report that individuals with no criminal record, consistent compliance with⁣ ICE check-ins, and even pregnant ​or breastfeeding⁢ women are being subjected to mandatory detention.

The Department of Homeland security (DHS) celebrated the BIA decision, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin calling it a “big win” for ‌ICE attorneys, enabling them to detain individuals until deportation. though, legal experts and ​advocates argue the ruling severely restricts judicial discretion. Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former ICE official, explained‍ that the decision essentially ⁤gives ICE sole authority to determine who is released ‌from detention if they entered​ the​ country illegally.The​ policy is facing legal challenges, including a class-action‌ lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court⁣ for the Central district of California. The lawsuit argues ⁣the no-bond ‍policy ‌violates federal statutes and constitutionally protected ⁣due process rights, citing previous rulings by ‌federal judges who found bond denials unlawful.

The implementation⁣ of this ​policy coincides with broader changes within the immigration‍ court system. These include the firing of⁢ judges and the Pentagon’s identification of military lawyers and judges to temporarily serve on the bench, ​all occurring amidst increased funding for immigration detention and ​enforcement authorized by Congress.

The ⁣case of “Z,” a mother of two U.S. citizen children who⁢ has lived in the U.S. for two ​decades, ⁤exemplifies the ​policy’s consequences. ‍She was arrested during a raid in Los⁤ Angeles County – home to an estimated 1 million undocumented⁤ immigrants – while receiving treatment ⁢for breast cancer. Initially denied bond and ⁢forced to interrupt ‍her medical care, she was eventually⁢ released after a habeas case was filed. Advocates like those at the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJIC) report increasingly “horrific” detention conditions and a deliberate effort to discourage individuals from fighting their cases. ‌

Unless overturned by the federal circuit court,the BIA’s decision will remain​ the “law of the land,” according to attorneys,further solidifying the ‌Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.