Los Angeles Times - 29.08.2019

A10 THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2019 LATIMES.COM

and extorted. A number
have died.
In dozens of interviews
and in court proceedings,
current and former officials,
judges, lawyers and advo-
cates for asylum seekers
have said that Homeland
Security officials imple-
menting Remain in Mexico
appear to be violating U.S.
law, and the human cost is
rising.
Testimony from another
dozen asylum seekers con-
firmed that they were being
removed without the safe-
guards provided by U.S. law.
The alleged legal violations
include denying asylum
seekers’ rights and know-
ingly putting them at risk of
physical harm — against
federal regulations and the
Immigration and National-
ity Act, the foundation of the
U.S. immigration system.
U.S. law grants migrants the
right to seek protection in
the United States.
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officers are writ-
ing the phrase “domicilio
conocido,” or “known ad-
dress,” on asylum seekers’
paperwork instead of a le-
gally required address, mak-
ing it nearly impossible for
applicants stuck in Mexico
to be notified of any changes
to their cases or upcoming
court dates. By missing
court hearings, applicants
can be permanently barred
from asylum in the U.S.
Meanwhile, some federal
asylum officers who are con-
vinced they are sending asy-
lum seekers to their deaths
told The Times that they
have refused to implement
the Remain in Mexico policy
at risk of being fired. They
say it violates the United
States’ decades-long legal
obligations to not return
people to persecution.
Officials at Homeland
Security headquarters as
well as Customs and Border
Protection, the agency
charged with primary en-
forcement of the policy, re-
fused repeated requests for
interviews or data on the
policy, citing “law enforce-
ment sensitivity.”
For President Trump,
however, whose political pri-
ority is to restrict even legal
immigration to the United
States, the Remain in Mexi-
co policy has been his single
most successful effort: Just
one asylum seeker subjected
to the policy is known to
have won the ability to stay
in the U.S.
Oswaldo said his family
fled their hometown outside
Guatemala’s capital in Feb-
ruary after his older sons re-
fused to join the MS-13 gang
and members threatened to
kill them. While in Mexico, he
said, police beat and robbed
them, and local gangs tried
to kidnap his 7-year-old
daughter. They rode freight
trains to the U.S. border, Os-
waldo running for the trains
with the baby on his chest in
a bright-pink carrier.
The family claimed asy-
lum in April with U.S. au-
thorities in Calexico, a small
agricultural city in south-
eastern California across
from Mexicali. Officials sent
them back to Mexico, telling
them to report to the border
again a month later and
about 100 miles west, in Ti-
juana. There, they’d be
brought into the U.S. for a
court hearing in San Diego,
then sent back to Tijuana.
Officials separated the case
of Oswaldo’s eldest son, 21,
from the rest of the family’s
case.
“Life was already so diffi-
cult,” Oswaldo said. When
U.S. officials returned them
to Mexico, he said, “it was
hard to take.”
After unveiling the policy
in December, Homeland Se-
curity officials did not push
the first asylum seekers
back to Mexico until Jan. 28,
launching the program in
San Ysidro, south of San
Diego. By the end of March,
they’d expanded the policy
east to El Paso. In May, a fed-
eral appeals court ruled that
the policy could continue
until hearings on its legality
in October. With the court’s
blessing, the administration
expanded the policy to the
rest of the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der, and to any Spanish
speaker, not just Central
Americans. In less than
three months, the number of
removals quadrupled.
In July, U.S. officials be-
gan returning asylum seek-
ers from the rest of Texas to
Nuevo Laredo and then
Matamoros, in the Mexican
state of Tamaulipas.
The State Department
gives Tamaulipas a level 4
“do not travel” warning —
the same as Syria’s.
At least 141 migrants
under the Remain in Mexico

program have become vic-

tims of violence in that coun-

try, according to Human

Rights First, a nonpartisan

advocacy group.

At a media briefing earli-

er this month, Mark Morgan,

the acting head of Customs

and Border Protection, told

The Times, “I would never

participate in something I

thought was illegal.” He add-

ed that the judicial system

would ultimately “deter-

mine the legality” of the pol-

icy.

He said he was unaware

of any incidents in which an

asylum seeker was harmed

under Remain in Mexico,

but he said the U.S. didn’t

track what happened to mi-

grants once they were re-

turned to Mexico. “That’s up

to Mexico,” he said.

Roberto Velasco, spokes-

man for Mexico’s Foreign

Ministry, said the policy was

a “unilateral action” and

that the U.S. was “solely re-

sponsible” for ensuring due

process for asylum seekers

returned to Mexico.

While saying the policy is

for the migrants’ own pro-

tection, Morgan said it was

also intended to deter asy-

lum seekers. He claimed, as

the president often does,

that many asylum appli-

cants had fraudulent cases.

“If you come here with a

kid, it’s not going to be an

automatic passport to the

United States,” Morgan

said. “I’m hoping that that

message will get back.”

In November, the Trump

administration was engaged

in intense negotiations with

Mexico to get them to agree

to take asylum seekers

headed for the U.S. During

that time, administration of-

ficials drafted a pilot Re-

main in Mexico program in

California. In email ex-

changes, the officials struck

key protections for asylum

seekers. But when plans

were leaked, the policy was

put on hold.

In late January, officials

pushed back the first

asylum seekers from San

Ysidro, but it was short-lived

— in April, a federal judge

in San Francisco temporari-

ly blocked Remain in Mexi-

co.

Then, just a few weeks

later, the U.S. 9th Circuit

Court of Appeals allowed

the Trump administration

to resume the policy.

But two of the three

judges raised concerns

about its legality. One judge

said the government’s legal

argument to send migrants

to Mexico was an “impos-

sible” reading of the law.

“The government is

wrong,” the judge wrote.

“Not just arguably wrong,

but clearly and flagrantly

wrong.”

Diana Diaz, 19, is among

the asylum seekers caught

up in the policy’s complex-

ities. She fled El Salvador

last year after a Barrio 18

gang member threatened to

kill her when she refused to

become his girlfriend. A lo-

cal police officer said he’d

protect her but began to ha-

rass her instead, she said.

“He said, ‘I can rape you

— I can do whatever I want

to you — and make it look

like the gangs did this, not

me,’ ” she recounted the po-

lice officer saying.

She crossed alone from

Guatemala into southern

Mexico in November. In Jan-

uary, she arrived in Tijuana

to join thousands of people

waiting at the San Ysidro

port of entry to register asy-

lum claims.

In March, Diaz’s number

finally came up. U.S. officials

brought her into the San

Ysidro entry, took her finger-

prints, asked her a few ques-

tions and then sent her to

the “icebox,” migrants’ term

for U.S. immigration deten-

tion, she said. But shortly af-

ter, Customs and Border of-

ficials took her to the gate

leading back to Tijuana and

gave her a notice to come

back the next month for a

court hearing.

“I can’t go back there —

my life is at risk,” she re-

counted telling them.

She said they told her:

“That’s not my problem any-

more.”

Now, U.S. officials are re-

turning asylum seekers at a

rate of nearly 3,300 a week.

Courtroom battles

Judge Lee O’Connor’s

raised voice ricocheted

through his near-empty

courtroom in San Diego.

“If I were to issue an in ab-

sentia order, where would it

even be served?” O’Connor

asked a Trump administra-

tion lawyer.

“Your honor, on the ad-

dress the court has.”

“The ‘general delivery,’

Baja California, Mexico?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“How is that an ad-

dress?”

“Those are the addresses

I was given,” the government

lawyer responded. “I don’t

know where they came

from.”

Lawyers, advocates, U.S.

asylum officers and judges

see more than just bureau-

cratic dysfunction and

sloppy policymaking —

Trump officials, they say, in-

tended to make it nearly im-

possible to win asylum in the

United States under Re-

main in Mexico.

In the 9th Circuit ruling

in May, one judge said

Homeland Security’s pro-

cedures for implementing

the policy were “so ill-suited

to achieving that stated goal

as to render them arbitrary

and capricious.”

Remain in Mexico has

added to a backlog of more

than 975,000 pending immi-

gration cases. In July, one

out of every four new cases

was assigned to the Remain

in Mexico program.

Sitting behind piles of

paper earlier this summer in

San Diego, O’Connor weigh-

ed the government’s request

to issue removal orders for a

handful of asylum seekers

who hadn’t shown up for

their hearings that day. If

O’Connor ruled in the ad-

ministration’s favor, the de-

cision could bar each appli-

cant from the United States

for at least a decade, if not

permanently.

He launched into the ad-

ministration lawyer, rattling

off a list of legal violations.

The majority of asylum

seekers returned to Mexico

under the policy are origi-

nally from Central America,

and a sizable number speak

only indigenous languages.

But Homeland Security offi-

cials routinely don’t provide

translation or use phone in-

terpreters in removal pro-

ceedings, according to inter-

nal communications ob-

tained by the nonprofit

American Oversight and

shared with The Times.

The Times reviewed a

number of asylum seekers’

paperwork on which Cus-

toms and Border Protection

officers had put incomplete

addresses or provided no

translation. And the free

phone number the govern-

ment provided for appli-

cants to call for updates on

their cases was an 800 num-

ber, which can only be used

from within the United

States.

“There’s some things

that we’re still working

through,” said Sidney Aki, a

CBP official in charge of the

San Ysidro port. He con-

ceded that officers had

made mistakes implement-

ing the policy, saying they

were in uncharted territory.

As of the end of July, only

2,599 Remain in Mexico

cases had been decided,

with another 23,402 cases

pending in immigration

courts across the country —

nearly double the number

from one month earlier, ac-

cording to the Transactional

Records Access Clearing-

house at Syracuse Uni-

versity. At that point, not

one person had won asylum.

O’Connor ordered that

the government’s removal

proceedings against the ab-

sent asylum seekers be ter-

minated. He’s not the only

one; overall, in roughly 60%

of the decisions reached so

far under Remain in Mexico,

immigration judges have

closed the government’s

‘Remain in Mexico’ fails many

[Asylum,from A1]

MIGRANTS HEADto a meal at a shelter in Mexicali, Mexico. They often have no fixed address when they’re turned back from the U.S.

Dania MaxwellLos Angeles Times

FLORIDALMA ORTEGAwaits with two of her four children as her husband,

Oswaldo Ortiz-Luna, tries to sell candy at an intersection in Mexicali, Mexico.

Dania MaxwellLos Angeles Times

[SeeAsylum,A11]

FREDY AUGUSTO BURRIONand son Jhostin, of Guatemala, wait at a shelter

in Juarez after the U.S. returned them to Mexico after they applied for asylum.

Carolyn ColeLos Angeles Times

Brownsville Port

of Entry: 610

San Ysidro

Port of Entry:

820

San Diego Border

Patrol: 5,

Calexico

Port of Entry:

155

El Paso

Port of Entry:

1,

El Centro

Border Patrol:

5,

Laredo

Port of Entry:

751

El Paso Border

Patrol: 12,

Laredo Border

Patrol: 4,

Rio Grande Valley

Border Patrol: 2,

CALIFORNIA

BAJA

CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

SONORA

CHIHUAHUA

COAHUILA

NUEVO

LEÓN

TAMAULIPAS

NEW MEXICO

TEXAS

U.S.

MEXICO

Source: Department of Homeland Security Thomas Suh Lauder Los Angeles Times

Totals from Jan. 28 through Aug. 18.

Asylum seekers returned to Mexico along the border