Posted by permission of the author.
By Nick Braune
Mid-Valley Town Crier
Last week I reported the visit of Jay Johnson-Castro, protesting Raymondville’s detention facility for immigrants. This week he was in Northern Texas, drawing attention to another private facility, Rolling Plains in Haskell. I’ll briefly tell you about one detainee there, a woman whom Jay and others have been hoping to free.
A 21-year-old, Suzi Hazahza, along with her father, mother, and several siblings, were ordered out of their home, at gunpoint, just before the November election. They were handcuffed and taken away; half were sent to Rolling Plains and half to another center. The beautiful young woman was very frightened and clearly mistreated. Although she has a chance of getting out in May, she is still being held.
Why did the government go after this family with guns drawn? Was the family engaged in terrorism, robbery, drug smuggling? No. The family had simply missed an appointment. But Suzi’s parents said they never knew about the appointment.
With the Hazahza case on my mind, I re-interviewed Harlingen’s Jodi Goodwin who is board certified, practicing Immigration and Nationality Law.
Author: I have read that authorities in the Hazahza case admitted they couldn’t prove a letter had been sent to her family requesting an appointment. It had not been sent return-receipt requested, no one could produce affidavits from personnel that it had been sent, and there were no service documents. Are immigration officials often that careless with important paperwork?
Goodwin: Indeed the non-receipt of such important documents as appointment letters, work authorization documents and even permanent resident cards is a great problem as they always go regular mail. Many times my clients don’t receive their documents properly, even receiving interview notices days, weeks, and sometimes months after the supposed appointment. I have always wondered why Immigration puts so much faith in regular mail with such important items.
Author: Suzi Hazahza’s supporters reported that the judge’s face showed “anguish” when he discovered he could not rule on her improper detention. There’s a new rule preventing the judge from acting in her kind of case until six full months of detention has passed. Are there lots of rules or provisos with such an ad hoc, apparently sadistic, side, and strange enough that they would make an honest observer feel anguish?
Goodwin: Thanks to such brilliant legislation as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the Patriot Act and Real ID, immigrants’ rights to redress in Federal Courts is extremely limited and in some cases non-existent. Even the Great Writ, habeas corpus, which has not been suspended since the Civil War, has been suspended for immigrants. There are only very narrow exceptions to the suspension of the Great Writ for immigrants. So, the short answer to the question is: Yes, there are a lot of rules, provisos, statutes, regulations, policies and practices that are ad hoc, sadistic and strange enough that an honest observer would feel anguish.
Author: I am also concerned about Suzi Hazahza’s seventeen-year-old brother, Ahmed. In general, how well are juveniles handled and are the best interests of children being served?
Goodwin: Juveniles are generally treated as adults as far as immigration proceedings are concerned. There are no special rules in immigration court for children; however, many judges try to make the proceedings less formal. Detention of juveniles is a touchy subject because there are many different ways the Department of Homeland Security detains children. Some are placed in foster care, some in group homes, some in converted prisons, and in the case of Ahmed, in solitary confinement because ICE “inadvertently” placed him, a seventeen-year-old, in an adult facility. The level of care and concern for the “best interest of the child” is almost absent. There is no provision for ad litem attorneys or guardians for the children in immigration detention. Children from two to seventeen are treated the same. How in the world can two-year-olds appear in immigration court and be able to express to the judge what they want to do in their cases?
Author: The editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review (online) recently wrote that Homeland Security has pulled loose from Constitutional moorings. “It’s a pirate operation unto itself.” Any comments?
Goodwin: Although I have not used the terms mentioned, I would definitely agree the Department of Homeland Security has a much different view of the Constitution than I do.
Author: In your practice with immigration and nationality law, has there been one case of injustice that has particularly saddened and angered you?
Goodwin: I am saddened and angered on a daily basis. To choose one case would be impossible. The cases that affect me most are generally those cases dealing with abuse victims, children, and men and women who have served in the military during times of war being deported.
Author: Thank you for your time and your work.
MoPress 