Diaspora

Biden Administration Haiti Deportation Policy on Shaky Ground – Just Security

by
November 1, 2022
, , , ,
by
November 1, 2022
The United States recently sought support from the U.N. Security Council for an armed intervention in Haiti to end what U.S. ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield has described as a situation of total chaos in the country. And yet U.S. officials seem unwilling to concede that deporting Haitian citizens to that same chaos—rampant gang violence that has been escalating for years, disastrous food and fuel shortages, a resurgent cholera epidemic—might be, to put it mildly, a moral failure. This disconnect between the Biden administration’s recognition of the dire conditions in Haiti and its failure to acknowledge the difficulties those conditions pose for deported Haitians became more pronounced this summer with reports that Haitian officials were essentially holding deportees for ransom in the national penitentiary. More than an accent note on a broader hypocrisy, this last detail has opened up the Biden administration to serious legal challenges that put the removal of certain categories of Haitians on unstable legal ground.
In the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides various forms of humanitarian protection from removal, some discretionary, some not. Asylum is perhaps the most familiar example. Haitians have long fared poorly when it comes to asylum in the United States, ranking lowest in terms of grant rates over the past four years, a period marked by increasing politicized violence in Haiti and the assassination of the Haitian president. For those Haitians with a criminal record in the United States, the possibility of securing relief from removal is even more challenging, especially for those convicted of offenses that render them ineligible for asylum.
For noncitizens unable to seek asylum due to their convictions, it is the Convention Against Torture (CAT) that provides one of the primary forms of relief. Signed by the United States in 1988 and incorporated into U.S. law through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, the CAT allows immigration tribunals and courts to grant respondents in removal proceedings either withholding or deferral of removal, the latter for individuals convicted of what the INA refers to as a “particularly serious crime.” To successfully pursue a CAT claim, a respondent must demonstrate it is more likely than not that they will be subject to severe physical or mental pain and suffering by or with the acquiescence of a state official. CAT relief does not bestow one with a permanent status, but if you are, let’s say, a Haitian citizen who faces torture on your return to Haiti and your past convictions bar you from receiving asylum, CAT withholding or deferral of removal offers a reprieve of last resort, one that, in practice, typically lasts indefinitely.
Over the past two and a half decades or so, a body of U.S. legal doctrine interpreting the relevance of the CAT to Haitian withholding and deferral of removal cases emerged as the result of the Haitian government’s policy of detaining certain so-called “criminal deportees” on arrival, including those with minor convictions. Deportees have been held in the national penitentiary, in provincial prisons, and in police station holding cells. Attorneys for Haitians facing detention have argued that the ghastly conditions amounted to torture and therefore triggered the CAT’s mandatory removal protections.
Given that Haitians have not found much success before U.S. immigration courts generally and that formerly incarcerated immigrants are often considered the least sympathetic and the least deserving of protection by the public at large, it may be unsurprising the results of these CAT claims have been mixed. Among the impediments that have made this an uphill battle are the specific technical legal criteria of the CAT itself, the most challenging being the Senate’s resolution—upon its ratification of the Convention—incorporating the “understanding” that an act had to be “specifically intended” to inflict “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” in order to constitute torture. This meant, for example, that if the purpose of detaining deportees with criminal convictions was to reduce crime in Haiti and not to cause the detainee suffering—the suffering being an unfortunate byproduct of inadequate resources devoted to prisoner care—then the requirements of protection under the CAT would not be met. While courts have acknowledged the abysmal conditions deportees would face if detained, they have also found them to be unintended and thus legally irrelevant. Many a claim failed as a result of this specific intent requirement.
In some instances, though, Haitians with criminal convictions were able to distinguish themselves from what we might call the “generic” deportee by pointing out particular characteristics that would lead to them being singled out, not just for detention but for physical attacks at the hands of prison guards or police. Such distinguishing factors might include a history of mental illness or other medical conditions that were more likely than not to progress in a way that resembled mental illness, thereby provoking guards to respond with beatings and other forms of physical abuse severe enough to meet the requirements of the CAT. Over time, immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted relief in these types of cases, creating a body of shadow law through unpublished opinions in the process.
The length of detention for Haitian deportees waxed and waned over the decades. Eventually, the duration of this ostensibly preventive confinement became relatively short. And then this summer, reports started emerging of Haitians with criminal convictions being thrown into Haiti’s national penitentiary for months at a time after being processed by authorities.
While groups working with deportees have documented instances in which Haitian officials offered to release them in exchange for money in the past, reporting suggests the current practice looks more like a full-fledged ransom operation, a turn of events not entirely unexpected given the blurred lines between the government and criminal gangs these days, the latter frequently operating as kidnapping enterprises in and around the capital. The turn toward these ransom tactics mean that Haitian officials extorting money from deportees have, in short, weaponized prison conditions, forcing removed Haitians, many of whom have spent the majority of their life in the United States, to experience the lack of food, the lack of potable water, the intense heat and humidity, the lack of light, the growing spread of cholera, the vulnerability to beatings, and the cramped conditions—prisoners often have to sleep on top of one another—in order to get their families to pay up and end the suffering.
These “official” kidnappings have thrown the legality of removals of Haitians with criminal convictions into question. Given that it is extortion that appears to be driving the detention, that the appearance of cholera in the penitentiary has raised the stakes of confinement, and that there is a nexus between the demand for ransom payments and the agony of those detained, attorneys are undoubtedly making arguments that these shakedown plots depend on the specifically intended infliction of pain through detention. It’s a plausible pathway to overcome the barriers imposed by the CAT’s specific intent requirement, and those pursuing it are likely to find a receptive audience among at least some adjudicators.
Certainly, the Biden administration could let this all play out quietly in the administrative tribunals and the courts in an attempt to deny Republicans another immigration-themed talking point. And sure, some Haitians with sophisticated lawyers able to secure expert affidavits as to conditions in Haiti may fare well with their CAT claims. But the vast majority of Haitians being removed for past criminal convictions will not have access to counsel, and mounting a complicated CAT argument will be a longshot.
Given how few individuals will be able to access protection under the CAT, the correct moral and legal response to this hostage taking is as obvious as the hypocrisy at the heart of current U.S. immigration policy toward Haitians: the Biden administration should put a hold on removals for all Haitians facing extortion, suffering, and even death if returned to Haiti. This is a modest proposal, and one not meant to substitute for other, more sweeping, but no less compelling, demands currently being made with regard to U.S. immigration policy toward Haitians. Still, it behooves us all to point out that the administration should heed its own advice with regard to the severity of the situation in Haiti and that it should take seriously the legal consequences the deteriorating situation in the country entails, even if those whose lives are at stake are too often deemed to be undeserving insofar as the protections of U.S. immigration law are concerned.
, , , ,
All-source, public repository of congressional hearing transcripts, government agency documents, digital forensics, social media analysis, public opinion surveys, empirical research, more.
by
Nov 2nd, 2022
by
Nov 1st, 2022
by
Oct 31st, 2022
by
Oct 27th, 2022
by
Oct 25th, 2022
by
Oct 24th, 2022
by
Oct 21st, 2022
by
Oct 20th, 2022
by
Oct 18th, 2022
by
Oct 17th, 2022
by
Oct 14th, 2022
by
Oct 11th, 2022
by
Oct 10th, 2022
by
Oct 7th, 2022
by and
Oct 6th, 2022
by and
Oct 6th, 2022
by
Oct 5th, 2022
by
Oct 5th, 2022
by
Oct 4th, 2022
by and
Sep 29th, 2022
by
Sep 26th, 2022
by
Sep 26th, 2022
by and
Sep 26th, 2022
by
Sep 24th, 2022
by
Sep 23rd, 2022
by
Sep 23rd, 2022
by and
Sep 23rd, 2022
by and
Sep 22nd, 2022
by , and
Sep 21st, 2022
by
Sep 21st, 2022
by
Sep 20th, 2022
by
Sep 20th, 2022
by
Sep 20th, 2022
by
Sep 20th, 2022
by
Sep 19th, 2022
by
Sep 16th, 2022
by
Sep 14th, 2022
by
Sep 13th, 2022
by
Sep 12th, 2022
by
Sep 10th, 2022
by
Sep 9th, 2022
by and
Sep 8th, 2022
by
Sep 8th, 2022
by and
Sep 7th, 2022
by , and
Sep 6th, 2022
by
Sep 3rd, 2022
by
Sep 2nd, 2022
by
Sep 1st, 2022
by
Aug 31st, 2022
by
Aug 30th, 2022
by
Aug 29th, 2022
by
Aug 29th, 2022
by
Aug 28th, 2022
by
Aug 27th, 2022
by and
Aug 26th, 2022
by
Aug 25th, 2022
by
Aug 24th, 2022
by
Aug 24th, 2022
by
Aug 24th, 2022
by
Aug 23rd, 2022
by
Aug 22nd, 2022
by
Aug 20th, 2022
by and
Aug 19th, 2022
by
Aug 18th, 2022
by
Aug 18th, 2022
by and
Aug 17th, 2022
by
Aug 16th, 2022
by and
Aug 16th, 2022
by
Aug 16th, 2022
by
Aug 16th, 2022
by and
Aug 15th, 2022
by
Aug 13th, 2022
by
Aug 12th, 2022
by and
Aug 12th, 2022
by
Aug 11th, 2022
by , and
Aug 9th, 2022
by
Aug 9th, 2022
by
Aug 8th, 2022
by
Aug 4th, 2022
by
Jul 30th, 2022
by
Jul 29th, 2022
by and
Jul 28th, 2022
by
Jul 25th, 2022
by
Jul 23rd, 2022
by
Jul 23rd, 2022
by , , , , , , and
Jul 21st, 2022
by
Jul 21st, 2022
by and
Jul 20th, 2022
by
Jul 19th, 2022
by
Jul 19th, 2022
by , , , , , , , and
Jul 18th, 2022
by
Jul 18th, 2022
by
Jul 16th, 2022
by
Jul 15th, 2022
by and
Jul 14th, 2022
by
Jul 13th, 2022
by and
Jul 13th, 2022
by
Jul 12th, 2022
by , and
Jul 11th, 2022
by
Jul 8th, 2022
by , , , , , and
Nov 19th, 2021
by , and
Sep 29th, 2022
by and
Mar 24th, 2022
by
Feb 18th, 2022
by
Jan 24th, 2022
by , , , and
Jan 20th, 2022
by , and
Oct 29th, 2021
by
Sep 13th, 2021
by , and
Sep 7th, 2021
by
Jul 19th, 2021
by
Jun 30th, 2021
by and
Jun 14th, 2021
by and
Jun 1st, 2021
by
May 29th, 2021
by
Feb 1st, 2021
by and
Nov 16th, 2020
by , , and
Nov 10th, 2020
by , , and
Oct 14th, 2020
by and
Oct 12th, 2020
by , and
Sep 11th, 2020
by
Jul 13th, 2020
by
Oct 21st, 2020
by and
May 27th, 2020
by and
Sep 12th, 2019
by
Jan 28th, 2019
by
Oct 25th, 2018
by
Jun 7th, 2022
by , and
Aug 29th, 2021
by and
Aug 8th, 2021
by and
May 11th, 2021
by
Feb 10th, 2021
by , and
Jan 11th, 2021
by and
Nov 3rd, 2020
by
Aug 24th, 2020
by and
Jul 27th, 2020
by and
Mar 11th, 2020
Jeffrey S. Kahn is a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Davis, and author of Islands of Sovereignty: Haitian Migration and the Borders of Empire.
Send A Letter To The Editor
by
Oct 24th, 2022
by , and
Oct 19th, 2022
by
Oct 14th, 2022
by and
Oct 6th, 2022
by and
Oct 5th, 2022
by
Oct 4th, 2022
by
Sep 30th, 2022
by
Sep 28th, 2022
by
Sep 28th, 2022
by
Sep 27th, 2022
by
Sep 21st, 2022
by and
Sep 8th, 2022
Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.

source

What's your reaction?

Excited
0
Happy
0
In Love
0
Not Sure
0
Silly
0

You may also like

More in:Diaspora

Comments are closed.