SFILDC First Annual Activity Report January December 2015 WHAT WE DO The San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative (SFILDC) provides immigration legal defense to recently arrived children and families in removal proceedings in the San Francisco Immigration Court. The SFILDC was formed in response to the record levels of children and families from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico who entered the United States fleeing violence, abuse, and neglect. The SFILDC identifies San Francisco residents in need of representation through the Attorney of the Day program administered by the Bar Association of San Francisco, and through walk- ins to the partner community- based organizations. The SFILDC works collaboratively to coordinate, screen, and connect clients in need of pro bono representation with community- based and private attorneys, and social services. The SFILDC coordinates legal round- tables where experts and new staff attorneys from partner organizations discuss legal cases, address strategies and challenges, and leverage collective knowledge. The SFILDC is funded by the City and County of San Francisco s (CCSF) budget supplemental through the Mayor s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD). WHO WE ARE The SFILDC is a unique collaboration of immigration legal experts and pro bono attorneys, which includes community- based legal organizations (CBOs); law school academia; technical assistance organizations; policy and research institutions; The Bar Association of San Francisco; private sector attorneys and law firms; and the City and County of San Francisco. The SFILDC Grant- Funded Partners : 1. Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach (APILO) 1
2. Bar Association of San Francisco *Legal Lead 3. Central American Resource Center of Northern California (CARECEN) *Fiscal Lead 4. Center for Gender and Refugee Services (CGRS) *Technical assistance 5. Dolores Street Community Services 6. Immigration Center for Women & Children (ICWC) 7. Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) * Technical assistance 8. La Raza Centro Legal 9. La Raza Community Resource Center 10. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR) 11. Legal Services for Children (LSC) 12. Pangea Legal Services 13. University of San Francisco Law School, Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic MOHCD GRANT DELIVERABLES AND LEVERAGED SERVICES Connecting 400 families/unaccompanied children (UC) to high quality, pro bono, culturally and linguistically appropriate immigration legal services Coordinating intake, case tracking, and referral systems to community- based organizations and private sector pro bono legal representation Developing collaborative pro bono recruitment, training and mentoring system Coordinating information sharing between collaborative members, other CBOs, and CCSF departments to maximize connection to holistic services for children and families Case stories Sara is an 18- year- old from Honduras. Sara s father disappeared when she was a child, leaving her mother to care for her and her many siblings alone. The family suffered in abject poverty for many years. When Sara reached her teen years, she began to receive threats from gang members hoping to recruit her. Sara fled to the U.S. She came to APILO just one month before her 18th birthday. With APILO s help, she obtained guardianship and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status findings in San Francisco Probate Court. She was granted lawful permanent residency in September 2015. Alma* is a 16- year- old girl from El Salvador who was beaten up every week by her father. Sometimes he hit her so hard with his belt that her back started bleeding. Alma was able to escape her father s abuse and come to the U.S., but she was put into deportation proceedings. Pangea helped her apply for asylum and win her case. Ever since getting her papers, Alma has been able to focus better in school, and she has more time and energy to participate in her school s soccer team. In July 2014, two young brothers arrived at the office of Dolores Street Community Services seeking representation after receiving a notice to appear before an Immigration Judge in 10 days. One of the brothers was strong enough to share his story before City Hall that summer.. Because of the SFILDC funding, DSCS was able to successfully represent this client and 2
his brother in their immigration proceedings. He was recently granted asylum and the other brother has been granted a conditional grant of asylum. The two brothers also have another sibling who is Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) eligible but is not in proceedings and entered before January 1, 2014. As a result, he does not qualify for SFILDC funding. For months, DSCS has been struggling to try and find representation for him. DSCS is still currently looking. MILESTONES (January December 2015 [AS3] ) Direct, full- scope representation of approximately 394 San Francisco residents by the 1 SFILDC community- based organizations or pro bono counsel : Of these 394 cases, approximately 347 residents are being represented by the SFILDC agencies, and 29 cases have been connected to pro bono attorneys (and 18 cases are yet to be determined). Of the 394 cases, approximately 177 are male, 193 female, and 24 have missing data points for gender. Of the total caseload, there are/were approximately 216 applications for asylum, 69 applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), 42 applications for U (victims of crime) visas, 6 applications for T (trafficking) visas, 2 applications under the VAWA), 4 applications for withholding of removal, and 53 whose potential form of relief is still being determined or is unrecorded. Two clients also left the U.S. voluntarily. To date, approximately 38 cases have been resolved. We have obtained asylum for at least 21 minors, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (and green cards in some cases) for at least 8 other minors, and obtained asylum in Immigration Court for 2 clients. Coordinated intake and referral procedures: Based on detailed intakes conducted at Court, the SFILDC created a referral procedure to efficiently identify and distribute San Francisco cases among the 10 2 SFILDC community organizations. Cases are placed with each organization based on the organization s expertise and availability. Some cases involve two agencies if it involves multiple areas of expertise and/or needs more time than one agency can offer at a particular time. Rapid creation and staffing of an Attorney of the Day (AOD) Program for the surge dockets at the Immigration Court: 1 These numbers are based on our LawLogix database informaiton and are approximate as client data is constantly being collected and updated by agencies. 2 To the extent that services are available, this process also serves to match other respondents to legal service providers in other counties in Northern California as well. 3
The purpose of the AOD program is to ensure that no one appears before the judge without an attorney, and to coordinate referrals to community- based organizations for legal representation. This AOD program is special among Immigration Courts around the country and has been specifically tailored to the unique needs of the surge dockets. Between March 2015 to January 21, 2016 alone, there were approximately 513 3 status hearings at the San Francisco Immigration Court. Between March 2015 to January 21, 2016 alone, BASF scheduled approximately 576 AOD appearances by attorneys who are members of the SFILDC organizations, other nonprofits, and private practitioners. Collective advocacy, in particular around the the use of ankle shackles of surge dockets families: SFILDC has worked closely with other regional partners to engage in collective advocacy. In particular, a key issue has been the widespread use of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) for families on the surge docket. ISAP involves placing electronic monitoring devices (ankle shackles) on adult family members as well as extensive in- person, telephonic, and home reporting with ISAP and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, which is overly burdensome and misplaced for this population which consists predominantly of asylum seekers. This program was created as an alternative to detention, but these families are neither flight risks nor dangers to the community, and are cooperating with their immigration proceedings. The ISAP policies and practices are also unclear, inconsistently applied, and needlessly burdensome. ISAP advocacy with the local ICE office: SFILDC has been engaging in intensive advocacy with the local ICE office to contest the arbitrary and needless placement of surge docket adults on ISAP, demand clear and fair ISAP rules, and demand oversight of the local ISAP office. As a result of these efforts, in January 2016, the local ICE office issued some changes and clarifications to its ISAP policies. It seems a sentence here about what improved might be good to include? ISAP Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request : In an effort to obtain more information about the ISAP program and put pressure on ICE to change and clarify its ISAP policies, SFILDC and local regional partners filed a FOIA request in July 2015. ICE released some documents in response in November 2015. An administrative appeal contesting the inadequate response is now pending. School Outreach, Relationship- Building, and Advocacy with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) : Over the past year, SFILDC has developed a strong relationship with the SFUSD and its Caminos Program for newcomer students throughout the school 3 These dates are those for which SFILDC has the most reliable data for the numbers of dockets and AODs. 4
4 district. The Program Coordinator of the Caminos Program regularly refers students and parents who appear eligible for SFILDC services to BASF. In the past year, SFILDC attorneys and partners have also conducted two workshops at the schools, one for educators and one for newcomer parents, where they distributed informational materials and conducted an advice clinic. SFILDC has also collaborated with the school district in advocating to ICE about the difficulties faced by students and their parents on the ISAP program. Ongoing access to cutting- edge and nationally- renowned technical assistance (TA):. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), Center for Gender and Refugee Services (CGRS), and SFILDC s Lead Attorney all provide free technical assistance to members of the Collaborative in the form of webinars, in- person trainings, individual phone calls and review of declarations and filings. The ILRC and CGRS are nationally- renowned organizations recognized as leaders in immigration, asylum and refugee law, and the Lead Attorney has over 10 years experience in removal defense litigation at all levels. Coordinated legal strategy and resource sharing, and increasing deportation defense experience, between SFILDC organizations and other regional organizations and private practitioners throughout Northern California Regular SFILDC case review roundtables and multiple subcommittee meetings Regular activity on SFILDC- wide Google groups listserv to discuss strategy and issues that arise in individual cases as well as broader issues that impact the SFILDC client population in general Website for shared templates, practice advisories and country condition information ( www.sfbar.org/sfildc ) All advocates working on surge docket cases before the San Francisco Immigration Court are invited to participate in SFILDC roundtables, listserve, collective advocacy and in the AOD program. TRENDS SFILDC partners have identified the following concerning trends that negatively impact the legal cases as well as the physical and emotional well- being of children and families awaiting resolution on their immigration cases. The numbers of children and families fleeing the humanitarian crisis in Central America and Mexico remain high and may even be increasing : According to news reports in November 2015, nearly 5,000 unaccompanied immigrant children were caught unlawfully crossing the U.S. border with Mexico in October, almost double the number from October 2014, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. Also, according to the same CBP data, the number of family members crossing together nearly tripled from October 2014 4 For a description of the Caminos Program, please see http://www.healthiersf.org/news/undocumentednewcomer.php. 5
from 2,162 to 6,029. The new flows here are smaller than the surge in the summer of 2014, but come after a year of declines in crossings across the 5 southwest border. The data shows that California and the San Francisco Immigration Court are facing the challenge of respondents: Among the states in the US, it appears that California is the second most common destination for families and unaccompanied children (who, defined as juveniles, may or may not be part of the surge). The first most common destination appears to be in Texas. 6 Within California, most adults with children on the surge dockets appear to be coming to the San Francisco Immigration Court jurisdiction (compared to Los 7 Angeles and San Diego Immigration Court jurisdictions). However, it appears as if the Los Angeles Immigration Court has jurisdiction over most of the juveniles (who may or may not be part of the surge), and that most unaccompanied 8 children are released to sponsors in Los Angeles County. Within the Bay Area, the most recent data regarding unaccompanied minors shows that, in fiscal year 2014, 261 UCs were released to sponsors in San 9 Francisco County, and in fiscal year 2015, 138 UCs settled in San Francisco 10 County. The numbers of unaccompanied children is less in San Francisco County than in other Northern California counties. The number of dockets being scheduled at the Immigration Court is increasing and straining AOD and Court resources. In January 2016, the Immigration Court scheduled 57 surge docket master calendar hearings, and there are 55 hearings scheduled for February so far. 5 Seth Robbins, Thousands of Children Crossed- US Mexico Border in October, Associated Press, Nov. 25, 2015, available at *; Julia Preston, Number of Migrants Illegally Crossing Rio Grande, New York Times (Nov. 26, 2015), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/us/number- of- migrants- illegally- crossing- rio- grande- r ises- sharply.html?_r=2. 6 http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile/ 7 The most recent data about adults with children available from December 2015 shows that there have been 7,254 cases involving adults with children cases on the surge dockets of the San Francisco Immigration Court since July 2014, of which 5,743 cases remain pending. In comparison, Los Angeles Immigration Court had 5338 priority case of adults with children, whereas San Diego recorded less than 100. http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mwc/. 8 http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile/ ; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/unaccompanied- children- released- to- sponsors- by- county- fy15. ; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/unaccompanied- children- released- to- sponsors- by- county- fy14 9 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/unaccompanied-children-released-to-sponsors-by -county-fy14. 10 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/unaccompanied- children- released- to- sponso rs- by- county- fy15 (As a comparson, Alameda County had 295, Los Angeles County had 1598) 6
These are among the highest numbers of monthly dockets ever scheduled for the Court, including during the first months of the surge. As a result, the current numbers of AODs are at capacity.. Moreover, the Court is at capacity in terms of space, which makes it difficult to conduct confidential intakes, and in providing time during hearings for sufficient intakes and advisals. BASF continues to collaborate with the court on ways to improve the situation. Legal representation makes an enormous difference in case outcomes. According to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan organization, r esults continue to show that the single most important factor in determining outcome is whether or not these individuals are represented in their court proceedings. For cases concluded thus far, the odds of being allowed to remain in this country were increased more than fourteen- fold when 11 women and children had representation. In January 2016, TRAC data showed that of 7253 cases in the San Francisco Immigration Court, 3820 have been or are represented and 3433 are not or were 12 not represented. Of those who were not represented, 2611 cases remain pending, 683 persons were ordered deported, 9 sought voluntary departure, and 81 were granted 13 relief, termination of their cases or some other form of closure. Of those who were represented, 3132 cases remain pending, 97 have received a removal order, 2 have taken voluntary departure, and 589 were granted relief (323), closed (159), proceedings terminated (81), or granted prosecutorial discretion (26). According to TRAC data, between July 2014 - December 2015, the San Francisco Immigration Court issued 780 removal orders. Of those respondents ordered 14 removed, 88% (or 683) were not represented. The SFILDC is now at capacity and has a waitlist. Similarly, all non- profits serving recent arrivals in the San Francisco Immigration Court s jurisdiction - whether federally, state, or county- funded - are at capacity. 11 See http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/396/ ( Of the 12,266 Immigration Court cases that have been closed without representation as of June 2015, only 2.3 percent were allowed to remain in the country while in 97.7 percent of the cases, the immigration judge issued a deportation order. In contrast, for the 2,003 closed cases having representation, one third (32.9%) were allowed to remain in the country and two thirds (67.1%) received a deportation order.) 12 See http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mwc/. 13 http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mwc/ 14 http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/410/. 7
The federal government continues to remain punitive towards recent arrivals, and has begun conducting raids to deport persons with removal orders without recognition of the due process violations they may have suffered in their immigration proceedings. So far, no raids have been held in San Francisco, but raids and the threat of raids create fear in local communities, regardless of their scope. SFILDC agencies have responded to many community member calls, including parents who feared bringing their children to school due to news of ICE raids targeting recently arrived children and families. The federal government has also proposed plans to increase refugee processing outside of the United States, but the ultimate scope and success of these new programs is uncertain. Family separation re- traumatizes recent arrivals : In many cases, when a family is apprehended at the border, one parent, often the father in the family, is kept in detention near the border while the other parent is released with the minor children. This impacts the family s legal case, their economic stability, and their emotional well- being. Children and families are struggling to remain in their San Francisco housing. The pressures on families who host recent migrant arrivals are tremendous, especially when the host family member(s) may already be living in poverty and grappling with multiple barriers to self- sufficiency, such as unstable housing, unemployment, and their own immigration status. As a result, some host families decide that they cannot continue to house relatives and therefore, the children and families fall into homelessness or are forced to move between multiple homes. The definition of San Francisco resident for purposes of the SFILDC grant limits children s and families options in looking for long term housing if they are unable to remain in their original San Francisco home. Children and families risk losing representation if they move outside of San Francisco (are we wanting to represent that we discontinue representation through SFILDC if a family moves out of county to increase pressure to relax this limitation, officially?), as the access to representation in other Northern California counties is significantly lower than in San Francisco. However, the housing crisis in San Francisco makes it impossible for children and families to find affordable housing if they cannot remain with relatives or friends. Family reunification for unaccompanied minors presents many challenges. Children who are reunified with parents in the United States after years of separation are struggling to integrate in the family. Some other children are placed with sponsors whom they had never met. In some cases, placements have resulted in domestic violence, child sex abuse, isolation, extreme poverty, trafficking and poor health. In some cases this process has increased the level of trauma for children who were fleeing already traumatic situations. 8
Children and families are grappling with extreme trauma and are facing a lack of affordable and accessible social services. Mental health services are critical for the well being of the children and families as well as for the success of their immigration cases. To the extent possible, SFILDC attorneys are actively collaborating with and connecting families to critical safety net services in addition to making referrals for legal services. Lack of funding for services for detained recent arrivals (especially single adults or unaccompanied children) whose cases are under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Immigration Court but who do not have a residence in San Francisco. Lack of services (representation?)for persons outside of the immediate Bay Area. Issues in legal cases may require more specialized country condition evidence, which requires money for experts. The AOD program will require more resources to manage identification and intake of recent arrivals in San Francisco Immigration Court eligible for assistance through the SFILDC PRO BONO ENGAGEMENT SFILDC is leveraging the knowledge of organizational partners with established pro bono programs that have tools and programs designed to recruit, train, connect, and mentor private sector pro bono attorneys and law firms. Legal Services for Children, Lawyer s Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), and Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach (APILO), along with BASF, are recruiting and placing cases with private sector pro bono counsel. So far *27? cases have been placed with pro bono private counsel. Most (or all*) of these cases are cases involving unaccompanied minors applying for asylum before the Asylum Office or for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status before the state courts and USCIS. Private firms have also supported the efforts of SFILDC in other ways: Many private attorneys have dedicated countless hours of pro bono service as Attorneys of the Day on the surge docket. Attorneys from Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP have shared written templates and their expertise at meetings, on the list serve and through individual case questions. Keker & Van Nest funds and provides the printing of all written materials distributed at the Immigration Court for recent arrivals. LawLogix, a private company, has generously provided an abbreviated version of its immigration case management software to SFILDC to keep track of clients and coordinate the various agency caseloads. 9
CONTACT & FOR MORE INFORMATION Lariza Dugan Cuadra, Executive Director CARECEN lariza@carecensf.org Central American Resource Center (SFILDC fiscal and grant compliance lead) Avantika Shastri, SFILDC Lead Attorney ashastri@sfbar.org The Bar Association of San Francisco (SFILDC legal lead) 10