July 27, 2015
Sarah Saldaña
Director
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Department of Homeland Security
500 12th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20536
Dear Director Saldaña:
The undersigned organizations, which jointly provide legal services to mothers and children
detained in Dilley and Karnes, Texas, through the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project
(“CARA”), write to raise urgent concerns regarding recent release practices at the South Texas
Family Residential Facility in Dilley, Texas, and at the Karnes County Residential Center in
Karnes City, Texas. We welcome your agency’s recent announcement that Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) “will generally not detain mothers with children, absent a threat to
public safety or national security, if they have received a positive finding for credible or
reasonable fear and the individual has provided a verifiable residential address.” We note that the
recent order with respect to the Flores settlement will impact most other cases and mandate their
release, making the need for resolution of these issues all the more profound.
We are dismayed by the lack of transparency, and the coercion, disorganization, and confusion
surrounding recent releases, as well as with the lack of support and information provided to
families before they leave the facility. We also are deeply disturbed by recent ICE actions that
undermine the right to counsel. Our organizations continue to urge the Administration to end
family detention altogether. Until such time, however, it is critical that the following troubling
practices be remedied.
The following are practices that CARA volunteers have observed over the past weeks:
x

Coercive Tactics Surrounding Use of Ankle Monitors/Deprivation of Access to
Counsel: Over the past week at Dilley, ICE has used coercive tactics to persuade women
to accept ankle monitors. Specifically, ICE has summoned women to “court”
appointments using post-it notes instructing them, “Ir a Corte” (Go to Court) within thirty
minutes (see post-it note attached). The women have no idea why they are being
summoned. Once inside the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) courtroom
trailer, ICE officers told the women ankle monitors were a condition for release. For the
women who had their bond reviewed and lowered by immigration judges, ICE officers
proclaimed that the immigration judges’ word has no value. We do not understand the
authority that ICE has to issue ankle monitors after an immigration judge has reviewed
and set the bond. The Miami Immigration Judges have been similarly perplexed, as
authority to change the terms of the bond lies with the court via a motion for redetermination based on changed circumstances or with the Board of Immigration Appeals
via an appeal. While ICE can offer terms less restrictive than the immigration judge’s
order, anything more restrictive is firmly within the purview of the courts.
1

  
AILA Doc. No. 15072760. (Posted 7/27/15)

 One woman represented by CARA reported that ICE gave her a choice between wearing
an ankle monitor without paying any bond and wearing a monitor after paying a $1,500
bond. Although she asked to speak with her lawyer, ICE specifically denied her request.
CARA is aware of at least one other woman who signed an ankle monitor agreement
under duress after being denied access to counsel under nearly identical circumstances.
In a third case, a CARA client’s uncle attempted to pay her bond in New York, in
accordance with an immigration judge’s order, but ICE refused to accept payment
because she had not yet received an ankle monitor.
x

Intimidation. Mothers at Dilley also have experienced intimidation as a result of
speaking with counsel about their ankle monitors. One terrified CARA client reported
that, on the night of July 23, 2015, at about 9:00 pm CST, officials went room-to-room
wanting to know the names of the mothers who told CARA about the problems with the
ankle monitors. These officials emphasized that they wanted the mothers’ names. The
client reported that the angry officials told the mothers that lawyers have nothing to do
with this matter.

x

Clarity of Instructions: The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal
Services (“RAICES”) sends volunteers to the San Antonio bus station to conduct exit
interviews with families following their release from detention. These interviews have
revealed that many of the mothers do not understand the terms of their release. Although
most of the women speak Spanish or indigenous languages, the documents that they
receive upon release primarily are in English; reporting requirements and other
conditions of release are buried in these documents. Consequently, the mothers have
many questions about how their ankle monitors function, including how to charge them
on a long bus ride and what will happen if they are unable to charge them for reasons
outside of their control. Some mothers have indicated that they tried to ask their
deportation officers these questions, but did not receive satisfactory answers.

x

Pre-Release Orientations: ICE has not yet responded to CARA’s request at Dilley to
provide daily, brief presentations to groups of women shortly prior to their release. The
purpose of such presentations would be to explain reporting obligations, the importance
of appearing for all scheduled appearances, the need to file an asylum application in
advance of the one-year filing deadline, the individuals’ rights and obligations, and how
to connect with pro bono attorneys in their cities of destination. We believe these
presentations will be an effective means of providing this information, especially given
that CARA has established itself as a source trusted by the detainees. ICE’s failure to
allow this service, particularly combined with the poor information provided to those
being released, decreases the likelihood that mothers will understand the next steps with
EOIR and ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), thus rendering them unable
to comply with their reporting requirements and appear for their hearings. In short, ICE’s
refusal for CARA to offer pre-release orientations sets up the women for failure.

x

Timing and Other Circumstances of Release: Mothers (and/or their sponsors) have
routinely been given inaccurate information about how and when they would be released.
One mother detained at Dilley, who is a native Caqchiquel speaker, has now had to
2

  
AILA Doc. No. 15072760. (Posted 7/27/15)

 purchase her third bus ticket because her family did not receive accurate information on
when she would be released and what kind of ticket to buy. Several other mothers have
missed, or are concerned about missing, flights and buses for which they already
purchased tickets, adding considerable stress. Additionally, mothers and children have
been dropped off at desolate bus stations in the middle of the night; a context reminiscent
of situations where many of them were previously the victims of violence in their home
countries.
We also have heard reports that ICE plans to maintain a presence at the bus station. Last
week, an ICE agent attempted to force a mother and her children to return to Karnes after
missing their bus, resulting in much confusion for volunteers, the mother, and her crying
children. If ICE does indeed plan to have a presence at the bus station, ICE should
coordinate with volunteers to ensure access to counsel, proper interpretation for families,
and the ability for families who may miss their buses to stay with community based
organizations rather than return to the detention facilities at unnecessary tax-payer
expense.
x

Delays in Referring, Serving, and Filing Triggering Documents in Credible and
Reasonable Fear Proceedings: CARA has notified both ERO and the asylum office of
several mothers who have been waiting more than two weeks for their initial fear
interviews or to hear what decision the asylum office has rendered in their case. The
asylum office reports that the problem appears to be delays in ERO’s referral of fear
claimants to the asylum office for an interview and service to detainees of the asylum
office’s decisions. In addition, CARA also has seen mothers who, after passing their
credible or reasonable fear interviews, have then had to wait an additional two to three
weeks to learn the date of their first scheduled master/bond hearing. The immigration
court cannot schedule a hearing for an individual until ERO files the Notice to Appear
(NTA) with the court to start the process, and we are concerned that this is not happening
in a timely manner in these cases.

x

Access to Counsel in Bond Hearings: CARA volunteers report troubling instances of
interference with access to counsel prior to bond hearings. Each morning bond hearings
commence at 8 am CST. Previously, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) guards
called all the women scheduled on the docket to court by 7:15 am, and CARA attorneys
were able to meet with their clients in the court waiting room to prepare for their
hearings. On the morning of July 24, 2015, however, CCA and ICE locked the attorneys
out of the courtroom, informing them that they could not enter until the hearings began.
At 7:55 am CCA finally permitted the attorneys to meet with their clients. When a CARA
attorney informed the presiding immigration judge that she had been denied access to her
clients and needed time to prepare, the immigration judge pushed all of the hearings back
by an hour. This type of interference with the attorney-counsel relationship wastes both
judicial and pro bono resources.

x

Other Access to Counsel Concerns: CCA has further restricted access to counsel by
prohibiting attorneys and other legal volunteers from using lockers in the security area of
the facility to store their cell phones. Instead, legal staff must return to their cars in the
3

  
AILA Doc. No. 15072760. (Posted 7/27/15)

 parking lot to make calls and then undergo an additional security check upon re-entering
the facility. There is no reasonable basis for this restriction, and it is a waste of time and
resources that undermines the pro-bono efforts to provide representation. In addition,
given the summer and overall heat in South Texas, leaving phones in a car means that
that they may malfunction or be destroyed.
We have also witnessed troubling instances where legal personnel were denied to the
facility without valid explanation. On July 24, 2015, psychologists who were previously
pre-cleared for entry into the facility and whose examinations of the women are essential
to establishing claims for protection were abruptly and without notice refused entry into
the facility. That same day, in the afternoon, an attorney who has been zealous in his
representation of his clients was removed from the facility while in the midst of a client
interview and without explanation, and denied further admittance. This is not the first
time we have confronted such an issue. In May of 2015, support personnel who had been
cleared to enter other facilities, including Karnes and the west wing of the White House,
were denied admission to Dilley for a time, again without reasonable explanation.
x

Release Criteria: Secretary Johnson’s directive, issued on July 13, 2015, indicates that
women who have received a positive credible or reasonable fear determination and have
a willing sponsor in the United States will be eligible for release. However, we are
concerned with the false requirement that women have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
resident sponsor. No specific immigration status should be required for a sponsor. Not
allowing women to provide the name and address of the most appropriate sponsor
undermines ICE’s interest in tracking where women will actually live upon release and
ensuring court appearances and may undermine the safety of women and their children.
Moreover, CARA is aware of at least three cases at Dilley where women passed either a
credible or reasonable fear interview, but remain in detention while the Board of
Immigration Appeals reviews their cases. To date, these women have been detained for
between five and seven months. Psychiatrists have found that two of these women and
their children are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

x

Terms of Release: There is no transparency or consistency regarding how ICE sets bond
amounts, why certain individuals are required to pay a bond in addition to an ankle
monitor, and why restrictive forms of supervision like ankle monitors are necessary to
mitigate a particular flight risk. Based on information we have obtained from DHS
officials at liaison meetings, we understand that ICE generally will be releasing families
on alternatives to detention and that bonds are not appropriate—yet, as discussed more
below, this does not seem to the be the practice on the ground. Further, officials have
indicated that the conditions will be eased over time (e.g., that ankle monitors may be
removed at some point in the process). In advising clients before release from the
facilities, it is important to know how long women released on ankle monitors must
comply with reporting requirements before ICE will consider using alternative forms of
supervision. We urge ICE to clarify the policy and to consider removal of the ankle
monitor once a woman has demonstrated her compliance with reporting by appearing at
the ERO office of relocation for the first time.
4

  
AILA Doc. No. 15072760. (Posted 7/27/15)

 At a minimum, we urge ICE to take the following steps immediately to remedy the problems
described above:
x

Ensure that anyone who is eligible for release (either under the Secretary’s directive or in
accordance with Flores) indeed is released, and in an orderly and timely manner.

x

Ensure that ICE make immediate referrals to the asylum office in each case where a
mother expresses fear or indicates a desire to apply for asylum. Ensure that ICE promptly
issues Notices to Appear after a credible or reasonable fear finding, and works in
conjunction with the Executive Office of Immigration Review to file in the appropriate
venue to facilitate the timely filing of the I-589 and efficient processing of the case.
  

x

Respect that right to counsel, which is of paramount importance. ICE and CCA personnel
must not interfere with this right and requests by individuals to talk to a lawyer should be
facilitated immediately. Likewise, and deriving from the right to counsel, zealous
representation is a professional obligation to which attorneys must adhere and such
representation should not be negatively interpreted by ICE or CCA.

x

Inform legal services providers about the agency’s release plan, including the specific
criteria being used to determine eligibility for release and appropriate conditions of
release, as well as the logistics, including time of day, by which women and their children
will be released. Women and children should be dropped off at the bus station only
during daylight hours, and ICE should consider bus and airline schedules to prevent
women from unnecessarily missing buses and flights for which they have purchased
tickets.

x

Permit CARA staff and volunteers to provide pre-release group presentations at the
facility chapel, with indigenous language interpretation services.  

x

Provide accurate, clear, and complete information on applicable conditions of release to
each woman in a language that she understands. This should include an E-33 Change of
Address Form, instructions on how to both lodge and formally file an I-589 asylum
application, information on exactly when and where a woman must report to ICE, as well
as information, if applicable, on the operation and obligations associated with ankle
monitors. Where necessary, ICE should provide Spanish and/or indigenous language
interpretation and translation of any written materials that are distributed.  
  

x

Refrain from opposing motions to reopen any in absentia orders that result from the
circumstances of the releases that have taken place before the release practices outlined
above are instituted.

x

Stipulate that asylum applications not filed within the one-year filing deadline are timely
filed for those mothers who did not benefit from a CARA project Pre-Release Orientation
and specific, clear instructions from ICE as to how and when the asylum application must
be filed to preserve the filing deadline.

5
  
AILA Doc. No. 15072760. (Posted 7/27/15)

 While improvements to release procedures will certainly mitigate the harm resulting from the
problems described above, we reiterate our call for an end to family detention. The chaos that
currently surrounds the release of women and children from Dilley exemplifies the reasons that
the government is not equipped to detain families.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to implement these recommendations.
Sincerely,

Crystal Williams
American Immigration Lawyers Association

Ben Johnson
American Immigration Council

Jeanne Atkinson
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Jonathan Ryan
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services  
  

cc:

Leon Rodriguez
Megan Mack
Juan Osuna

6
  
AILA Doc. No. 15072760. (Posted 7/27/15)

 :fig? [anabr
If 5" [er-k
9? 221327

40?L6a( baa?:

AILA Doc. No. 15072760.

 

(Posted 7/27/15)