Advocates sue to stop Somali ‘rocket docket’ from fast-tracking asylum cases

In addition to the abbreviated timeline, the hearings have largely been set in virtual courtrooms with out-of-state judges, several of whom have higher removal rates than the national average, according to the complaint. It’s a pattern that is playing out in Minnesota and across the country, with Somali nationals in California, Hawaii and Washington, among other states, affected. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. 

The lawsuit, which refers to the expeditions as the “Somali Fast-Track Policy,” alleges that the policy is part of a larger effort to aggressively single out the Somali community. 

“[The policy] follows months of commentary from President Trump negatively targeting Somalis, who make up less than one percent of the U.S. population and are mostly U.S. citizens,” the complaint says. 

Earlier this month, Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Immigration Review, told Sahan Journal “there is no ‘fast-tracking’ for immigration court cases” and that all cases are adjudicated according to the law. 

Zack Albun, legal director at The Advocates for Human Rights, said it is clear that Somali asylum seekers are being selectively targeted by the federal government. 

“[It is] pretty blatant targeting of Somali asylum seekers, and applying essentially different, highly prejudicial procedural rules to those asylum seekers.” 

The plaintiffs are asking the courts to reverse the policy and restore standard timelines and procedures for the asylum process. 

“The federal government’s Somali Fast-Track Policy manipulates the immigration court to deny a single nationality the right to seek asylum — that’s wrong,” Michele Garnett McKenzie, executive director of The Advocates for Human Rights, said in the press release.

“Federal and international law protect the right to seek asylum, but this tactic denies Somali asylum seekers a fair day in court.”

Kelsey Hines, managing attorney at Hines Immigration Law, said the lawsuit sends a message to affected Somali asylum seekers that they’re not alone.

“If nothing else, the lawsuit has been providing, in addition to hopeful legal relief, it’s been providing in a lot of ways emotional support,” Hines said. The backing of lawyers from a national legal group shows asylum seekers they have support beyond their immediate counsel, she added.

Hines Immigration Law has been significantly impacted by the fast-tracking of Somali cases. Hines said 97% of her 73 Somali clients have been rapidly scheduled for their asylum hearings the next several months, making it impossible to provide adequate legal representation.

Hines added that it’s clear that Somali asylum cases are being prioritized.

“At these master calendar hearings, every single respondent is Somali, which is unheard of,” Hines said. “These judges have expressly told me that resolving cases on ‘this docket’ is a ‘priority,’ that they’ve ‘got to hear all of them,’ and that ‘we’re all going to have to deal with this docket one way or the other.’”

Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities have faced a barrage of abuse following Trump’s comments in December calling the community “garbage.” As immigration agents flooded Minnesota in January, they also began targeting legally admitted refugees, including many Somalis, for additional scrutiny. In some cases, those refugees were arrested and sent to detention facilities in Texas with little warning.

The plaintiffs are requesting an emergency stay to be granted by Mar. 31, after which final hearings will begin for Hines Immigration Law’s clients. 

Clarification: A quote from Kelsey Hines on the response of judges to the expedited Somali cases has been updated in this story.

The post Advocates sue to stop Somali ‘rocket docket’ from fast-tracking asylum cases appeared first on Sahan Journal.