XPost: pdx.general, az.politics, sci.environment   
   XPost: ca.politics   
   From: jawod@fuse.net   
      
   gringogirl wrote:   
   > like all true mexican males- "she :" has  had sex with an underage   
   > american child   
   >   
   > because she might be "raped". gosh this is so ironic and  amusing I   
   > cant   
   > stand it. It shows that mexicans , no matter what find some kind of lie   
   > to avoid their own country while they come here to be rapists and bring   
   > our country down to their level   
   >  I mean we have 28 million illegals from mexico and down south- a   
   > sizable percentage are already raping american women and children - it   
   > seems to me she has just as good a chance of being raped here as down   
   > there-   
   >   
   >   
   > Finally, on Jan. 3, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, granted a   
   > petition for review by Nancy Arabillas Morales, a transsexual from   
   > Mexico who had been denied US asylum or relief under the Convention   
   > Against Torture in a Board of Immigration Appeals decision   
   > rubber-stamping an Immigration Judge ruling.  Morales v. Gonzalez, 2007   
   >   
   > WL 10033.  Morales, who has been in the US since the mid-1980s, was   
   > convicted on a guilty plea of a sexual offense involving a minor, a   
   > teenage boy, and was pursued by the Justice Department for deportation.   
   >   
   >  She sought asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture,   
   >   
   > providing evidence that she had been subjected to severe harassment   
   > (including rape) which had prompted her to flee north in the first   
   > place, and that she genuinely feared serious harm if returned to   
   > Mexico.  The Immigration Judge actually found that she would be   
   > eligible for asylum if not for her criminal conviction, but discounted   
   > the torture claim, finding slim evidence that the government would   
   > torture Morales for being a transsexual.  The unanimous 9th Circuit   
   > ruling, opinion by Senior Circuit Judge David R. Thompson, found   
   > numerous errors in the Immigration Judge's decision, including basing   
   > conclusions about the seriousness of the criminal offense on factual   
   > allegations in the charges against Morales that were never proven at   
   > trial (and as to which she did not plead guilty, as her guilty plea was   
   >   
   > to a reduced charge as to which it was questionable whether it was   
   > serious enough to require deportation) and application of an   
   > inappropriate evidentiary standard in determining whether Morales had   
   > presented sufficient evidence on the CAT issue.  In particular, the   
   > court held that being raped by fellow prisoners with the acquiescence   
   > and approval of prison guards counts as official persecution, a point   
   > not credited by the IJ. The case is remanded for further hearings   
   > before the Immigration Judge.   
   >   
   >   
   > Recently, our publisher at Gay City News sent me a table he had found   
   > on-line documenting the extreme bias against granting asylum and CAT   
   > petitions by many Immigration Judges.  The table was quite startling.   
   > It seems that some judges deny such applications from all but a tiny   
   > percentage of applicants, while most judges deny more than they grant,   
   > and a relatively small number grant most of the applications.  Assuming   
   >   
   > that the distribution of meritorious applications is relatively random,   
   >   
   > with each IJ deciding hundreds of such petitions yearly, it is clear   
   > that the system as a whole violates the concept of Equal Protection of   
   > the Law, which is guaranteed under the 14th amendment to every person,   
   > not just US citizens or legal residents.  It is impossible, viewing the   
   >   
   > statistics, for anyone to claim that equal justice is being   
   > administered by the IJ corps.  What can be done about it?  Certainly a   
   > Congressional investigation of this process is in order, and a   
   > requirement for appropriate training and management of the system is   
   > desperately needed.  There have long been complaints about this   
   > process, but it appears the problem has become more pronounced since   
   > 9/11/2001, which increased skepticism about asylum and CAT claims.  But   
   >   
   > perhaps there is too much skepticism on the part of many of these   
   > judges, and not enough substantive review by the BIA.   
   >   
   -*-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)