Mario* had a long history of mental illness prior to landing in immigration custody. He struggled with schizophrenia, and had attempted suicide in the past. Despite his long history of mental illness, however, none of the various immigration officials who came into contact with him—including deportation officers, medical staff or even the immigration judge—ever thought to assess Mario’s mental health to determine whether he was competent to represent himself in his immigration case. Instead, all he got was a notation in his file that he should be transferred to a more appropriate facility for evaluation and treatment—a notation that the immigration judge in his case never even saw. The judge had no idea that Mario suffered from a serious mental illness that could affect his ability to represent himself. Mario therefore appeared for hearing after hearing, alone. He was apparently supposed to represent himself, despite his clear inability to do so.

It was not until several months later, when another detainee at the facility contacted me at the ACLU, that things changed for Mario. He called because, as he explained, Mario was “clearly not well” and had been going to court unrepresented. “He needs help,” his friend pleaded. I wrote a letter to the immigration judge, informing him that Mario suffered from a serious mental disorder. As a result, the judge, now aware of his mental health history, conducted a hearing, found that Mario was not competent to represent himself. He was later provided with an attorney under Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder. Thanks to the historic April 23, 2013 ruling from the federal court in Franco, Mario now has an attorney to help him fight his case in immigration court.

mytubethumb play
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22allowfullscreen%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22360%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FEK8RkC3cA4c%3Frel%3D0%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20width%3D%22640%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

But had it not been for that call from a friend, or that letter from the ACLU, Mario would have been lost in the immigration system, likely already deported back to his home country. As Mario’s case shows only too well, immigration authorities had no system in place for identifying individuals with serious mental disabilities or for communicating that highly relevant information to the immigration courts. Even when the information made it to the immigration courts, judges had no clear guidance on what to do to determine whether someone was competent to represent themselves. Immigration judges were not even able to ask for a forensic evaluation in a case if they found that they needed more information to determine whether someone was competent enough to proceed alone.

Yesterday, that changed.

The court in Franco-Gonzalez has issued yet another historic order in the case, this time establishing a comprehensive screening and competency determination system in the immigration detention centers and courts throughout Washington, California and Arizona. The system will require all detainees to be immediately screened for mental disorders upon their arrival at the detention center, and referred for a further assessment should that initial screening or other information reveal that the individual may have a serious mental disorder or condition. Immigration authorities are now required to share that information with immigration judges, who will then hold structured competency hearings, with the aid of forensic evaluations, to determine detainees’ competency. The order provides clear guidance to judges, including what standard to apply when determining whether someone is competent to represent him- or herself in immigration proceedings, thus establishing the first federal pro se competency standard.

The fight for individuals like Mario is far from over. The judge has given the government ninety days to comply with the order and completely revamp the system that failed Mario the first time around. The ACLU will continue to fight to ensure that the government complies with the order, to push the government to apply those same procedures nationwide, and to make sure that all individuals like Mario are properly screened and assessed before being forced to stand in court alone.

* Name changed to protect our client’s identity

Carmen Iguina is staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. Follow ACLU SoCal on Twitter.

Date

Friday, October 31, 2014 - 12:45pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Immigrants' Rights

Show related content

Author:
Carmen Iguina

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Month Of Resistance

By Mark-Anthony Johnson, @FlyEgret

mytubethumb play
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22allowfullscreen%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22360%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FnNWnAMjlCnY%3Frel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20width%3D%22640%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

In 2014, the use of force has gone up in the Los Angeles County jails. The Coalition to End Sheriff Violence, a group of 16 community organizations including the ACLU of Southern California, has expressed concerns about discrepancy between the stories of sheriff abuse from people released from jail and the lack of clarity from the L.A. Sheriffs Department as to whether or not this increase in force is due to more thorough reporting or a factual increase in use of force by personnel. Regardless, our conclusion remains: civilian oversight is necessary to ensure long-lasting protections for our loved ones incarcerated in L.A. County.

Last August, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted down (3-2) a civilian oversight committee of LASD, leaving the largest jails system in the world without community-based oversight. The board cited it would not have "teeth," or legal power.

Other counties, however, like San Diego and San Francisco, have successfully implemented civilian oversight with subpoena power. There's no excuse.

We have the potential to create the most comprehensive oversight body in L.A. – one that doesn't rely solely on the sheriff's department's figures or interpretation of data. With independent investigative power, subpoena power and consistent lines of contact with community members, those who have experienced the jails can provide the clearest picture of the improvement and deterioration of the conditions within. Incarcerated people and their loved ones have been exposing the state of our jails for years, and it is time to institute an independent review board that has teeth.

As two new supervisors are poised to take seats on the board this December, both candidates Sheila Kuehl and Bobby Shriver—vying for District 3 Supervisor Zev Yaroslavksy's seat—have stated that they support civilian oversight of LASD. Hilda Solis has yet to take a stance on the issue publicly.

With support from District 3 and from Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, come January, the board will have another chance to vote for civilian oversight with two yes votes from the gate.

Learn more about the importance of civilian oversight this Saturday at our Off the Cuff: Criminal Justice Teach-in and Roundtable. Register today.

Mark-Anthony Johnson is interim director at Dignity and Power Now. The Coalition to End Sheriff Violence is a project of Dignity and Power Now. Follow ACLU SoCal on Twitter.

Date

Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - 6:00pm

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS