Hope they start working on our AOS this fast too!
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050518-092752-4920r.htm
Washington, DC, May. 19 (UPI) -- A federal court is scheduled next week to hear the first case in which the Bush administration is using controversial provisions of the newly minted REAL ID Act that limit the right of appeal for people refused asylum.
Ablavi Malm, 51, was ordered deported to Togo because her appeal invoking the protection of anti-torture statutes was filed 20 days late, according to her lawyer, Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights USA.
Sklar says Togolese security forces are notorious for their poor human-rights record and that Malm and members of her family there have been tortured.
The REAL ID Act, signed into law last week, mainly deals with the integrity of the nation's drivers' licensing systems. But it also includes a series of provisions designed to counter what its authors say is abuse of the asylum and refugee system by terrorists.
The case is likely to become a flashpoint for arguments about the asylum provisions of the new law.
"I'm amazed that the government would use the legislation in this way," Sklar told United Press International. "It is even harsher than Congress intended.
"This 51-year-old rape survivor is about as far from a terrorist threat as it is possible to get."
The asylum provisions in the new law, say its authors, were designed to stop those whose application for asylum had been denied dragging out their cases with repeated appeals and prevent appeals courts second guessing judges' views about the credibility of would-be refugees.
To do this, the law removes the right of would-be refugees to file petitions under habeas corpus -- a legal doctrine regarding whether a person is being held legally.
The Department of Justice, in papers filed Tuesday, said the law means the courts cannot hear Malm's appeal.
"This is a very long standing and carefully preserved right," Sklar said of habeas corpus. "It is a last resort to ensure that fundamental rights are not eliminated by administrative fiat."
Malm's case, say her supporters, is an excellent example of why habeas corpus is important.
The U.N. Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory, bans the deportation of people to countries where they might be tortured. In common with all international treaties, it is implemented in U.S. law by an act of Congress.
Administration officials, in turn, drew up regulations governing how the law would be applied. It is these regulations that Malm fell afoul of by filing her appeal too late.
Her appeal against deportation was rejected by immigration courts and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Sklar says those courts never examined the case on the merits and never looked at the underlying constitutional and legal issues.
"There is nothing in either the convention or the law about a time limit for filing an appeal," he said. The time limit is an administrative measure devised essentially for the convenience of the government, Sklar argues, and as such has to be weighed against the constitutional and legal rights of the appellant.
The law's authors argued that habeas corpus was being used by those who wished to exploit the asylum system to get a second hearing after their cases had been decided.
But her supporters say Malm's case has never been considered on the merits because she filed too late. "The fundamental issues have never been examined," said Sklar.
The law's defenders say the stakes are too high to give potential terrorists a second chance to slip through the net by pretending to flee persecution.
But critics charge the provision is unjustifiably tough and will lead to innocents like Malm being, as Sklar says, "deported to torture."
No one at the Justice department could be reached for comment about the case Wednesday evening.
--
(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050518-092752-4920r.htm
Washington, DC, May. 19 (UPI) -- A federal court is scheduled next week to hear the first case in which the Bush administration is using controversial provisions of the newly minted REAL ID Act that limit the right of appeal for people refused asylum.
Ablavi Malm, 51, was ordered deported to Togo because her appeal invoking the protection of anti-torture statutes was filed 20 days late, according to her lawyer, Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights USA.
Sklar says Togolese security forces are notorious for their poor human-rights record and that Malm and members of her family there have been tortured.
The REAL ID Act, signed into law last week, mainly deals with the integrity of the nation's drivers' licensing systems. But it also includes a series of provisions designed to counter what its authors say is abuse of the asylum and refugee system by terrorists.
The case is likely to become a flashpoint for arguments about the asylum provisions of the new law.
"I'm amazed that the government would use the legislation in this way," Sklar told United Press International. "It is even harsher than Congress intended.
"This 51-year-old rape survivor is about as far from a terrorist threat as it is possible to get."
The asylum provisions in the new law, say its authors, were designed to stop those whose application for asylum had been denied dragging out their cases with repeated appeals and prevent appeals courts second guessing judges' views about the credibility of would-be refugees.
To do this, the law removes the right of would-be refugees to file petitions under habeas corpus -- a legal doctrine regarding whether a person is being held legally.
The Department of Justice, in papers filed Tuesday, said the law means the courts cannot hear Malm's appeal.
"This is a very long standing and carefully preserved right," Sklar said of habeas corpus. "It is a last resort to ensure that fundamental rights are not eliminated by administrative fiat."
Malm's case, say her supporters, is an excellent example of why habeas corpus is important.
The U.N. Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory, bans the deportation of people to countries where they might be tortured. In common with all international treaties, it is implemented in U.S. law by an act of Congress.
Administration officials, in turn, drew up regulations governing how the law would be applied. It is these regulations that Malm fell afoul of by filing her appeal too late.
Her appeal against deportation was rejected by immigration courts and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Sklar says those courts never examined the case on the merits and never looked at the underlying constitutional and legal issues.
"There is nothing in either the convention or the law about a time limit for filing an appeal," he said. The time limit is an administrative measure devised essentially for the convenience of the government, Sklar argues, and as such has to be weighed against the constitutional and legal rights of the appellant.
The law's authors argued that habeas corpus was being used by those who wished to exploit the asylum system to get a second hearing after their cases had been decided.
But her supporters say Malm's case has never been considered on the merits because she filed too late. "The fundamental issues have never been examined," said Sklar.
The law's defenders say the stakes are too high to give potential terrorists a second chance to slip through the net by pretending to flee persecution.
But critics charge the provision is unjustifiably tough and will lead to innocents like Malm being, as Sklar says, "deported to torture."
No one at the Justice department could be reached for comment about the case Wednesday evening.
--
(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)
than there are rumors from (wisper blowers ) that used to work there ,since A G Asschraft give order "clean back log ore you are all fired ,45% of cases was done by internim girls that use to help there they used to stamp BOA answers "Affirm Without opinion" wich I got one. 
Thats right 75%of cases was not even read by BOA ..