Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti

Citation503 F. Supp. 442
Decision Date02 July 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-2086-Civ-JLK.,79-2086-Civ-JLK.
PartiesHAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, an unincorporated, not-for-profit organization; Solomon Jocelyn; Prosper Bayard; Theodore Cadet; Emile Beliard; Odilus Jean; Alteon Jean Belias; Indique Dormeus; and Augustin Sennecharles; Plaintiffs, v. Benjamin CIVILETTI, Attorney General of the United States; Edmund Muskie, Secretary of State; David Crosland, Acting Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service; Raymond Morris, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, District Office Number 6; Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kurzban & Kurzban, P.A., Ira J. Kurzban, Miami, Fla., for the Haitian Refugee Center and National Emergency Civil Liberties Foundation; Peter A. Schey and Timothy S. Barker, Los Angeles, Cal., National Center for Immigrants' Rights; Dale F. Swartz, Washington, D.C., Alien Rights Law Project of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Vera Weiss and Steven Forester, Miami, Fla., Haitian Refugee Center; Ira Golobin, New York City, National Council of Churches; Nancy Trease, Miami, Fla., Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc.; Gary Lee Caldwell and Robert M. Hustead, West Palm Beach, Fla., Florida Rural Legal Services; Donald I. Bierman and Neal R. Sonnett, Miami, Fla., of counsel, for plaintiff.

Daniel Fromstein, Washington, D.C., Criminal Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice; Rex Young and William Nail, Miami, Fla., U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Atlee W. Wampler, III, Jack Eskenazi and Peter Nimkoff, Miami, Fla., Asst. U.S. Attys., for the Southern District of Florida, for defendant.

JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.

                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                         Page
                    I.   Introduction                                                     450
                            A. Limits of Immigration Law                                  452
                            B. Asylum Rights: Substantive                                 453
                            C. Asylum Rights: Procedural                                  454
                    II.  Threshold Legal Issues                                           456
                            A. Jurisdiction                                               457
                            B. Justiciability                                             461
                               1. Mootness                                                462
                               2. Timing of Judicial Review                               467
                               3. Political Question                                      470
                               4. Standing                                                473
                   III. Conditions in Haiti                                               474
                            A. Haitian Refugees: Treatment on Return                      476
                               1. A Pattern of Persecution                                476
                               2. The State Department Report                             482
                                  a. Composition of the Study Team                        486
                                  b. The Sample                                           487
                                  c. Assurances to Returnees                              488
                                  d. The Interviews                                       491
                                  e. Conclusion                                           492
                           B. Haitian Prisons: Persecution Exemplified                    493
                           C. Haitian Power: The Rule of the Duvalier Security Forces     497
                           D. Haitian Legal Systems: The Absence of a Rule of Law         500
                           E. Haitian Politics: Suppression of the Opposition             503
                           F. Haitian Society: Suppression of Free Voices                 506
                           G. Haitian Economics: The Economics of Repression              507
                           H. Conclusion                                                  510
                   IV. INS Treatment of Haitian Asylum Claims                             510
                           A. The Haitian Program: Intentional Discrimination             511
                              1. The Haitian Problem                                      511
                              2. The Goals of the Haitian Program                         512
                
                                3. Implementation at the District Level                        516
                                4. Conclusion: Discrimination                                  518
                             B. The Haitian Program: Systematic Due Process Violations         519
                                1. Immigration Judge Action                                    519
                                   a. Failure to Suspend Deportation Proceedings               520
                                   b. Derogation of the Right to Remain Silent                 521
                                   c. Time Limits                                              521
                                   d. Conclusion                                               523
                                2. Cumulative Effect of Accelerated Process                    523
                                   a. Mass Scheduling                                          523
                                   b. Cumulative Effect                                        525
                                   c. Conclusion                                               526
                                3. Conduct of Asylum Interviews                                526
                                4. Asylum Decision-Making                                      527
                                5. Other Asylum Procedures                                     529
                                   a. Public Access to Prior Decisions and Nonrecorded
                                      Matter                                                   529
                                   b. Use of Form Letter Denials                               530
                                   c. Accuracy of Translation                                  530
                                   d. Failure to Advise Haitians of Rights Prior to Taking
                                      Statements                                               530
                                6. State Department Participation in Asylum Decisions          531
                                7. Deprivation of the Haitian Refugee Center's Right to Free
                                   Speech                                                      531
                             C. Conclusion                                                     532
                   V. Relief                                                                   532
                
FINAL ORDER GRANTING RELIEF

This case involves thousands of black Haitian nationals, the brutality of their government, and the prejudice of ours. Perhaps thirty thousand Haitians have flocked to the shores of South Florida over the past twenty years, fleeing the most repressive government in the Americas. From among that group come the plaintiffs: five thousand persons who have sought political asylum in the United States. They claim that if they are returned to Haiti they will face persecution, imprisonment and death. All of their asylum claims were denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

For the most part, the plaintiffs reached the United States in old, small, leaky wooden sailboats. The boats are dangerously overcrowded, but these Haitians continue to brave the elements across eight hundred miles of open sea. The vast number spent weeks adrift without food or water. Many died in the attempt:

When I heard the news, I went to Freeport. When I entered the morgue, I saw my wife lying there with the four children. I had nothing in my hand. It was only myself and God there. Constant Louis, Tr. at 1195-96.

This case has forced the court to confront a profound set of questions: Why have so many taken such great risks? What do they flee? Why do they fear to return?

In searching for the answer to these and other questions, the court has seen a stark picture of how these plaintiff-immigrants will be treated if they return to Haiti. And it has seen an equally stark, and even more troubling, picture of the treatment of Haitians by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs seek political asylum in this country. Hence, this case calls into question many of the intricacies of asylum procedures before the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The court must examine the minutiae of those procedures to determine if the plaintiffs were accorded fundamentally fair due process. One central issue, however, overshadows this entire case: unlawful discrimination. The plaintiffs charge that they faced a transparently discriminatory program designed to deport Haitian nationals and no one else. The uncontroverted evidence proves their claim.

The Haitians allege that the actions of INS constitute impermissible discrimination on the basis of national origin. They have proven their claim. This court cannot close its eyes, however, to a possible underlying reason why these plaintiffs have been subjected to intentional "national origin" discrimination. The plaintiffs are part of the first substantial flight of black refugees from a repressive regime to this country. All of the plaintiffs are black. In contrast, for example, only a relatively small percent of the Cuban refugees who have fled to this country are black. Prior to the most recent Cuban exodus, all of the Cubans who sought political asylum in individual 8 C.F.R. Sec. 108 hearings were granted asylum routinely.1 None of the over 4,000 Haitians processed during the INS "program" at issue in this lawsuit were granted asylum.2 No greater disparity can be imagined.

In contrast to the discriminatory practices of INS, local government and private charity groups have tried mightily to help all the refugees who have come to Florida, irrespective of race. A report by Dade County Manager Stierheim advocates: "Agencies of local government which conduct broad community development and protection responsibilities that are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • June 2, 1982
    ...can and must be brought in a district court. See Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129, 136 n.6 (5th Cir. 1978); Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 457-61 (S.D.Fla.1980), aff'd as modified, 676 F.2d 1023 at 1033-36 (5th Cir. 1982). Further, to require plaintiffs to raise their c......
  • Haitian Refugee Center v. Gracey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 9, 1987
    ...major lawsuits "challenging practices and procedures of the INS in processing Haitian refugee applications." Id.34 HRC v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 474 (S.D.Fla.), modified sub nom. HRC v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir.1982).35 Affidavit of Father Gerard Jean-Juste, Executive Director of ......
  • Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • April 28, 1982
    ...be set aside.18 Nor have plaintiffs alleged any basis (such as procedural inadequacy or the like; see Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442 (S.D.Fla.1980) (appeal pending)) for setting aside, under the appropriate standard of review, the final orders of exclusion entered agai......
  • Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Gracey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • January 10, 1985
    ...authorities. "The work of HRC focuses on the representation of members and prospective members before the INS." Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 474 (1980), modified, 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir.1982) (emphasis supplied). Therefore, the interests which the HRC seeks to prote......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT