\u3ci\u3eVirtually Incredible\u3c/i\u3e: Rethinking Deference to Demeanor When Assessing Credibility in Asylum Cases Conducted by Video Teleconference

The COVID-19 pandemic forced courthouses around the country to shutter their doors to in-person hearings and embrace video teleconferencing (VTC), launching a technology proliferation within the U.S. legal system. Immigration courts have long been authorized to use VTC, but the pandemic prompted the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to expand video capabilities and encourage the use of video “to the maximum extent practicable.” In this technology pivot, we must consider how VTC affects cases for international humanitarian protections, where an immigration judge’s ability to accurately gauge an applicant’s demeanor can have life-or-death consequences. This Article takes a deep dive into the law and social science regarding demeanor-based credibility assessments and examines the potential impact of VTC on the adjudication of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. With empirical and doctrinal grounding, it recommends a prohibition on adverse credibility findings based on demeanor for hearings conducted via video. The assumptions that underpin the extraordinary deference afforded to immigration judges’ demeanor assessments are incongruous with the realities of virtual hearings. Demeanor is an unreliable metric for credibility, even for in-person hearings. Video distorts how we interact and further strains the tenuous relationship between demeanor and truthfulness. The current legal framework is ill-suited to safeguard against erroneous demeanor findings. A prohibition on demeanor-based adverse credibility findings for hearings conducted via VTC would embrace the benefits of our technological advancements while instilling greater confidence in the fair adjudication of humanitarian protection claims

Padilla\u27s Broken Promise: Pennsylvania Case Study

In 2010, the Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky that criminal defense attorneys have a constitutional obligation to advise noncitizen clients of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea in criminal court proceedings. Though it has been over a decade since the decision, little research has been done regarding Padilla’s implementation by defense counsel on a statewide level. This Article provides findings from a case study on Padilla advising in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is unique because its state courts have interpreted Padilla narrowly and permit immigration advisals that would be deemed constitutionally deficient in other jurisdictions. Pennsylvania also does not have a state-funded public defense system, which means standards for indigent representation vary by county. Interviews with public defenders and prosecutors in Pennsylvania reveal significant variation in the scope of advice provided to noncitizens in criminal court proceedings and the willingness of district attorney offices to consider immigration status during plea negotiations. Each Pennsylvania county has an individual method of identifying noncitizen clients, analyzing immigration consequences, warning clients of these adverse consequences, and negotiating with district attorneys. The scope of advice provided to noncitizens and counsel’s understanding of their Padilla obligations vary considerably in both content and scope. Counties suffer from Pennsylvania’s systemic failure to provide adequate funding to public defense offices to ensure that they can effectively comply with Padilla—a problem that is especially salient in a state with limited postconviction remedies for those who receive deficient advice. Based on these findings, this Article offers various policy recommendations that would improve the criminal defense representation of noncitizens in Pennsylvania. While these findings and recommendations are specific to Pennsylvania, they are relevant to nationwide research on Padilla’s impact and what can be done to promote immigration-conscious criminal defense advocacy

Deforestation for oil palm alters the fundamental balance of the soil N cycle

This abstract contains mathematical characters (see download

Creating Community and Belonging in a Designated Housing Estate for Disabled People

In recent years there has been an ideological push within social care away from segregated housing provision towards supported housing integrated within the wider community (McConkey, Keogh, Bunting, Iriarte, & Watson, 2016; Merrells, Buchanan, & Waters, 2019; Overmars-Marx, Thomése, Verdonschot, & Meininger, 2014). Despite this, many housing solutions for older and disabled people continue to be built on a designated basis, with physical and emotional wellbeing outcomes being both contested and mixed. After reviewing key policy relating to social care housing alongside some of the theoretical and ideological positions, this article explores the social and emotional outcomes of a diverse group of disabled people living with mental health difficulties, physical and intellectual impairments, illnesses and age-related conditions, who moved into a small, purpose-built estate of smart homes. Drawing primarily on qualitative data collected from tenants prior to moving and again seven months following relocation, the impact of moving into the estate on tenants’ sense of wellbeing and feelings of inclusion will be analysed and discussed in relation to efforts to build a new community

Measures of Success: A Snapshot of the Montana Wolf Program in 2009

Montana’s gray wolf (Canis lupus) population continues to be secure, while the political and legal environments remain dynamic. Wolf delisting is a two-step process. Biological recovery criteria must be met and clearly demonstrated, along with an adequate regulatory framework. Secondly, the delisting decision must be upheld during inevitable legal challenges. The northern Rockies wolf population has met or exceeded numeric and connectivity requirements for many years. The northern Rockies gray wolf population was initially delisted in 2008, but a legal challenge reinstated federal legal protections under the Endangered Species Act mid-summer. By the end of 2008, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks estimated a minimum of 497 wolves in 84 verified packs, 34 of which met the definition of breeding pair. Federal delisting efforts resumed early in 2009 and took effect throughout Montana on 4 May. The second delisting decision was challenged again in Federal Court, although a preliminary injunction request to reinstate federal protections was denied in September. With delisting in Montana, the wolf was automatically reclassified as a species in need of management. Montana’s laws, administrative rules, and management plan also took effect. Montana Tribes lead wolf management activities on their respective reservations. The first fair chase wolf hunting season in Montana occurred in 2009. Seventy-two wolves were harvested through a quota-based framework. Wolves and their management continue to be controversial to a diversity of publics for a wide variety of reasons. Nonetheless, Montana’s wolf program has a solid regulatory foundation and the population is biologically sound. This presentation will provide an update on a variety of topics

'What Does DIANA Stand For?' - Some Recent Celebrity Death Jokes

Collectane

Adaptive Wolf Management: The Regulated Public Harvest Component

Montana’s wolf (Canis lupus) conservation and management plan is based on adaptive management principles and includes regulated public harvest as a population management tool. The need and opportunity to implement public harvest in 2008, 2009, and 2010 required Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to develop a stepped down adaptive management framework specific to harvest. For 2008 and 2009, FWP set modest objectives: implement a harvest, maintain a recovered population, and begin the learning process to inform development of future hunting regulations and quotas. In 2010, FWP used a formal Structured Decision Making Process to more clearly define priorities and challenges of setting a wolf season, outline objectives of a successful season, and evaluate consequences and trade-offs between alternative management actions. For all years, FWP used a modeling process to simulate a wide range of harvest rates across three harvest units and to predict harvest effects on the minimum number of wolves, packs and breeding pairs. Model inputs were derived from minimum wolf numbers observed in the field. Modeling allowed consideration of a range of harvest quotas, predicted outcomes, and risk that harvest could drive the population below federally-required minimums. It also facilitated explicit consideration of how well a particular quota achieved objectives and how to adapt future regulations and quotas. Legal challenges to federal delisting restricted implementation of the first fair chase hunting season to 2009. Montana’s wolf population is securely recovered, despite the dynamic political and legal environments. Regardless, FWP remains committed to a scientific, data-driven approach to adaptive management