A joint initiative between the American Immigration Council and AILA seeks to change the playing field for immigrants facing deportation.
AILA’s Advocacy Action Center allows you to advocate for legislative and policy reforms consistent with AILA’s principles and priorities.Get Involved
The brand-new 18th edition of Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook is now shipping.Order Now
Learn how to tackle challenges like finding and retaining affordable staff, working better in a hybrid or remote environment, when and how to raise fees, and much more.Register Now
AILALink puts an entire immigration law library at your fingertips! Search the AILALink database for all your practice needs—statutes, regs, case law, agency guidance, publications, and more.
AILA Doc. No. 17081862 | Dated August 16, 2017
Washington D.C. - The parties in Dilley Pro Bono Project v. ICE have reached a settlement that ensures access to mental health evaluations for certain detained mothers and children seeking asylum. The case was filed after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) barred Caroline Perris, a full-time legal assistant with the Dilley Pro Bono Project (DPBP), from entering the South Texas Family Residential Center (STFRC) in Dilley, Texas.
ICE claimed that Ms. Perris inappropriately facilitated a mental health evaluation by telephone in March 2017. She had, in fact, facilitated an evaluation with a mental health professional to avert the imminent deportation of a DPBP client and her child back to the terrible danger from which they fled. The evaluation proved critical to establish their eligibility for protection under U.S. asylum law. In May 2017, ICE for the first time stated in writing a policy requiring pre-approval for telephonic mental health evaluations. The agency retroactively relied on this policy to justify revoking Caroline Perris' access to STFRC.
Because the mothers and children held in Dilley have fled countries with some of the highest levels of femicide and gender-based violence in the world, a mental health evaluation is often a crucial piece of evidence to obtain protection in the United States. For many families, such an evaluation makes a life-or-death difference: safety in the United States versus deportation to targeted violence in their home countries. A mental health evaluation can corroborate past persecution in the home country that currently affects an individual's psychological well-being. Evaluations by mental health providers, which are typically conducted on a pro bono basis and telephonically at the STFRC, also assist attorneys in determining if clients are competent to consent to representation and can participate meaningfully in their cases without safeguards.
ICE's policy placed DPBP legal staff in the untenable position of having to choose between potentially compromising the needs of their clients while awaiting ICE's approval-for which there was no set timetable or standards-or putting themselves at risk of losing access to the facility by providing the legal services they considered to be in their clients' best interests.
Ms. Perris was reinstated shortly after the lawsuit was filed. The settlement, which applies at both the Dilley and Karnes immigration detention facilities, sets forth a timetable for the approval process and limits the grounds on which ICE can deny a request for telephonic mental health evaluation. Specifically:
The DPBP is a consortium of the American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Immigration Council, CLINIC and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
For press inquiries contact, Wendy Feliz at email@example.com or 202-507-7524 or Patricia Zapor at firstname.lastname@example.org or 301-565-4830.
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 17081862.
American Immigration Lawyers Association
1331 G Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Copyright © 1993-
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
AILA.org should not be relied upon as the exclusive source for your legal research. Nothing on AILA.org constitutes legal advice, and information on AILA.org is not a substitute for independent legal advice based on a thorough review and analysis of the facts of each individual case, and independent research based on statutory and regulatory authorities, case law, policy guidance, and for procedural issues, federal government websites.