[background sounds]. Good morning everyone. Welcome back to those of you who are here yesterday. We are going to get started. It is my pleasure to welcome all of you to our second day of the best focused on events and protections for migrant children. For those of you who were not here yesterday, experience education and directed at the emerging University Washington college of law for immigration. My pleasure to welcome all of you here to the law school. Also i welcome not only on behalf of our constitution, the University Center for lesson american and latina studies. As well as the American Writers Association and Planning Committee representatives. Thank you. [applause]. Thank you for all the hard work to make this event such a success. I know you all have very busy schedule so i appreciate your willingness to be here for it. Those you who were here yesterday, it series of panels beginning to unpack some of the challenges we are facing migrants be. Some of the factors across the world as well as some of the ways in which the system is being challenged here in the United States as well as how we can understand more deeply the best interest standards presets at the heart of this gathering. We are really pleased hope yesterday and today to have such a broad range of experts in the room cuddling legal experts, and scholars and practitioners but also from the social sciences, Mental Health professionals and other health professionals, broad range of expertise. We had some very fruitful conversations yesterday and im sure that will continue today. Were hoping not only to understand with the challenges are, but also to identify paths forward. You want to acknowledge the staff from law school to the center of a this event possible including alexandria, and many other student assistance for the lesson american and latina studies as well as several Staff Members here at the Washington College of law. The special events Team Public Relations team and others. You know how difficult it is to get the work done from donors to provide these resources to make these events possible. So i want to acknowledge tremendous gratitude for the sponsors of this event including kirkland, and the law offices, thanks to all of you and others. For your support. [applause]. Will be of it, she was in a solomon i love to show this photo because it really be people people behind bars. Anyway, it will leave you with that thought. Even though there was this groundbreaking decision in 1996 that, there was much more contagious route for but so many of us thought that would open the doors to all range for persecution but wasnt such an easy route in 1999. The board of emigration appeals in the matter of ari, reversing asylum. Bruno connected violence, this was during the administration, and janet reno, the Justice Department did this before the end of the administration. And she vacated it in her Justice Department issued proposed regulation that would have really contemplated protecting survivors of Domestic Violence another dinner persecutions and those regulations were proposed in 2000 and they have to this day, never been finalized. Throughout the whole of obama administration, theyve finalized them and that but they never happened. Around this issue, Going Forward mr. A herself in the immigration judge, the level resulting in another high profile it mexican woman, also at the level of an immigration judge. Not binding and it was not until mentors in 2014, we actually got a decision saying that the violence could be the basis for an asylum claim. Something about that. Along the way from 1999 to 2014, to get a decision saying that the Domestic Violence, must belong with though. It was because of the type and ministration. What did they do. As i said, they were recognizing Domestic Violence. It recognized, remember i talked about the particular socialist definition and how that can be used in cases involving gender persecution. So did has a Narrow Holding saying that this post a defined by married women in guatemala unable to be a social group. In subsequent, even though it was a Narrow Holding, advocates really came in and did the arc jeep to successfully advocate for other cases. So not just the married women but unmarried women pretty girls forced into sexual relationships with gang members. A child abuse survivors. They were not revolutionary but really they expanded. So what happened sessions during his time as attorney general, certified case called to himself. He used a beat to reverse ar steve g. In reversing it, what, doesnt matter of this level do. I hate sugar like this elated morning. The reason added this is because then the attorney general did this and i was actually contacted reporter for the washington post. Im very proud of the fact that this is actually back from the dark ages. I sent this refusal to recognize gender violence for Domestic Violence, is a violation of womens rights and the basis for asylum. It takes us back to the dark ages of how we content conceptualize womens rights. That was the headliner. I wanted to show you that. But it is true. The point that i was making, for those of you in this room knows that the history of women recognition and womens rights, the human rights is that this is really kind of pulling us back. This is just a photo of like many asylums, chose to maintain her anonymity. But this is to you a sense of the person herself. If i had time, she did a human rights short video about her in her case talking about the persecution. So in her case, had very strong facts. This is the case with the attorney general was looking for a week case. She was married to her abuser, she had three children with him. The abusers brother was member of the salvador police and extreme physical violence or the entire ranks of the relationship. So the place were largely unresponsive. To the point of one time they issued her a protective order. Her husband was being heard and threatening her. In the place said why dont you serve your husband. Anybody and thinks about an enraged husband and telling a woman to serve our show that she went to the placement serve, just observed. She went away a tractor down. He actually return after the divorce. He told her that nothing but death would set her free from him. So on those debts, what is she doing the decision of matters. A beat. I want to distinguish between what sessions attempted to do and what he actually could do legally because hes not operating in a vacuum. Somebody tried to do was to foreclose all claims based on Domestic Violence, gender violence and fear of again. It is as broad language, persons pertaining to gang violence. They were not qualified for assignment. Hes trying to send this message, dont grant these claims but the actual Legal Holdings is much narrower and a lot of with statements about the what the attorney general thinks. So he rejects the social groups formulation that unmarried women, unable to leave, actually been formulation of developed by the department of Homeland Security itself as a set approach in arcg. But he said that didnt meet the standard or Legal Standard for another group and then remember i told you that they had to be on account up. And we said the violence is on account of this person being a woman in this relationship. And thats why the man abuses her. And thats with the Domestic Violence experts will say. But whats is getting at is saying is just personal. To try to separate out and say Domestic Violence is not about gender. This is what, i mean, about the ludicrousness of this. Sort of the actual holes of a. B. In addition to what i just told you. Member i said was a nonstate actor, the individual has to show the government unable and willing to protect. Says by the government by a private actor that the government is unable and willing. He tried to raise the standard to what it takes to show unwillingness. He also suggested without any evidence, that when the persecutors and this individual, and not the government, it should be easier for the person internally to be relocated and escape. Escape the prosecutor. You could relocate and not be persecuted, you dont qualify for asylum. Sue said these things in the decision without any basis. Really more of an opinion. This is where start of the restoring of the protection was happening im going to go over these four areas. Challenges of the av decision and contacts of things like google and litigation in these individual cases, nationwide decisionmaking and then particularly strategies. So expedited removal. After the matter of av, or matter of a. B. , and it issued after a. B. , strongly implies that individuals hearing against can have screening standards that someone must have in the review. If you are an expedited removal and you dont show the screening path of standard for credible fear, your remote and are not permitted to apply for asylum. So with the government trying to do, was anybody who appeared with a claim or a gender violence claim or fear again, is after a. B. , they dont qualify. So there was a challenge to that, where the District Court judge and of columbia, issued an injunction. We are cocounsel and argued that the attorney general and many legal errors in his decision. And the judge agreed. It issued an injunction against the application of a. B. And of incredible fear and i was a step because it prevented the government from screening these people out and not even permitting them to apply force on them. In the appeal this and we are awaiting a decision of the Circuit Court of appeal. We dont know which way it will go but. But for now, a. B. Cannot be used to sue screen people out. Litigation in her own case, so if you know when an individual has been denied asylum, one of the things you do in that individuals case is you appeal it. Because that appeal you hope to have the underlying decision reversed. So after the attorney general, issued his decision in a matter of a. B. , it was impact the Immigration Courts and we needed to put in more evidence. So we put in about a thousand more pages of evidence about gender violence incident el salvador and the inability of the government to protect. I wont bore you with it. The immigration judge, denied it again. And catches one of these judges who has like 95 percent asylum denial rate. Thats not normal. It is not normal for those of you do not practice immigration law. Used to be a judge, elevated and promoted to this position. The point im making is in order to adapt to that judge and he denied it initially and he denied it again. So we appeal that and we submitted again just last month were waiting for the board of immigration to decide. The board of immigration appeals theoretically could side with her but not likely. If the board of immigration denies that we get to the fourth Circuit Court of appeals. In the federal court, where we prevail if we do prevail, and get it reverse a lot of the legal reasoning in the matter of a. B. I just spoke to you about tracy whitaker, but that only applies to credible fear. So that does not restrain judges who want to deny on the merits because of the a. B. Case. So in the face of this decision, in the matter of a. B. What is happening in reality to the decisionmaking. We track, the assistant attorneys and then we can talk about the outcomes of the cases. His nonrepresentative example. It is not comprehensive. Its that simple of attorneys who asked for help from us. So often times, generally people are underrepresented, they dont know about this process. So this is what were saying from this. We seeing 50 unpublished cia unpublished, where fear of gain and, 370 miles and 13 back to the invasion judge and generally, they cite to the matter very superficial. And its a matter of what a. B. Decided and whatever. Not positive. But in Immigration Court weve actually seen something different. The same hundred and 70 asylum with holy grants, and Partner Abuse or child abuse cases. Although, theres many denials. So i dont want to paint this kind of a picture. Weve seen at least a hundred five denials. What is interesting, and this will be more for the people were started in the weeds on legal things here. Is that after the attorney general struck down the social group and unmarried guatemalan women are unable to leave. Theres a very simple social group that advocates have been trying to get recognized for a long time. Its just gender and women. To say salvador in women, 1 million women, and the number of Immigration Judges have been granting on that much more simple straightforward articulation of social groups. Which again is positive. The number of Circuit Court decisions and some positive, but i dont want to again painted overly rosy picture. But you can just see below quote from them. This was a case where the first one, the woman had proposed the social Group Similar to the one the sessions rejected and the court said her cases weekend but it doesnt automatically defeat a claim. Recognizing, that each case had to be judged on the fact of the past in the record. In here, and judge had done exactly what i just said and granted on just gender and nationality. And then the board had reversed it saying it was to run. The ninth circuit said no no no, that is not to run. Go back to this and look at it again. So these are some positive developments. Also people raising because of the social groups, and work that much in cases involving women are asserting the rights. Attorneys are pretty forward because remember that its one of the grounds that is based on the political opinion or belief that the woman not have the right to be beaten by her male partner. This is being recognized by the courts also read this opinion basis of the claim mightve been based on this one. There is negative decisions and i dont want to go into this because were quickly running out of time. Theres a little bit more of a mix where the courts said matter of a. B. Does not automatically ban these cases but the cia was reasonable in finding that this was not a viable point. And similarly in this 11th circuit case. What are some of the broader strategies. We are tracking and helping them build the record, litigating these cases. And we are tracking cases nationwide at the Circuit Court and beyond. That is where we can win. For instance, tracking, my left side will give you information about how you can report a case of that we can know what is happening. We are intervening, to bring our expertise. There is five dvd cases coming up for arguments in the ninth circuit in the next month. Weve asked for them to be consolidated and putting things in place and also the term meat attorneys are giving us some argument time. Is generally a good circuit and were looking to see if it will develop good outcome. And then were at the executive level. A lot of you in this room have worked on a lot of new strategies i am talking about but there is this big book donated by immigration, but we are looking at what are all the changes we want and administration and where you are working on this broader issue of humanitarian protection. Which includes the reversal of a. B. Another bad decisions. Weve been working with a lot of the president ial candidates, the staff of the lot of the candidates and most of them major candidates have sent a pledge to reverse a. B. If they were elected. So legislative and i am almost through. No running overtime. I think i have two or three more sides of that. Also, theres a protection act, that is been introduced many times. And never had the chance of being enacted but if there is, at the 2020 elections are positive, and this and in house might be more maneuverable. We actually, work with congressional staffers to fix key terms in the refugees definition of really get in the way, not just of gender claims but fear of getting names, children claims, you name it. On account of the removal, a lot of these requirements have been put in there really have been significant barriers. Then theres number of Congress Members who are interested in standalone bills to address a. B. Finally were trying to do a lot of education. To build a Broader Movement and so we have a website called immigrant women to pray to be have women survivors of violence and they been granted asylum. They are telling the stories. Weve been working with local activists across the country to get, and the city council or town council level, resolutions approved about reversing a beat. We want this to be a broader civil rights human rights thing. So those are all the things that are going on. I remain hopeful on this issue. My last lie, quickly mention a couple of things. So those of you are attorneys who dont know about us, we provide expert consultation. Technical assistance and different data resources. Please reach out to us. We are trying to track cases. How you can reach us to tell us the outcome in the case. There immigrant women websites. Some of you know, we started a database of expert witnesses and a number of you in this room are experts. And youre already in our database. But were trying to connect attorneys with experts one might be interested in this article of abie one year later. Those trends that i had one or two slides about the Circuit Court level, those are all detailed most in this law review. So thank you very much retired. I decided to leave this to the organizers. Thank you so much. [applause]. I think what well do, is not your fault, we did not put enough time into the beginning to answer the questions. So i think that and i wanted to remind the audience that we have question cards on the table. Feel free to fill this out. You this question cards off to and they will bring them to the moderator. So if you questions for karen