On a morning that began with a sense of calm, tensions quickly escalated for asylum-seekers at the immigration courtroom of Judge Patrick O’Brien in San Francisco.
For the past three weeks, ICE officers have frequently arrested individuals seeking asylum immediately following their court hearings at 630 Sansome St.
However, this Thursday was different for about a dozen individuals who left the courtroom without incident.
One man expressed his relief out loud as he exited the courtroom and did not see ICE agents waiting for him in the hallway.
Yet, the day took a troubling turn for the last individual on Judge O’Brien’s 8:30 a.m. docket.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a motion to dismiss the case of a Colombian woman seeking asylum, as announced by the attorney representing the department to Judge O’Brien.
Such motions are typically filed in order to expedite the removal of asylum-seekers from the United States.
In an unusual practice, judges in San Francisco usually refrain from immediately ruling on these motions, thus helping to protect individuals from abrupt removal.
Despite this, the regular presence of ICE agents post-hearing complicates matters significantly, as they continue to arrest individuals the moment they leave the courtroom.
Upon hearing the DHS motion, Judge O’Brien let out an audible sigh and remarked, “All right.”
In recent weeks, O’Brien has voiced concerns in court regarding how these motions hinder the normal proceedings in his courtroom.
Demonstrating his awareness of the troubling situation, he granted the asylum-seeker an additional four weeks—twice the standard amount of time—to respond to the DHS motion in writing.
He then attempted to subtly inform the woman of the potential for her detention.
“Have you heard about this happening in immigration court?” he asked.
When initially unaware, the woman subsequently acknowledged that she had heard about it when O’Brien pressed again.
“Do you understand what’s happening right now?” he continued, cautioning her against optimistic expectations of returning to court.
With the help of an interpreter, the woman replied affirmatively, understanding the grim situation she faced.
“Can you tell me what you think is going to happen after this hearing?” O’Brien probed further.
Through the interpreter, the woman expressed, “I don’t have much time left here.”
“Well, I guess that’s one way to think about it,” O’Brien responded, acknowledging the reality at hand.
As this conversation progressed around 10:30 a.m., three ICE agents were already gathering discreetly in the hallway outside the courtroom.
When the hearing concluded, Judge O’Brien’s final advice to the woman was to find an attorney as quickly as possible.
Typically, there would be legal advocates present in the courtroom offering free guidance to unrepresented asylum-seekers on the day of their hearings.
However, on Thursday, as had been the case in recent weeks, none were available, and the reason remains unclear.
Instead, a court observer gestured for the asylum-seeker to approach them for contact information after her hearing wrapped up.
Upon stepping into the hallway, the woman was immediately met by the three ICE agents—two female and one male—who moved in swiftly.
Panicking, the woman tried to retreat back toward the door, but the agents made their move, grabbing her arm and leading her down the hall.
It was likely that she was being taken to the sixth floor of the same building, where many immigrants are processed before being transferred to longer-term detention facilities elsewhere.
Meanwhile, back inside the courtroom, Judge O’Brien was preparing to address the next case on his 10:30 a.m. docket.
He faced yet another issue when it was brought to his attention that DHS had mistakenly issued Notices to Appear for some asylum-seekers, indicating the wrong address for their court appearance.
Instead of directing them to 630 Sansome St., DHS had mistakenly instructed them to go to 100 Montgomery St.
While one family arrived punctually, the other did not show up at all, which can lead to cancellation of their asylum case and potential deportation.
Despite the mistake on DHS’s part, their attorney argued that the family should still face deportation, claiming they would have been guided to the proper location had they arrived at the wrong address.
O’Brien, acknowledging his commitment to punctuality, challenged the argument, stating, “I used to have a lot of confidence that that happened without fail.”
Ultimately, he dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing the family to refile their asylum case.
DHS’s attorney indicated that the department would likely appeal the decision.
image source from：missionlocal
