May 15, 2009
One attorney's epic battle to get a response from ICE
 Billy Smith/HOUSTON CHRONICLE Sheikh Zoubir Bouchikhi kisses his youngest daughter, Sharefah Bouchikhi, at their home in Houston just after being released from an immigration detention facility. The father of four had been detained since December, but was finally released on a $20,000 bond. |
Poor customer service is the bane of modern-day existence.
Your doctor's office won't return your call. Your health insurance provider can't give you a straight answer. You can't get a live person on the line at the power company.
But usually in those cases, it's just your patience at risk -- not your life.
Attorney Brian Bates had a lot to lose in his epic battle to get someone, anyone, at the Houston ICE office to talk to him about a client.
Bates represents Sheikh Zoubir Bouchikhi, the 39-year-old imam of Houston's Abu Bakr Siddqui mosque, who Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to deport.
Bouchikhi, the popular spiritual leader of a southeast Houston mosque, was released Wednesday from an immigration detention facility after being held without bail since December. Bouchikhi has a wife and four kids, including three who were born in the U.S.
You can read more details about the imam's case here.
Bates recently filed a writ of habeas corpus and a petition at U.S. District Court in Houston challenging his client's detention.
In that filing is a remarkably detailed account of one lawyer's frustrating ordeal to get federal bureaucrats to answer the phone. It's exhausing just reading the endless attempts by Bates to get a response from ICE agents.
ICE officials refuse to comment on the chain of events outlined in the petition, saying it's "not appropriate" to respond to pending litigation.
But here's just one excerpt from Bates' petition, chronicling his adventure in contacting the appropriate ICE officer handling his client's case:
Shortly after Plaintiff's arrest [on Dec. 17] and upon learning that the Immigration Judge had no custody jurisdiction, Plaintiff's undersigned attorney attempted to contact the responsible Detention Officer (DO), Officer Kutz. He was unable to reach the DO personally, and left a detailed voice mail message.
Having heard nothing, counsel called again on December 23 and learned that the DO Kutz was detailed out of town and another DO, Officer Franco, was responsible. Counsel was told to put the request in writing, addressed to Field Office Director Kenneth Landgrebe. This information came from one of Mr. Landgrebe's subordinate supervisors, Ms. Arendale.
A written request for Imam BOUCHIKHI's release was sent by overnight delivery., and was delivered to Defendant Landgrebe's office on December 26, 2008. ...
On the morning of December 30, 2008, having heard nothing in reply to Plaintiff's request, counsel attempted to contact DO Franco. He did not answer his phone extension, and a voice mail message was left.
Receiving no reply, counsel called again in the afternoon of December 30, 2008.
After calling several phone numbers, being left on hold and cut off in the process of transfer, calling back, etc., counsel was finally told that DO Franco was also out of the office and no one but the Duty Officer was available. Counsel spoke to the Duty Officer, who expressed his opinion that probably no one had looked at Plaintiff's parole request because of the holidays and that no one would until after the New Year.
On January 2, 2009, counsel attempted once again to discuss Plaintiff's custody status with someone in Defendants' office. Initially no one answered the telephone at the number distributed for public use ... ; the automated system transferred the call to a voice mail system which had no "valid attendant number" and simply said "goodbye" and terminated the call.
Counsel then called another office, learned that DO Franco was still out. Counsel then asked to be transferred to whomever was covering Franco's cases in his absence. Counsel was placed on hold while the availability of such an officer was checked. After being left on hold for approximately ten minutes, and after having already been told that DO Franco was out of the office, counsel was transferred to Franco's voice mail without any further explanation.
On January 6, 2009, having heard nothing, Plaintiff's counsel again called the ICE detention office and was able to speak with DO Franco. Counsel was told that DO Kutz was going to be out on detail for additional weeks, that Kutz's cases were divided between two other officers, and that Plaintiff's case officer was now DO Valtierra.
Counsel discussed the written release request briefly with DO Franco; while counsel was placed on hold, Officer Franco was able to locate the written request that had been delivered on December 26 -- it had simply been placed in DO Kutz's box, apparently to await his return. DO Franco promised to deliver the request to DO Valtierra and ask him to call counsel back that day.
On the morning of January 8, 2009, having heard nothing, counsel attempted to call DO Valtierra, only to find that his name was not listed in the automated directory at the ICE detention office. Counsel therefore called DO Franco again, who transferred the call to Valtierra. Valtierra confirmed that he had Plaintiff's written release request but, since it was DO Kutz's case, he was not familiar with the case and would have to review the file. DO Valtierra offered to get back to counsel "today or tomorrow."
Hearing nothing from ICE, counsel called and left two voice mail messages for DO Valtierra on January 9, 2009.
On January 12, 2009, with absolutely no opportunity for further contact concerning Plaintiff's release request, counsel spoke with a DHS attorney familiar with Plaintiff's removal case. Counsel was told informally that the DHS attorney had been told the release request was going to be denied.
On January 14, 2009, again having heard nothing formally regarding the written release request, Plaintiff's counsel again called the ICE detention office and asked for DO Valtierra. Counsel was told that Valtierra was out of town for a few days.
Counsel asked to speak to the officer responsible for the case, and was transferred to a voice mailbox. In great frustration, counsel called the main public number, miraculously got a real person rather than a machine, and explained that the responsible officers on Plaintiff's file kept shifting, counsel kept leaving messages and no one was returning calls.
Since the written release request was directed to Director Landgrebe personally, counsel asked to speak to Mr. Landgrebe. The call was transferred to what purported to be Mr. Landgrebe's office. A detailed message was left and counsel was assured that someone would call back about Plaintiff's release request. No one did.
It's quite possible this is just an extreme example of the inner workings at ICE. But nevertheless, we would love to hear the official agency explanation for what happened.
Posted by Mizanur Rahman at May 15, 2009 04:18 PM
Original LINK -->
Education for Liberation!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka: Peta
Sacramento, California, Aztlan
Yahoo Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://www.sacramento-lawyers.org/index.html
http://anhglobal.ning.com/group/humanerightsagenda
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NetworkAztlan_News/
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
