Judge denies Omar Amin bail, considers it a “flight risk”

Read Time:8 Minute, 15 Second

Omar Amin, a refugee in Sacramento, has been declared a “danger” and a “flight risk” and has been denied bail, meaning he will remain in custody until a removal case against him continues. Amin received a new bail hearing held last week in the Van Nice Courtroom in the Los Angeles area. During the hearing, the government called two witnesses to testify to prove that Amin is a risk to society and should not be released. On Tuesday, an immigration judge ruled that Amin posed a danger and a risk of escape, which she based primarily on testimony at the hearing. Amin’s lawyers have already filed an appeal against the immigration judge’s decision. “Now we will wait for this appeal to be deployed,” said Shean Waldron, an immigration lawyer. “We are certainly going to investigate and continue the trial as we can bring a federal court to help secure Mr Amin’s release to ensure he receives a constitutional hearing on the bonds. Our position is that the bond hearings he received last week were unconstitutional and that he was improperly legally denied bail. So we will continue the trial and any other strategies to secure his release, the fight continues. “The removal hearing. about fugitives to gain entry into the United States, he is not a terrorist and did not kill an Iraqi police officer, according to the government.For this reason, Amin’s defense team is struggling to understand why he was denied bail, and says that the judge’s decision is inconsistent with her previous ruling “It appears that she based this particular decision on bail on allegedly new information provided by witnesses, but mostly information from witnesses simply spewed out what was in the FBI’s LHM (FBI memorandum) and was not new information, “said Waldron. Waldron is one of the defenders representing Amin. Below is more information from her interview Wednesday with Brittany Johnson of KCRA 3 Investigate s. Question: On what did the judge base his decision? Waldron: Unfortunately, the immigration judge counted the testimonies of both state witnesses and found that Mr. Amin was both a danger and a risk of fleeing primarily based on the testimony presented at the hearings. Question: Earlier the judge ruled that Amin is not a terrorist. I understand that this was in the immigration case, but does it have any weight here at the hearing on the conclusion regarding the exclusion of any danger? Waldron: She actually found out that he was not a terrorist when he gave him the content of the deportation, sorry, under the Convention against Torture, and gave him the content in the detention. This means that it has not been subject to any removal bans, including if you pose a threat to national security or if you have been linked to terrorism. In addition, she had in fact previously denied accusations by the government that he had committed crimes and that he had been involved in terrorism. So we are also struggling with the immigration judge’s decision on the bond case. We do not consider this justified or compatible with its previous decisions. But she seems to have based this particular bail decision on allegedly new information provided by witnesses, but mostly information from witnesses simply spewed out what was in the FBI’s LHM and was not new information. This (judge’s decision) is simply not supported by law or records, or is not consistent with her previous decisions. But to answer your direct question, yes, a bail hearing is completely separate from a removal hearing. These are individual records. But, in fact, almost everything, in fact, I actually think is that everything that was presented in the removal process was also presented in the bond process. Thus, exactly the same information was before the immigration judge with additional testimony from these two witnesses – Lieutenant Medina and FBI Agent Grof – that this is new evidence that is only in the bail record and not in the removal process.Q: What’s next? Is your team appealing? Waldron: Certainly, we have already filed an appeal against the immigration judge’s decision, which was dated yesterday, and we filed the appeal the same day. We will now wait for this call to be revealed. And we are certainly going to investigate and continue the trial as we can bring a federal court to help secure Mr. Amin’s release to ensure he gets a hearing on a constitutional bail. Our position is that the bail hearings he received last week were unconstitutional and that he was improperly denied illegal bond payments. We will continue the trial and any and all other strategies to secure his release, the struggle continues. KCRA 3 contacted the Immigration Customs Service for comment on this story. We were told: “At the moment we have no comments.”

Omar Amin, a refugee in Sacramento, has been declared a “danger” and a “flight risk” and has been denied bail, meaning he will remain in custody pending removal proceedings against him.

Amen received Fr. a new bond hearing, which took place last week in the Van Nice Courtroom in the Los Angeles area. During the hearing, the government called two witnesses to testify to prove that Amin is a risk to society and should not be released. On Tuesday, an immigration judge ruled that Amin was a danger and a risk of escape, which she based primarily on testimony at the hearing.

Amin’s defenders have already filed an appeal against the immigration judge’s decision.

“We will now wait for this appeal to be resolved,” said Shean Waldron, an immigration lawyer. “We are certainly going to investigate and continue the trial as we can bring a federal court to help secure Mr Amin’s release to ensure he receives a constitutional hearing on the bonds. Our position is that the bond hearings he received last week were unconstitutional and that he was improperly legally denied bail. So we will continue the trial and any other strategies to secure his release, the fight continues. “

Amin is currently holding two separate hearings: a conclusion hearing and a trial.

The same immigration judge is considering both cases, and the same judge ruled a few months ago that although Amin lied in his refugee statement to gain entry into the United States, he is not a terrorist and did not kill an Iraqi police officer. claimed the government.

For this reason, Amin’s defense team is struggling to understand why he was denied bail, and says the judge’s decision is inconsistent with her previous decisions.

“She seems to have based this particular decision on bail on alleged new information provided by witnesses, but mostly information from witnesses simply spewed out what was in the FBI’s LHM (FBI memorandum) and was not new information,” Waldron said.

Waldron is one of the defenders representing Amin. Below is more information from her Wednesday interview with Brittany Johnson of KCRA 3 Investigates.

Question: What was the basis of the judge’s decision?

Waldron: Unfortunately, the immigration judge confirmed the testimony of both state witnesses and considered that Mr. Amin posed a danger and risk of absconding, primarily based on the testimony presented at the hearings.

Question: Earlier, the judge acknowledged that Amin is not a terrorist. I understand it was in the immigration case, but does it have any weight here at the bail hearing regarding the exclusion of any danger?

Waldron: She actually found out that he was not a terrorist when she allowed him to refuse deportation under guard, sorry under the Convention against Torture, and also allowed him to refuse deportation. This means that it has not been subject to any removal bans, including if you pose a threat to national security or if you have been linked to terrorism.

In addition, she had in fact previously denied accusations by the government that he had committed crimes and that he had been involved in terrorism. So we are also struggling with the immigration judge’s decision on the bond case. We do not consider this justified or compatible with its previous decisions. But she seems to have based this particular bail decision on allegedly new information provided by witnesses, but mostly information from witnesses simply spewed out what was in the FBI’s LHM, and was not new information.

It (the judge’s decision) is simply not confirmed by law or protocol, and is not compatible with her previous decisions. But to answer your direct question, yes, a bail hearing is completely separate from a removal hearing. These are individual records. But, in fact, almost everything, in fact, I actually think is that everything that was presented in the removal process was also presented in the bond process. Thus, exactly the same information was before the immigration judge with additional testimony of these two witnesses – Lieutenant Medina and FBI agent Grof – that this is new evidence that is only in the record of bail and not in the process of deportation.

Q: What happens next? Is your team appealing?

Waldron: Of course, we have already filed an appeal against the immigration judge’s decision, which was noted yesterday, and we filed the appeal the same day. We will now wait for this call to be revealed. And we are certainly going to investigate and continue the trial as we can bring a federal court to help secure Mr. Amin’s release to ensure he gets a hearing on a constitutional bail. Our position is that the bail hearings he received last week were unconstitutional and that he was improperly denied illegal bond payments. We will continue the trial and any other strategies to secure his release, the struggle continues.


KCRA 3 appealed to the Immigration Customs for comment on this story. We were told: “At the moment we have no comments.”

Source by [author_name]

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
Previous post The CSUMB president bequeaths the service and higher alumni performance
Next post Kern High announces PEAAK 2022 winners News