If you said zero, you are correct. No mention of the government's campaign to eradicate LGBTQ folks from existence. So if you're applying for asylum from Uganda and are gay, you're gonna have to prove that this "inherently reliable" report is wrong - or you get deported. A complete failure.

Uganda is one of the worst places in the world to be gay. Here's the summary from the last year's report - they lead off with Uganda's use of the death penalty for gay folks. How many words do you think are spent on that in this year's report?

These reports are used by immigration adjudicators in determining whether a person is in danger in their home country. They're deemed "inherently reliable." And for decades each country's report would address conditions for women and conditions for LGBTQ folks. That content is now gone. An example:

I should have read more closely. Yes, FPB and OIL are different branches (although FPB does defend some agency actions that involve immigration). Denaturalization is traditionally brought by OIL attorneys. I assume they're having the same attrition problems.

Also, an immigration judge at the Concord immigration court was fired mid-hearing today. She received a message during the hearing saying she had been fired. Had to stop the hearing. EOIR is in absolute chaos.

Also, Benjamin K. Davey, who was ACIJ over the Cleveland court seems to be gone as well. www.justice.gov/eoir/acij-as...

She has no authority to "guide" IJs in how to apply BIA precedent, no authority to set precedent herself, no authority to pick out unfortunate decisions she wishes didn't exist and come up with ways to ignore them. Lawlessness.

To be clear, the Attorney General definitely has the authority to say these things in a published precedential decision. Then, folks agrieved by that lawlessness can take those decisions to federal court and the AG's lawyer will show up to defend it. But the acting EOIR Director?

In short: asylum law is made up. It's not actually law. You don't have to enforce it if you don't feel like it. It's just vibes. Ignore the law if you want, IJs, and your Acting Director has your back. We'll come up with some tortured rationale about how precedent isn't really precedent.

To scare people into leaving on their own is my best guess. Or just the pure cruelty of it.

Because instead of defending 1 lawsuit challenging an illegal new immigration policy, they get to defend thousands in various courts. So, I'm not sure who is going to have time on their hands to prosecute these cases, but we will see.