Judge John B. Owens – immigrationcourtside.com

COMPLICIT 9TH CIRCUIT JUDGES CONTINUE TO CODDLE TRUMP — This Time Legal Immigrants Are The Victims Of Trump’s Judicially-Enabled White Nationalist Agenda — Judges Jay Bybee & Sandra Ikuta Tank, While Judge John Owens Files a Feeble Dissent!

https://apple.news/AJHrFUWorRIyFv_yLCkI5Aw

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

Trump nabs win on rule that could reshape legal immigration, but hold remains in place

Updated 12:17 PM EST December 6, 2019
Washington

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Trump administration on a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants who rely on government assistance to obtain legal status to take effect.

But the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn’t have an immediate practical effect because the policy is still on hold due to nationwide rulings in two separate federal courts.

In August, the administration unveiled its regulation broadening the definition of “public charge,” a provision that dates back at least to the Immigration Act of 1882. The rule introduced by the Trump administration affects people who receive most forms of Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. It was immediately met with pushback from advocates and several states who argued that the changes would penalize immigrants who rely on temporary assistance from the government and impose costs on the states.

While the majority of the three-judge panel recognized many of these arguments, they also found that the administration would likely succeed in its argument that it has the legal authority to define what makes someone a public charge.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay on rulings that have blocked the so-called “public charge” rule from taking effect. The panel has jurisdiction over nine western states. Legal challenges in other parts of the country continue to halt the rule from being implemented.

The ruling was a rare victory for the President, who has repeatedly railed against the Ninth Circuit.

“We find that the history of the use of ‘public charge’ in federal immigration law demonstrates that ‘public charge’ does not have a fixed, unambiguous meaning,” wrote Judge Jay Bybee. “Rather, the phrase is subject to multiple interpretations, it in fact has been interpreted differently, and the Executive Branch has been afforded the discretion to interpret it.”

Judge John Owens dissented in part because of the “lack of irreparable harm to the government at this early stage.”

The White House lauded the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in a statement Friday, but noted the obstacles the rule still faces before it can be implemented.

“Unfortunately, as a practical matter, the ruling has accomplished nothing to vindicate the rule of law due to the destructive practice of individual district judges taking over national policy issues by issuing nationwide injunctions,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement. “Such subversions of the rule of law must come to an end.”

The 73-page majority ruling recounted the history of the rule and noted that Congress didn’t define the regulation, thereby leaving it “subject to multiple interpretations.”

Bybee, however, also recognized the difficulty of the issues at hand, writing separately that “we as a nation are engaged in titanic struggles over the future of immigration in the United States.” He also appeared to take aim at administration officials, including the President, who have accused courts of making decisions based on policy preferences, as well as Congress for lack of legislative action.

“My first point is that even as we are embroiled in these controversies, no one should mistake our judgments for our policy preferences” he wrote, adding: “In the immigration context, whatever dialogue we have been having with the administration over its policies, we are a poor conversant.”

Judges Bybee and Sandra Ikuta were appointed by George W. Bush while Owens was appointed by Barack Obama.

© 2019 Cable News Network, Inc. A WarnerMedia Company. All Rights Reserved.

*******************************

Judge Jay Bybee’s majority opinion reads like something written by White Nationalist Stephen Miller: Judges should never, ever, think of the clear and logical consequences of their actions, nor should they worry themselves about an Administration with a clearly invidious racially motivated agenda of dismembering the Constitution.

And, gosh, the world might come to an end if the Executive were actually forced to act in a reasonable manner, consistent with the facts: This regulation would do far more harm than good and has, even without implementation, already been responsible for the spread of disease and immigrants not getting available health services, sometimes for U.S. citizen family members, because of the fear and confusion that Trump has intentionally sown in ethnic communities. Just because we make the services legally available, doesn’t mean we will allow you to use them if you are an immigrant. This is the kind of nonsense that Bybee promotes in his decision.

Bybee also seems totally indifferent to the simple fact that every time Article III Judges “tank” on their legal and Constitutional responsibilities, actual innocent human beings suffer, and even die, at the hands of Trump, Miller, and the rest of their bullying and cowardly White Nationalist “wrecking crew.” Inaction, particularly in the face of tyranny, can have just as grave consequences as action.

Bybee’s brain-dead colleague Judge Sandra Ikuta joined his blathering subservience to Trump’s White Nationalist mission.

Bybee even wrote separately to absolve himself of any moral responsibility for his complicity and to finger the “real culprit” here, a feckless Congress. The latter point is correct. But, according to Bybee, in the face of a Congress that has abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities, life-tenured Article III Judges also get to ignore theirs. The last thing that should be expected of the life-tenured is any “heaving lifting” or courage in the face of tyranny! Nope, they are there to “go along to get along.”

After all, while most of us have no difficulty recognizing the undisguised ethnic and racial basis for the Trump regime’s anti-immigrant agenda, and while many U.S. District Judges, and even some Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers, are able to figure it out, such level of awareness is completely beyond Court of Appeals Judges. Nor, can they be expected to discern that a regulatory proposal adopted over the objections of most of the 266,077 commenters is likely to be based on something other than reasonable, responsible, fact-based policy making: Like, perhaps racial and ethnic biases or arbitrariness that violate our Constitution. Not to mention that the policy also makes little sense from a socio-economic standpoint.

This is an Administration whose proclivity to present “pretextual reasons” to cover their tracks for improper and illegal motives has been recognized all the way up to the Supreme Court in the “Census Case.” And, while ideally policy-making should be informed by “Executive Expertise,” that clearly isn’t the case with immigration under the Trump Regime. Trump’s utter disdain, disrespect, and disregard for Executive Branch civil servants with expertise and a fact-based approach to policy making is well-established.

But, of course, all of this is too deep for Article III Judges like Bybee and Ituka to be expected to grasp. Better to just turn the other way, put on blinders, ignore the Constitution and the rule of law, and let the abuse of immigrants continue unabated. Leave the “tough stuff” to others.

But, just whom might those “others” be who will eventually put an end to this anti-Constitutional, and ultimately anti-American, rampage of Executive overreach? An interesting question when you consider that those courageous lawyers and U.S. District Judges trying to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law in the face of Trump’s onslaught have too often been “dissed,” ignored, and undercut by Bybee and his complicit colleagues.

Did our “Founding Fathers” really intend to empower a despotic Executive to act freely against individuals without without any realistic restraints? If the Trump Administration is what they aspired to, then why didn’t just stick with good old K. George III? If, on the other hand, the Trump Administration is, in fact, “Our Founders’ Worst Nightmare,” as most informed (e.g., other than GOP toadies, Fox News, and other extremest media) observers have concluded, why are the Article III Appellate Courts too gutless to say so and stand up for our rights?

Got to wonder who is going to stand up for the rights of Judges like Bybee and Ituka, and even Owens, when Trump, Miller, and the rest of the regime come for them?

The case is City and County of San Francisco v. USCIS, and you can read it at the link in Priscilla’s article.

Sadly, Due Process and Fundamental Fairness don’t seem to have any “friends in high places” these days. Ultimately, that’s going to be a problem for our nation even if the Bybees and Itukas of the world are too blind and self-interested in preserving their ivory tower sinecures to recognize it and act accordingly!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

12-06-19

9th SLAMS DUE PROCESS DOOR ON ENDANGERED HONDURAN TEEN — FLAWED ASYLUM HEARING WAS “GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK” — NO RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL! — C.J.L.G. V. SESSIONS!

9th-CJLG-Consel

C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 9th Cir., 01-29-18, published

PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and John B. Owens,
Circuit Judges, and David A. Faber,* District Judge.

* The Honorable David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY: Judge Callahan

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Owens

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

“The panel denied C.J.L.G.’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, holding that neither the Due Process Clause nor the Immigration & Nationality Act creates a categorical right to court-appointed counsel at government expense for alien minors, and concluding that the Board’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture was supported by substantial evidence.
The panel held that it is not established law that alien minors are categorically entitled to government-funded, court-appointed counsel and, applying the three-part test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), held that C.J. had not shown a necessity for such counsel to safeguard his due process right to a full and fair hearing.
The panel incorporated its analysis of C.J.’s asylum claim into its Mathews analysis in determining that C.J. was not prejudiced by any procedural deficiencies in his proceeding. The panel concluded that the record compelled a finding that C.J. had a well-founded fear of persecution based on threats he received from the Mara gang when he resisted their recruitment efforts, but rejected C.J.’s asylum claim because he had not established that the threats had a nexus to a protected ground, or that the government was unable or unwilling to control the Maras. The panel deemed waived any argument that he was denied due process on his withholding and CAT claims, but noted that his withholding claim would also fail.
The panel also rejected C.J.’s argument that the INA’s fair hearing provision, § 1229a(b)(4)(B), implicitly requires court-appointed counsel at government expense for all alien minors.
The panel further held that the IJ was not required to inform C.J. that he might be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile status, concluding that the IJ’s duty to inform aliens of “apparent eligibility” for relief was not triggered because, at the time of his removal proceeding, C.J. did not have a state court order that could have made him apparently eligible for SIJ status.
Finally, the panel concluded that the agency’s denial of CAT relief was supported by substantial evidence. The panel concluded that 1) the Board did not err in concluding that C.J.’s experience of having a member of the Maras put a gun to his head did not amount to “severe pain or suffering;” 2) there was no showing that the Honduran government acquiesced in the act; and 3) the record did not compel the conclusion that the government either turned a blind eye to the Maras’ threats or that it would be unable or unwilling to control the Maras in the future.
Concurring, Judge Owens wrote that the majority’s opinion does not hold, or even discuss, whether the Due Process Clause mandates counsel for unaccompanied minors, and observed that that is a different question that could lead to a different answer.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.”

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

“We are mindful that our decision means that, absent a reprieve offered by the government, C.J. will likely be returned to a country in turmoil. We sympathize with his personal plight, as C.J. appears to have displayed courage in the face of serious adversity. But while “our hearts are with [C.J.],” the law does not support his requested relief. Cf. Dugard v. United States, 835 F.3d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 2016). Neither Supreme Court nor circuit precedent compels the remedy that C.J. seeks: court-appointed counsel at government expense. And to the extent the IJ failed to provide all the trappings of a full and fair hearing, any shortcomings did not prejudice the outcome because the IJ adequately developed the record on issues that are dispositive to C.J.’s claims for relief. Attorney representation could not have altered this reality, which forecloses C.J.’s claim to an implied right to court-appointed counsel under the Due Process Clause. Moreover, the INA itself neither provides for nor implies a right to court-appointed counsel at government expense.

We further hold that the IJ was not required to advise C.J. of a separate state court process that could ultimately form the predicate for C.J.’s application for SIJ status with the IJ. The IJ is only required to advise an alien of relief for which he is “apparent[ly] eligib[le].” Because C.J.’s claimed relief—SIJ status—depends on a state court making certain findings before an IJ may grant him such relief—something that has not occurred here—C.J. is not “apparent[ly] eligib[le]” for SIJ status.
Finally, we decline to reverse the Board’s denial of C.J.’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that he is ineligible for any such relief.”

CONCURRING OPINION BY JUDGE OWENS:

“I concur in the majority opinion and its narrow scope. It holds that the Due Process Clause does not mandate government-funded counsel for C.J.L.G, an accompanied minor. The opinion does not hold, or even discuss, whether the Due Process Clause mandates counsel for unaccompanied minors. That is a different question that could lead to a different answer. See, e.g., Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 31–32 (1981) (holding that whether the Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel is considered on a case-by-case basis); J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1039–41 (9th Cir. 2016) (McKeown, J., jjoined by M. Smith, J., specially concurring) (outlining unique challenges that unrepresented unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings confront).”

******************************************

BOTTOM LINE: This kid should join the gang in Honduras to save his life (and the lives of his family), or they should all die. We really don’t care as long as he doesn’t darken our door!
We’re willing to send this teen back to death or a life of forced gang membership after a hearing that none of us, and probably no American citizen, would consider fair or just if it were applied to us or someone we cared about. The key here is not to care about human lives.
It would be easy enough to define “those who resist gang membership” as a “particular social group” entitled to protection under our asylum and related laws. We have just intentionally chosen not to do so to avoid having to give protection to kids like this.
We also have ample authority to exercise Executive discretion to allow individuals in danger in their home countries to remain here in safety even if they don’t satisfy the technical requirements for asylum or withholding of removal. We have just chosen not to do so.
Contrary to the majority’s holding, a lawyer, particularly one who could find “expert” evidence or testimony probably could have secured protection for this young man under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The latest State Department Country Report shows that gang torture is reported in Honduras, that the government and the justice system are inherently corrupt and incompetent, and that criminal justice system often fails to protect citizens.
While perhaps “well-meaning,” Judge Owens concurring opinion suggesting a different result for a “truly unaccompanied” minor is highly disingenuous. From the record, it appears that this kid’s mother was barely literate, (not surprisingly) didn’t understand asylum law, and couldn’t even fill out his application coherently in English. Her lack of understanding that the case depended on (counterintuitively) proving something “other than pure gang recruitment” was at work here actually appears to have undermined his case. If clearly incompetent “assistance” by a lay person like this like this is the dividing line between “due process” and “no due process,” that would be an absurd result!
The panel basically shirks its duty by conferring upon the trial judge, the U.S. Immigration Judge, the responsibility of acting as the unrepresented child’s attorney and developing the record. But, this runs directly counter to the most recent “OPPM” from the Chief Immigration Judge “reminding” Immigration Judges to “maintain neutrality” and not be too helpful to unrepresented minors as they are being railroaded out of the country.
The “Trump/Sessions Deportation Railroad” is up and running. At least this panel of Article III Judges in the 9th Circuit appear anxious to establish themselves as “Just Another Whistle Stop on the Deportation Railroad.”
The blood of this young man and others like him who come seeking protection, only to find rejection based on a twisted hyper-legalistic reading of our laws and an abdication of moral responsibility to protect those in harm’s way will be on our hands as a nation. At some point it will stain. At some point, the stain will become indelible.
As a national policy, telling kids in the Northern Triangle that they have no choice but to join gangs or die is not likely to “solve” the “gang problem” here or there in the short or long run. Essentially, we’ve already demonstrated that. But, nobody is paying attention.

PWS

01-30-18

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: