"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 20–437. Argued April 27, 2021—Decided May 24, 2021
Respondent Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national living in the United States, was convicted in California state court of felony DUI in 1988. At the time, lower courts understood that conviction to be an “aggravated felony” subjecting a noncitizen to removal from the United States. 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Palomar-Santiago was removed following a hearing before an immigration judge and a waiver of his right to appeal. In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found in the United States and indicted on one count of unlawful reentry after removal. See §1326(a). The statute criminalizing unlawful reentry provides that a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order may proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that (1) “any administrative remedies that may have been available” were exhausted, (2) “the opportunity for judicial review” was lacking, and (3) “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” §1326(d). Palomar-Santiago moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his prior removal order was invalid in light of the 2004 holding in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony. Following Ninth Circuit precedent, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that Palomar-Santiago was excused from proving the first two requirements of §1326(d) because his felony DUI conviction had not made him removable. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Each of the statutory requirements of §1326(d) is mandatory. Pp. 5–8.
(a) The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is incompatible with the text of §1326(d), which provides that defendants charged with unlawful reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions. Section 1326(d)’s first
2
UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO Syllabus
two requirements are not satisfied just because a noncitizen was re- moved for an offense that should not have rendered him removable. The substantive validity of a removal order is quite distinct from whether the noncitizen exhausted administrative remedies or was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review. P. 5.
(b) Palomar-Santiago’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, he contends that further administrative review of a removal order is not “available” for purposes of §1326(a) when a noncitizen will not recognize a substantive basis to challenge an immigration judge’s conclusion that a prior conviction renders the noncitizen removable. The immigration judge’s error on the merits does not excuse the noncitizen’s failure to comply with a mandatory exhaustion requirement if further administrative review, and then judicial review if necessary, could fix that very error. Ross, 578 U. S. 632, distinguished.
Second, Palomar-Santiago contends that §1326(d)’s prerequisites do not apply when a defendant argues that a removal order was substantively invalid. There can be no “challenge” to or “collateral attack” on the validity of substantively flawed orders, he reasons, because such orders are invalid when entered. This position ignores the plain mean- ing of both “challenge” and “collateral attack.”
Lastly, Palomar-Santiago invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance. But this canon “has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 494. Here, the text of §1326(d) unambiguously fore- closes Palomar-Santiago’s interpretation. Pp. 5–7.
813 Fed. Appx. 282, reversed and remanded.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
***********************
The lesson here for advocates:Exhaust those administrative appeals and judicial review even when your case seems hopeless. Otherwise, your client will be barred from taking advantage of later changes in the case law. After the fact, a “mere showing of fundamental unfairness” is not sufficient! And, you could be charged with malpractice by recommending that appeals and judicial review be waived.
This ought to generate more clogging of the Federal Courts, particularly the way the BIA is deciding cases these days. But, it’s what the Supremes unanimously asked for, so we have to take them at their word!
The panel granted a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of a motion to reopen filed by Patricia Marisol Hernandez- Galand and her minor child, and remanded, holding that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening of petitioners’ in absentia removal orders.
Petitioners, natives and citizens of El Salvador, appeared pro se at their initial hearing. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) orally informed Ms. Hernandez that her next hearing date was July 12, 2016, and gave her a written notice with a hearing date of “07/12/2016.” Due to chronic memory problems from a childhood head injury, Ms. Hernandez did not remember the date the IJ had told her, and because she cannot read, she asked family members to read the notice. The family interpreted the date as December 7, 2016, based on how numerical dates are typically written in Latin America, with the day appearing before the month.
When Ms. Hernandez did not appear at the July 12, 2016, hearing, the IJ ordered petitioners removed in absentia. Petitioners timely filed a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), contending that that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening. The IJ denied the motion, and the BIA affirmed.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLAND 3
First, the panel considered the circumstances that caused Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear. The panel explained that Ms. Hernandez non-conclusory and unrefuted testimony in her sworn declaration about her memory problems was not inherently unbelievable, and there was no evidence in the record to contradict it. Thus, the panel concluded that the BIA erred to the extent it disregarded this aspect of Ms. Hernandez’s declaration simply because it lacked corroboration, and the panel credited Ms. Hernandez’s statements regarding her memory problems. The panel further concluded that the facts regarding Ms. Hernandez’s inability to read and her family’s misinterpretation of the hearing date were not disputed by the government or inherently unbelievable, and thus must be credited. The panel therefore concluded that Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear was due not to her choices or a lack of diligence, but to circumstances beyond her control.
The panel further explained that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding that Ms. Hernandez should have confirmed her hearing date through the immigration court’s automated system, noting that the only evidence suggesting that she was advised of the system were the written instructions she could not read, and explaining that she and her family had no reason to suspect that the hearing was not on December 7, 2016.
Next, the panel concluded that the BIA erred in not addressing whether Ms. Hernandez had any motive for failing to appear, and whether petitioners’ in absentia removal orders would cause unconscionable results. Since the BIA made no findings as to either, there were no findings entitled to substantial evidence review, and the panel concluded that both factors weighed in favor of reopening. First, the panel concluded that there was no basis to infer that
4 HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLAND
Ms. Hernandez was attempting to evade or delay her proceedings.
Second, the panel concluded that imposing the removal orders here would present an unconscionable result, explaining that the court has held that such results occur where a petitioner who demonstrated a strong likelihood of relief is removed in absentia. The panel recognized that Ms. Hernandez had not yet established a likelihood of success similar to that made in the relevant precedent, but concluded that her claims to asylum and related relief were not baseless. The panel observed that a likelihood of prevailing is not a sine qua non of exceptional circumstances; the court has made such a finding without a showing of the strength of the petitioner’s case on the merits, and the probability of relief is but one factor in the totality of circumstances to be considered. The panel concluded that Ms. Hernandez had made a compelling showing on the other factors.
Lastly, the panel explained that the IJ also entered an in absentia order against Ms. Hernandez’s minor child (“M.E.”), who was four years old at the time, and whose presence had been waived for the hearing at which he was ordered removed. Noting that an asylum officer had previously determined that M.E. had a credible fear of persecution on account of his family social group, the panel concluded that Ms. Hernandez’s failure to appear also prejudiced M.E.’s opportunity for relief from removal.
****************************
Cheneau v. Garland — Derivative Citizenship — En Banc
Remanding to the three-judge panel that previously denied Monssef Cheneau’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the en banc court held that the second clause of the derivative citizenship statute set out at former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) does not require that the child have been granted lawful permanent residency prior to the age of eighteen in order to derive citizenship from a parent who naturalized, but the child must have demonstrated an objective official manifestation of permanent residence.
Former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) (1994) (repealed 2000) provides two different pathways to child of a naturalized parent to derive U.S. citizenship: 1) a child “residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent” is eligible; and 2) a child is eligible who “thereafter begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years.”
Cheneau entered the United states lawfully at age thirteen under a non-immigrant student visa. His mother naturalized in 1999, he applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident at age fifteen in 2000, and was granted adjustment of status in 2003, after he turned eighteen. After theft convictions, removal proceedings were initiated, and Cheneau moved to terminate, asserting a claim of derivative
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
CHENEAU V. GARLAND 3
citizenship. The three-judge panel in this case held that it was required to hold that Cheneau was not a derivative citizen under either pathway because this court, in Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008), had held that both pathways required the child to have lawful permanent resident status.
Reconsidering Romero-Ruiz in the present context, the en banc court concluded that Congress did not intend to require lawful permanent residency for the second pathway. First, the en banc court observed that Congress chose to use two different terms in the statute, creating a presumption that the terms have different meanings. Second, the en banc court explained that the two terms have different meanings in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Third, the en banc court concluded that construing the second pathway to derivative citizenship as not requiring lawful permanent residence does not render either provision superfluous, as the court suggested in Romero-Ruiz. Rather, each pathway applies distinct requirements to distinct categories of children with distinct timing, and does so with logical reason. Finally, the en banc court explained that Congress’s decision to eliminate the “reside permanently” pathway and narrow the availability of derivative citizenship in 2000 indicates that the previous version of the statute was broader.
The en banc court also explained that the history of the INA (which was enacted in 1952 and established lawful permanent residency as a term of art) and earlier naturalization statutes further buttressed its conclusion that Congress intended “reside permanently” and “lawful admission for permanent residence” to have different meanings. Further, the en banc court concluded that the tenet of statutory construction that repetition of the same language
4 CHENEAU V. GARLAND
in a new statute generally indicates the intent to incorporate its administrative and judicial interpretations as well did not apply, because none of the administrative or judicial interpretations preceding the INA had “settled” whether “reside permanently” could mean lawfully residing on a temporary visa with the intent to remain permanently.
Finally, the en banc court agreed with the Second Circuit that, to satisfy the “reside permanently” requirement in the second pathway, an individual must demonstrate “some objective official manifestation of the child’s permanent residence.” Here, the en banc court explained, Cheneau filed an application for adjustment of status after his mother naturalized, expressing such intent to reside permanently.
Dissenting, Judge Bress, joined by Judges Hunsaker, Bumatay, and VanDyke, wrote that the en banc court’s decision adopted the very “unreasonable” reading of the statute that Romero-Ruiz had rejected. Judge Bress concluded that the new interpretation: 1) is an untenable construction of the statutory text; 2) fails to account for decades of statutory history in which derivative citizenship necessarily required lawful permission to reside permanently in the United States—the legal backdrop against which the statutory language “reside permanently” has long existed in our immigration law: and 3) produces significant problems of practical administration, creating confusion as to who qualifies for derivative citizenship while extending derivative citizenship without authorization to a potentially wide range of additional people—including people like the petitioner in this case, who committed crimes in this country and who might otherwise be removable.
*******************
Congrats to my friend and NDPA superstar Kari Hong, then Director of the Immigration Clinic at BC Law, who was lead counsel in Cheneau.
Professor Kari Hong Educator, Litigator, NDPA Superstar Photo: BC Law Website
Also, it’s worthy of emphasis that in Hernández-Galand, among other legal errors, the BIA tried to “in absentia” an unrepresented 4-year-old whose mother had been found to have a “credible fear” of persecution! Nice touch!
Is this nonsense from Trump holdover BIA “judges” what we elected President Biden to continue to inflict on asylum seekers and other migrants? I doubt it! So, why is AG Garland continuing to inflict this non-expert, un-progressive BIA on us? And, why is he continuing to appoint “Miller-Lite” leftovers from the Trump regime to precious, life or death Immigration Judge positions?
The NDPA needs to take the fight for due process and the human and legal rights of your clients to the Biden Administration! Let your outrage at the lousy performance of Garland and his team in restoring due process, humanity, expertise, and professionalism @ EOIR be known in word and deed!
On May 6, 2021 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition to review the BIA’s decision in Jim Route v. Merrick Garland. The case had been argued and submitted on April 13, 2021.
The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had concluded that Jim Route, the petitioner, had been:
“removable for having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude (CIMT) within five years after the date of admission, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)”
At issue was the interpretation of Route’s “date of admission.” Namely, if a noncitizen has multiple dates of admission, which one shall apply for purposes of deciding the date of admission when analyzing removability for committing a CIMT? The BIA had relied on its prior decision under Matter of Alyazji, 25 I. & N. Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) which stated that “date of admission,” in the context of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), refers to the “date of the admission by virtue of which the alien was present in the United States when he committed his crime.”
The Circuit Court had concluded that the Route case was eligible for deference under Chevron, and had determined that under a Chevron analysis, that the BIA’s interpretation through Alyazji was a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
The petitioner’s argument rested primarily on the fact that the BIA’s reliance of the Alyazji interpretation ignored the Compact of Free Association governing the relationship between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The panel rejected Route’s contention, explaining that the text of the Compact clearly subjects Micronesian citizens to the removability grounds of § 1227(a).
Jim Route, the petitioner, is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia. Route entered the United States in November 2005 as a nonimmigrant. He lived and worked in Hawai‘i. In 2015, Route returned to Micronesia for a vacation with his children; they stayed for less than two months. In June 2015, Route returned to the United States and was again admitted as a nonimmigrant. In June 2018, Route was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, a class C felony in Hawai’i. Route was sentenced to 68 days’ imprisonment and four years’ probation.
For cultural context, the noncitizens from Micronesia make up a significant portion of the labor force in Hawai’i. According to local advocates in Hawai’i, “There are an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Micronesians in Hawaii, who began migrating here in bigger numbers in the 1990s in search of economic and educational opportunities.” (Crux)
Part of the Petitioner’s argument rested on the unique international agreement called the Compact of Free Association, which “allows citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau to live and work freely in the United States in exchange for allowing the U.S. military to control strategic land and water areas in the region.” (Crux)
According to many people living in Hawai’i, Micronesians often face hardship being treated as outsiders and targeted by locals as being unwanted laborers who allegedly take away economic opportunities from them. Some Micronesians in Hawai’i have even expressed that they experience high incidences of violence and are more targeted by police. Two days after the Ninth Circuit published its opinion declining to review the BIA’s opinion, a 16-year old Micronesian boy was shot by police in Hawai’i after allegedly committing a spree of crimes in Honolulu. Hawai’ian social media was flooded with comments that touted anti-Micronesian sentiment, illuminated a microcosm of xenophobia that is similar to sentiments carried by many on the mainland. (KCTV Channel 5)
The anti-Micronesian sentiment in Hawai’i can be compared to the treatment of Latin-American noncitizens in the contiguous territories of the United States, or even the sentiments many Europeans carry against African or Middle-Eastern migrants. The sentiment that noncitizens who arrive for economic opportunity contribute to blight, crime, and siphon opportunity from others is an oft-told narrative no matter the region.
You can find the full opinion and summary that was published by the 9th Circuit here.
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Every woman knows what I’m talking about. It’s the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”
Rebecca Solnit, Men Explain Things to Me
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision in Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland. The opening sentences of the decision are heartbreaking:
Since the age of five, Petitioner has been told that men will beat her if she does not submit. Her mother demanded that she learn how to do housework, how to accept spousal abuse, and how “to obey everything that [her] husband would say.” She beat Petitioner with various objects almost daily, in part to prepare her for future beatings from her husband.
But along with the darkness there was also hope. The decision’s opening paragraph concludes: “Yet Petitioner came to believe that ‘there should be equality in opinions[] and in worth’ between men and women. She became a teacher.”
Remarkably, over all the years that followed, the Petitioner’s hope survived the most brutal attempts to crush her into silence and submission. As her mother had foreseen, she endured unspeakable and repeated forms of physical and psychological torture, including beatings and rape, at the hands of her husband. Yet she continued to express the belief in her rights as an equal, and was brutally punished each time she did so, in an attempt to destroy the part of her capable of forming such belief. Neither the police nor her own family offered her any possibility of protection.
When she finally succeeded in escaping to the U.S., her abuse continued, merely transferred to the hands of another domestic partner with whom she had three children in this country. In 2017, our government deported both her and her latest abuser. Facing the prospect of continued harm in her native Mexico, her still unbroken hope guided her to the U.S. once again, where she was placed into removal proceedings.
Her hope was briefly rewarded when an Immigration Judge granted the Petitioner asylum, ruling that her persecution was on account of her feminist political opinion. The Immigration Judge alternatively held that asylum was warranted on account of the Petitioner’s membership in the particular social group consisting of “Mexican females,” which formed at least one central reason for her persecution.
It isn’t clear why ICE appealed the IJ’s decision. On appeal, the BIA acknowledged the Petitioner’s honesty and the ongoing, systemic nightmare of violence she endured because of her gender and unbroken belief that she possessed rights. And yet the BIA chose to act like a rubber stamp for the administration it served, and found a way to reverse the IJ’s well-reasoned decision. According to a concurring opinion of the circuit court, the BIA managed this by suggesting that the Petitioner’s brutal suffering was motivated by her “personal relationship” with her abuser. According to the concurrence, the BIA supported this conclusion by relying on the decision of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-.
Of course, asylum applications require an individualized analysis of the facts of the specific case under consideration. Matter of A-B- involved a different asylum seeker from a different country who experienced different facts than this petitioner. So in citing A-B- to reach a conclusion so at odds with the facts of this case, the BIA’s judges were signaling their choice of a specific policy objective over their duty to neutrally apply law to specific facts.
Among the facts the BIA chose to ignore was the opinion of an expert who drew “on more than three decades of research, writing, legal representation, and lawmaking” in support of her conclusion. The expert, Prof. Nancy Lemon of the Univ. of Cal. – Berkeley Law School, explained how all of the weapons at abusers’ disposal are “tied to social belief systems that ‘men are entitled to dominate and control women because the male sex is considered superior.’” Prof. Lemon went into great detail in explaining the political nature of the mistreatment. Of course, it mattered not to the Board.
In discussing this case, an esteemed colleague pointed to a decision that the same court issued more than three decades ago. In 1987, in an opinion authored by Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., a conservative Reagan appointee, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a Salvadoran woman subjected to repeated sexual abuse and other violence by a sergeant in the Salvadoran military had been persecuted on account of her political opinion where the abuser threatened to falsely label her a “subversive if she refused to submit to his abuse.”1 In the words of Judge Noonan, the fact that the persecutor gave the asylum seeker “the choice of being subjected to physical injury and rape or being killed as a subversive does not alter the significance of political opinion…” The decision reversed the conclusion of the BIA that “the evidence attests to mistreatment of an individual, not persecution,” precisely the same finding the Board used more than three decades later in denying Ms. Rodriguez Tornes of her grant of asylum.
In 1993, Justice Samuel Alito, then sitting at the Third Circuit, wrote that “we have little doubt that feminism qualifies as a political opinion within the meaning of the relevant statutes.”2 28 years later, the Ninth Circuit cited Justice Alito’s words in Rodriguez Tornes, adding that it had reached the same conclusion in its own unpublished 1996 decision.3 These were obviously not the decisions of liberal judges forwarding a political agenda. To the contrary, these judges were able to transcend political ideology by neutrally applying law to facts; this is what judges do. As a result, the law of asylum has progressed to increasingly provide asylum protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration Judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic administrations have followed suit, authoring well-reasoned decisions granting asylum in numerous cases of domestic abuse, including this one.
Yet over the same period of time, the BIA has stubbornly refused to budge from its 1980s position that domestic abuse is simply a personal matter not linked to a political opinion within society. In the words of Jeff Sessions in Matter of A-B-, the vile abuse was simply due to the abuser’s “preexisting personal relationship with the victim.”4
When a mother feels compelled to begin abusing her five year old daughter to prepare her to obey her husband one day, can the inevitable spousal abuse that follows really be dismissed as just a personal matter? And when the record contained Prof. Lemon’s evidence (because expert testimony is evidence) of “a correlation between patriarchal norms that support male dominance and violence against women by intimate partners,” what unsupported overconfidence did the BIA’s judges rely on in explaining that they know better?
The BIA decided this case during the Trump Administration. For those hoping that the change in administration will usher in a change in the Board’s view, it bears noting that neither the Clinton nor Obama administrations brought about a sea change in the Board’s approach to domestic violence claims. Under Clinton, the BIA issued Matter of R-A-,5 a precedent that essentially precluded the granting of asylum to domestic violence victims based on their membership in a particular social group. The decision was vacated by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, who promised more enlightened regulations on the issue that never arrived. Similar regulations were rumored to be in the works under Eric Holder, but again did not materialize. The BIA’s one grudging concession to the political climate of the Obama era, Matter of A-R-C-G-, was later vacated by Jeff Sessions. While the BIA discussed a second decision under Obama expanding on the narrow holding of A-R-C-G-, it too never came to be.
Based on that history, it seems safe to say that without drastic action by Attorney General Merrick Garland, the BIA will continue issuing the same denials for the same reasons as before. For every individual such as Ms. Rodriguez Tornes who is able to succeed on appeal, there are countless more who merely end up as stratistics, deported to face more of the horrendous abuse that drove them here in the first place. The Ninth Circuit recently had to correct the BIA’s determination that attempted gang rape did not constitute persecution,6 and last year, reversed the Board erroneous rejection of a domestic violence victim’s particular social group on the grounds that it contained a few too many words.7 The BIA continues to be composed of the exact same group of judges who issued each of those decisions.
It is the role of the BIA to reach fair decisions by applying the applicable law to the individual facts. Doing so in the domestic violence context would require the Board to finally recognize opposition to systemic male oppression as a political opinion warranting asylum. Instead, for decades the BIA has enforced the offensive, outdated message to women seeking protection from such abuse that “this is not their world.” The time has come to finally put an end to this sad substitute for true administrative appellate review.
Notes:
Lazo-Majano v. INS, 813 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1987).
Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233, 1242 (3rd Cir. 1993).
Moghaddam v. I.N.S., 95 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).
Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2020).
Copyright 2021, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***************************
Different style, but the same message as I delivered yesterday about the BIA’s institutionalized racist misogyny and the strange tolerance that Attorney General Merrick Garland has exhibited to date for this type of grotesque judicial misconduct.
And, this is on top of the astounding, largely self-inflicted 1.3 million case backlog and total dysfunction generated by the BIA’s failures combined with the “maliciously incompetent” effort by DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats to disguise a “deportation railroad” as “administrative review!” Leaving aside all the legal travesties, the mal-administration and waste of public resources alone would be more than enough to require the immediate replacement of EOIR “upper (mis)management” and the entire BIA with qualified judicial professionals and professional judicial administrators.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Jeffrey and I are hardly the first to expose the charade of “appellate review” at the BIA. Two decades ago, following the “Ashcroft Purge,” administrative scholar and former GOP House Counsel Peter Levinson published his seminal work “The Facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudications” documenting the mockery of due process and legitimate judicial practices being foisted off on the public by DOJ politicos.
In the two decades since, legislators, DOJ Officials, and Article III Judges have done their utmost to ignore and paper over the glaring constitutional and administrative disasters identified by Peter. Not surprisingly, during that time the BIA and the Immigration Courts have descended into a slimy mass of disastrous bias, injustice, and judicial and administrative incompetence unequaled in American Justice since the heyday of the First Era of Jim Crow.(We are now in the “New Era of Jim Crow.”)
Of course, we need an independent Article I Immigration Court as a matter of the highest national priority. But, it’s not on schedule to happen tomorrow, even though it should! In the interim, Judge Garland could fix lots of the festering problems in this system. I gotta wonder if and when he is going to wake up and pay attention to the “assembly line injustice” being cranked out by “his” Immigration Courts?
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“Nothing to see here, fellas, just the private dynamics of a personal relationship! Tough noogies, baby! You should have been born a man. It’s your own fault! Ha! Mercy and compassion? Those aren’t in any of our precedents, are they?” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“Expert, what expert? We’re the experts! That is, in misogyny, abuse of asylum seekers of color, and specious legal reasoning. And, Garland is letting us get away with it! Whew, for a moment I thought he might have been a ‘real’ judge, but seems he’s just like us. Think I’ll jump for joy! Four more years of unbridled abuse of the most vulnerable and helpless, and I’ll be eligible to retire! Shooting down female asylum seekers for no good reason is like shooting fish in a barrel, just like Jeffy Gonzo and Billy the Bigot taught us! Wonder how many we can kill this year? Happy hunting! But, let’s stay out of the 9th Circuit. It’s dangerous territory. I hear the 5th Circuit loves misogynists and White Nationalists!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
PANEL: Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Graber
CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Paez
COUNSEL: Elaine J. Goldenberg (argued), Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sara A. McDermott, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California; Richard Caldarone, Julie Carpenter, and Rachel Sheridan, Tahirih Justice Center, Falls Church, Virginia; for Petitioner.
Timothy Bo Stanton (argued), Trial Attorney; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration
ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 5
Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
Blaine Bookey, Karen Musalo, Neela Chakravartula, and Anne Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.C. Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.
Betsey Boutelle, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, California; Anthony Todaro, Jeffrey DeGroot, and Lianna Bash, DLA Piper LLP (US), Seattle, Washington; for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project.
SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:
Immigration
The panel granted Maria Rodriguez Tornes’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision reversing an immigration judge’s grant of asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded, holding that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Rodriguez established a nexus between her mistreatment in Mexico and her feminist political opinion.
The panel noted that under the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (“Matter of A-B- II”), in order to establish the requisite nexus for asylum relief, a protected ground (1) must be a but-for cause of the wrongdoer’s act; and (2) must play more than a minor role—in other words, it cannot be incidental or tangential to another reason for the act. The panel explained that this standard was substantively indistinguishable from this circuit’s precedent. The panel wrote that the fact that an unprotected ground, such as a personal dispute, also constitutes a central reason for persecution does not bar asylum. Rather, if a retributory motive exists alongside a protected motive, an applicant need show only that a protected ground is “one central reason” for his or her persecution.
Observing that this court has held repeatedly that political opinions encompass more than electoral politics or formal
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 3
political ideology or action, the panel wrote that it had little doubt that feminism qualifies as a political opinion within the meaning of the relevant statutes. The panel concluded that Rodriguez’s testimony concerning equality between the sexes, her work habits, and her insistence on autonomy compelled the conclusion that she has a feminist political opinion. The panel also held that the record compelled the conclusion that Rodriguez’s political opinion was at least one central reason for her past persecution. The panel explained that some of the worst acts of violence came immediately after Rodriguez asserted her rights as a woman, and that the fact that some incidents of abuse may also have reflected a dysfunctional relationship was beside the point, as Rodriguez did not need to show that her political opinion—rather than interpersonal dynamics—played the sole or predominant role in her abuse. By demonstrating that her political opinion was “one central reason” for her persecution, the panel concluded that Rodriguez likewise established that her political opinion was “a reason” for her persecution for purposes of withholding of removal.
Because in granting relief under the Convention Against Torture the agency necessarily determined that Rodriguez carried her burden to prove the other elements of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal, the panel concluded that Rodriguez’s petition presented a recognized exception to the ordinary remand rule under I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam). The panel explained that because the agency concluded that Rodriguez met the higher burden of establishing that she is likely to be tortured, she necessarily met the lower burdens for asylum and withholding relief of establishing that she has a well-founded fear, or clear probability, of persecution. Similarly, because the Board determined that the Mexican government would acquiesce to
4 ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND
Rodriguez’s torture, the panel concluded that the Board had necessarily decided that the Mexican government would be unwilling or unable to protect Rodriguez from future persecution. The panel also concluded that because the Board determined that it would be unreasonable for Rodriguez to relocate within Mexico to avoid future torture, she likewise could not relocate to avoid future persecution.
The panel held that Rodriguez was thus eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal, and it remanded for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion whether to grant Rodriguez asylum, and if asylum is not granted, to grant withholding of removal.
Concurring, Judge Paez wrote that in addition to ignoring evidence that Rodriguez was targeted on account of her feminist political opinion, the Board also ignored extensive record evidence from a leading authority on domestic violence that directly rejected the Board’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a “personal relationship.”
CONCURRING OPINION:
PAEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I join Judge Graber’s fine opinion in full. I write separately on a point the court’s opinion does not address. In rejecting Ms. Rodriguez Tornes’s political opinion claim, the BIA suggests that the presence of a “personal relationship” motivation for intimate partner violence implies that there were no intersectional or additional bases for the violence Ms. Rodriguez Tornes experienced. The court’s opinion thoroughly documents the record evidence, which the BIA ignored, demonstrating how Ms. Rodriguez Tornes was targeted for violence by her domestic partners on account of her feminist political opinion. The BIA, however, also ignored extensive record evidence from expert witness Prof. Nancy Lemon, a leading authority on domestic violence, that directly rejects the BIA’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a “personal relationship.”
In contrast to the BIA’s “personal relationship” view of domestic violence,1 Prof. Lemon draws on more than three
1 The BIA cites Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 338–39 (A.G. 2018) as the basis for its assumption.
22 ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND
decades of research, writing, legal representation, and lawmaking to explain that “the socially or culturally constructed and defined identities, roles and responsibilities that are assigned to women, as distinct from those assigned to men, are the root of domestic violence.” She analyzes data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and studies from leading medical and social science publications to highlight “compelling evidence that heterosexual domestic violence is, in significant part, motivated by bias against women and the belief that men are entitled to beat and control women.” Prof. Lemon summarizes cross-cultural studies within the United States and internationally that demonstrate “a correlation between patriarchal norms that support male dominance and violence against women by intimate partners.”
In her report, which the IJ referenced in her decision, Prof. Lemon provides a lengthy examination of social science research exploring how particular behaviors exhibited by male abusers—including emotional abuse, sexual abuse, marital rape, economic abuse, blaming, guilt and using children—are each tied to social belief systems that “men are entitled to dominate and control women because the male sex is considered superior” and operate to “exploit the traditional socially constructed roles, identities, duties and status of women in intimate relationships.” In describing the legal, social, cultural, and political structures that lay the foundations for intimate partner violence, Prof. Lemon explains that “domestic violence is not typically caused by behaviors unique to the victim or by inter-personal dynamics unique to the relationship between the abuser and the abused. . . . Rather, heterosexual male batterers have certain expectations of intimate relationships with regard to which partner will control the relationship and how control will be
ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 23
exercised. These expectations are premised on a dogmatic adherence to male privilege and rigid, distinct, and unequal roles for women and men.”
The record evidence of Prof. Lemon’s rigorous expert analysis undermines the BIA’s unsubstantiated premise that, unless otherwise shown, domestic violence is a purely private matter. The BIA makes no mention of the record evidence of Prof. Lemon’s expert analysis, let alone the decades of publicly available social science research and public policy that all reject the BIA’s outdated view of domestic violence as a quirk within a “personal relationship.”2 Thus, the BIA’s assertion that domestic violence is presumptively a private matter is not supported by substantial evidence.
2 See e.g., Nina Rabin, At the Border Between Public and Private: U.S. Immigration Policy for Victims of Domestic Violence, 7 Law & Ethics Hum. Rts. 109, 111–12 (2013) (“Fifty years ago, domestic violence was widely understood to be a private matter, and the extent to which it was appropriate for the state to intervene was highly contested. Now, domestic violence shelters, state laws and policies specific to the prosecution of domestic violence crimes, and significant state and federal government support for efforts to eradicate domestic violence are all commonplace. Crucial to bringing about this shift in the state’s role vis-à- vis domestic violence victims has been the acknowledgment of the structural roots of domestic violence. When conceived of as a problem tied to gender subordination and pervasive inequality rather than interpersonal conflict, the violence at issue demands a state response.”); Violence Against Women: Victims of the System, 102d Cong., 63 (1991); Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Violence of Privacy, 23 Conn. L. Rev. 973 (1991); Reva B. Siegel, “The Rule of Love”: Wife Beating As Prerogative and Privacy, 105 Yale L.J. 2117 (1996); Leslye E. Orloff & Janice v. Kaguyutan, Offering A Helping Hand: Legal Protections for Battered Immigrant Women: A History of Legislative Responses, 10 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 95 (2001); see generally Am. Br. of the National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project.
*******************
Congrats to all counsel involved for the “good guys.”
Another completely disastrous performance by the BIA!
Bias, sloppiness, legal errors galore, misuse of the appeals process, dissing experts, ignoring evidence, lousy analysis, an ethically questionable remand attempt by OIL, almost every aspect of the unmitigated professional disaster at the BIA and the failed DOJ is on display in this truly terrible parody of justice. These fundamental defects are what has helped generate incredible backlogs that EOIR and DOJ are attempting to cover up and shift blame to the individuals they systematically malign.
This disgraceful muck heap 🤮 won’t be cleaned up by bogus “case processing requirements!” What this system needs is expertise, fairness, due process, quality control, common sense, and human decency — in huge doses! A complete professional makeover!
Among the many good things about the Circuit decision is that it basically limited the impact of the atrociously wrong Sessions “precedent” in Matter of A-B-, even while overlooking the obvious ethical errors in his maliciously biased dicta and the glaring overarching constitutional problem in his improper interference and participation in the quasi-judicial process. This should be Exhibit 1 in why this process needs to be removed from the DOJ, placed in an independent Article I Court, and a new, qualified Appellate Division with real judges — capable of fairly and efficiently adjudicating asylum cases — selected to replace the BIA.
One particularly cruel, senseless, and inane aspect of the BIA’s attempt to “snuff” the respondent’s asylum application: Because of the essentially uncontested CAT grant, she was going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. anyway! So, this was all about illegally depriving an abused refugee woman of color of her ability to get a green card, become eligible for citizenship, and obtain full legal and political rights in our society!
Compare the time and effort expended by the BIA in trying to deprive this woman of her human rights with the carelessness and sloppiness of their legal analysis. That’s what the racist-driven “any reason to deny” culture created by Sessions, Barr, and their toadies at EOIR does to our justice system!
Imagine how much different the “retail level” of American justice would look with real judges and professional administrators, committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, in charge! Amazingly, that’s what the “EOIR Vision” once was, before the forces of darkness, ignorance, and bias took over the system.
Think of how different the skewed asylum statistics would look if we honored, rather than mocked, our legal obligations to asylum seekers. Think of how many more individuals could fairly and efficiently be welcomed into our country at our borders and abroad in a well functioning system, staffed with professionals, that adhered to the rule of law. Think of how a better, more honest, and more professional Immigration Court could provide positive guidance on how to grant needed protection, rather than gushing forth an endless stream of bogus “how to deny” precedents based on racial and gender bias and specious reasoning.
Professor Nancy Lemon Hastings Law Photo: law.hastings.com
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Blaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Obviously, experts like Professor Nancy Lemon, Professor Karen Musalo, and her colleague Blaine Bookey are the types of individuals who should be Appellate Judges at the BIA. The current BIA’s glaring lack of professional competence and its unconscionable abuse of vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly the institutional ignorance and shameless misogyny with which claims by women refugees are treated, has to be one of the darkest and most inexcusable chapters in modern American legal history!
Food for for thought:
How would an unrepresented individual, particularly one in detention or stuck on a street corner in Mexico, be able to prepare, document, and present a case like this to a biased court and then appeal successfully to the Circuit?
How is this system constitutional in any way, shape, or form?
How might the massive investment of resources, time, effort, and expertise in vindicating the legal and human rights of one individual in a broken system be redeployed to promote systemic fairness and efficiency in a court system that actually complied with constitutional due process?
And, we shouldn’t forget that the Biden Administration is still illegally killing off asylum seekers at the border with no due process at all! Cowardly inflicting human misery on the most vulnerable in violation of our Constitution, our laws, and our international obligations has become our “new national pastime!”
We might be averting our eyes from the slaughter now, but history will document and remember what the world’s richest nation did to our fellow humans seeking protection in their hour of direst need! No wonder we must dehumanize “the other” to go on with our daily lives. No wonder that racial and social justice remain elusive, unfulfilled concepts, throughout our society, in today’s “What’s in it for me” atmosphere promoted by many of our politicos!
“Petitioner Wilber Agustin Acevedo Granados (“Acevedo”), a native of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of removal and the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of Acevedo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Acevedo’s petition is based on his fear that, if returned to El Salvador, he would face persecution or torture on account of his membership in a particular social group, defined based on his intellectual disability. The BIA rejected Acevedo’s claims on the ground that the proposed group definition was not cognizable. The BIA held that Acevedo’s proposed social group was not sufficiently particular, finding that the terms “intellectual disability” and “erratic behavior” rendered the proposed group “amorphous, overbroad, diffuse,[and]subjective.” The BIA further determined that the group was not a “meaningful social unit, distinct from the larger population of mentally ill individuals” in El Salvador. We conclude that the agency misunderstood Acevedo’s proposed social group, and thus grant the petition for review with respect to the claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA and IJ treated the term “intellectual disability” as if it were applied by a layperson. Instead, that term as used in Acevedo’s application referred to an explicit medical diagnosis with several specific characteristics. Recognized that way, the clinical term “intellectual disability” may satisfy the “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements necessary to qualify for asylum and withholding of removal. However, because the IJ did not recognize the proposed social group before her, we remand to the agency for fact-finding on an open record to determine if the group is cognizable.”
[Hats off to Prof. Evangeline Abriel and her Certified Law Students Keuren A. Parra Moreno (argued) and Jared Renteria (argued)!]
2) 8th Cir. — BIA Goofs On “Aggravated Felony” Analysis
“In May 2017, an Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Lopez-Chavez is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his 2006 federal conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 qualifies as an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s ruling and dismissed Lopez-Chavez’s administrative appeal the following year. The question now before the court is whether Lopez-Chavez’s 2006 conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the INA, thus making Lopez-Chavez statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We hold that it does not. … Because Lopez-Chavez’s 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(O). Accordingly, Lopez-Chavez is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“[T]o decide whether his 2018 conviction renders him removable, we need to determine whether we can parse MMB-Fubinaca from those other drugs; we decide that by determining whether Penalty Group 2-A is divisible. The government says it’s divisible, Alejos-Perez says not. … Because the government has not shown that the modified categorical approach is called for, we apply the categorical approach. … Because Penalty Group 2-A is not a categorical match, we must identify the appropriate result. … Once it’s clear that Penalty Group 2-A is not a categorical match to its federal counterpart, AlejosPerez “must also show a realistic probability . . . that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of the crime” under federal law. We are unable to resolve that issue, because the BIA didn’t address it, and we can “only affirm the BIA on the basis of its stated rationale for ordering an alien removed from the United States.” … We thus remand for consideration of whether Alejos-Perez has shown a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute conduct that falls outside the relevant federal statute.”
Significantly, the 5th Circuit’s rejection of the BIA’s analysis was written by very conservative Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee. Judge Smith wrote the majority opinion upholding the legally questionable injunction against President Obama’s “DAPA Program” — something many scholars believe to have been a entirely legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. (The case later was lamely affirmed w/o opinion by an evenly divided Supremes.)
Even conservative Federal Judges not known for sympathy to immigrants and their legal rights appear to have grown weary of the BIA’s consistently sloppy attempts to rule against foreign nationals, regardless of the merits. This is the second rejection by the normally reliably pro-Government 5th Circuit in the last several weeks!
Ironically, one (former) Federal Judge who appears not bothered by the BIA’s defective jurisprudence is the current Attorney General, Judge Garland. He’d better get himself a “tomato resistant”🍅 raincoat to wear at work. This is just the beginning. His reputation and credibility will diminish every day that he fails to replace the BIA with competent jurists who will give migrants the fair and impartial treatment that our Constitution demands, but the DOJ’s “captive court” constantly fails to deliver!
And, leaving aside the legal ineptitude, there can be no excuse for the stunning level of dysfunction and incompetence in how one of the nation’s largest so-called “court” systems is administered by EOIR under DOJ. No tribunal in America issues more potential “death sentences” with less due process! Not exactly what Mies Van Der Rohe had in mind when he famously said “the less is more.”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Poor “Belly-Up Eyore.” He was forlornly, and apparently vainly, hoping to be “put out to pasture” after Judge Garland took over the helm at DOJ. Such high expectations!
But, he is already exhausted again by all the continuing “calls to duty on Courtside” after just 22 days of Judge Garland’s “where’s Falls Church” approach to the ongoing EOIR disaster/travesty! Judge, here’s the key; just think like it wereyour children or grandchildren, actual human beings, being orbited into the abyss without much attention to the law, our Constitution, common sense, or human decency! Maybe starting each day with a briefing on each Article III case that was wrongly decided in your name by the BIA and a live reading of each outrageous media story about disorder in your Immigration Courts would help raise your consciousness? Maybe you should speak with a few of the “customers” of your “courts” that put public service last. Men, women, children, and their lawyers are being abused out there every day by EOIR and you are legally and morally responsible.
You can’t lead the fight for racial justice in America while running a bogus court system that denies and mocks it on a daily basis!
Hon. Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of The United States & Eyore’s Boss, Official White House Photo Public Realm
PANEL: Before: Richard A. Paez and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,
Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez;
Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson
* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:
Immigration
Granting Abdi Ali Asis Aden’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal from Somalia, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Aden did not qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and that the evidence compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.
Aden asserted that he suffered persecution in Somalia by members of Al-Shabaab, a militant terrorist organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, after his brother refused their orders to shut down his theater showing American and Hindi movies and sports, which Al-Shabaab viewed as “Satanic” movies. The Board concluded that Aden was ineligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in South Africa, and that he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.
The Board noted that Aden presented “ample evidence” of persecution in South Africa, but nonetheless determined that he failed to qualify for the restricted-residence exception to the firm resettlement bar because the persecution he faced was at the hands of private individuals, rather than the South
*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
ADEN V. WILKINSON 3
African government. The panel concluded that the Board erred in doing do, holding that the restricted-residence exception applies when the country’s authorities are unable or unwilling to protect the applicant from persecution by nongovernment actors.
The panel held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Aden suffered past persecution in Somalia, where in addition to physically beating Aden, members of Al-Shabaab kept tabs on him by contacting his brother and warned they would kill Aden and his brother if they continued to disobey Al-Shabaab’s command to close their theater. The panel wrote that the chain of events revealed that Al-Shabaab intended to coerce Aden to submit to its new political and religious order, and used offensive strategies— beatings, destruction of property, and death threats—to achieve this goal. Further, the panel explained that continuing political and social turmoil caused by Al- Shabaab provided context for the harm and death threats that Aden experienced, which together with the past harm, compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia.
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Aden failed to establish that he was targeted on account of a protected ground because Al Shabaab was motived by their own political and religious beliefs, rather than Aden’s. The panel explained that Al- Shabaab’s accusation that the brothers were featuring Islamically forbidden, “Satanic” films provided direct evidence of their political and religious motive, and that even if the brothers did not feature the films out of their own political or religious convictions, Al-Shabaab at the very least imputed those beliefs to them. The panel wrote that the only logical explanation for Al-Shabaab’s treatment of Aden
4 ADEN V. WILKINSON
and his brother was that their actions were subversive to Al- Shabaab’s political and religious doctrine.
The panel remanded for the Board to consider, under the appropriate framework, whether Aden was firmly resettled in South Africa, and to give the government an opportunity to rebut the presumption of future persecution triggered by Aden’s showing of past persecution on account of a protected ground.
Concurring, Judge Rawlinson agreed that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the firm resettlement issue. Judge Rawlinson noted that despite the fact that the IJ never addressed the issue of whether persecution by private actors may prevent application of the firm resettlement bar, the Board concluded that the firm resettlement bar applied to Aden because he did not introduce any evidence that the South African government imposed any restrictions on his residency such that the restricted-residence exception applied. Judge Rawlinson wrote that the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, as reflected in the IJ’s factual findings. Judge Rawlinson also agreed that the Board erred in concluding that Aden failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because, based on binding precedent, an applicant such as Aden, who disagrees with Al Shabaab’s view of the proper interpretation of Islam, can establish persecution on account of a protected ground by showing that others in his group persecuted him because they found him insufficiently loyal or authentic to the religious ideal they espouse.
ADEN V. WILKINSON 5
COUNSEL
Emery El Habiby, El Habiby Law Firm, Sun City, Arizona, for Petitioner.
Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
*********************
This case has been pending six years! Should have been granted by the IJ. No wonder EOIR is running a 1.3 million backlog! Attempts to turn “easy grants” into bogus denials is killing this system, not to mention the asylum seekers suffering the “triple whammy” of EOIR’S lack of expertise, lousy training, and a “denial culture.”
My good friend, colleague, and former NAIJ President Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who actually is an asylum expert, once told The NY Timesthat asylum cases are like the death penalty in traffic court. But, I suspect that many folks appearing in traffic court get significantly MORE due process than those on trial for their lives in our broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
Judge Garland needs to fix this! Sooner, rather than later!
Here’s a recent unpublished decision from the 9th Circuit in Deepak Lama v. Wilkinson, (Feb. 24, 2021):
Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,** District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Deepak Lama, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand.
The IJ found that Lama had suffered past persecution on account of his political activity and was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). But, the IJ also found that the government had rebutted the presumption, and the BIA then dismissed Lama’s appeal on the sole basis that Lama could safely and reasonably relocate within Nepal, to Chitwan, where he previously resided for five years without incident. Our review is limited to the ground on which the BIA relied. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019).
When the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution applies, the government bears the “burden of showing that relocation is both safe and reasonable under all the circumstances” by a preponderance of the evidence. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 934 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). “Relocation analysis consists of two steps: (1) ‘whether an applicant could relocate safely,’ and (2) ‘whether it would be reasonable to require the applicant to do so.’” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 934). We
1 The BIA found that Lama forfeited his claim under the Convention Against Torture. Lama does not challenge that ruling in this court.
2
conclude that the BIA’s limited relocation analysis does not satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
First, the agency “failed to take into account the numerous factors for determining reasonableness outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3).” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1215 (9th Cir. 2004). Relying on Lama’s stay in Chitwan between 2003 and 2008, the agency provided no analysis of whether it would be reasonable for Lama to relocate there at the time of his hearing, in 2017. Lama demonstrated that he experienced persecution in Nepal both in his hometown and later in Kathmandu, and that this persecution took place both before and after he lived in Chitwan. While his time in Chitwan appears to have been without incident, he last lived there many years ago. The government presented no evidence that Lama could safely and reasonably return there now, considering both the current political situation in Chitwan and Lama’s personal circumstances. See Singh, 914 F.3d at 661.
Second, the BIA’s analysis rests on an apparent misapprehension of the record. The BIA stated that “[t]he record contains no evidence that it would no longer be safe or reasonable for [Lama] to once again return to [Chitwan] where he had previously voluntarily relocated and resided for approximately 5 years without incident.” (Emphasis added.) But the record contains a 2016 letter written to Lama from his uncle, with whom he lived in Chitwan, indicating that Lama would not be
3
safe there. The BIA did not consider this evidence. And to the extent the BIA “erroneously presumed that relocation was reasonable and improperly assigned the burden of proof to [Lama] to show otherwise,” Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 935, it erred in that respect as well. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) (burden of proof).
Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2005), does not support the government’s position that because Lama once resided in Chitwan without incident, “it is axiomatic that he can do so again.” In Gomes, unlike this case, the petitioners had not shown past persecution and thus bore the burden to show that relocation was unreasonable. Id. at 1266–67 & 1266 n.1. In addition, unlike Lama, it appears that the petitioners in Gomes had safely resided in the area in question immediately prior to entering the United States. See id. at 1267. Gomes also did not involve the BIA failing to address evidence (here the letter from Lama’s uncle) indicating that relocation to the designated area could be unsafe.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition and remand this matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Any relocation analysis must comport with the governing regulations and this court’s precedents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Singh, 914 F.3d at 659–61. We also dismiss as moot the portion of Lama’s petition challenging the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED.
4
*******************
Once again, this is nothing profound, difficult, or controversial. Just basic application of EOIR’S own regulations, consideration of all the evidence presented by the respondent, and basic analysis, with some fundamental fairness and common sense thrown in. That’s probably why the panel didn’t deem it worthy of publication. But, it does further illustrate a disturbing pattern at the BIA and the Immigration Courts.
During my time as an Immigration Judge, I was sometimes involved in the nationwide judiciallaw clerk (JLC)training program. One of my key points to the JLCs was that many Immigration Judges, even then, continued to get basic “burden shifting” and further analysis wrong once the respondent established past persecution, thereby invoking the regulatory presumption of future persecution.
The DHS then has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence either 1) fundamentally changed conditions that would eliminate any well-founded fear of individualized persecution; or 2) a reasonably available internal relocation alternative under the applicable regulations.
Because conditions seldom materially improve in most refugee-sending countries, and reasonable relocation alternatives that would eliminate a well-founded fear of persecution (not hiding in someone’s basement or in a cave in the forest) can seldom be established, in my experience, the DHS almost always failed to rebut the presumption. This was particularly the case because then, as now, the ICE counsel usually presented no testimony or other evidence to rebut the presumption beyond that contained in the State Department Country Report, whichseldom was definitive on this type of highly individualized analysis.
Even where the DHS rebuts the regulatory presumption, the respondent still can win protection if she or he shows 1) compelling reasons for not returning arising from the past persecution, or 2) a reasonable possibility of other serious harm if returned.
These regulatory standards are consistent with the generous intent of the refugee definition as described by the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. They should result in rather easy grants of protection in most cases involving past persecution,
However it appears that EOIR judges haven’t improved in this area. If anything, result-oriented decision-making geared to make denial of asylum the “administrative norm” evidently has been substituted for careful, professional, expert analysis. Indeed, correct analysis by expert judges knowledgeable in asylum law would probably result in most cases like this being granted at the Immigration Judge level, or even the Asylum Office, thus discouraging the DHS from taking largely meritless appeals to the BIA and reducing the workload in the Circuit Courts.
Instead the sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” attitude that infects today’s EOIR means that justice for asylum seekers requires skilled lawyers, a “lucky draw” on judges at some level of the system, and, all too often, endless remands and time spent on “redos” to correct elementary errors. No wonder this system is running an astounding 1.3 million case backlog, even with many more IJs on the bench at both the trial and appellate levels!
This is a “system designed to fail.” And, failing it is, at every level, spilling over into the Article III Courts and placing the foundation of our entire U.S. justice system — due process for all under law — in jeopardy.
Quality, expertise, understanding, and a fair and humane attitude toward asylum seekers is much more important than quantity in asylum adjudication!This the exact opposite of the message delivered by the last Administration.
Here’s my basic thesis:
Granting relief wherever possible and at the lowest possible levels of the system speeds things up and promotes best practices and maximum efficiency without stomping on anyone’s rights. (And, it saves lives).
En masse denials and trying to run a “deportation railroad” eventually leads to gross inefficiencies and systemic failure. (And, it kills innocent individuals).
I’m not the only one who believes this. As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues recently quipped: “The sloppiness of the BIA in case after case is alarming.” Indeed it is; but, sadly, not particularly surprising or unusual.
“Alicia Naranjo Garcia (“Garcia”) is a native and citizen of Mexico. Garcia petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Knights Templar, a local drug cartel, murdered Garcia’s husband, twice threatened her life, and forcibly took her property in retaliation for helping her son escape recruitment by fleeing to the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and remand. … [W]e conclude that the BIA erred in its nexus analysis for both Garcia’s asylum claim and her withholding of removal claim. We remand with instructions for the BIA to reconsider Garcia’s asylum claim, and for the BIA to consider whether Garcia is eligible for withholding of removal under the proper “a reason” standard. We deny the petition as it relates to Garcia’s claim for relief under CAT.”
This insanely nonsensical gibberish put forth by the BIA — and defended by OIL — is an insult to the entire American justice system!Obviously, EOIR and their DOJ “handlers” unethically assume that Article III Circuit Judges will just “take a dive” and defer to illegal and illogical removal orders. Because, after all, it’s only foreign nationals (mostly people of color) whose lives are at stake! Not “real human beings.” That’s exactly what “institutionalized racism” and “Dred Scottification” look like. Nothing worth breaking a sweat about in the “21st Century Jim Crow America!”
The BIA’s anti-asylum bias and massively incompetent adjudication — on life or death matters — continues to be exposed. There likely are many, many other legitimate asylum cases that are wrongfully rejected by the EOIR “denial factory.” That’s one of many reasons why the EOIR/DHS (intentionally) “cooked stats” on the bona fides of asylum seekers arriving at our Southern Border can never be trusted!
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have competent representation and get meaningful review by a Circuit panel not on “autopilot.” This is a corrupt and broken system, the continued existence of which in its current form is a repudiation of our Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency!
The Biden Administration can, and must, put an end to this ongoing national disgrace! “Any reason to deny” is not justice!
Wonder how the Georgia Law Clinic got involved in this 9th Circuit case? I have the answer, thanks to my friend Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations @ CLINIC:
Thanks so much to CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project for identifying and placing this case with the wonderful team at at University of Georgia School of Law!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
The NDPA is everywhere! And, we’ll continue to be there until due process for all is achieved, regardless of the Administration!
“The BIA erred in imposing evidentiary requirements of ongoing injury or treatment beyond the sexual assault itself in order to show persecution. Kaur’s credible testimony about the attempted gang rape is sufficient to show persecution. Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim. We grant Kaur’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Douglas Jalaie!]
1st Calls Out Violation Of Regs, Incredibly Stupid Denial Of Reopening For Approved U Visa Petition Beneficiary Waiting For “Number:”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
“Petitioner Carlos Antonio Granados Benitez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and to remand to the immigration judge (“IJ”) for further consideration in light of the fact that he had been placed on a waiting list by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for a U-1 nonimmigrant visa (“U visa”) pursuant to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“VTVPA”), Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 1513(a)(2)(A), (b), 114 Stat. 1464 (2000) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)). Because we find that the BIA abused its discretion, in that it failed to render a reasoned decision that accords with its own precedent and policies, and it further failed to consider the position of its sister agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), we grant the petition. In so holding we join the views of the Seventh Circuit in Guerra Rocha v. Barr, 951 F.3d 848, 852- 54 (7th Cir. 2020).”
[Hats off to Paige Austin, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Make the Road New York, and the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic were on brief, for petitioner, and Brian D. Straw, Gregory E. Ostfeld, and Greenberg Traurig, LLP on brief for ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Safe Horizon, and Tahirih Justice Center, amici curiae!]
3rd “Perplexed” By BIA’s Ignorance Of “Equitable Tolling,” Own Authority:
“Hey, guys, ever hear of something called “equitable tolling?” “Nah, is it spelled D-E-N-I-E-D?” “Equitable TROLLING,” I’ve heard of that?”https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Because Nkomo properly raised equitable tolling before the BIA, the BIA erred in failing to consider her request for equitable tolling on the merits. We remand for the Board to do so in the first instance.”
“The BIA’s suggestion that it does not have the authority to make decisions on equitable grounds is perplexing. The BIA has authority to equitably toll the deadline for motions to reopen the precise relief Nkomo sought.”
Demeaning rape victims! ☠️🤮👎🏻 So, what else is new @ EOIR? “Gonzo” Sessions 🦹🏿♂️ set the tone for anti-asylum, racially motivated misogyny in Matter of A-B- and “his judges” have taken it from there! (I repeat my oft-made observation: What kind of “due process” system lets a characters like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr “own” judges? How would you like to be a woman on trial for her life before a “judge” selected, directed, and “owned” by the likes of these men with clear records of “applied contempt” for equal justice? Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, & Jeffrey Rosen are gone — but their legacy of bias and injustice lives on @ EOIR!)
One of my esteemed Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleagues summed up the latest set of outrageous miscarriages of justice from Falls Church:
All of these decisions demonstrate the degree of careful and detailed analysis that these cases require.And yet the BIA couldn’t keep staff attorneys after McHenry capped them at GS-13 (entry level), and keeps increasing the monthly quotas for BIA staff attorneys.Plus of course the Board Members themselves are now all these types who only review the decisions to make sure they end in the word “dismissed.”
If you were trying to create a recipe for disaster, you couldn’t have planned it better.
I heard the latter comment twice yesterday from immigration/human rights/due process experts on opposite sides of our country who observe and participate in the system at various levels.
To quote Justice Sotomayor’s recent dissent: “This is not justice.”
Historical Footnote:One of my first actions as BIA Chair in 1995 was to establish a “GS-15 Career Ladder” for all Attorney Advisors at the BIA. This made the BIA competitive with the rest of the DOJ.
It allowed us to attract and retain not only “top talent” coming from the “DOJ Honors Program” (how I got my first job at the BIA in 1973), but also outstanding career attorneys who wanted an opportunity to do research, writing, and “applied scholarship” that made a difference in individuals’ lives. Indeed, at various times the BIA has had on its staff former Senior Executives seeking a “change of focus” to a career that allowed them to do the things they liked best about the law.
One of them was a former SES colleague at the “Legacy INS” who found in transferring to a GS-15 BIA Attorney Advisor position a career satisfaction, fulfillment, and sense of meaningful contribution that person had been missing in INS management at that time.
Reducing the top grade for Attorney Advisors is not only professionally and personally demeaning, it also marks the entire organization as “second class” and shows just how stupid and incompetent (and, in recent history, overpaid) EOIR “management” has become! And, as pointed out in my colleague’s comments above, it has not only adversely affected careers but the human lives in the balance on the BIA’s docket.
As I understood my “mission” from then Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995, the BIA was supposed to be about “attracting the best and the brightest judges and supporting them with the best and brightest staff.” Essentially getting it to function like the “12th Circuit” was a description mentioned during my interview process for the Chair job.
Sadly, now, it has become an assembly line of expediency, injustice, shoddy legal work, mindless “corner cutting,” unprofessional behavior, and human misery.
To repeat my colleague’s comment: “If you were trying to create a recipe for disaster, you couldn’t have planned it better.”
All of these cases should have been resolved in the foreign national’s favor without ever getting to the Courts of Appeals! Bad judging, grossly incompetent administration, and lack of qualified, dynamic, judicial leadership from respected “practical scholars” costs lives, produces unacceptable and unfair inconsistencies, and clogs the Article III Courts with unnecessary litigation.
Indeed, the First Circuit’s decision in Granados basically reveals OIL’s “smorgasbord” of bogus arguments to uphold the BIA’s incorrect decision as “without merit” — actually frivolous! There are deep problems @ DOJ resulting from the ongoing corruption and disregard for ethics and professional leadership from the now-departed kakistocracy! They go far beyond the mess at EOIR!
Sure hope that Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, and their incoming team @ DOJ have a comprehensive plan for replacing the BIA and reforming EOIR! The human beings suffering in this disgracefully inept and abusive “court system” and their courageous, long suffering attorneys are counting on you! Think of it this way: What if YOUR daughter were the rape victim demeaned, dehumanized, and denied justice by EOIR?
Dean Kevin Johnson reports @ ImmigrationProf Blog:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sanchez v. Wolf, which presents the question under the Immigration and Nationality Act whether a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient may adjust his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The Third Circuit held that TPS recipients were not entitled to adjust their status because TPS status was not an “admission,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The Third Circuit decision in Sanchez conflicts with the rulings of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
********************
Here’s the government’s position in a nutshell: Notwithstanding the “plain language” of section 244(f)(4) which makes holders of TPS status eligible to adjust status in the U.S. if they meet all of the requirements for legal immigration (usually an an approved visa petition based on family ties or job skills), we have employed legal gobbledygook to refuse to adjust them. Thereby, we mindlessly keep them in “suspended animation” in the U.S. although they are long-time productive members of our society who have resided here with permission and work authorization and now meet our criteria for permanent immigration.
Sound pretty stupid?That’s because it is! I actually had this issue argued before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Not surprisingly, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel was unable to come up with any rational reason for circumventing the statutory language to achieve a nonsensical result that actually unnecessarily inflated the case backlog and served no legitimate government purpose. Needless to say, I ruled in the respondent’s favor.
This isn’t “rocket science.” The new SG should join the petitioner’s counsel, JAIME W. APARISI (who regularly appeared before me in Arlington) and LISA S. BLATT (Williams & Connolly LLP) in agreeing that this issue was correctly resolved in the respondents’ favor by the Sixth & Ninth Circuits.
Then, ICE should ask the “new BIA” (real judges with immigration and human rights backgrounds appointed by AG Garland) to adopt this view nationwide.
Presto!
No more bogus, contrived “circuit split;”
TPSers with adjustment eligibility can be taken out of EOIR’s ridiculous 1.1 – 1.5 million case backlog and returned to USCIS for routine adjustment of status;
Productive, long-time members of our society can become green card holders, get on the path to citizenship, and reach their full productive potential for both their benefit and the benefit of our society;
A win, win, win, instead of wasting time attempting to achieve an illegal, undesirable, yet fundamentally stupid, irrational, and counterproductive result;
And, unlike the stupidity going on now, it actually doesn’t require expenditure of funds (actually will save and perhaps even generate money from adjustment filing fees), major regulatory changes, new legislation, or protracted litigation. It’s “low hanging fruit” that the Trump immigration kakistocracy has let rot on the tree! Rational administration of the immigration laws can actually be quite efficient.
Is it any wonder that the EOIR bogus “court,” whose “guiding principle” is “always construe the law against the individual and in favor of DHS” is building uncontrollable backlog hand over fist, even with double the number of “judges?” This is “fraud, waste, and abuse” in action! 💸🤮 Not something I’d want to “own” if I were Judge Garland (which, of course, I’m not, and never will be)!
That’s how “practical scholarship” @ EOIR, DOJ, and ICE; smarter, better, more ethical progressive leadership at the DOJ; and the private/NGO/academic bar can work together to solve legal problems and stop wasting the time of the Federal Courts and the Supremes. Perhaps, with the time saved, the Williams Connolly LLP team can even take some more pro bono asylum cases, make the system work better at the “retail level,” and save some deserving lives of vulnerable individuals who have been mistreated by Miller and his neo-Nazi gang of thugs and the malicious incompetents now “running” EOIR (into the ground) in the process.
Not rocket science! But, it will require Judge Garland to bring in some members of the NDPA who actually understand the interrelated issues of immigration, human rights, due process, civil rights, equal justice, and practical problem solving to replace the current “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR and the DOJ. (Not to mention, a comprehensive “de-clownification” 🦹🏿♂️🤡 of DHS by Secretary-designate Mayorkas and his team). All of those skills have been conspicuously absent from the Executive branch during the last four years of kakistocracy.
⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Let the De-Clownifying 🤡🦹🏿♂️ Of Government Begin!
Here’s the CLINIC “practice advisory” on the vacating of Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020)
Practice Alert
On December 10, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020). Albizures-Lopez v. Barr, No. 20-70640, 2020 WL 7406164, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38725 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020). In E- R-A-L-, the asylum applicant was targeted by a drug cartel because his family owned a farm in Guatemala. The Board’s now-vacated published decision rejected his family and landowner-based particular social groups, as well as making errors relating to the nexus analysis for asylum and withholding of removal.
Practitioners should note that the Ninth Circuit specifically vacated E-R-A-L- itself, meaning that the Board’s decision has no effect anywhere in the United States. See Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.”) Practitioners should argue to Immigration Judges that E-R-A-L- is no longer binding precedent, making it easier to prove the cognizability of landowner-based particular social groups. If an Immigration Judge already denied a landowner case, and the appeal is pending before the Board, practitioners should argue that the case should be remanded in light of E-R-A-L-ʼs vacatur.
Practitioners confronting issues with an adjudicator’s implementation of the Ninth Circuit’s decision are encouraged to contact counsel for E-R-A-L-, Bradley Jenkins (bjenkins@cliniclegal.org) and Shane Ellison (ellison@law.duke.edu).
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. | cliniclegal.org | Updated December 2020
*************
Congrats to Brad, Shane, and the rest of the CLINIC team.
That “in your face Article IIIs” position by the BIA is remarkable. But even more remarkable has been the feckless Article IIIs’ failure to challenge this disrespect for their functions.
You don’t even have to be a lawyer to understand that a vacated and/or reversed decision is no decision at all. Since it no longer represents the correct resolution of an actual dispute, it pertains to no live “case.” It’s simply part of the historical record of that case, having no force and effect. Continuing to treat it as “precedent” is essentially issuing an illegal advisory opinion, untethered to any actual case or controversy.
Sure, I understand the concept of “Circuit splits,” better than most, having dealt with the legal and practical aspects of them for nearly half a century. But, no reversed precedent should be effective anywhere unless and until the BIA revisits the issue in another Circuit with a precedent fully considering the reasons why the “naysaying Circuit” found their original precedent wrong, whether that Circuit’s interpretation should be adopted nationwide, and, if not, cogently explaining why they have chosen to disregard the Circuit’s views. And, it should be the BIA’s actual, independent evaluation, not a result that they are explicitly or implicitly “told” to issue by OIL, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Director, or any other DOJ official.
So, whether E-R-A-L- continues to have precedential effect outside the 9th Circuit probably ultimately depends on if and when the Biden Administration replaces this BIA with better judges and whether we finally get a better qualified Attorney General, committed to due process, human rights, and human decency, willing to let the “new BIA” function independently.
On the merits, E-R-A-L- was a ham-handed attempt by the BIA to abrogate its seminal Acosta precedent which correctly recognized “land ownership” as a proper “fundamental characteristic” and therefore a recognizable ”particular social group.” As I often have observed, the BIA’s subsequent absurdist, ahistorical approach in E-R-A-L- would come as a surprise to millions of dead kulaks liquidated by Stalin’s purges and countless others subjected to persecution throughout history based on property ownership, one of the most clearly recognized “particular,” “socially visible,” and “fundamental” characteristics in human existence.
One wouldn’t exactly have to be a “Rhodes Scholar” to recognize the ridiculous, overtly politicized, intentional misinterpretation of asylum law that springs from the pages of the BIA’s atrociously erroneous decision in E-R-A-L-.
But, it’s hardly surprising, given the disrespect for immigration and human rights expertise in judicial selection at all levels of EOIR and the resulting failure to produce anything close to a fair, representative judiciary that is capable of understanding asylum law in context and appreciating the impact of their decisions on the human lives and communities they most affect. There is also a conspicuous absence of deliberation or dissent among today’s politically accommodating, “go along to get along” BIA “judges.”
What’s the purpose of a supposed “deliberative body” that neither transparently deliberates nor gets the correct answers on basic legal questions; a body incapable of protecting the constitutional and statutory rights, not to mention the lives, of individuals seeking justice?
To some, the BIA might (wrongly) be considered “obscure.” But, there is nothing “obscure” about the real human beings whose existence is threatened or eradicated by the BIA’s malfeasance and dereliction of duty!
When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980. I had spent my time before coming to Refugees International researching the writing and passage of that law and the development of the contemporary asylum system since 1980. The Remain in Mexico policy is unprecedented. The U.S. government claims the authority for it lies in a provision of the 1996 immigration law that allows for the return of certain applicants for admission to contiguous territory to await processing. I began researching this provision and it became clear that it was not intended to apply to asylum seekers.
In support of a challenge to the Remain in Mexico program in California federal court, Refugees International and I, with attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP, submitted this brief describing why the Refugee Act forbids the program, a reality that the 1996 law does not change. The argument of the brief is that, when the 1980 Refugee Act was enacted, it was intended to establish a uniform process for consideration of asylum claims that would preclude this return to Mexico approach. A lynchpin in the argument is that there were two versions of the asylum provision of the Refugee Act—one proposed by Congresswoman Holtzman and one by Senator Edward Kennedy. Only the House version provided that asylum seekers at a land border be accorded the same ability to seek asylum as those already in the country. When, in conference, Holtzman’s version was accepted, Congress made a conscious choice in pursuit of uniformity in consideration of asylum requests: that the United States would treat asylum seekers at the border the same as it would all others. And the language mandating uniform treatment of asylum seekers in the 1980 Refugee Act was reiterated in the 1996 immigration law.
. . . .
*******************
The case is Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Wolf, USDC, C.D. CA.
Read Yael’s intro, her outstanding brief prepared by Sidley Austin LLP, and the “Holtzman Papers” at the above link.Notably, Sidley Austin is one of the great firms that have helped our Round Table with amicus briefs! It’s what happens when you connect the dots among history, research, social justice, and the law. It’s why the Liberal Arts are the wave of a better future and a better Federal Judiciary! It’s all about perspective and problem solving!
Thanks Yael for all that you, Refugees International, and great pro bono lawyers like Sidley Austin do for justice and humanity.
The real problem here: A disgraceful Supremes’ majority 🏴☠️ that improperly “greenlighted” this totally illegal, racist-inspired, “crime against humanity,” cooked up by neo-Nazi hate monger Stephen Miller ☠️🤮, after it had properly and timely been enjoined by lower Federal courts. And, a complicit EOIR that consistently fails to provide due process and justice to asylum seekers is a huge part of the problem.
Unlike the Supremes, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 can be removed and justice at all levels improved just by a putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat.
Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment!
Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s (is he really that much smarter than any Democrat politico?) racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE!
It’s only “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that has plagued past Dem Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.
It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!
No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at the DOJ under Dems!
Get mad!Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard!
This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable! 🚂☠️⚰️
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
All In A Day’s Work — BIA Members Unwind After Ignoring Statute, Dissing Three Circuits, Screwing TPS Holders, Beating Up Unrepresented Respondent, & Aiding Their “Partners” At ICE In Demeaning Justice https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Matter of PADILLA RODRIGUEZ, 28 I&N Dec. 164 (BIA 2020)
BIA HEADNOTE:
(1) Where the temporary protected status (“TPS”) of an alien who was previously present in the United States without being admitted or paroled is terminated, the alien remains inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2018), and removal proceedings should not be terminated.
(2) An alien whose TPS continues to be valid is considered to be “admitted” for purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status only within the jurisdictions of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.
For today’s BIA, it apparently doesn’t get any better than beating up on an unrepresented respondent who actually won before the Immigration Judge! Where was the “BIA Pro Bono Program” on this one?
It’s not rocket science: INA section 244(f)(4) says: “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.”
So, clearly, an individual in TPS status who is eligible for permanent immigration can adjust statutus under INA section 245, right? Of course, unless you’re the BIA and stretching to find a way to deny. And, elevating the meanderings of the AAO over the considered opinions of three Circuit Courts of Appeals shows the level of intellectual honesty and scholarship on today’s BIA!
Now, lets look at the policy results produced by the BIA’s intentional misconstruction of the plain meaning of the statute.
First, it means that except in the 6th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, individuals in TPS status, basically long term residents who are going to be remaining, working, paying taxes, and raising families in the U.S., and who also are qualified to permanently immigrate (e.g., spouses of U.S. citizens) will be mindlessly barred from doing so.
But, wait, it gets even better! That’s only the case if they have themisfortune to live in a Circuit other than the 6th, 8th, or 9th. Of course, if they are able, they could move to one of those circuits to adjust.
Make sense? Only if you’re part of the “Clown Show of Denial.” Then, you ignore the statute, diss the Circuit Courts, and go out of your way to promote a non-uniform interpretation of the law that will screw contributing members of our society residing here legally and arbitrarily block them from achieving the permanent status to which they are entitled.
Now you can see what a difference replacing the “Clown Show” with real judges from the NDPA could make — both for the human lives and futures at stake and for sane, lawful, and fiscally efficient administration of our immigration laws!
REPEAT AFTER ME: Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Tell The Biden Team That The EOIR Clown 🤡 Show Has Got To Go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
As this Court has recognized, “when [an] alien appears pro se, it is the IJ’s duty to ‘fully develop the record.’” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2000)). Despite this long-recognized obligation, the record in this case demonstrates that this duty is not always fulfilled; and that the consequence may be unfairness and injustice to the pro se petitioner who is unable to develop the record without guidance and assistance. We respectfully submit that this Court should use this case to provide much-needed guidance to IJs on the scope of their duty to work with pro se respondents to elicit the information necessary to develop the factual record. Based upon our own extensive experience, we are of the view that this can be done efficiently and effectively by conscientious IJs, so long as the rule that they are required to do so is clear.
******************
Thanks so much to out “Team of Pro Bono Heroes” at Sullivan & Cromwell, NY:
Philip L. Graham, Jr.
Amanda Flug Davidoff
Rebecca S. Kadosh
Joseph M. Calder, Jr.
This regime has appointed mostly judges lacking experience representing individuals in Immigration Court and then compounded the problem with:
Mindless “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks (often supported by knowingly false or misleading narratives) imposed by political hacks at DOJ and Falls Church;
A BIA lacking expertise and objectivity that instead of focusing on due process for those in Immigration Court, spews forth “blueprints for denial and deportation” without regard for statutory, Constitutional, and human rights;
A system that has elevated “malicious incompetence” and “worst judicial practices” to a “dark art form.”☠️
TIME FOR COURAGEOUS NEW IMMIGRATION LEADERSHIP!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
It’s time for the “EOIR Clown Show” in Falls Church to go! Bring in competent jurists and administrators from the NDPA: practical scholars and problem solvers with real life skills developed by saving lives from this broken and biased system. Real jurists with expertise in human rights and courage, who will make due process, fundamental fairness, humane values, and “best judicial practices” the only objectives of the Immigration Courts. Jurists who will courageously resist political interference and improper and unethical weaponization of the Immigration Courts by any Administration.
Let the incoming Biden-Administration know that you won’t accept failed “retreads” from the past and “go along to get along” bureaucrats running and comprising what is probably the most important and significant court system in America from an equal justice, social justice, constitutional development, and saving human lives standpoint.
This is the “retail level” of our justice system: Thefoundation upon which the rest of our legal system all the way up to a tone-deaf, flailing, failing, and generally spineless Supremes stands! This is a court system that the Biden Administration can fix without Mitch McConnell!
The members of the NDPA are the ones who have been fighting in the trenches (and at the borders) to save lives, advance social justice, insure equal justice for all, end institutional racism, and preserve our democracy in the face of a tyrannical, unscrupulous, corrupt, racially biased, anti-democracy regime and its enablers! Many have sacrificed careers, health, not to mention financial security in this fight!
Don’t let those who watched from the sidelines, above the day-to-day fray, or were part of the problem swoop in and take control after the battle has been won!
Get mad! Get vocal! Get active! Call everyone you know in the incoming Administration! Demand that the NDPA and its members be given the leadership roles they have earned and deserve in remaking EOIR and reforming a thoroughly corrupt, politicized, and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy across our Government!
Don’t let the Dems turn their back on achievable reforms and “shut out” the reformers and problem solvers in the advocacy sector (who have “carried the water” for Dems for decades) as has been the case in the past! Don’t let the mistakes and short-sightedness of the past destroy YOUR chances for a better future!
Don’t let timidity, ignorance, indifference, and fear of “rocking the boat” in the name of justice, due process, and human dignity replace “malicious incompetence” in Government!
Due Process Forever! Same old, same old, never! It’s time for real change and reform! It’s YOUR time to shine! Let YOUR voices be heard!
