"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.
Every year, on the third Monday in January, America hosts a Sadie Hawkins-style role-reversal where the entire country pretends to celebrate a man whose achievements and values they spent the previous 364 days ignoring, demonizing and trying to dismantle. Today, your favorite vote suppressors will take a brief respite from disenfranchising Black voters, denying history and increasing inequality to celebrate a real American hero.
That’s right, it’s MLK Day!
You might think it’s a little disrespectful to refer to a great American hero by his initials but, in this specific case, it’s perfectly fine. The actual Martin Luther King Jr who lived and breathed is not the man most people will be honoring today because that Martin Luther King is dead and gone. No, the man upon whom they will heap their performative praise with social media virtue-signaling is MLK, a caricature of a man whose likeness has been made palatable for white consumption. Like BLM, CRT and USA, the people who King fought against have now managed to flatten a three-dimensional symbol to a three-letter, chant-worthy phrase worthy of demonization or deification.
. . . .
Although, in death, he became one of the most revered figures in US history, for the entirety of the 39 years that King lived and breathed, there wasn’t a single day when the majority of white Americans approved of him. In 1966, Gallup measured his approval rating at 32% positive and 63% negative. That same year, a December Harris poll found that 50% of whites felt King was “hurting the negro cause of civil rights” while only 36% felt he was helping. By the time he died in 1968, three out of four white Americans disapproved of him. In the wake of his assassination, 31% of the country felt that he “brought it on himself”.
One does not have to reach back into the historical archives to explain why King was so despised. The sentiments that made him a villain are still prevalent in America today. When he was alive, King was a walking, talking example of everything this country despises about the quest for Black liberation. He railed against police brutality. He reminded the country of its racist past. He scolded the powers that be for income inequality and systemic racism. Not only did he condemn the openly racist opponents of equality, he reminded the legions of whites who were willing to sit idly by while their fellow countrymen were oppressed that they were also oppressors. “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it,” King said. “He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
. . . .
“The first thing I would like to mention is that there must be a recognition on the part of everybody in this nation that America is still a racist country,” said King days before a white supremacist put a bullet in his face. “Now however unpleasant that sounds, it is the truth. And we will never solve the problem of racism until there is a recognition of the fact that racism still stands at the center of so much of our nation and we must see racism for what it is.”
See how many times someone mentions that quote today.
Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”.
Never mind.
. . . .
**********************
Read the full article at the link.
Like the figure of Christ in Dostoyevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor, if Dr. King returned to earth today he would be imprisoned, interrogated, condemned and permanently banished by the corrupt and cowardly right-wing pols, religious bigots, disingenuous judges, pundits, and others who falsely claim to be honoring his memory and vision of racial equality!
So what should we tell our students? Many are dispirited and cynical because, as far into the future as they can see, this court appears likely to do more harm than good to democracy.
First, we shouldn’t hide the reality that judicial decisions often depend on who is on the bench. That has never been more true because the entrenched partisan Senate confirmation process now guarantees that a Supreme Court nominee will be chosen to carry out political and ideological aims. For the first time in American history, the ideology of the justices precisely corresponds to the political party of the president who appointed them. All six conservatives were appointed by Republican presidents and all three liberals were appointed by Democrats.
Until recently, there were moderate liberals, such as John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter, appointed by Republicans, and there were moderate conservatives, such as Byron White and Felix Frankfurter, who had been appointed by Democrats. Trump picked three of the most ideologically conservative judges on the federal bench.
If students are to one day become effective litigators on constitutional rights, they will need to understand the ideologies of the justices interpreting the law. In the past, we certainly discussed the ideology of the justices with our students, but we must focus on it far more now as the ideological differences between the Republican-appointed justices and judges and those appointed by Democratic presidents are greater than they have ever been.
Second, we must remind students that there have been other bleak times in constitutional law when rights were contracted. From the 1890s until 1936, a conservative Supreme Court struck down over 200 progressive federal, state and local laws protecting workers and consumers. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the court refused to stand up to the hysteria of McCarthyism. The current court will not last forever, though it may feel like that to them.
Third, we should direct focus on other avenues for change. Students need to look more to state courts and legislatures, at least in some parts of the country, as a way to advance liberty and equality. For instance, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law known as the “Roe Act,” protecting a woman’s right to abortion under state law, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. We need to teach our students how to use the power of local governments to protect fair housing, public education and public health.
Fourth, we must encourage them to look at the sweep of history. In the early 1960s, almost half the states had Jim Crow segregation laws, there were few women going to law school, and every state had a law criminally prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that the arc of the moral universe is long and it bends toward justice — if we work for it.
There really are just two choices: Give up or fight harder, even if there will be a lot of losses along the way. If we can instill in students a desire to defend justice, even if victory is distant, it will be a good semester, no matter what the Supreme Court decides.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion. Jeffrey Abramson is professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin.
*************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Sometimes, the best you can do is save as many lives as you can, one at a time. Eventually, it adds up. Also, as the article suggests, it’s critical to get involved and speak out on local political issues. That’s where the fascist far-right has made huge inroads.
Yilun Cheng Immigration Reporter, Columbus Dispatch PHOTO: TwitterAttorneys who complain about misbehaving judges in Merrick Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” might well find themselves in uncomfortable positions! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the fall of 2020, “Juan” had trouble falling asleep whenever he thought about his upcoming court appearance in Cleveland, where the only immigration court in Ohio is located.
The 43-year-old father of three from Mexico, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, had already gone through three hours-long hearings for his application to obtain permanent residency. He said he was nervous and exhausted when he stepped into the court on Oct. 16, 2020, for his fourth hearing.
Juan expected from experience that he would once again face a series of aggressive questions from Judge Teresa Riley, whose intimidating style almost made him give up on his case altogether, he said.
But it still astounded him when Riley called Mexican immigrants “illegals” while cross-examining his wife about the subcontractors that Juan employed at his construction business.
Citing the experience of six anonymous immigrants, including Juan, the complaint accuses Riley of biases against Latino immigrants, bullying and hostile questioning, a lack of professional competence and other alleged misconducts.
But complainants like complainants like Juan and their attorneys said they have been disappointed that their efforts did not lead to any lasting changes or that there was little transparency in the investigation process.
Riley stopped hearing cases for a few weeks in July and August, but returned shortly after, according to hearing schedules shared with the Dispatch. It is unclear why the judge was absent.
. . . .
Because these complaints rarely generate substantial disciplinary actions and there is a fear of retaliation from the judges, immigration attorneys and their clients often hesitate to report misconducts, said Austin Kocher, a research associate professor at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University.
“Immigration attorneys don’t file these complaints often enough because they still have to practice in front of these judges,” said Kocher, whose research focuses on immigration policies. “You can’t file a complaint one day against a judge and the next day come in with your client and expect the judge to treat them well. There’s just a real lack of systematic accountability.”
. . . .
Emmanuel Olawale, a Westerville-based immigration attorney, said he has faced this dilemma firsthand. In October 2020, when he received a notice from the Cleveland Immigration Court that the asylum case of one of his clients was denied, he was disturbed by the language that Judge Jonathan Owens used in the decision.
In the asylum application, Olawale’s client, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Cameroon, said armed officers from that country sexually assaulted her when she was a minor while they were searching for English-speaking dissidents like her family.
In an attempt to establish that the abuse did not happen due to the client’s identity, Owen stated that it is likely that officers raped the teenage girl not because she was a member of the English-speaking minority but because “they wanted to do so and thought that the respondent was a pretty virgin,” according to court documents shared with The Dispatch.
“If someone’s a ‘pretty virgin,’ is that a good reason for them to rape her in any context?” Olawale said. “That statement is misogynistic and very shocking to me.”
Instead of submitting a complaint against Owen, however, the immigration attorney opted to voice his concerns in an appeal, which is currently pending.
“Filing a complaint against the judge is something on the table,” Olawale said. “But it won’t really change anything in my client’s case. There’s also an imbalance of power in the courtroom and the fear of retaliation. I’ll have to weigh my options and consider how bad it is before I stick my neck out there.”
. . . .
Judges are not always made aware of the existence of a complaint in a timely fashion, and there is no transparency or consistency when it comes to sanctions imposed in a particular case, according to Dana Marks, president emerita at the National Association of Immigration Judges who spent 35 years on the bench in San Francisco, California, before retiring in December.
“It’s not consistent because a complaint usually starts out with the person’s immediate supervisor being told,” Marks said. “Some of the supervisors discuss the complaint with the judge immediately and others don’t. There’s a wide spectrum of when judges are notified, how much information they are provided, and whether they are allowed to give their side of the story before decisions are made.”
There is a fine line between judges’ taking a harsh stance on immigration and their exhibiting unprofessional behaviors, said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge based in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. While judges should not be punished for making a good-faith legal decision, using terms like “illegals” seems to be a clear violation of professionalism, he said.
“There are complaints that were made because someone is not happy that they lost a case, and those claims need to be taken with a grain of salt,” Schmidt said. “But at the point where judges are using racially charged terms or demeaning people, then that seems to me that it goes beyond what they should be allowed to do.”
. . . .
The Cleveland Immigration Court, much like the rest of the country, saw dramatic personnel changes during Donald Trump’s presidency.
The court used to have only three judges, all of whom have since left their posts. The Trump administration filled the openings and expanded the size of the bench, appointing 10 judges who currently make up the court. Most of them are former government attorneys, and five used to prosecute immigration cases on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.
The lack of a transparent complaint process is especially concerning given an influx of new judges, who tend to come from enforcement backgrounds and lack experience on the bench, [Attorney Julie] Nemecek said.
“I think about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country who have been wronged by the misconducts of Trump-appointed judges,” she said. “There are still good judges out there. But we have to address these bad judges.”
. . . .
Yilun Cheng is a Report for America corps member and covers immigration issues for the Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.
ycheng@dispatch.com
@ChengYilun
******************
Read Yulin’s full article at the link.
First, congrats to Yulin Cheng! Last time I published her work, she was an aspiring student journalist.
Now, she’s a Report for America member carrying out her dream and commitment to report truth and hold immigration officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their mockery of the rule of law and shunning of best practices!
So, why might a private practitioner hesitate to file a complaint against an Immigration Judge in Garland’s system still “packed” with a majority of judges hand-selected by White Nationalist nativists Sessions and Barr?
The complaint would go not to an independent, objective panel containing public representation. No, it would be treated as a “supervisory matter” in an agency (not a real “court”) where the ranks of supervisors are still stacked with Barr & Sessions appointees that Garland hasn’t replaced.
Stunningly, the “top judge” in this bizarre, abusive, and dysfunctional system is Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short — a hard line DHS prosecutor with no prior judicial experience elevated by Barr because of his commitment to the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-attorney agenda! Remarkably, Garland hasn’t replaced Short with a competent, expert, due-process-oriented “real judge,” notwithstanding unanimous urging from immigration experts that he do so!
Pursue as an alternative a legal appeal to Garland’s BIA? Well, amazingly, that body also remains “packed” with 23 of 24 appellate judges who are holdovers from the Trump Administration. Several of these judges were themselves members of the “90% asylum deniers club” and some were renowned for their disrespect for immigrants (particularly asylum seekers) and their lawyers while on the trial bench.
Look for some binding BIA precedents on improper IJ conduct? Won’t find those either, save for a mild, pre-Trump rebuke of an Atlanta IJ (without identifying the judge) for abusing a juvenile in court.
Then, there’s Garland himself. For heaven’s sake, even Bush crony former AG Alberto Gonzales (“Gonzo I”) finally got so embarrassed by the misbehavior of his IJs that he had to publicly “call off the dogs.”But, from Garland, not a peep or decisive action demanding that his “wholly-owned judges” put due process and fundamental fairness first and treat the individuals coming before them and their lawyers with professionalism, dignity, and respect!
Judge Riley, appointed by Barr in May 2019, without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 87.7%.
Judge Owens, appointed by Sessions in August 2018, also without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 94.5%. That’s 58th highest out of 558 Immigration Judges!
The TRAC “national average” for asylum denials by IJs during this period was 67.6%.
So, even in the virulent, officially-sanctioned “anti-asylum era” @ EOIR during the late Obama Administration and the entire Trump Administration, these two judges are “outliers.”
As someone familiar with the Ohio Immigration Bar, there are dozens of much better qualified judicial candidates out there in the private sector. Some of them even applied in the past and were rejected in favor of these judges who, whatever else you might think, no expert would find to be among “best and brightest minds in immigration and human rights,” deserving of elevation to the bench.
All Immigration Judges are “DOJ attorneys,” serving “at the pleasure of the Attorney General” and therefore subject to replacement and/or reassignment at his discretion. Judge Riley was “in probation” until May 20121, so Garland could have terminated her, essentially for any reason, or at least “re-competed” her position under a fair process that would have been open, welcoming to immigration experts in the private sector, and involved private sector input.
Owens and the other Trump-era appointees should also have been required to re-compete for their positions under revised procedures. It’s unlikely either Owens or Riley would have been selected in such a merit-based process.
Of course, Garland has not actively recruited from among better-qualified diverse expert immigration practitioners, established transparent merit-based procedures, or re-competed the disgracefully inadequate selections of his White Nationalist, anti-immigrant predecessors!
Additionally, Garland has failed to address, in any manner whatsoever, the quality control, bad attitude, lack of professionalism, and anti-immigrant bias problems in his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Poor precedents continue to be issued by his BIA, and sloppy work by his judges at all levels continues to be “outed” by the Article IIIs notwithstanding the substantial (undue) deference given to EOIR decisions by the Article IIIs. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “mindless gimmicks” continue to proliferate under Garland’s disconnected leadership.
The disciplinary system remains opaque and highly ineffective. Illegal retaliation by IJs against those filing complaints remains a realistic possibility that actually deters and improperly discourages reporting of misconduct. An ineffective, “rubber-stamp” appellate review process of removal orders by the BIA almost never holds IJs accountable, even for the most egregious legal errors and the grossest misconduct on the bench.
While Circuit Courts point out the deficient performance of EOIR judges on a remarkably frequent basis, one will search in vain for any recent BIA precedent “calling out” inappropriate and biased treatment of respondents and their lawyers in Immigration Court. Likewise, while Jeff Sessions was outspoken in encouraging anti-asylum and anti-lawyer bias among “his judges,” I’m not aware that Garland, in word or deed, has ever insisted that Immigration Judges at all levels give primacy to due process, fundamental fairness, and treat all coming before them with dignity and respect. In other words, Garland has failed to use his “bully pulpit” to demand an end to bullying of the most vulnerable among us in his Immigration Courts.
He also has failed to repudiate the “DHS Enforcement is our partner” statements by Sessions. (Perhaps not surprisingly, since, as noted earlier, Garland employs a DHS prosecutor, Tracy Short, as his “top judge” notwithstanding Short’s glaring unsuitability for the position. And, Garland continues to defend many “Miller Lite” policies in Federal Court.)
Pro-DHS biases, mistreatment of migrants and their attorneys, lack of basic scholarship, and failure of impartial judging continue to run rampant in Garland’s broken system!
Indeed, a full year the SF Chron’sTal Kopan exposed the misconduct by Immigration Judges throughout the nation, the DOJ has taken no known actions despite Deputy AG Lisa Monaco’s “promise to investigate.”
From top to bottom, this broken, unfair, and out of control system needs reform, redirection, integrity, a focus on due process, and decisional excellence. It certainly isn’t coming from Garland and his senior political team at DOJ. So where IS it going to come from?
Chair Lofgren and her Subcommittee need to find out why Garland has failed to address the ongoing disaster in his courts, and what needs to be done to bring due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for humanity to the forefront at EOIR, the DOJ, and the rest of our legal system! And, if anyone in the Administration stubbornly claims that the “primary answer” is to randomly throw more judges into this toxic mess, Lofgren should laugh in their face(s)! We need to replace bad judges and reform the existing system into something fair and functional before seeking to expand it, even assuming that expansion is warranted somewhere “down the line.”
As being run by Garland right now, EOIR is an affront to American democracy! That needs to stop!
Sadly, a couple of correct decisions, no matter how welcome, aren’t going to solve the systemic due process deficiencies in Ohio or elsewhere in Garland’s dysfunctional nationwide “Clown Courts.” 🤡
There are some pressing problems in America that Dems and the Biden Administration can’t solve on their own. Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts are NOT one of those!
The Immigration Courts are the biggest most consequential national problem that is totally within the Administration’s power to fix. That Garland has failed to do so should be of existential concern and a cause for unrelenting outrage from all who believe in the future of American democracy!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From our leader and spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Round Table Brief cited today in Oral Argument
Hi all:To end the week on a positive note, in oral arguments today before the Second Circuit, one of the judges asked the OIL attorney the following:
“What are we to make of the amicus brief filed by so many former IJs who stress the importance of in person hearing in the special role of Immigration Judges in developing the facts before rendering an opinion, particularly in something as factually heavy as this, as undue hardship to the children?They emphasize the importance of hearing in person testimony and suggest that it is an abuse of discretion to not permit it when it is requested.How do you respond?”
The case is Martinez-Roman v. Garland.
. . . .
The IJ wouldn’t let two witnesses testify: the medical expert, and a 13-year-old child of the respondent.So when the judge asked that question, the OIL attorney claimed that the IJ was trying to protect the child from the psychological trauma of testifying.The judges pointed out that the IJ had actually said he wouldn’t allow the testimony only because it would be duplicative.In the child’s case, it was supposedly “duplicative” of a one-page handwritten statement written by the child.In the expert’s case, the IJ admitted that he hadn’t actually read the expert’s written statement, causing the circuit judges to ask how the IJ could have known the testimony would be duplicative of a statement he hadn’t read.
Wishing all a great, safe, and healthy weekend! – Jeff
*************
Garland’s “amazing” EOIR “judges” can divine the content of statements they never read, while Prelogar’s “equally amazing” DOJ lawyers just “make it up as they go along” when arguing before Article IIIs! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
So, Merrick, it’s an “A-OK” judicial practice for your judges to deem live testimony “duplicative” of a statements they never read! That’s some feat of clairvoyance!
“Clairvoyance” appears to be more of a qualification for your “judges” than actual expertise and experience vindicating due process in Immigration Court!
Also, when your attorneys are confronted with the defects in your judges’ performance by Article IIIs who have actually read the record and familiarized themselves with the evidence, (something you apparently deem “optional” for both your IJs and the attorneys defending them) it’s also “A-OK” for your attorneys to fabricate any bogus pretextual excuse, even one that is clearly refuted by the record.
Perhaps, SG Liz Prelogar should take a break from losing cases before the Supremes and pay attention to what nonsense DOJ attorneys are arguing before the lower Federal Courts.What, Liz, is the legality and the morality of defending a broken system, wholly owned and operated by your “boss,” that dishonestly denies due process to the most vulnerable among us?
Harvard Law might have spared Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar from having to work in the “legal trenches” of Immigration Court, unlike the lawyers who have been fighting to keep democracy alive over that past five years! Apparently, she took a pass on the Ethics class too, as DOJ lawyers under her overall direction “make it up as they go along” in defending the dysfunctional Immigration Courts before the Article IIIs! PHOTO: Twitter
Is this what they taught you at Harvard law? Did you miss the required course on ethics and professional responsibility? Why is the Round Table doing the work YOU should be doing as a supposedly responsible Government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law?
Yeah, I know that Prelogar, like her other elitist political appointee colleagues, operates in the “legal stratosphere,” has clerked for two liberal Supremes, and otherwise “punched all the right tickets” in Dem politics. But, the problem here is that like it or not, Immigration Courts are the “retail level” of American justice that affects everything else! Right now, that effect is stunningly and unacceptably adverse!
The GOP White Nationalist nativists, like Sessions, Barr, and their hand-selected toadies, “got that.” That’s why they used their time in office to weaponize EOIR and degrade due process and humanity, while using “Dred Scottification” developed in immigration to diminish and degrade the rights of “the other” throughout our legal and political systems! The dots aren’t that hard to connect, unless, apparently, you’re a Dem Politico serving in the DOJ!
For whatever reason, perhaps because Dems keep appointing politicos who haven’t had to personally confront the mess in Immigration Court, folks like Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, and Prelogar entertain the elitist belief that standing up to the “nativist appeasers” in the Biden White House, getting rid of bad judges and incompetent administrators at EOIR, and bringing our dysfunctional (“killer”) Immigration Courts into conformity with Constitutional Due Process, international standards, and simple human dignity are “below their pay grade.” Not so!
Have to hope that the Chairman Lofgren and her staff are paying attention and will start throwing more light on Garland’s deficient handling of EOIR and the disgraceful, intellectually dishonest, arguments his attorneys are making before the Article IIIs!
This system is BROKEN, and going into the second year of the Biden Administration, Garland has NOT taken the necessary bold, decisive, yet quite obvious and realistically achievable, steps to FIX it! What gives?
Since Liz has never been a judge, let me provide an insight. No judge, life-tenured or “administrative,” liberal, conservative, or centrist, likes being played for a fool, misled, or “BS’ed” 💩 by counsel. (I actually remember “chewing out” attorneys in open court for failing to acknowledge controlling precedent in arguing before me.)
They particularly hate such conduct when it comes from lawyers representing the USG! Because Federal Judges often come from a bygone generation, many still retain the apparently now long outdated concept that DOJ attorneys should be held to a “higher standard.” Your predecessor, Trump shill Noel Francisco, certainly mocked that belief during his disgraceful tenure at the DOJ, particularly in his disingenuous and aggressive defense of the White Nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum agenda! Do you REALLY want to follow in HIS footsteps? Sadly, At this early point in time, that answer appears to be “yes.”
So, that leads to another question. Why do progressive human rights and immigration advocates continue to turn out the vote and loyally support a Dem Party that, once in office, considers them, their values, and the human souls they represent to be “expendable” — essentially “fungible political capital?” It’s something I often wondered when I was on the inside watching Dem Administrations screw up EOIR and immigration policy. I still don’t know the answer, and perhaps never will.
These findings raise serious questions about whether the Biden administration’s Dedicated Docket is achieving its stated goals or, more seriously, why this program was created in the first place given that it doesn’t appear to actually be benefitting anyone involved. These are my takeaways and not necessarily the views of TRAC as an organization.
. . . .
**********************
Read Austin’s findings at the link.
The idea was idiotic, the execution amateurish, the human impact catastrophic, and the failure both inevitable and totally predictable! Totally predictable, that is, to anyone who actually understands how broken our Immigration Courts are. That, obviously, doesn’t include Garland or anyone on his senior management team.
Gotta hope that the upcoming “Lofgren hearings” will highlight and document the ridiculous nonsense that’s going on under Garland and crank up the pressure on him to take the human lives at stake here seriously and to do better.
The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it
WASHINGTON — South Bay Rep. Zoe Lofgren will convene a congressional hearing on the immigration courts next week, The Chronicle has learned, likely laying the groundwork for the introduction of her bill to overhaul the troubled system.
The hearing may also provide the first critical look by Congress at how the courts, which are under the control of the Department of Justice, have been running under the Biden administration. Though President Biden came into office pledging to turn the page from his predecessor’s hardline immigration stance, advocates say progress has been slow, especially at the Department of Justice.
…
Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat, chairs the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary panel and is a longtime leader on immigration policy in Washington. She has been working on legislation that would make the nation’s immigration courts an independent system. In theory that change, which has been called for by the major pro-immigrant and immigration law organizations, would insulate the courts from the political whims of different administrations, and allow them to function more as a justice system.
Committee staff said Lofgren was still working on the bill and offered no timeline for its introduction, but an informational hearing such as the one scheduled for next week typically serves as a precursor to the unveiling of legislation.
Welcome and long, long, long overdue news! But, is it too little, too late?
Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is one of the few legislators who understands the full extent of the disaster in Garland’s deadly and broken “courts,” the missed opportunities by Garland to initiate meaningful due-process and practical efficiency reforms, and the debilitating effect of the disorder countenanced by Garland at EOIR on our entire legal system and the future of democracy.
Unlike Garland and his ineffectual lieutenants, the Subcommittee will actually hear from expertswho understand the full legal and human effects of Garland’s complacent and ineffectual leadership.
The hundreds of judges at the roughly 70 immigration courts nationwide decide the fate of immigrants seeking to stay in the U.S., many of whom fear for their lives if they are deported. But the system has long faced criticism for its enormous backlog of more than 1.5 million cases, inconsistency across judges and courts, antiquated bureaucracy and labyrinthine structure that’s difficult for immigrants without lawyers to navigate.
In many ways, the above quote from Tal “says it all.” A year after finally being spurred into action by Tal’s reporting on a well-known, long-festering problem, the DOJ has “studied” without actually taking corrective action. A serious lack of transparency remains a chronic problem!
The “culture” at EOIR remains sick. Those in the EOIR system who survived the Trump disaster without giving in to the anti-immigrant corruption had reasonably expected Garland to embrace common-sense, progressive reforms and root out the White Nationalists opponents of due process. Instead they find themselves abandoned and disheartened by his inept and tone-deaf performance.
Incredibly folks like Barr’s hand-selected, anti-immigrant, “Stephen Miller acolyte” Chief Judge Tracy Short remain in their positions while progressive experts have been totally shut out of EOIR leadership by Garland. Only one “practical expert” has been appointed to the BIA, where she remains hopelessly outnumbered and effectively “marginalized” by the overwhelming number of “Trump Holdovers” who “packed” the BIA during the last Administration.
Progressive experts had given the incoming Biden Administration “practical blueprints” and recommended personnel changes for rooting out the deadwood and the many less-than-qualified judges and officials at EOIR and bringing in a team of outstandingly well-qualified due-process-committed “practical experts” to begin fixing the system — with a sense of urgency and priority. Those actions would have included an entirely new BIA with real expert judges who would by now not only have vacated White Nationalist precedents imposed under the Trump DOJ, but actually have issued proper precedents interpreting the immigration laws that would facilitate and enforce due process, and promote uniformity and efficiency, rather than undermining it.
The backlog could have been slashed by decisive actions removing from hopelessly overcrowded and mismanaged dockets, “low-priority” cases and those many that could better have been resolved initially by USCIS. Poorly performing anti-immigrant judges could be brought under control, “Asylum Free Zones” eliminated, training drastically improved, working automated systems implemented, a merit-based hiring system for judges instituted, affirmative recruiting for diverse expert candidates undertaken, representation increased, and a collaborative relationship with the private bar and ICE counsel established.
Instead, Garland has retained Sessions and Barr “holdovers,” embraced “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” accepted sloppy, unprofessional work product surfacing in the Article IIIs on an almost a daily basis, treated the immigration advocacy community with indifference and disrespect, used “gimmicks” instead of standing up for due process and immigrants’ rights, argued in favor of upholding some of the worst “Miller Lite” policies left behind by Trump’s White Nationalist advisor, and built more unnecessary backlog at a rate that would make “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Billy the Bigot” Barr envious.
In other words, Garland has been a disaster for those committed to due process, racial justice,equal treatment under law,and a diverse, welcoming, stable American democracy.
Given Garland’s failures and disinterest in achieving justice for asylum seekers and other migrants, an Independent Article I Immigration Court free from the inept (Democrats) and toxic (GOP) mismanagement of the DOJ is the answer. But, like the rest of the Dem agenda, it’s hard to see a legislative solution anywhere on the horizon. And, those counting on Garland to finally grow a backbone and start reforming the system are likely to be left “throwing punches in the air.” Again!
The Supreme Court Had No Legal Reason to Block Biden’s Workplace Vaccine Rules
So it made one up.
JANUARY 13 2022 10:34 PM
The Supreme Court significantly hobbled—but did not obliterate—President Joe Biden’s efforts to protect Americans from COVID in the face of congressional inaction. By a 6–3 vote, the justices blocked his vaccinate-or-test mandate for large employers, accusing the administration of exceeding its authority. But by a 5–4 vote, the court upheld the administration’s vaccine mandate for health care workers, a decision that will compel more than 10 million people to get the jab. This split double header is a crushing defeat for Biden’s efforts to curb the pandemic by protecting American workers from catching COVID in the workplace. SCOTUS’ decision is not, however, a knockout blow to the administrative state. The Republican-appointed justices may yet enfeeble the executive branch’s ability to implement federal law. But a majority of them declined to seize on these cases as their vehicle.
By far the more important case, NFIB v. Department of Labor involves an “emergency temporary standard” issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This rule required employers with 100 or more workers to give their staff a choice: either get the COVID-19 vaccine or test weekly and mask in the office. The policy would have covered roughly 84 million people. To justify this mandate, OSHA drew on a federal law that allows the agency to protect employees from a “grave danger” resulting from “physically harmful” “agents” or “new hazards.” A coalition of red states filed a lawsuit to halt OSHA’s mandate, and by a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court took their side.
SCOTUS’ unsigned majority opinion rests on several dubious claims. The court declared that “we expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” So even though COVID is undoubtedly a “grave danger” and a “new hazard” to workers, this broad language is not enough, because it does not “plainly authorize” the mandate. Why not? The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of “grave danger” envisioned by the statute, and “falls outside OSHA’s sphere of expertise.” The majority also raised the “anti-novelty principle,” stating: “It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind.”
Notice something unusual about this analysis? The dissenters certainly did: It is utterly untethered to the plain text of the law, which obviously encompasses OSHA’s rule. In a rare joint dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan shredded this anti-textual approach to statutory interpretation. By dismantling OSHA’s authority over hazards found in and out of the workplace, they wrote, the majority imposed “a limit found no place in the governing statute.” This limit is not even supported by history: The agency has long regulated risks “beyond the workplace walls,” including fires, excessive noise, unsafe drinking water, and faulty electrical installations. And if the vaccinate-or-test policy is unprecedented, that is because it is in response to an unprecedented event: the deadliest pandemic in American history.
If that weren’t enough, OSHA put forth uncontested evidence that COVID–19 “poses special risks in most workplaces, across the country and across industries.” The virus “spreads more widely in workplaces than in other venues because more people spend more time together there,” the dissenters noted. OSHA “backed up its conclusions with hundreds of reports of workplace COVID– 19 outbreaks.” And it issued a rule designed to protect workers from these kinds of superspreader events. By “overturning that action,” the dissenters wrote, the majority “substitutes judicial diktat for reasoned policymaking.”
. . . .
**************
Read the complete article at the link.
Immigration practitioners are used to result-oriented, anti-immigrant, racially, ethnically, and religiously driven results from Federal Judges. After all, fewer than four years ago a somewhat different Supremes’ right-wing majority “green-lighted” Trump’s bogus invidious, unprecedented“Muslim ban” by accepting clearly pretextual and contrived rationales that actually wererefuted by the lower court records.
Here, with the facts, science, and history, as well as the statute supporting the Biden Administration’s reasonable program, the GOP Justices simply invented a reason to bar Biden from taking action to protect our health and safety. Talk about a double standard!
Law360 (January 12, 2022, 2:09 PM EST) — A top U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney appeared elated when a sitting Massachusetts judge was indicted in 2018 for helping an immigrant in the country illegally evade custody, asking in an email if it would be “the first of many” such arrests, according to records made public in court Tuesday.
The email by then-ICE Principal Legal Adviser Tracy Short was part of a series of documents filed by a civil liberties group and government watchdog suing the agency to obtain even more records relating to the obstruction of justice charges against Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph.
Short posed the rhetorical question as a Fox News article circulated in emails among agency staff on the day Judge Joseph was indicted. In a later email to agency executives, Short said, “This is a great day.”
“Indeed,” responded Matthew Albence, ICE director of enforcement removal operations, according to the court filings. ICE chief of staff Thomas Blank allegedly chimed in, “Blessed.”
Judge Joseph is accused of helping the immigrant evade federal custody by allowing him to leave out the back door of her courtroom while agents from ICE were waiting out front to arrest him.
The case has been criticized by retired judges, academics and Massachusetts defense lawyers as an overreach by the federal government. Judge Joseph has argued that she acted within the scope of her judicial authority and therefore cannot be criminally charged. The issue is on appeal at the First Circuit.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and American Oversight, a government watchdog, attached the emails ICE produced to a motion for a pretrial win in the lawsuit they filed against the agency for records relating to the charges against Judge Joseph and her court officer Wesley MacGregor.
The civil liberties groups told U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley that the 83 pages of communications handed over by ICE in response to its records request “calls into serious question the adequacy of its search” for documents.
Among the groups’ concerns are that no records were produced for the 11 months that followed the incident, no text messages were searched, the search terms used were too narrow, and the agency never searched its Homeland Security Investigations Division even though the unit wrote a memo about the incident.
The groups asked the court to grant them summary judgment, order ICE to conduct a reasonable search — including emails and text messages — and release pages ICE is withholding under claimed exemptions from the public records law.
In December, ICE asked for a win in the case, saying it handed over what it needed to and withheld other sought-after documents that would harm pending criminal proceedings if released.
Judge Joseph and MacGregor have appealed a federal judge’s decision to not toss the charges on judicial immunity grounds. The First Circuit, in early December, heard the appeal and wrestled with how to define the judge’s immunity claim.
The ACLU’s records request was spurred by a November 2019 New York Times article that reported then-acting ICE Director Thomas Homan had been communicating with the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office in seeking legal recourse against Judge Joseph.
The ACLU requested records from March 15, 2018, through April 25, 2019, including emailed messages and letters between the U.S. attorney’s office and ICE about Judge Joseph, as well as records concerning an ICE investigation into the judge.
ICE told the ACLU in 2019 that it couldn’t do the search because the ACLU was a third party in the criminal case against Judge Joseph and needed her approval to access the records.
The ACLU protested and asked the agency to reconsider, saying that its request didn’t need Judge Joseph’s approval. In February 2020, the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ruled that a records search could be made, but ICE has failed to respond to the ACLU’s request since then, the complaint says.
Daniel McFadden, an ACLU staff attorney on the case, said in a statement to Law360 that ICE’s decision to charge Judge Joseph was “unprecedented.”
“The public has a right to know how this prosecution arose, and whether it was part of a pressure campaign to force Massachusetts court officials to assist in federal immigration enforcement,” McFadden said.
ICE and the Department of Justice declined to comment on the filing when reached Wednesday.
The ACLU of Massachusetts is represented in-house by Krista Oehlke, Daniel L. McFadden and Matthew R. Segal.
American Oversight is represented in-house by Katherine M. Anthony.
Update: This article has been updated to include comments from the ACLU.
******************
Look, whether Short can be fired or not, he has no business being the Chief Immigration Judge at EOIR. Short never held a judicial position before his inappropriate appointment under Trump.
His career as a hard line, widely disrespected ICE Prosecutor took him through probably the worst Federal Court in America — the Atlanta immigration Court, a self-styled “Asylum Free Zone” where “due process and fundamental fairness go to die and be buried.”
No Senior Executive like Short has “life tenure” in a particular senior position. For example, former Chief Immigration Judge, current BIA Appellate Judge Michael J, Creppy, woke up one morning in 2006 to find himself“out at OCIJ” and on his way to OCAHO, widely considered the “Siberia of EOIR.” His “offense:” “losing the confidence” of the then powers that were at DOJ and EOIR during the Bush II Administration!
I had a similar experience when I was “pushed out” as BIA Chair and then Appellate Judge because Ashcroft and his team of hard liners (including the notorious neo-fascist nativist Kris Kobach) didn’t like my decisions standing up for the legal rights of migrants!
Once in power, the GOP makes good on its threats against asylum seekers and other migrants, without necessarily passing any legislation. By contrast, with weak-kneed, tone-deaf “leaders” like Mayorkas and Garland, Dems fail to keep their campaign promises and won’t even move the worst of the GOP holdovers out of key positions where they undermine justice and ruin human lives.
“Record, what record? Here at the BIA, we don’t need no stinkin’ record to deny asylum! The assembly line would break down if we took time to look at all the evidence and research the law! It’s about ‘numbers,’ not ‘justice!’” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Tarlishi Emmanuel-Tata, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration. … Emmanuel-Tata challenges both the BIA’s factual determinations and whether it gave his claims full and fair consideration. We begin by examining Emmanuel-Tata’s argument that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence. This argument relies on a BIA statement that the record “does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating that Anglophones are regularly subject to persecution,” and that “[t]he record does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating the type of punishment the respondent may face as a result of his criminal charges.” There is such evidence, though. … The significance of the overlooked evidence is clear. … Because the BIA erroneously found there was no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Emmanuel-Tata did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. We therefore reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not further consider the BIA’s factual determinations. The petition for review is GRANTED and we REMAND to the BIA for further consideration.”
[Hats off to Brian Plotts! Brian, make a motion to publish!]
*********************
As any “immigration pro” knows, the DOJ has to work hard to lose immigration cases in the “ultra-conservative” 5th Circuit. But, even judges not very sympathetic to migrants don’t like being “played for fools” by a DOJ where “quality, integrity, and due process” definitely are “NOT job one.”
Highlighting the constant stream of bogus findings, “canned” decisions, ignored records, and chronic contemptuous sloppiness is a great way to for the NDPA to make inroads with even the most unsympathetic Circuit panels. While some Article III judges are willing to overlook the BIA’s endemic shortcomings, hiding behind the “bogus deference” doctrine, they might be less willing to “do the BIA’s dirty work for them.”
Two months after President Biden said migrant families separated at the border under the Trump administration deserve compensation, his administration’s lawyers are arguing in federal court that they are not in fact entitled to financial damages and their cases should be dismissed.
The Justice Department outlined its position in the government’s first court filings since settlement negotiations that could have awarded the families hundreds of thousands of dollars broke down in mid-December.
Government lawyers emphasized in the court documents that they do not condone the Trump administration’s policy of separating the children of undocumented migrants from their parents. But they said the U.S. government has a good deal of leeway when it comes to managing immigration and is immune from such legal challenges.
“At issue in this case is whether adults who entered the country without authorization can challenge the federal government’s enforcement of federal immigration laws” under federal tort claims laws, the Justice Department said in a Jan. 7 brief in a lawsuit in Pennsylvania. “They cannot.”
The legal strategy reflects the Biden administration’s awkward position as it shifts from championing the migrant families politically to fighting them in court. Migrant families have filed approximately 20 lawsuits and hundreds of administrative claims seeking compensation for the emotional and sometimes physical abuse they allege they suffered during the separations.
. . . .
But while immigrant advocates and liberals are likely to be furious at the administration’s position in court, some Democrats say privately that it has a political upside. The image of the administration fighting against the large payments, they say, could blunt GOP arguments that the administration is too soft on immigration.
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
“Awkward” seems like a “sanitized term” for “duplicitous and immoral!”
So, I assume that the Dems who are unwilling to stand up for progressive values and the human rights of migrants will look to their GOP nativist, White Nationalist buddies for contributions and votes come election time. Contrary to DOJ’s misrepresentation to the courts, individuals regardless of status had a statutory and treaty right to seek protection in the U.S. regardless of manner of entry. The unconstitutional Sessions/Miller scofflaw conduct was intended to punish and deter individuals from asserting and vindicating their legal rights.
Additionally, so-called “illegal entries” are to a large extent fueled by illegal policies by both the Biden and Trump Administrations of not having an operating, fair, timely asylum system at legal ports of entry. This has been compounded by failure of both Administrations to establish robust, fair refugee processing systems for Latin America in the regions where the refugee situations are generated.
I have a different perspective: A party afraid to stand up for the values of its core constituency stands for nothing at all! And we already have a major “party of no values.” So, the “competition” for the “no values voters” might already be over.
Disgusting as the anti-democracy, White Nationalist GOP is, I must say that they know who their supporters are and aren’t afraid to act accordingly. Just who are the Dems representing in this disgraceful and cowardly race to the bottom being led by Garland and Mayorkas (with an assist from Vice President “Die in Place” Harris)?
The Biden Administration’s “policy” of abandoning asylum seekers and allowing the Immigration Courts to operate dysfunctionally with mostly “holdover judges” and ever-mushrooming backlogs hasn’t proved to be a “political winner” to date. So, why do the tone-deaf Dems pushing it believe it will help them in November?
Hopefully, at least some Federal Courts will see through Garland’s disingenuous smokescreen and stick the DOJ & DHS with judgements much larger than the ones they were afraid to agree to in settlement.
The Garland DOJ continues to squander time, resources, and goodwill by filling the Article IIIs withill-advised “Stephen Miller Lite” litigation positions. And, these are the folks progressives are depending on to vindicate voting rights and hold the leaders of the insurrection accountable? Good luck with that! Garland appears to be too busy defending Stephen Miller’s policies to effectively push progressive, due-process-oriented positions in the Article IIIs or reform his wholly owned, totally dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.”
“Jose Ernesto Menjivar Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 241(b)(3) and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings. … [B]ecause the IJ’s assessments of Bonilla’s credibility and the decision to require corroborating evidence were based in significant part on discrepancies with the 2012 Record, which we have determined to be unreliable, further factfinding is required. See Mboowa v. Lynch, 795 F.3d, 222, 229 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding remand warranted where a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed). Accordingly, we remand to the agency for further factfinding. Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Where a question is best resolved by the agency in the first instance, or is left primarily in the agency’s hands by statute, and the agency has failed to address that question, we generally must remand.”); see also Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (“If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.”). Accordingly, we vacate the denials of withholding and relief under the CAT and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
Let’s see, an IJ gets it wrong, a “single member BIA panel” summarily affirms w/o opinion, and a three member panel of the First Circuit unanimously reverses in a published opinion!
“Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s petition for relief rested on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a “Gang Assessment Database.” Flaws in that database, including its reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, compel us to conclude that the credibility judgment — and, in turn, the rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s request for relief — is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for new immigration proceedings.”
Nkemchap Nelvis Takwi seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and denying his motion to remand. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review. We remand this matter to the BIA because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not afford Mr. Takwi the required rebuttable presumption of credibility.
Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:
“Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense described in” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly grant Togonon’s petition for review.”
[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California!]
*****************************
The First Circuit decision was 4-3. It appears that the respondent’s lawyers, experts, and the majority did the careful, critical analysis that the BIA failed to perform. Even the dissenters, who got it wrong, appear to have spent more time and thought on this issue than Garland’s BIA.
The Tenth Circuit decision highlights “Basic Asylum 101” failures by both the IJ and the BIA. It’s not that hard to make a specific credibility finding in every case. I did it in every contested asylum case I heard over 13 years on the bench. Nor is applying the presumption of credibility on appeal profound.
I’ll concede that the 9th Circuit agfel issue was more tricky. But, the BIA’s practice of almost always going with the most expansive, pro-DHS interpretations of the agfel definition to maximize deportation and minimize relief doesn’t help.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2022
Contacts:
Immigrant Legal Defense
Ilyce Shugall, ilyce@ild.org, (415) 758-3765
Siobhan Waldron, siobhan@ild.org, (510) 479-0972
Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, The University of Chicago Law School Nicole Hallett, nhallett@uchicago.edu, (203) 910-1980
Omar Ameen Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking His Release
After the U.S. Government Fails Once Again to Prove Any Connection to Terrorism
San Francisco, CA. Immigrant Legal Defense and the University of Chicago Immigrants’ Rights Clinic have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Omar Ameen seeking his immediate release from immigration custody. Mr. Ameen has been held by the U.S. government for over three years based on false allegations that he was involved in terrorism in Iraq before he arrived in the United States as a refugee. Multiple courts have now rejected those allegations. The petition alleges that his continued detention in these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
After an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Iraqi government issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with the 2014 murder of a police officer in Rawa, Iraq. Mr. Ameen was subsequently arrested by U.S. authorities in August 2018 and placed in extradition proceedings, with the government arguing that not only was Omar responsible for the 2014 murder, but that he also occupied a leadership position in ISIS. After two and a half years of fighting his extradition, the federal magistrate judge found that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because Mr. Ameen had been in Turkey, not Iraq, at the time of the murder. He further found that there was no evidence that Mr. Ameen was an ISIS leader and ordered his immediate release.
Instead of releasing him or charging him with a crime, DHS took Mr. Ameen into immigration custody, and placed him in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ). DHS abandoned the murder claim, but otherwise made the same terrorism allegations against Mr. Ameen in immigration court that had been made – and rejected – in the extradition proceedings. After months of proceedings, the immigration judge found that the government had not proved that Mr. Ameen had any involvement with terrorism, yet still denied him bond while he seeks relief from deportation. Mr. Ameen continues to fight for his freedom, to remain in the United States, and to clear his name.
“It is a fundamental principle that the government cannot detain someone based on unsubstantiated rumors and unproven accusations,” said Ilyce Shugall, an attorney with Immigration Legal Defense (ILD) and a member of Mr. Ameen’s legal team. “The government keeps losing, yet continues to believe it can detain Omar indefinitely without cause. The Constitution does not allow such a cavalier denial of individual liberty.”
“Omar’s bond request was denied by the same agency – the Department of Justice – that has maliciously targeted for him years. Omar deserves a fair hearing in federal court,” said Siobhan Waldron, another ILD attorney on Mr. Ameen’s legal team.
“The government seems to think that it can do whatever it wants as long as it invokes the word ‘terrorism,’” said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, “Rather than admit it was wrong about Omar, the government will go to extraordinary measures to keep him locked up. We are asking the federal court to put a stop to this abuse of power.”
###
Immigrant Legal Defense’s mission is to promote justice through the provision of legal representation to underserved immigrant communities.
The Immigrants’ Rights Clinic is a clinical program of the University of Chicago Law School and provides representation to immigrants in Chicago and throughout the country.
****************
Unfortunately, “cavalier denial of individual liberty” largely describes the daily operations of Garland’s dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged “wholly owned Immigration Courts” — where due process, scholarship, quality, and efficiency are afterthoughts, at best. “Malicious targeting” — that’s a Stephen Miller specialty shamelessly carried forth by Garland in too many instances! Miller must be gratified, and not a little amazed, to find that the guy Dem progressives and human rights advocates thought would be leading the charge to undo Miller’s White Nationalist, scofflaw attack on migrants and people of color would instead be proudly “carrying his water” for him.
To punctuate my point, today Garland’s Solicitor General will follow in the disgraceful footsteps of predecessors in both GOP and Dem Administrations. Essentially (that is, stripped of its disingenuous legal gobbledygook), the SG will argue that individuals, imprisoned without conviction, struggling to vindicate their rights before Garland’s broken, backlogged, and notoriously pro-Government, anti-immigrant Immigration Courts, renowned for their sloppiness and bad judging, are not really “persons” under the Constitution and therefore can be arbitrarily imprisoned indefinitely, in conditions that are often worse than those for convicted felons, without any individualized rationale and without recourse to “real” courts (e.g., Article III courts not directly controlled by the DOJ).
“The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court seems to be planning to eliminate the only way a lot of people in immigration detention can challenge their imprisonment,” appellate public defender Sam Feldman commented in a quote-tweet. “People would still be held illegally, but no court could do anything about it.”
One might assume that our nation’s highest Court would unanimously make short-shrift of the SG’s scofflaw arguments and send her packing. After all, that’s what several lower courts have done! But, most experts predict the exactly opposite result from a Supremes’ majority firmly committed to “Dred Scottification” — that is de-humanization and de-personification” — of people of color and migrants under the Constitution.
It’s painfully obvious that Congress must create an independent Article I Immigration Court not beholden to the Executive Branch. But, don’t hold your breath, given the current political gridlock in Washington. It’s equally clear that the Article IIIs, from the Supremes down, have “swallowed the whistle” by not striking down this blatantly unconstitutional system, thereby forcing Congress to take corrective action to bring the system into line with our Constitution.
In the meantime, Garland could bring in better-qualified expert judges, reform procedures, and appoint competent professional administrators who would institutionalize fairness, efficiency, and independence that would help transition the Immigration Courts to a new structure outside the DOJ. He could stop echoing Stephen Miller in litigation.
He could have replaced the architects of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and exponentially growing back logs with practical scholars and progressive experts who could reduce backlogs and establish order without violating human or legal rights of individuals. He could have set a “new tone” by publicly insisting that all coming before his Immigration Courts be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and professionalism.
But, instead, Garland has stubbornly eschewed the recommendations of immigration and human rights experts while allowing and even defending the trashing of the rule of law at the border and elsewhere where migrants are concerned. He’s also done it with many questionably qualified “holdover” judges and administrators appointed by Sessions and Barr because of their perceived willingness, or in some cases downright enthusiasm, to stomp on the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
It’s curious conduct from a guy who once was only “one Mitch McConnell away” from a seat on the Supremes! I guess the “due process” Garland got from McConnell and his GOP colleagues is all that he thinks migrants and other “non-persons” of color get in his wholly-owned “courts.”
Good luck to our Round Table colleague, Judge Ilyce Shugall, and her great team, on this litigation! Obviously, the wrong folks are on the Federal Bench — at all levels of our broken and floundering system.
Interestingly, Judge Shugall was once an Immigration Judge until forced to prematurely resign, as a matter of conscience, by the lawless anti-immigrant policies of the Trump Administration carried out through its DOJ. As in many cases, the Government’s loss is the Round Table’s gain!🛡⚔️
“I could not be more grateful for Esther Olavarria’s myriad contributions to the Biden-Harris Administration, particularly her work to reverse the cruel and reckless policies of the previous Administration and to implement President Biden’s vision for a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system,” DPC head Susan Rice said in a statement to Politico.
A source told Politico that Olavarria hasn’t decided when her last day at the White House will be and will continue to work with the administration for the time being.
The Hill has reached out to White House for comment.
**************
The suggestion by Susan Rice that Olavarria was able to help implement a “fair, orderly, humane immigration system” is preposterous.
The Biden Administration dishonestly continues to use Stephen Miller’s bogus, racially motivated Title 42 ruse to deny fair treatment of asylum seekers at the Southern Border. Garland’s regressive “Miller Lite” Immigration Courts are in free fall, paralyzed by an astounding, ever-expanding 1.5 million case backlog. There is no functioning due process asylum system at our borders. Nor has Biden established robust, realistic “overseas” refugee programs in Latin America that could help obviate the pressure at the border.
Most of Mayorkas’s and Garland’s ill-conceived proposed asylum regulations have been panned by the Round Table and other experts. Biden’s promise to reform and strengthen gender-based asylum has disappeared into the bureaucratic morass at DHS and DOJ. In plain terms, Biden’s human rights’ program is a mess — lacking leadership, moral courage, practical experience, and legal expertise.
These are the real reasons why the “progressive practical experts” who should be leading human rights and immigration reforms for Biden are instead abandoning ship. The “deterrence crowd” and those who live in mortal fear of the nativist right are “driving the train” for Biden.
Garland blew the chance to use Marks’s last six to nine months prior to retirement to harness her incomparable knowledge and leadership to institute long overdue progressive personnel, procedural, and policy reforms to his disastrously dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Talk about loss of institutional knowledge of everything that has gone wrong at EOIR over the past two decades!
Also, ICE Principal Legal Advisor John Trasvina departed after an unusually short stint on the job, although he was replaced with another experienced immigration lawyer, Kerry Doyle.
Obviously, some of the “best and brightest” who once were willing to lend their expertise to an incoming Administration that (apparently disingenuously) claimed that it would reverse the “dehumanization of the other” by Trump and his cronies now believe their talents can be better used elsewhere.
As to the claims that the Olavarria and Moran departures were “normal,” don’t believe a word of it. Senior level policy advisors who believe their views are respected, making government better, and saving lives don’t “retire” after a few months on the job. It’s not like they weren’t bright enough to know their jobs would be highly stressful and personally inconvenient when they accepted their positions.
All this comes at a time when America is experiencing a worker shortage that many experts believe is being fueled by a declining birth rate and declining immigration. Seems like many of the workers we could use are legal asylum seekers who are being illegally turned around at our border while Mayorkas and Garland refuse to stand up for the rule of law. Could that have something to do with why those who have spent careers understanding the shortcomings of our immigration and human rights systems are “voting with their feet” on the Biden Administration’s muddled and wildly inconsistent approach to immigration?
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) One of the most influential, outspoken, and dynamic Federal Judges of the past half-century enters the next phase of her illustrious career, as a caregiver for her granddaughter and a “fighting knightess” of the Round Table, with typical optimism. “Decades of dealing with DOJ and EOIR management has given me the best possible toolbox to meet any challenges on the road ahead,” says “NanaDana.”
😎🇺🇸🗽⚖️👩⚖️ FLASH: JUDICIAL MAVEN HON. DANA LEIGH MARKS RETIRES, JOINS ROUND TABLE! 🛡⚔️ — “Founding Mother” Of U.S. Asylum Law Successfully Argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca @ Supremes, Led Immigration Judges’ Association, Spearheaded “Article I”Movement For Judicial Independence, Saved Thousands of Lives Over Career OnBench Spanning More Than Three Decades!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Jan. 9, 2022
Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of America’s leading “applied scholars” and human rights jurists, joined the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Marks retired from the San Francisco Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, following an extraordinary nearly 35-year career on the bench. Round Table spokesperson Judge Jeffrey S. Chase announced Marks’s move in an e-mail yesterday to the group’s more than 50 members.
In addition to her “number one retirement priority” — helping care for her granddaughter — Marks told Courtside that she “looks forward to continuing the fight for Article I and due process for all in America, now without the disclaimers that DOJ requires.” It’s a mission and a sentiment shared by the group.
Long time colleague and fellow past president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), Judge John Gossart enthusiastically welcomed and recognized Marks’s fearless advocacy “for due process, fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, and an Article 1 Court.”
Other Round Table judges greeted their newest member with an avalanche of praise, appreciation, admiration, and love for Marks’s intellectual prowess, courage under pressure, and embodiment of the one-time vision of making the U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Over the last several decades, many experts say that noble vision was cashiered by Department of Justice (“DOJ”) politicos in favor of the “go along to get along” and “good enough for government work” aura that infects today’s broken and dysfunctional Immigration Court system. Those courts, now running an astounding, largely self-created backlog in excess of 1.5 million cases, are inappropriately located within the byzantine, politicized bureaucracy of a DOJ still reeling from four years of grotesque mismanagement and misdirection by the Trump group.
Marks graduated from Cal Berkeley in 1974 and received her J.D. from Hastings Law in 1977. She worked for almost ten years as an immigration lawyer in private practice, and was an active leader in AILA’s Northern California chapter during that time. In 1986, as a partner with Simmons & Ungar, then San Francisco’s premier immigration law specialty firm, Marks successfully argued the landmark case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987).
There, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s argument that asylum seekers must establish that their future persecution is “more likely than not” to happen. Instead, the Court adopted the much more generous international standard of a “well founded fear” of persecution. The Court thereby recognized that asylum could be granted where the fear was objectively reasonable, even if it were significantly less than “probable.”
Some also consider this to be the “high water mark” of the Court’s positive use of international law concepts in a human rights case involving immigration. Despite considerable internal resistance to fairly applying the more generous legal standard, Cardoza has undoubtedly saved the lives of tens of thousands of refugees and their families over the past three and one-half decades.
Shortly after submitting the brief (co-authored with Bill Ong Hing, Kip Steinberg and Susan Lydon), but prior to her Cardoza argument, Marks was selected for a judgeship by then Chief Immigration Judge, the late William R. Robie. Then Attorney General Ed Meese adopted Robie’s recommendation, and Marks was sworn in as a U.S. Immigration Judge for San Francisco in January, 1987, two months after the oral argument and two months prior to the decision being issued by the Court.
During her distinguished career on the immigration bench, Marks has been an outspoken fighter for professional treatment of her fellow Immigration Judges, for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts, and for fair, humane, professional treatment of those coming before the courts. She served on a number of occasions as the President and Executive Vice President of the NAIJ, sometimes “swapping” leadership positions with her close friend Judge Denise Slavin, also President Emerita of NAIJ and now a “fearless fighting knightess” of the Round Table.
Marks and Slavin helped battle two DOJ attempts to “decertify” the NAIJ and thus silence the powerful voices that often exposed severe problems in the administration of the Immigration Courts. Indeed, Marks’s determination to speak “truth to power,” her outsized personality, and her willingness to “level” with the media often put her at odds with “handlers” in the court’s bloated bureaucracy and their DOJ overlords.
The latter often sought to divert the Immigration Courts from their due process mission to focus instead on “deterrence” of asylum seekers and fulfilling each Administration’s goals for immigration enforcement. Among other things, this led to a backlog-building phenomenon known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”
In her writings, speeches, and interviews, Marks decried these glaring conflicts of interest and abuses of normal judicial ethics, not to mention common sense and human decency. She tirelessly advocates that the United States adhere more closely to international standards governing refugees and asylees, which was the clearly expressed legislative intent when the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted.
Summing up her new life after Immigration Court, Marks said “I will enjoy my new day job of caring for my granddaughter, but will continue my hobby of telling truth about EOIR [the bureaucratic acronym for Immigration Courts] through NAIJ and the Roundtable. I am proud to be in such good company!” The feeling is mutual! Due process forever!
