Federal Employees – Page 18 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🗽🦸🏻‍♀️🎖 A TRUE AMERICAN HERO GETS HER DUE: FRANCES PERKINS WAS THE “MOTHER OF AMERICA’S SAFETY NET!” — By Professor Heather Cox Richardson — “She recognized that the ideas of community values and pooling resources to keep the economic playing field level and take care of everyone are at least as deeply seated in our political philosophy as the idea of every man for himself.”

Letters from an American

Subscribe

Sign in

August 13, 2022

Heather Cox Richardson

11 hr ago

1,608

344

Since it seems clear we will be deciding whether we want to preserve the Social Security Act by our choice of leaders in the next few elections, I thought it not unreasonable to reprint this piece from last year about why people in the 1930s thought the measure was imperative. There is more news about the classified material at Mar-a-Lago, but nothing that can’t wait another day so I can catch this anniversary.

By the time most of you will read this, it will be August 14, and on this day in 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. While FDR’s New Deal had put in place new measures to regulate business and banking and had provided temporary work relief to combat the Depression, this law permanently changed the nature of the American government.

The Social Security Act is known for its payments to older Americans, but it did far more than that. It established unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services. It was a sweeping reworking of the relationship between the government and its citizens, using the power of taxation to pool funds to provide a basic social safety net.

The driving force behind the law was FDR’s Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins. She was the first woman to hold a position in the U.S. Cabinet and still holds the record for having the longest tenure in that job: she lasted from 1933 to 1945.

She brought to the position a vision of government very different from that of the Republicans who had run it in the 1920s. While men like President Herbert Hoover had harped on the idea of a “rugged individualism” in which men worked their way up, providing for their families on their own, Perkins recognized that people in communities had always supported each other. The vision of a hardworking man supporting his wife and children was more myth than reality: her own husband suffered from bipolar disorder, making her the family’s primary support.

As a child, Perkins spent summers with her grandmother, with whom she was very close, in the small town of Newcastle, Maine, where the old-fashioned, close-knit community supported those in need. In college, at Mount Holyoke, she majored in chemistry and physics, but after a professor required students to tour a factory to observe working conditions, Perkins became committed to improving the lives of those trapped in industrial jobs. After college, Perkins became a social worker and, in 1910, earned a masters degree in economics and sociology from Columbia University. She became the head of the New York office of the National Consumers League, urging consumers to use their buying power to demand better conditions and wages for the workers who made the products they were buying.

The next year, in 1911, she witnessed the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in which 146 workers, mostly women and girls, died. They were trapped in the building when the fire broke out because the factory owner had ordered the doors to the stairwells and exits locked to make sure no one slipped outside for a break. Unable to escape the smoke and fire in the factory, the workers—some of them on fire—leaped from the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the building, dying on the pavement.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire turned Perkins away from voluntary organizations to improve workers’ lives and toward using the government to adjust the harsh conditions of industrialization. She began to work with the Democratic politicians at Tammany Hall, who presided over communities in the city that mirrored rural towns and who exercised a form of social welfare for their voters, making sure they had jobs, food, and shelter and that wives and children had a support network if a husband and father died. In that system, the voices of women like Perkins were valuable, for their work in the immigrant wards of the city meant that they were the ones who knew what working families needed to survive.

The overwhelming unemployment, hunger, and suffering caused by the Great Depression made Perkins realize that state governments alone could not adjust the conditions of the modern world to create a safe, supportive community for ordinary people. She came to believe, as she said: “The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.”

Through her Tammany connections, Perkins met FDR, and when he asked her to be his Secretary of Labor, she told him that she wanted the federal government to provide unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old-age insurance. She later recalled: “I remember he looked so startled, and he said, ‘Well, do you think it can be done?’”

Creating federal unemployment insurance became her primary concern. Congressmen had little interest in passing such legislation. They said they worried that unemployment insurance and federal aid to dependent families would undermine a man’s willingness to work. But Perkins recognized that those displaced by the Depression had added new pressure to the idea of old-age insurance.

In Long Beach, California, Dr. Francis Townsend had looked out of his window one day to see elderly women rooting through garbage cans for food. Appalled, he came up with a plan to help the elderly and stimulate the economy at the same time. Townsend proposed that the government provide every retired person over 60 years old with $200 a month, on the condition that they spend it within 30 days, a condition designed to stimulate the economy.

Townsend’s plan was wildly popular. More than that, though, it sparked people across the country to start coming up with their own plans for protecting the elderly and the nation’s social fabric, and together, they began to change the public conversation about social welfare policies.

They spurred Congress to action. Perkins recalled that Townsend “startled the Congress of the United States because the aged have votes. The wandering boys didn’t have any votes; the evicted women and their children had very few votes. If the unemployed didn’t stay long enough in any one place, they didn’t have a vote. But the aged people lived in one place and they had votes, so every Congressman had heard from the Townsend Plan people.”

FDR put together a committee to come up with a plan to create a basic social safety net, but committee members could not make up their minds how to move forward. Perkins continued to hammer on the idea they must come up with a final plan, and finally locked the members of the committee in a room. As she recalled: “Well, we locked the door and we had a lot of talk. I laid out a couple of bottles of something or other to cheer their lagging spirits. Anyhow, we stayed in session until about 2 a.m. We then voted finally, having taken our solemn oath that this was the end; we were never going to review it again.”

By the time the bill came to a vote in Congress, it was hugely popular. The vote was 371 to 33 in the House and 77 to 6 in the Senate.

When asked to describe the origins of the Social Security Act, Perkins mused that its roots came from the very beginnings of the nation. When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in 1835, she noted, he thought Americans were uniquely “so generous, so kind, so charitably disposed.” “Well, I don’t know anything about the times in which De Tocqueville visited America,” she said, but “I do know that at the time I came into the field of social work, these feelings were real.”

With the Social Security Act, Perkins helped to write into our laws a longstanding political impulse in America that stood in dramatic contrast to the 1920s philosophy of rugged individualism. She recognized that the ideas of community values and pooling resources to keep the economic playing field level and take care of everyone are at least as deeply seated in our political philosophy as the idea of every man for himself.

When she recalled the origins of the Social Security Act, Perkins recalled: “Of course, the Act had to be amended, and has been amended, and amended, and amended, and amended, until it has now grown into a large and important project, for which, by the way, I think the people of the United States are deeply thankful. One thing I know: Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system. It is safe. It is safe forever, and for the everlasting benefit of the people of the United States.”

—

Notes:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

https://www.ssa.gov/history/perkins5.html

https://francesperkinscenter.org/life-new/

Share

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

Perkins was an original “good government person,” unfortunately, an increasingly rare breed. She recognized that a strong, reliable government safety net promotes personal independence and achieving full individual potential.

Frances Perkins Homestead
Damariscotta, ME
PHOTO: Francis Perkins Center

Perkins had strong Maine ties to her ancestral homestead in Newcastle, ME. It’s near our summer home in Boothbay Harbor, ME. A few years ago, Cathy and I had a chance to tour the homestead, now owned and maintained by the Frances Perkins Center in Damariscotta, ME.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-22

⚖️NDPA SUPERSTAR BEN WIN-OGRAD WINS A BIGGIE IN 4TH ON IJ CONDUCT — Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]

[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”

It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!

It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!

It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.

Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!

This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.

With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-22

⚖️🗽 US JUDGE IN SAN DIEGO EVISCERATES TRUMP’S ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL “TURNBACKS” OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS; MAYORKAS TERMINATES REMAIN IN MEXICO (AGAIN) EVEN AS RED RESTRICTIONIST AGs FILE MORE FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS! 🤮

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12R1mt07Z4S7R7xiieRUznueR9DRXrBdq/view?usp=sharing

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant minces no words in blasting both the unlawful, cruel, and unconstitutional policy and the Supreme’s toxic decision to look the other way as immigration enforcement runs roughshod over legal, constitutional, and human rights.

In its September 2, 2021 decision, this Court held the right to access the U.S. asylum

process conferred vis a vis § 1158(a)(1) applies extraterritorially to noncitizens who are

arriving at Class A POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, but who are not yet within the

jurisdiction of the United States, and is of a constitutional dimension. (Op. Granting in

Part and Denying in Part Parties’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Opinion”), ECF No.

742.) It further held that Defendants’ systematic turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at

Class A POEs (the “Turnback Policy”) amounted to an unlawful withholding by

immigration officials of their mandatory ministerial “inspection and referral duties”

detailed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (“§ 1225”), in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,

5 U.S.C. § 706(1) et seq., and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. (MSJ Opinion at

33–34, 37–38); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(3) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

inspect asylum seekers), 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

refer asylum seekers to the U.S-asylum process).

In casting appropriate equitable relief to rectify the irreparable injury Defendants’

unauthorized and constitutionally violative Turnback Policy has inflicted upon members

of the Plaintiff class,2 this Court ordinarily would be guided by the fundamental principle

that an equitable remedy should be commensurate with the violations it is designed to

vindicate. See Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465 (1979) (“[It is an]

accepted rule that the remedy imposed by a court of equity should be commensurate with

the violation ascertained.”). Equitable relief should leave no stone unturned: it should

correct entirely the violations it is aimed at vindicating. That cornerstone of Article III

courts’ equitable powers generally is unfaltering, whether the party against whom an

injunction is sought is a private entity, a state actor, or, as here, a federal official. Thus, in

2 Plaintiffs consist of the named Plaintiffs listed in the case caption, along with a certified class

consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting

themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S.

asylum process by or at the instruction of [Customs and Border Protection] officials on or after January 1,

2016.” (Class Certification Order at 18, ECF No. 513.) The Court also certified a subclass consisting of

“all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the

U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.” (Id.)

– 3 – 17cv2366

the ordinary course of things, this Court would not hesitate to issue broad, programmatic

relief enjoining Defendants from now, or in the future, turning back asylum seekers in the

process of arriving at Class A POEs, absent a valid statutory basis for doing so.

Yet the circumstances with which this Court is presented are not ordinary because

of the extraordinary, intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in Garland

v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). That decision takes a sledgehammer to the

premise that immigration enforcement agencies are bound to implement their mandatory

ministerial duties prescribed by Congress, including their obligation to inspect and refer

arriving noncitizens for asylum, and that, when immigration enforcement agencies deviate

from those duties, lower courts have authority to issue equitable relief to enjoin the

resulting violations. It does so through unprecedented expansion of a provision of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1989 (“IIRIRA”), 8

U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) et seq. (“§ 1252(f)(1)”), which for years the Ninth Circuit has

interpreted as placing a relatively narrow limit on injunctive relief. In essence, Aleman

Gonzalez holds that § 1252(f)(1) prohibits lower courts from issuing class-wide injunctions

that “require officials to take actions that (in the Government’s view) are not required” by

certain removal statutes, including § 1225, or “to refrain from actions that (again in the

Government’s view) are allowed” by those same provisions. Id., 142 S. Ct. at 2065.

Federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) now may only issue injunctions enjoining

federal officials’ unauthorized implementation of the removal statutes in the individual

cases of noncitizens against whom removal proceedings have been initiated. See id.

In no uncertain terms, the logical extension of Aleman Gonzalez appears to bestow

immigration enforcement agencies carte blanche to implement immigration enforcement

policies that clearly are unauthorized by the statutes under which they operate because the

Government need only claim authority to implement to immunize itself from the federal

judiciary’s oversight.

With acknowledgment that its decision will further contribute to the human suffering

of asylum seekers enduring squalid and dangerous conditions in Mexican border

– 4 – 17cv2366

communities as they await entry to POEs, this Court finds the shadow of Aleman Gonzalez

inescapable in this case. Even the most narrow, meaningful equitable relief would have

the effect of interfering with the “operation” of § 1225, as that term is construed by the

Aleman Gonzalez Court, and, thus, would clash with § 1252(f)(1)’s remedy bar. Aleman

Gonzalez not only renders uneconomical vindication of Plaintiff class members’

statutorily- and constitutionally-protected right to apply for asylum, those inefficiencies

inevitably will lead to innumerable instances in which Plaintiff class members will be

unable to vindicate their rights at all. Thus, while the majority and dissent in Aleman

Gonzalez hash out their textual disagreements concerning § 1252(f)(1)’s scope in terms of

remedies, make no mistake, Aleman Gonzalez leaves largely unrestrained immigration

enforcement agencies to rapaciously scale back rights. See Tracy A. Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi

Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process, 41 San Diego L.

Rev. 1633, 1634 (2004) (“Disputes over remedies provide a convenient way for dissenters

to resist conformance to legal guarantees. Courts can declare rights, but then default in the

remedy to avoid a politically unpopular result.” (footnote omitted)).

Although it is no substitute for a permanent injunction, class-wide declaratory relief

is both available and warranted here. In lieu of even a circumscribed injunction enjoining

Defendants from again implementing a policy under which they turn back asylum seekers

presenting themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Court enters a

declaration in accordance with its MSJ Opinion that turning back asylum seekers

constitutes both an unlawful withholding of Defendants’ mandatory ministerial inspection

and referral duties under § 1158 and § 1225 in violation of both the APA and the Fifth

Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court also issues relief as necessary to named

Plaintiff Beatrice Doe.

. . . .

You can read Judge Bashant’s full opinion at the link.

Meanwhile, Secretary Mayorkas exercised the authority recognized by the Supremes in Biden v. Texas to terminate the reprehensible and illegal “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”) program engineered by Trump and Miller. Predictably, the same scofflaw, restrictionist “Red AG’s” who had instituted frivolous litigation to block this long overdue action filed more specious objections with the Trump-appointed US District Judge, as advocacy groups like Justice Action Center (“JAC”) pledged to fight the racist right until this vile (and highly ineffective) program is finally ended.

JAC Responds to Official Termination of Remain in Mexico, Attempts by Texas to Delay Wind-Down

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 9, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a victory for immigrants’ rights movement, the Remain in Mexico program has been officially terminated after court proceedings following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Biden v. Texas on June 30. Below is a statement from Justice Action Center founder and director Karen Tumlin:

“The official end to shameful Remain in Mexico program is a victory for the immigrants’ rights movement and the right to asylum. RMX is a stain on the country’s history, having harmed tens of thousands of people fleeing for their lives since the Trump Administration instituted the unlawful and immoral program in 2019.

“Since the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the authority of the Biden Administration to end the RMX program, the #SafeNotStranded campaign has called on the President and DHS to implement a swift and humane wind-down, including halting all new enrollments and allowing everyone in RMX to safely pursue their asylum claims in the U.S. Yesterday, DHS stated its wind-down has begun and new people will not be enrolled in the program, and that it would disenroll individuals with upcoming RMX hearings. These are important first steps to finally redress just some of the immense harm inflicted by the program.

“This commitment by DHS, following such a significant SCOTUS victory, illustrates the strength and resilience of the immigrants’ rights movement. But even after a clear loss, Texas is continuing its hateful attempts to keep this deadly program in place for as long as possible: After the District Court rightfully vacated its injunction of the RMX wind-down yesterday, Texas unfortunately—yet unsurprisingly—filed an amended complaint challenging the second DHS memo rescinding RMX, as well as a motion asking the District Court to stay the memo’s effective date.

“But we will not be deterred: advocates will continue to fight back against ongoing red state efforts to continue Trump’s racist and xenophobic agenda and work towards a world where all people fleeing danger can be safe, not stranded.”

# # #

Contact: Tasha Moro; 323-450-7269; tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org

Justice Action Center (JAC) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to address unmet needs, empower clients, and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants in the U.S. Learn more at justiceactioncenter.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Related:

8/1/22: JAC Responds to Supreme Court’s Certification of Decision on Remain in Mexico; Encourages Swift and Humane Wind-Down of Deadly Program

6/30/22: Justice Action Center Welcomes Positive Supreme Court Decision on Remain in Mexico in Biden v. Texas

3/21/22: #SafeNotStranded Campaign Launches Ahead of April Supreme Court Arguments in Biden v. Texas

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

We should remember that the Trumpest GOP’s insurrectionist war on American democracy and attack on truth and human decency began with overt lies and racist attacks on migrants of color and non-Christians. It has escalated to become an all out assault on our future as a nation of laws and values.

We can’t go back to a time when liberals and progressives viewed immigration as a tangental or secondary issue. It is THE all-encompassing issue now in preserving American democracy from GOP efforts to destabilize and destroy our nation’s fabric from bottom to top!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-22

THE GIBSON REPORT — 08-08-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Attorney, NIJC — Among Headliners: “The [Trump Administration’s child separation] policy’s worst outcomes were all anticipated, and repeated internal and external warnings were ignored,” Reports Caitlin Dickerson in The Atlantic!

Weekly Briefing

This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.

CONTENTS (jump to section)

◦NEWS

◦LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

◦RESOURCES

◦EVENTS

PRACTICE UPDATES

Chief Immigration Judge Email: Taking Cases Off Calendar: Cases may be selected to be taken off the court’s calendar for the following reason(s)…

EOIR Schedule: EOIR immigration judges are scheduled for a mandatory training session on Aug. 22, 2022, from 1pm to 5pm EST. The Chicago Immigration Court will re-set all non-detained cases scheduled for that afternoon; detained cases will go forward. It is unclear at this time if/how this affects other courts.

NEWS

Thune breaks through Democratic bloc on ‘vote-a-rama’ amendments

Roll Call: Senate Democrats stuck together and mostly voted against amendments to their tax, climate and health care package, while using a procedural maneuver to allow their vulnerable incumbents to vote for some that could score political points without actually making any changes to the bill [including on immigration].

The secret history of the U.S. government’s family-separation policy

The Atlantic: Over the past year and a half, [the Atlantic] has conducted more than 150 interviews and reviewed thousands of pages of internal government documents, some of which were turned over only after a multiyear lawsuit… The policy’s worst outcomes were all anticipated, and repeated internal and external warnings were ignored.

Talk of ‘invasion’ moves from the fringe to the mainstream of GOP immigration message

NPR: In Republican primary races this year, few issues have come up more in TV ads than immigration. And one word in particular stands out: invasion.

New York City works to make space for rapidly rising number of asylum-seekers

NPR: On Monday, New York Mayor Eric Adams announced a round of emergency contracts with local agencies and organizations to allow the city to respond to an increasing number of asylum-seekers entering the city’s homeless shelter system. See also Pentagon denies DC request for National Guard migrant help.

Border Patrol Agents Are Trashing Sikh Asylum-Seekers’ Turbans

Intercept: “The turban is sacred.” At least 64 Sikh men have had their headwear confiscated and discarded by Yuma’s Border Patrol.

Immigrant Rights Advocates Push Cook County To Find Out If ICE Is Using Data Brokers To Skirt Sanctuary City Ordinances

Block Club: Cook County Commissioner Alma Anaya and several immigrant rights organizations held a public hearing last week in which the county’s Legislation and Intergovernmental Relations Committee heard testimony from experts about how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses data from companies like LexisNexis.

The Officer of the Future: Facial Recognition and the Border-Industrial Complex

Border Chron: Facial recognition has become the primary biometric technology for CBP. Everyone who enters the country has their picture taken, though supposedly people can opt out (that often isn’t obvious, thanks to a lack of signage; I cross the border constantly and have never seen anything about opting out). The surveillance technology has also been deployed at 32 airports for people exiting the country. CBP partners with airports and airlines to add another layer to this private-public nexus.

Fact Check: Immigrants are not getting Social Security numbers at the U.S. border

AP: Lara Logan, a former Fox Nation host, recently claimed that U.S. Border Patrol agents are distributing Social Security numbers to immigrants at the border. A video of her comments has circulated widely across social media platforms… No such thing is happening, Rhonda Lawson, a spokesperson for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the AP in an email.

NYC Attorney Carlos Moreno Imprisoned For Immigration Fraud

NYCaribNews: Between September 2017 – when Moreno was suspended from the bar – and late September 2018, Moreno took on new clients, practiced law, and gave legal advice to scores of undocumented immigrants. In some instances, even predating his suspension, Moreno defrauded clients by falsely claiming that undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for over a decade could secure legal status, a fraud known as the “10-Year Green Card Scam.”

DHS Watchdog Reports Understaffing At Afghan ‘Safe Havens’

Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog reported worker shortages at the military sites that provided a temporary refuge to Afghan evacuees, saying the understaffing left officials concerned they couldn’t properly meet Afghan nationals’ needs.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Supreme Court certifies ruling ending Trump border policy

AP: The two-word docket entry read “judgment issued” to record that justices voted 5-4 in a ruling issued June 30 that the administration could scrap the “Remain in Mexico” policy, overruling a lower court that forced the policy to be reinstated in December.

Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022)

BIA: A respondent who has made a timely objection to a noncompliant notice to appear is not generally required to show he or she was prejudiced by missing time or place information. An Immigration Judge may allow the Department Homeland Security to remedy a noncompliant notice to appear without ordering the termination of removal proceedings [Note: Except in CA7, pursuant to Arreola-Ochoa].

3rd Circ. Upholds Deportation Of Surgeon In $3M Tax Scheme

Law360: A Swedish plastic surgeon who served prison time for a $3 million tax evasion scheme should not be allowed back into the U.S., the Third Circuit ruled Thursday.

4th Circ. Says Death Threat Is Persecution In Asylum Case

Law360: The Fourth Circuit gave a Salvadoran woman and her son a second chance at their asylum application, holding that an immigration judge didn’t give enough weight to her claim of death threats on the basis of religion.

CA9 On Cancellation, Pre-Trial Detention: Troncoso-Oviedo V. Garland

LexisNexis: Pretrial detention not credited toward a sentence is not “confinement, as a result of conviction” under § 1101(f)(7).

9th Circ. Won’t Stop Man’s Removal Based On 1997 Conviction

Law360: The Ninth Circuit rejected a Mexico native’s bid to reopen his removal proceedings on grounds that his 1997 conviction was modified, saying none of the circumstances allowing the challenge of a removal applied to him.

Immigration Enforcement Can’t Block Grants, 9th Circ. Rules

Law360: The Ninth Circuit ruled that federal funds for criminal justice programs can’t be withheld from states and counties that don’t enforce immigration laws, upholding lower court decisions that found the denial an overreach of the U.S. Department of Justice’s authority.

11th Circ. OKs Deportation Of Chilean Convicted Of ‘Whatever’

Law360: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Tuesday a deportation order against a Chilean green card holder who pled guilty to violating a Florida law criminalizing child neglect, while acknowledging that the trial court’s record of the conviction was “hopelessly opaque” and included the state judge specifying the criminal offense was for “whatever.”

Travel Ban Waiver Lawsuit Victory: Emami V. Mayorkas

LexisNexis: Drawing all inferences and viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the Court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the waiver implementation guidance was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

NY Judge Declines Relief For DACA Hopefuls In ‘Limbo’

Law360: A New York federal judge refused to modify an order resuming acceptance of new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals applications, saying clarification sought following a Texas judge’s barring new approvals was actually a request for additional relief.

Russian Denied Resident Status Over Cannabis-Related Work

Law360: A California federal judge has affirmed a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decision to deny a Russian national permanent resident status, ruling that by installing and maintaining a security camera system for a cannabis grower, the person had participated in the trafficking of a Schedule I drug.

Pa. Judge Says USCIS Must Redo Spousal Petition After Delay

Law360: A Pennsylvania judge ordered U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to reconsider a man’s petition for his Turkish wife’s green card, saying the agency’s unreasonable delay in denying the petition unfairly hampered the couple’s ability to address the agency’s concerns.

Biden Ordered To Revisit Visa Apps Nixed In Trump Travel Ban

Law360: A California federal judge ordered the Biden administration to revisit the tens of thousands of visa applications that were denied under Trump-era travel restrictions, finding that targeted foreigners were still bruised from the travel ban, long after its revocation.

USCIS Issuing Updated I-797C for Certain Operation Allies Welcome Parolees

USCIS: Certain EADs with a validity period of less than 2 years are now being automatically extended to align with the parole period shown on the beneficiary’s Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record.

USCIS Issues Policy Guidance on Uncharacterized Military Discharges Eligible for Naturalization

AILA: USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address the eligibility of military service members with uncharacterized military discharges for purposes for naturalization under section 328 or section 329 of the INA. Comments are due by 9/2/22.

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges

EOIR: [EOIR] announced the appointment of 19 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

EOIR Warns of Scammers Spoofing Agency Phone Number

EOIR: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced it has recently been notified of phone calls that spoof the Arlington Immigration Court as part of a misinformation campaign. The callers will often “spoof,” or fake, the immigration court’s main line, 703-305-1300, so the calls appear to be coming from EOIR on the recipient’s caller ID.

RESOURCES

AILA: USCIS Lockbox Updates (Updated 8/3/22)

AILA: Find Resources for Assisting Afghan Clients (Updated 8/2/22)

CLINIC: All About Parole Practice Advisory

CLINIC: Age-Out Rules for Afghan SIV Derivative Children

USCIS: Afghan Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) Parolee Asylum-Related Frequently Asked Questions

EVENTS

8/10/22 Preparing Criminal Waivers of Inadmissibility

8/10/22-8/11/22 2022 AILA Paralegals Virtual Conference

8/12/22 TPS Beneficiaries and Authorized Travel Following the Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-

8/16/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/16/22 The Child Status Protection Act: Strategies for Keeping the Family Intact

8/17/22 ASISTA Inadmissibility Webinar Series: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Impact on Immigrant Survivors

8/23/22 Preparing Solid Affidavits of Support: “Show Me the Money!”

8/23/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/24/22 Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion Post Texas v. United States

8/30/22 Naturalization During the Pandemic: “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”

8/31/22 What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

8/31/22 Building Your Pro Bono Program

9/1/22 For Immigration Practitioners: Understanding Referrals & Resources for Low-Income Clients

9/8/22-9/29/22 Webinar Series: Dealing With Denials

9/8/22 Post-Conviction Relief: “If I Could Turn Back Time!”

9/8/22 Trial Advocacy Skills – Working with Expert Witnesses in Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture Claims

9/13/22 PLI: Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2022: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

9/14/22 Representing U Visa Clients with Complex Issue

9/14/22 Partial to Full Accreditation Initiative 2022

9/15/22 Advanced Mandamus Trends

9/20/22 Nonprofit and For-Profit Entity Intersection 2022: Achieving Charitable Goals Through Innovative and Nontraditional Mechanisms

9/21/22 Breaking Down the Record in a Ninth Circuit Petition for Review

9/22/22 Maximizing Second Chances: Filing Appeals, Motions, and Practicing before the BIA

9/29/22 Consular Processing Roundup for Families and Survivors

10/07/22-10/28/22 Understanding and Preparing Waivers

10/29/22 4th Annual NIJC 5k for Immigrant Justice

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.

Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

Interestingly, none of the “perps” of child abuse by the Trump Administration has been held accountable. By contrast, many of their victims have suffered irreparable harm.

Trump officials provided “explicitly false formation” to intentionally mislead the public about the abusive, racist intent behind their program of intentional misconduct. So, why isn’t this a problem?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-10-22

🇺🇸🗽⚖️NDPA ACTIVISTS HELP BEAT BACK GOP NATIVIST SPOILER AMENDMENTS TO RECONCILIATION BILL — Dems Need To Win Midterms To Thwart Newest GOP Immigration Hate Plan!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi: I just heard that all of the anti-immigration measures that Republicans attempted to add as amendments to the reconciliation bill were defeated.

I’m so in awe of the advocates who were up all night monitoring the process and weighing in with Senators’ offices.

Best, Jeff

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

James “Jim” Crow
Symbol of American Racism, Now At The Heart of The GOP Immigration Agenda

But, don’t relax or breathe a sign of relief. The GOP is very up front about the Jim Crow hate agenda they plan to roll out if they gain control of Congress in the midterms. Here is is in all it’s dishonesty, cruelty, and racist agitation:

https://republicans-homeland.house.gov/media/2022/07/Border-Rollout-one-pager_FINAL_formatted.pdf

Yes, you can expect Biden to veto any of this. But, it still will disrupt the business of Congress and will lead to hate rhetoric, lies, and racist stereotypes being hurled against immigrants and people of color. There is virtually no chance that the GOP would have the votes to override the vetoes in both Houses.

Still, upcoming generations of younger Americans will have to decide whether they want to live and raise their children in the the “American Hungary” — a neo-Nazi state where racial and ethic hatred and anti-Semitism will be at the center of all authoritarian Government policy. If not, the younger generation of the NDPA needs to come up with ways of keeping the GOP out of political power from the top to the bottom.

However welcome, the latest hard-fought victory over racist nativism and xenophobia was just the beginning of the struggle for the heart and soul of America.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-08-22

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏽‍⚖️🗽🗽🇺🇸 GARLAND’S LATEST IMMIGRATION JUDGE APPOINTMENTS SHOW QUALITY, DIVERSITY! — Noted “Practical Scholars” Hoffman, Racine, Haer Join The Bench As “Balance” Between Gov. & Private Sector Appointments Improves Significantly!

Here’s the list of the 19 newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges: https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMjA4MDUuNjE4NDgwNTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xNTI0MzM2L2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.9Wv3WdIlGNb8WuNMytym1WmPC51-32QHaSCK76FgdYo/s/842922301/br/142150174324-l

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

Aug. 5, 2022

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 19 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

EOIR continues to work to expand its immigration judge corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty, Michael P. Davis, James T. Dehn, Julia E. Egy, Ashley Gadson-Andrews, Amy F. Haer, Robert J. Herrington, Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado, Christina M. Jimenez, Christopher M. Kozoll, Nicole A. Lane, Francis M. Mwangi, Alex D. Perez, Xavier F. Racine, Raphael G. Rojas, Marc B. Stahl, Michelle M. Venci, and Mary C. Vergona to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty, Immigration Judge, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Tanisha L. Bowens-McCatty was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Bowens-McCatty earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of North Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from the Florida State University College of Law. From 2013 to 2021, she worked for the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration in Washington, D.C., serving as the Associate Director (2013-2020) and the Director of Legal Initiatives and Member Engagement (2020-2021). From 2006 to 2011, she worked for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., in Washington, D.C., in the following roles: Senior Project Coordinator for the National Pro Bono Project for Children (2010-2011); Project Coordinator for the Raids Preparedness & Response Project (2008-2010); and Legalization Attorney (2006-2008). From 2004 to 2006, she was a supervising attorney for Catholic Charities Legal Services of the Archdiocese of Miami in Miami and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Broward County Satellite Office, and from 2003 to 2004 she worked as a staff attorney. From 2001 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 2

2003, she was a staff attorney with Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center) in Miami. Judge Bowens-McCatty is a member of the Florida Bar.

Michael P. Davis, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Michael P. Davis was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Davis earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from John Carroll University and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from the University of Illinois College of Law. From 2016 to 2022, he served as the Executive Deputy Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security. From 2012 to 2016, he served as ICE Deputy Principal Legal Advisor for Enforcement and Litigation. From 2005 to 2012, held the following roles at ICE: Appellate Counsel (2005-2007); Deputy Chief (2007-2009); and Chief of the ICE Immigration Law and Practice Division (2009-2012). From 2003 to 2005, he served as Associate Counsel, Refugee and Asylum Law Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. From 2000 to 2003, he served as an assistant district counsel with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Los Angeles, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Davis is a member of the State Bar of California.

James T. Dehn, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

James T. Dehn was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Dehn earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from George Mason University, a Master of Arts in 1998 from the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from the Syracuse College of Law. From 2020 to 2022, he served as the Chief Appellate Counsel at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Washington, D.C. From 2019 to 2020, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in Washington, D.C. From 2005 to 2019, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, in Washington, D.C. Also, from 2007 to 2011, he served as a government appellate counsel, and from 2002 to 2006, as a trial defense counsel, in the U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, National Capital Region. From 2000 to 2005, he served as an attorney advisor at the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, in Washington, D.C. From 1998 to 1999, he was an associate attorney at Whelan, DeMaio & Kiszkiel PA, in Miami. Judge Dehn is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Julia E. Egy, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Julia E. Egy was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Egy earned a Bachelor of Journalism in 1997 from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from American University Washington College of Law. From 2014 to 2022, she served as a senior panel attorney with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Executive Office for Immigration Review. From 2012 to 2014, she served as a supervisory attorney, and from 2004 to 2012, as an attorney advisor, with the BIA. From 2003 to 2004, she was in private practice. From 2002 to 2003, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and York immigration courts. Judge Egy is a member of the Missouri Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 3

Ashley Gadson-Andrews, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court

Ashley Gadson-Andrews was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Gadson-Andrews earned a Bachelor of Science in 2008 from the University of Arizona – Eller College of Management and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. From 2013 to 2022, she served as a deputy district attorney at the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. From 2012 to 2013, she was a trial attorney with the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers at Edelman Children’s Court in Monterey Park, California. Judge Gadson-Andrews is a member of the State Bar of California.

Amy F. Haer, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court

Amy F. Haer was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Haer earned a Bachelor of Science in 2003 from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the George Washington University Law School. From 2017 to 2022, she was the Director of Immigration Legal Services at Catholic Charities Atlanta. From 2015 to 2017, she was the Associate Director for Immigration and Refugee Services at Catholic Community Services – Tucson (CCS-T). From 2012 to 2015, she was the Program Director for the Immigrant Survivors Legal Assistance Program at CCS-T. From 2008 to 2012, she was a staff attorney with Catholic Charities Atlanta. Judge Haer is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

Robert J. Herrington, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles – Olive Street Immigration Court

Robert J. Herrington was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Herrington earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1975 from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and a Juris Doctor in 1985 from the LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center. From 2005 to 2022, he was a criminal defense lawyer in Plano, Texas. From 1998 to 2005, he served as an assistant federal public defender at the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Dallas. From 1996 to 1997, he was a general practitioner in Dallas. From 1991 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and then at the Resolution Trust Corporation. From 1988 to 1991, he served as a law clerk to the U.S Bankruptcy Court. From 1985 to 1988, he was an immigration lawyer in private practice. Judge Herrington is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Immigration Judge, Houston – S. Gessner Road Immigration Court

Geoffrey A. Hoffman was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Hoffman earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Columbia College, Columbia University, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Tulane Law School, and a Master of Laws in 2004 from Harvard Law School. From 2009 to 2022, he served as Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Houston Law Center. From 2004 to 2009, he practiced immigration law at Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, and Tetzeli PA in Miami. From 1998 to 2000, Judge Hoffman served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Gadola U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Hoffman is a member of the Florida Bar and the State Bar of Michigan.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 4

Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Maria L. Jaimes-Salgado was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Jaimes-Salgado earned a Bachelor of Science in 2006 from the University of Houston-Downtown and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Texas South University Thurgood Marshall School of Law. From 2021 to 2022, she was an associate attorney with the Law Office of Velia E. Rosas PLLC in Houston. From 2019 to 2022, she was in private practice in Houston. From 2012 to 2019, she was managing attorney, and from 2009 to 2012, she was an associate attorney, at the Law Office of Isaias Torres PC in Houston. Judge Jaimes-Salgado is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Christina M. Jimenez, Immigration Judge, Arlington Immigration Court

Christina M. Jimenez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Jimenez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Washington and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Boston University. From 2002 to 2022, she served as an attorney and a trial judge with the U.S. Air Force in the following locations: Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom; Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea; Kadena Air Base, Japan; Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.; Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea; Lajes Field, Azores, Portugal; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; and Travis Air Force Base, California. In 2022, she retired as a colonel from the U.S. Air Force, having last served as the Chief Circuit Military Judge for the Western Circuit. Judge Jimenez is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Chris M. Kozoll, Immigration Judge, Memphis Immigration Court

Chris M. Kozoll was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Kozoll earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Notre Dame, a Master of Arts in 2000 from Gonzaga University, and a Juris Doctor in 2004 from the University of Colorado School of Law. From 2010 to 2022, he was a partner at Kozoll & Associates Immigration Law PLLC. From 2007 to 2010, he served as an associate attorney with the Law Office of Dennis M. Clare PSC. In 2007, he was a contract attorney at Lichter Associates PC. From 2004 to 2007, he worked as an associate attorney with the Joseph Law Firm PC. Judge Kozoll is a member of the Kentucky Bar.

Nicole A. Lane, Immigration Judge, Newark Immigration Court

Nicole A. Lane was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Lane earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from the State University of New York at Albany and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the George Washington University Law School. From 2018 to 2022, she served as an assistant director at the New York State Adjudication Services Office. From 2012 to 2018, she served as a senior Administrative Law Judge, and from 2008 to 2012, she served as an Administrative Law Judge at the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. From 2005 to 2008, she was a director of public affairs at New York City Health and Hospitals in Harlem, New York, and worked as a public policy analyst prior to that. Judge Lane is a member of the New Jersey State Bar and New York State Bar, and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 5

Francis M. Mwangi, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

Francis M. Mwangi was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Mwangi earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Kenyatta University in Nairobi, Kenya, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the West Virginia University College of Law, and a Master of Laws in 2011 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2019 to 2022, he was an attorney supervisor, and from 2016 to 2019, a staff attorney, in the Legal Services Section at State Counsel for Offenders, Texas Board of Criminal Justice. From 2003 to 2016, he was in private immigration practice in Maryland and Texas. From 1997 to 2003, he was an associate with the immigration law firm of Blaine L. Gilbert & Associates in Baltimore. Judge Mwangi is a member of the Maryland State Bar, State Bar of Texas, and West Virginia State Bar.

Alex D. Perez, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Alex D. Perez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Perez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from Northwestern University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2019 to 2022, he served as a deputy chief counsel, and from 2010 to 2019, as an assistant chief counsel, with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Houston. From 2009 to 2010, he worked in private practice in Houston. Judge Perez is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Xavier F. Racine, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Xavier F. Racine was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Racine earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from Boston College and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Suffolk University Law School. From 2014 to 2021, he was a partner at Priale & Racine PLC. From 2008 to 2014, he was a partner at Marks Calderon Derwin & Racine PLC. From 2002 to 2008, he was a senior associate at Montagut & Sobral PC. From 2001 to 2002, he was an associate with Jaime Aparisi & Associates LLC. Judge Racine is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Raphael G. Rojas, Immigration Judge, Orlando Immigration Court

Raphael G. Rojas was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Rojas earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from Long Island University at C.W. Post Campus, a Juris Doctor in 1994 from the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico School of Law, and a Master of Laws in Health Law in 1996 from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. From 2008 to 2022, he served as Superior Judge at the Judicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. From 2006 to 2008, he was in private practice in Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2006, he served as Municipal Judge at the Judicial Branch of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. From 1995 to 2000, he was in private practice in Puerto Rico. Judge Rojas is a member of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 19 New Immigration Judges Page 6

Marc B. Stahl, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Marc B. Stahl was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Stahl earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 1991 from the University of Chicago Law School. From 1991 to 2021, he served as an assistant public defender in the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender in Chicago, and from 2016 to 2021, he was the Chief of the Felony Trial Division. From January to July 2022, he was in private practice. Judge Stahl is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Michelle M. Venci, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Michelle M. Venci was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Venci earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Notre Dame and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2010 to 2022, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2007 to 2010, she served as an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, ICE in Orlando, Florida. From 2002 to 2007, she served as an Assistant State’s Attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago. Judge Venci is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Mary Catherine Vergona, Immigration Judge, Sterling Immigration Court

Mary Catherine Vergona was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2022. Judge Vergona earned a Bachelor of Science in 1987 from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, a Juris Doctor in 1997 from The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, and a Master of Laws in Military Law in 2005 from The Judge Advocate’s General Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. From 1998 to 2022, Judge Vergona served as a Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, culminating with her serving as a Circuit Judge from 2019 to 2022 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Judge Vergona is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

— EOIR —

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

Congrats to all! Looks like a well-qualified group with a big job ahead of them. For me, personally, three names particularly stand out.

Professor Geoffrey Hoffman — Judge Geoffrey Hoffman, Houston Immigraton Court

Judge Geoffrey Hoffman of the Houston (S. Gessner Rd.) Immigration Court was most recently the Director of the Immigration Clinic at Houston Law and a noted immigraton litigator and universally respected scholar whose work I have cited and published on Courtside.

Judge Xavier Racine of the Sterling (VA) Immigration Court is an outstanding practitioner who appeared many times before me at Arlington. I also particularly remember that he generously shared his time and expertise with our JLCs and summer interns as a frequent participant in our Brown Bag Lunch Series on “Careers in Immigration.”

Judge Amy F. Haer of the Atlanta (W. Peachtree) Immigration Court was most recently Director of Immigration Services for Catholic Legal Services of Atlanta. A graduate of GW Law, she is an alum of the GW Immigration Clinic headed by my good friend and neighbor in Alexandria, Professor Alberto Benitez. Professor Benitez wrote to me earlier on Friday about his pride in Judge Haer’s achievements and how honored he was to be able to attend her investiture by Zoom. Professor Benitez informs me that Judge Haer is the third of his clinic students to be elevated to the Immigration Bench! Way to go in training the “next generation” of the NDPA!

EOIR needs change! Big time! Lives depend upon it, as does the future of our legal system, now staggering under the load of far too many “ivory tower right wing ideologue jurists” at all levels who have lost sight of the serious scholarship, humanity, and practicality with which the law must be interpreted and applied. Justice without mercy isn’t justice at all, something that the Supremes’ GOP majority needs to be “schooled” on! To the extent that change starts at the “retail level” of EOIR, the latest selections represent progress.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-22

☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️ TITLE 42 CAUSES DEATH @ THE BORDER: Rachel Monroe @ The New Yorker Sums Up The Jim Crow Cruelty, Stupidity, & Futility Of Title 42 In One Paragraph! — Title 42 “has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places.”

https://apple.news/AX5E8qIWlQYOauANHEV2g3w

. . . .

Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.

. . . .

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

Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.

So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!

Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.

Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!

You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.

Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information — just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.

As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.

That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”

I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”

Kangaroos — Perhaps, in addition to blasting the Griner farce, President Biden, VP Harris, and AG Garland need to take a closer look at the “Russian-style” justice being inflicted on migrants in their wholly-owned Immigration “Courts” — which particularly target women, children, and migrants of color seeking justice under US laws. Indeed, many are still being arbitrarily returned without ANY process at all! Others get “off the wall” denials of their valid claims. Its this REALLY any way for a self-proclaimed “nation of laws” to operate?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-05-22

🏴‍☠️🤮👎🏽 WHAT’S GARLAND DOING? — LATEST 4TH CIR. REJECTION OF ABSURDIST EOIR ASYLUM DENIAL SHOWS WHY GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” 🔌 ON THE BIA! — While He’s At It, He Needs To Look At OIL’s Mindless “Defense Of The Clearly Indefensible!” — Why Are American Women Giving Garland A “Free Pass” On Overt, Institutionalized, Racially-Charged, Misogyny @ His DOJ?

Doctor Death — Would you want this guy as your Immigration Judge or BIA “panel?” If not, tell Garland to “pull the plug” on his deadly and incompetent BIA!
Public Domain

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201762.P.pdf

Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published

PANEL: KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION: Judge FLOYD

KEY QUOTE:

In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador.2 She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at 176; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The IJ and the BIA erred in not affording Sorto-Guzman this presumption, which would

2 Sorto-Guzman argues, in the alternative, that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We will not answer that question today. Because we hold that she properly established past persecution, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the BIA to consider the question of whether DHS can rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of future persecution.

11

have then shifted the burden to DHS to rebut the presumption. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).

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

Sorto-Guzman is a life-long Catholic who regularly attended Catholic services in El Salvador. In December 2015, about five members of the Mara 18 gang accosted Sorto- Guzman in the street as she was leaving church. At the time, she was wearing a crucifix medallion around her neck. The gang members tore the chain from her neck, hit and kicked her, and threatened to kill her if she ever wore it or attended church again. Sorto-Guzman stopped attending church after the attack, fearing the gang and their threats.
A few weeks later in January 2016, a group of Mara 18 gang members—including some of the gang members from the December 2015 assault—stopped Sorto-Guzman, along with her sister and Rivas-Sorto, as she was coming home from a shopping trip. One of the men attempted to sexually assault Sorto-Guzman and had started to forcefully kiss her. He only stopped when her screams caught the attention of a neighbor. The gang members threatened to kill Sorto-Guzman and Rivas-Sorto if Sorto-Guzman did not join the gang and start living with them.
3

On February 13, 2016, some of the gang members from the prior incidents tracked where Sorto-Guzman lived and broke into her house carrying guns. The gang members viciously beat Sorto-Guzman, threatened her life, and robbed her. Sorto-Guzman’s neighbors called the police, but they did not come until several hours after the assault. Sorto-Guzman reported the assault and robbery to the officers who arrived at the scene. She also went to the local police station the next day to report the attack. The police made one attempt to investigate, but Petitioners were not home when the police arrived, and the officers never followed up. The day after, a gang member called Sorto-Guzman, warning her she would regret making the report to the police and that they would soon kill her, her son, and her sister.

Absurdly, an Immigration Judge found that this gross abuse and death threats by a gang with the ability and willingness to carry them out did not amount to “persecution.” Worse yet, on appeal, rather than reversing and directing the judge below to follow the law, the BIA agreed — invoking the outlandish “theory” that the death threats, on top of the savage beating, weren’t so bad because they had never come to “fruition.” In other words, the applicant hadn’t hung around to be killed. Then, to top it off, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) unethically defended this deadly nonsense before the Fourth Circuit! This is “justice” in Garland’s disgraceful, deadly, and dysfunctional “court” system!

Trial By Ordeal — Garland’s BIA Judges applying the “fruition” test. If she lives, it’s not persecution!
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

NOT, a “mere mistake.”

EOIR’s performance is this case, particularly the BIA’s absurdist conclusion that, essentially, death threats must result in death to constitute past persecution, is a contemptuous disregard for binding circuit precedent, a demonstration of gross anti-asylum bias, misogyny, and a clear example of judicial incompetence.

Would a heart transplant surgeon who “forgot” to install a new heart or neglected to sew up the patient’s chest be allowed to continue operating? Of course not! So, why is the BIA still allowed to botch life or death cases — the equivalent of open heart surgery?

If Garland allows his “delegees” to perform in this dangerous and unprofessional manner, in his name, what is he doing as Attorney General? This is a farce, not a “court system?” Those responsible need to be held accountable! And, OIL’s unethical defense of this deadly nonsense is indefensible!

Alfred E. Neumann — “What are legal ethics? Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by these ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their dirty immigration lawyers! So, who cares? Why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

We’ve heard lots lately from Garland about “accountability.” Why doesn’t it apply to his own, wholly owned, totally dysfunctional, legally deficient, contemptuous, unprofessional “court system” that builds astounding, self-created backlogs while causing pain, suffering, and sometimes sending innocents to death?☠️

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Additionally, in Kansas this week, women have shown the power of their just demand to be treated as humans, with rights, rather than dehumanized pawns just there to re-populate the world for the men in charge. So, why not unleash the same passion and rightful fury on Garland and his ongoing, illegal, misogynistic treatment of women (primarily women of color) at EOIR!

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — AG Garland has failed miserably to engage with the plight of women, mostly those of color, being denied fundamental rights and abused daily by his lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynistic “holdover” EOIR! Why are women putting up with his bad attitude and dilatory approach to justice? What happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke? Are they “locked in a dark closet” somewhere in Garland’s DOJ?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-22

🇺🇸⚖️IN MEMORIAM: Hon. David Crosland, Judge, Former Legacy INS Acting Commissioner, Civil Rights Activist, Private Practitioner, Professor, Dies At 85

IN MEMORIAM: Hon. David Crosland, Judge, Former Legacy INS Acting Commissioner & General Counsel, Civil Rights Activist, Private Practitioner, Professor, Dies At 85

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

August 1, 2022

Alexandria, VA. Along with many others, I am saddened to learn of the death, over the weekend, of my former “boss” and judicial colleague, Judge David Crosland of the Baltimore Immigration Court. He was 85.

First and foremost, David was a dedicated public servant. A graduate of Auburn University and the University of Alabama School of Law, David served in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice during the tense and dangerous days of the 1960s. That was a time when speaking out for justice for African Americans in the South could be a life-threatening proposition.

Among many difficult and meaningful assignments, he helped prosecute Klansmen in Mississippi and also was assigned to prosecutions arising out of racially motivated police and National Guard killings in Detroit in 1967-68. After leaving the DOJ, he became the Director of the Atlanta Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

At Auburn, David had studied Agriculture. He sometimes liked to regale Immigration Court interns with tales of his “days on the farm” during summers in college!

I first met Dave in 1977, when Judge Griffin Bell appointed him to be the General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.” Shortly thereafter, David selected me to be his Deputy General Counsel, thus initiating my career as a Government manager and executive. During the second half of the Carter Administration, Dave was the Acting Commissioner of Immigration, and I was the Acting General Counsel.

In those days, my hair was actually longer than Dave’s, a situation that would become reversed in later years as our respective careers progressed. Indeed, during his “ponytail and gold earring days” in private practice, I reminded him of the times in “GENCO” where he used to encourage me to “get a haircut.”

We went through lots of exciting times together including the Iranian Hostage Crisis, litigation involving Haitian asylum seekers, Nazi War Criminal prosecutions, the Mariel Boatlift, the creation of the Asylum Offices, and the beginnings of a major restructuring of the INS nationwide legal program that eventually brought all lawyers under the direct supervisory control of the General Counsel.

Following the 1980 election, Dave went into private practice and became a partner in Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver and then Crosland, Strand, Freeman & Mayock. He rejoined Government in 1997, when Attorney General Janet Reno appointed him as an Immigration Judge in Otey Mesa, CA. He later became an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for several courts, as well as a Temporary Member of the BIA.

Our paths crossed again when we both served on the bench at the Arlington Immigration Court, roughly between 2009 and 2014. Then, David returned to Baltimore to be closer to his son and his residence in Maryland. He also served at various times as an Adjunct Professor of Law at GW Law and UDC Law.

David was a “character,” for sure. He had his own way of doing things that wasn’t always “strictly by the book.” But, he cared about the job and the people, was kind to the staff, and kept at it years after most of his contemporaries, including me, had retired.

One of the most moving tributes to David is from a member of court administrative staff who worked with him for years:

We just learned that Judge Crosland passed away this weekend at the grand age of 85 years. No funeral requested by him as his last wishes. Please keep him and his family in prayer. He was an amazing man, had a brilliant career and he was a genuinely kind person, hardworking to the end. Judge Crosland was very good to me, and he would walk me to my car after the long work days that turned into nights. Always a true gentleman, he would make me his famous lemon ice box pie! God bless Judge Crosland.

Another fine tribute to David is this piece from his alma mater, the University of Alabama School of Law, when they honored him in 2014 for their “Profile in Service:” https://www.law.ua.edu/blog/news/law-school-selects-judge-david-crosland-as-2014-profile-in-service/.

My time with Dave at the “Legacy INS” will always be with me as one of the most exciting, sometimes frustrating, but highly rewarding and formative parts of my career. Rest In Peace ☮️ my friend and colleague. You will be missed.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever.

PWS

08-01-22

⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🎩 FREE JUDGE BURMAN! — Sudden, Mysterious Disappearance Of Revered U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. “Larry” Burman From Arlington Bench Surprises, Saddens Local Bar!

Judge Lawrence O. Burman — Hon. Lawrence O. Burman
U.S. Immigration Judge
Arlington, VA
Pictured addressing conference at CIS
PHOTO: YouTube

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

July 30, 2022

Reliable sources tell Courtside that highly-respected U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. “Larry” Burman has been suspended with pay from hearing cases at the Arlington Immigration Court. Reportedly, for the past three months, the distinguished veteran jurist has been “banned” from chambers and relegated to deciding motions from home electronically.

The genesis of the suspension allegedly is a complaint of sexual harassment in court filed by the ICE Office of Chief Counsel in Arlington. A source close to Burman says that he told them he has not received any detailed notice of exactly what he has been accused of, nor has he been given any timeline or details about the alleged investigation.

EOIR is notorious for placing judges and others accused of wrongdoing on “administrative leave with full pay” — sometimes for years spanning several Administrations. Meanwhile, they conduct glacially slow “investigations” and dither over what, if any, formal discipline to impose.

Within the bureaucracy, “never-ending investigations” are sometimes used as a device to “persuade” employees out of favor with “management” to retire or resign. In reality, Courtside is unaware of any full-time trained investigative staff assigned to EOIR.

Significantly, DOJ policies do not appear to require suspension of the employee from public duties in a case such as this. “Danger to the personnel” or “disruptive presence” are the primary considerations. See HR ORDER DOJ1200.

Those who know and have worked with Judge Burman would find it absurd to believe that either of these situations apply to him. Indeed, one source interviewed for this article suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, that “a propensity toward giving respondents a fair hearing” might help explain ICE’s and EOIR’s enthusiasm for having Judge Burman “off the bench.”

Recently, Courtside described Judge Burman and one of his Arlington colleagues as the “gold standard” for fair, expert Immigration Judges. See https://wp.me/p8eeJm-7Ko. From that standpoint, the sudden suspension appears particularly unusual.

The action caught members of the private immigration bar in the DMV area by surprise. One attorney confirmed having merits cases recently scheduled before Judge Burman “orbited” several years out on the docket for no given reason except that Judge Burman was “out” and therefore unable to hear the cases. “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “churning” of cases is an endemic problem at EOIR, which is running an astounding, yet rapidly increasing, backlog of 1.8 million cases.

Other attorneys contacted by Courtside reacted with shock, sadness, and concern for Judge Burman’s well being. “I feel so bad to hear that. He is such a nice man and a good judge,” said one local practitioner.

Judge Burman has been an Immigration Judge for nearly a quarter-century, serving at the Los Angeles and Memphis Immigration Courts before arriving in Arlington. He has been a leader in court-related CLE, serving as a past chair of the FBA’s Immigration Section and the creator and editor emeritus of The Green Card, that section’s educational newsletter. He also has been an officer of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), where (perhaps ironically) he successfully represented a number of colleagues charged with disciplinary infractions or wrongfully denied benefits.

Until “grounded” by the Trump DOJ, Judge Burman was one of a limited number of local judges eager and willing to participate in educational events sponsored by bar associations and other groups. A graduate of UVA and Maryland Law, and a U.S. Army veteran, Judge Burman had careers in the “Legacy INS” and private practice before being appointed to the bench by then Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

JULIA TOEPFER @ NIJC: “Guaranteed To Fail” Immigration Deterrence Policies Certain To Bring Death, Disorder, Human Suffering — Why Can’t We “Get Smarter” As A Nation?

Since the 1990s, U.S. immigration policy has centered the goal of decreasing or “deterring” migration. These policies are designed with one goal in mind – punishing people for the act of migration with such cruelty that the harsh measures themselves will deter future migration.

Not only does this strategy not work, but it has deadly human consequences.

The devastating toll of deterrence programs came into full view with the recent tragedy in San Antonio, Texas, where 53 migrants died in the back of a tractor-trailer after attempting to enter the United States. Human rights experts, including NIJC, responded by emphasizing the urgent need to shift away from programs that block lawful pathways to entry or push people toward dangerous terrain.

Quote from Lisa Koop, National Director of Legal Services, National Immigrant Justice Center:

Nonetheless, the U.S. government continues to double-down on policies and programs aimed at deterring migration. Some recent examples include continuing the Trump-era Remain in Mexico and Title 42 programs, and increasing the use of criminal prosecutions to punish migrants alleged to enter the country without authorization. Here are updates on each of these programs since we last reached out to you about them, along with ways you can demand that the U.S. government restores access to asylum and stops punishing people for migrating:

➡️ Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration could end the Remain in Mexico program, and it’s now time for the administration to follow through. Also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), this program has forced more than 75,000 people to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico while their claims are pending in U.S. immigration courts. This program defaced basic principles of due process and decades of U.S. commitment to protect people from harm and persecution. NIJC continues to represent dozens of asylum seekers who were subject to the program, including some who are still waiting in Mexico. Sign the petition calling on President Biden to end Remain in Mexico.

➡️ Border Patrol just released new data showing there have been 2,132,711 expulsions of people seeking safety at the U.S. border under Title 42, the vast majority of which happened under the Biden administration. The Trump administration implemented Title 42 under the guise of protecting public health during COVID-19, but the real goal was always to block Black, Brown, and Indigenous people from migrating to the United States. There have been nearly 10,000 documented cases of kidnappings, rape, torture, or other acts of violence against people who were expelled under Title 42. Yet, right now, some members of Congress are trying to pass legislation that continues this policy indefinitely. Tell your members of Congress to end Title 42 and oppose all efforts to continue it indefinitely.

Bar chart showing the number of expulsions at the border each month under the Trump and Biden administrations between March 2020 and June 2022. During the Trump administration the lines are red and during the Biden administration the lines are blue. The blue lines are longer and there are more of them, indicating many more people have been expelled under this policy during the Biden administration than the Trump administration.

➡️ The Biden administration is ramping up the use of criminal prosecutions to punish migrants arriving at the U.S. border, despite decades of evidence showing these prosecutions don’t work to deter migration and cause widespread harm. The increased use of such prosecutions flies in the face of the administration’s commitments to racial equity and to a more humane approach to migration policy. Criminal prosecutions do not stop people from crossing the border, but instead have caused widespread harm, separated countless families, and undermined asylum rights. Check out NIJC’s latest blog post explaining five ways that immigration prosecutions are deadly and ineffective.

NIJC knows, from years of representing immigrants and asylum seekers, that punitive border policies do not deter people from fleeing violence or seeking to reunite with their families.

Above all, immigration policies focused on deterrence inevitably and tragically cause countless deaths and untold human suffering. The U.S. must abandon a deterrence strategy, reopen ports of entry for asylum screenings, and embrace a humanitarian approach to immigration – it’s the only way to end systemic injustices, reduce mass incarceration, and protect fundamental human rights.

Thanks for joining us to get there.

-Julia Toepfer
National Immigrant Justice Center

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

“Maximum deterrence programs” have little empirical support. Human migration, a phenomenon as old as humanity, is largely driven by powerful forces beyond whether a rich country has built walls, prisons, unfair legal systems, and other artificial barriers to “deter” migration. At best (or worst, depending on how one looks at it) these “gimmicks” and the predictable accompanying “rhetoric of hate, dehumanization, and rejection” nibble around the edges of migration patterns.

But, they are deeply rooted in the racial history of the U.S., and play a major role in the White Nationalist mythology that surrounds deterrence.

A smart nation might harness, take advantage of, and direct the flow of human migration. Ultimately, failed deterrence gimmicks will inflict cruelty and cause the death of some migrants. They also diminish the reputation and diminish the humanity of the “destination nation.”

But, they won’t stop folks from leaving intolerable situations to seek a better life elsewhere — no matter what the odds, risks, or hardships. And, they eat up money and resources that could actually be directed into building more realistic legal migration systems that would benefit both the migrants and the receiving countries.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PW@S
07-29-22

☠️🤮⚰️🏴‍☠️ MERCHANTS OF CHAOS & CORRUPTION: GOP HACKS, BAD RIGHTY JUDGES FORCE ILLEGAL CONTINUATION OF BOGUS TITLE 42 ABOMINATION! — Ending Title 42 Will Restore Order To The Border, Says Expert, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Of Cornell Law @ The Hill! — But, Wait, There’s Much More Needed, Say I!

Four Horsemen — GOP political hacks and their enabling bad righty Federal Judges have combined to wreak havoc on humanity and trample the Constitution, rule of law, common sense, and simple human decency at our Southern border!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3575601-ending-title-42-wont-cause-immigration-mayhem-it-will-restore-order/

In 2015, a Ghanaian man who goes by the initials M.A. and his gay friend were brutally assaulted by a vigilante group in Accra, Ghana. In Ghana, homosexuality is illegal and carries a prison sentence of up to three years. M.A. was beaten with sticks before escaping through a window. His friend was killed. Fearing the group would find and kill him, he fled to Ecuador and made his way to the U.S. border, where he requested asylum. After being detained for nine months, he was released on bond and lived with a childhood friend in New York while he waited for his case to make it through the legal system.

M.A. clearly faced persecution, but an immigration judge denied his claim. I took M.A.’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2016 as part of the Cornell Law School’s asylum appeals clinic. It took M.A. four years to win asylum in America, but at least he was given the chance to apply in the first place.

Since March 2020, approximately 900,000 people — including over 215,000 parents and children — have been denied the ability to request asylum at all. They’re casualties of Title 42, a pandemic-related policy that paused nearly all asylum proceedings at the border. Some people argue the policy is preventing an influx of migrants. In fact, numbers are up despite the policy, and our refusal to process most of them has led to chaotic and dangerous conditions.

The United States has successfully managed ebbs and flows of asylum seekers for decades. There’s a system in place to manage an influx — and regardless of how hard immigration lawyers like me fight for them to stay, many will lose their case and be deported. Even so, we must let people try. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s also guaranteed under international and domestic law. We signed a 1967 protocol to the U.N. Refugee Convention to protect the rights of refugees, and we have adopted it and codified it into U.S. asylum law. Right now, we’re violating those obligations. The longer we do, the weaker American rule of law looks to our global partners.

We must immediately reinstate due process for asylum seekers. And once this happens, we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.

. . . .

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

Read Steve’s complete op-ed in The Hill at the link.

I agree that “we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.” But, the answer can’t be just to hire more Immigration Judges in Garland’s dysfunctional, broken, and anti-asylum-biased “court” system. That would just speed the “deportation assembly line” and lead to even more injustice and grotesque inconsistencies.

According to TRAC, Immigration Judge “asylum denial rates” currently “range” from 5% to 100%. That’s a ridiculous, indefensible variation and a total perversion of the generous standard for granting asylum set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and adopted by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, but seldom enforced or followed, particularly these days. Why this very obvious, totally solvable problem is still festering going on two years into a Democratic Administration that pledged to solve it is beyond me!

Enough of this nonsense, biased, “amateur night at the Bijou” mal-administration of the Immigration Courts at EOIR by Garland’s DOJ! No wonder folks are still complaining about “Refugee Roulette” more than a decade after it was written by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales (now an Associate Dean at Temple Law). Why not put one of THEM, or for that matter, Professor Yale-Loehr, in charge of kicking tail and cleaning out the deadwood at EOIR?

At a minimum Garland must:

Remove the holdover “Asylum Deniers Club” from the BIA and replace them with a real judge as Chair and new Appellate Immigration Judges who are widely recognized as “practical experts” with careers that have demonstrated superior scholarship in immigraton and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process for individuals, and a passion for racial justice in our legal system;
Have the “New BIA” issue useful precedential guidance on how to document and grant valid asylum cases at both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court, implement best practices, and identify and remove from future asylum adjudication those unqualified Immigration Judges who basically “make up” reasons to deny and can’t or won’t treat applicants fairly; and
Immediately replace with qualified expert judges those Immigration Judges on the “Southern Border docket” who can’t fairly adjudicate asylum cases.

Steve is totally correct about the need for Title 42 to go! But, Garland’s EOIR, particularly the BIA, is just as broken, counterproductive, and out of control as Title 42! In many ways, the illegal abrogation of the rule of law at the Southern Border has somewhat ”hidden” the larger problem that a dysfunctional and incapable EOIR poses for those who do manage to get a hearing!

Without a legitimate, totally reformed and significantly “re-populated” EOIR operating at the “retail level” of our justice system, there will be no rule of law and equal justice under law in America — for anyone!

Tell Garland you have had enough! The deadly and disorderly “EOIR Clown Show” has got to go! Now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-28-22

MICA ROSENBERG @ REUTERS: “NEW Reuters project on the rising numbers of deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border” — Death Is Just “Collateral Damage” From Bad Border & Immigration Policies! — As The Desert Gets Hotter, Expect The Human Toll To Rise! ☠️⚰️

Hi there again,

I also wanted to share a multi media project we published yesterday about the rising number of deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-immigration-border-deaths/

Through our reporting, we exclusively learned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection quietly changed last year how they count deaths on the border to only include deaths in custody, during arrests or when agents were nearby and there were 151 such “CBP-related” deaths in the 2021 fiscal year.

We are still reporting on this and other issues of course, so please keep in touch with tips and story ideas!

All the best,

Mica

………………………………………………….

Mica Rosenberg

Reuters News

National Immigration Reporter

www.reuters.com

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

Thanks, Mica. “Tune in” to the full “multimedia report” referenced by Mica at the above link to Reuters.

No amount of statistical hocus-pocus or nativist BS can hide the stain of these deadly, yet ultimately ineffective, border enforcement policies. It’s important that the names and actions of the politicos, bureaucrats, and bad judges who promote and encourage deadly violations of human rights, and their media apologists, be preserved and documented for history!

As we can see, there are, and will continue to be, concerted efforts to “cover up,” deny, and misrepresent the deadly effects of bad border policies! “Dehumanization of the other,” actively promoted by Trumpists and other White Nationalist GOP pols and their hand picked Federal Judges is a crucial first step!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-27-22

⚔️🛡 HON. “SIR JEFFREY” S. CHASE: TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH TO CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE!👩🏽‍⚖️ WANTED: Practical Scholar/Dynamic Intellectual Leader/Fearless Independent Thinker! — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE: MY “MINI-ESSAY” — “Why The Chief Immigration Judge & BIA Chair Must Be ‘Working Judges’ — No More ‘JINOS’ (‘Judges In Name Only’)!”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/7/25/correcting-course

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Correcting Course?

On July 21, we were treated to the news that our nation’s immigration courts will no longer be run by a chief judge specifically installed by the prior administration as part of its plan to undermine those courts’ independence and fairness. The fact that this development took a year and a half to occur, evoked surprise, and was met with accusations of wrongdoing and threats to investigate from conservative corners that read as parody says a lot about the present state of those courts.

The Chief Immigration Judge should be in charge of the hiring and training of judges, and in setting policy for the courts. The holder of that title is the person most responsible for creating the environment in which the Immigration Courts function. Unfortunately, the choice to fill this position has too often been an afterthought. And the Trump Administration succeeded in stripping the office of pretty much all authority; one of its appointees was effectively reduced to internally disclaiming “it wasn’t my decision” in response to every controversial directive issued from his office.

It is therefore extremely important for the Biden Administration to give much thought to its next appointee, and in doing so, clearly define what the position is meant to be. And although that appointee serves at the will of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, formerly a distinguished circuit court judge, is particularly qualified to understand the need for a strongly independent Chief Immigration Judge willing to push back against threats to due process. He should thus afford his choice for the position the authority to do just that. Because when courts fulfill their proper function of providing a fair reading of the law and protecting against government error and overreach, we all benefit.

It is important to note that no Chief Immigration Judge has been chosen from the ranks of immigration law scholars. I think this is partly because unlike their counterparts at the B.I.A., the Chief Immigration Judge is not actively involved in deciding cases; theirs is an administrative job. However, it is high time for that view to change. Now would be an ideal opportunity to appoint someone to the position who knows the law at least as well as the judges they will oversee.

Among other reasons, that degree of knowledge is necessary to allow a chief judge to differentiate between legitimate actions taken by judges based on their good faith interpretations of the law, and alternatively false justifications disguised as legal reasoning offered by those whose real goal is to carry out a particular agenda. The ability to clearly articulate the difference is needed to protect the former, eliminate the latter, and rebut the inevitable claims of political motivation in response to such actions.

As a brief recap, under the Trump Administration, we saw plenty of examples of improper political motive. For instance, the Immigration Courts issued not one but two broadsheets of anti-immigrant propaganda unironically titled “Myths vs. Facts” (in spite of being devoid of the latter). In addition, a highly respected Immigration Judge was wrongly chastised for correctly doing his job because his concern for the due process of the non-citizen was not shared by the then powers that be. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the judicial equivalent of a “hit man” was dispatched from D.C. to Philadelphia for the sole purpose of entering an order of deportation in that case, due process concerns be damned. The entire exercise was clearly intended as a message to other judges of the consequences of acting as anything other than a rubber stamp.

When in spite of such warnings, many Immigration Judges continued to grant asylum claims because the correct application of the law required it, the Trump Administration hired new and unqualified judges who would place loyalty to its nativist agenda above all. One of those hires had actually written a shockingly insulting article only months before his appointment, labeling as “rebels without a clue” all of his soon-to-be colleagues who had issued scholarly, well-reasoned opinions granting asylum to female victims of domestic violence. The author demonstrated what should have been a disqualifying lack of knowledge in broadly characterizing all such claims as falling outside the scope of our asylum laws, and in further accusing more learned judges who concluded otherwise of “grossly exceeding their authority” and engaging in a “gross violation of legal ethics.”

What was needed then was a Chief Immigration Judge willing to say “over my dead body” to these hirings and other abusive actions. It is greatly hoped that the next chief judge will possess both the integrity and authority to do just that, with the knowledge that higher-ups within the agency will stand behind their decisions.

And since we won’t always have a former Circuit Court judge serving as Attorney General, it might be worthwhile while we do to ask for regulations (or at least some form of guidance from above) clarifying what will henceforth be expected of those filling the position, and calling on all personnel within the Department of Justice to encourage and support the independence of their colleagues charged with carrying out judicial functions.

Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JULY 25, 2022

Reprinted by permission.

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

Very timely and “spot on,” Sir Jeffrey!

Why The Chief Immigration Judge & BIA Chair Must Be “Working Judges” — No More “JINOS” (“Judges In Name Only”)!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

July 26, 2022

Time (actually “long past time”) for dynamic change! As Chief IJ, we need an “intellectual powerhouse” who is a nationally recognized expert in immigration, human rights, constitutional law, equal justice, racial justice, and an acknowledged, widely-respected intellectual leader with the guts and the “juice” to stand up to bureaucratic meddling and political interference. That’s in addition to having a “big picture” outlook and some actual experience in legal administration.

One additional key change I would make: The Chief Immigration Judge should also function as a “working judge” hearing and deciding at least some cases on a regular basis! There is no substitute for “actual time on the bench” for understanding the Immigration Judge’s proper role.

It puts the CJ in touch with both the DHS Counsel and the private bar on a regular basis. It also exposes BS and nonsense that’s going on in the Immigration Court system. A huge difference exists between “policy and procedural memos issued in a vacuum” from “on high” and actually having to apply them on a daily basis.

Indeed, a “sitting Chief Judge” wouldn’t have to “study” or ask for “reports” on the problems; she would know first-hand what they are from actual experience. Also, the CJ must get out in person and see what’s happening in the various courts, rather than taking an occasional “official tour” where everything tends to be a “sanitized show & tell.” An engaged Chief Judge could be “proactive rather than reactive.”

Surprising what you can find out by actually getting out of the “Executive Suites” in the Skyline Tower in Falls Church and poking around the “retail level” of the system you are administering! There is no better way of doing that than actually taking the bench and dispensing some justice!

How do I know? Well, during my six-year stint as BIA Chair (1995-2001) I was a “working appellate judge” in addition to be an engaged administrator of a dynamically growing and changing organization. I also served as a Senior Executive at EOIR and was never reticent about expressing my views on overall agency management and EOIR’s sometimes stormy relationship with other parts of the DOJ. At one point, I had the unenviable task, along with the then General Counsel of EOIR, of “barring” the then-Director from attending an en banc conference at which cases were to be discussed.

Upon appointment, from private practice, I was one of only four “permanent” appellate judges then on the BIA. By the time I stepped down in 2001, there were more than 20 appellate judges, the staff had more than doubled, a new management structure was in place, a Clerk’s Office had been created, the Virtual Law Library established, precedents were written and formatted differently, and numerous other changes had been made. Sadly, many of the positives have been erased over the past two decades through a combination of political meddling from DOJ and subservient “management” at EOIR.

I also sat and voted on nearly every one of the more than 200 precedent decisions issued during my tenure. I authored some of them, including the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, recognizing female genital mutation (“FGM”) as persecution for the first time.

Additionally, I sat on three-member panels, sometimes as a “regular,” other times filling in for those who were out of the office. I took panels “on the road” to hear oral arguments across the U.S. (something now “prohibited” by the mindless “Ashcroft reforms” that accompanied his “purge” of the BIA in ‘02-03”) and to meet with the local judges, bar, and INS Counsel. It was “due process in action” — a real-life, open, accessible demonstration of how “collegial justice” should work! It put a much-needed and now totally absent “human face” on appellate justice. As those who practiced before the BIA at that time can testify, my “unmistakable signature” was on thousands of non-precedent decisions.

I also made regular unannounced visits to the BIA Attorney Advisers and the newly-established Clerk’s Office to chat about what was on folks’ minds. “Chairman alert” was a commonly heard “warning” throughout the various buildings of the Skyline Center where the BIA was located.

Sure, I didn’t get everything right, and there were some problems I couldn’t solve. But, I was always “on top” of what was happening — both legally and “operationally” — at the BIA. I didn’t have to spend lots of time asking for reports from the staff, because I knew from experience what the problems were and whether the solutions we were attempting were working or not.

Yes, my decision to actively participate in adjudication and aggressively advance my legal views put me in constant conflict with many of my more conservative judicial colleagues at the BIA. As the record shows, I got “outvoted” on a regular basis at both en banc and on panels. But, so what! That’s what being a “real judge” and having real views on justice, based on many years of experience in and out of Government, is all about!

An unanticipated benefit: My “hands on” judicial experience was good preparation for the somewhat unexpected “next phase” of my career — when Ashcroft “exiled” me to the Arlington Immigration Court in 2003. I’ll acknowledge that there were some things about being a trial judge that couldn’t be learned from reading transcripts, writing appellate decisions, and occasionally observing hearings in person.

In another life, at the “Legacy INS,” I had basically “created and implemented” the “modern Chief Counsel system” now in use at DHS — over some vigorous “internal opposition” to change and centralized legal control. That system provided independence from the “clients” in district office operations. Then, I basically had to face that creation in court every day for 13 years!

But, I certainly had a good idea of what I was getting into and was able to “hit the ground running” in terms of the substance of immigration law, the “big issues,” and what good trial decisions should be and look like in writing. Indeed, my “former colleagues” on the BIA sometimes mischaracterized my “oral decisions” as “written decisions” because I used the “familiar BIA written format” and constructed them as what I found the “ideal decision” to be for appellate review during my BIA tenure.

Interestingly, I found that as an Immigration Judge the more humane and realistic view of the law that had been an anathema to the majority of my BIA colleagues — and which helped me and my so-called “liberal” colleagues get the boot from Ashcroft and Kobach — was often accepted by both parties at the trial level. Even when appeals were taken, I did much better with my former colleagues as an IJ than I did as Chair. And, I certainly learned first-hand how deeply screwed up EOIR was and how misguided the BIA majority was on many of their precedents. That, in turn, prepared me to become an advocate for radical due process reforms at EOIR upon retirement.

It’s surprising what an administrator can learn if he or she actually “does” some of the “line work” they are administering. We need a functioning, substantively-engaged, well-informed, “real judge” for Chief IJ, not another “JINO!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-26-22

📦OUTSIDE THE BOX: THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SHOULD USE REFUGEE ADMISSIONS + NON-GOV SPONSORSHIPS TO START BREAKING THE LOGJAM @ OUR SOUTHERN BORDER — & THE RESULTING BOON TO SMUGGLERS & HUMAN TRAFFICKERS — CAUSED BY SCOFFLAW RIGHTY FEDERAL JUDGES & CORRUPT GOP NATIVIST AGs!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/07/18/refugee-sponsored-ukraine/

Americans should be able to sponsor refugees who can stay permanently

The U.S. does too little for too few, but Canada has a program worth adopting and improving

Perspective by l

July 18, 2022 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

The war in Ukraine has created one of the biggest refugee crises since World War II, with about 7 million people fleeing the country. While some have since returned, and some have settled elsewhere in Europe, there are still many in need of a permanent haven. Unfortunately, the American refugee system is proving to be of comparatively little help.

Even before President Donald Trump, the refugee resettlement process was slow and cumbersome, but Trump made things much worse by slashing the annual refugee quotas to a low of 18,000 for fiscal 2020 and 15,000 for fiscal 2021, before Biden increased it, which in turn led many resettlement organizations to shut down or scale back. President Biden raised the 2021 cap to 62,500 in May of that year — and set a cap of 125,000 for 2022 — but has not been able to restore the resettlement infrastructure that Trump undercut. As a result, the higher quotas remain largely unfilled, with a record-low 11,411 refugees admitted in 2021, even though many more would love to come. Even in the current fiscal year, the administration expects to fall far short of its target, Axios reports.

The Biden administration has tried to ease the logjam — at least for Ukrainian victims of Russian aggression — by creating the Uniting for Ukraine program, under which private citizens can sponsor Ukrainian refugees. Ukrainians wishing to enter must first get a U.S.-citizen sponsor, who has to prove that they can financially support the new arrival for two years; they must also pass certain health and security checks. The Ukrainians can seek permission to work but may stay for only two years. U.S. sponsors have filed applications on behalf of some 60,000 Ukrainians under this policy. The administration has pledged to help at least 100,000 Ukrainians relocate overall.

The war in Ukraine is on track to be among modern history’s bloodiest

The program is a decent start, but it could be improved by adapting a similar, better-run Canadian program.

Since 1979 — inspired by the massive numbers of people displaced by the Vietnam War and its aftermath — Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees program has allowed ordinary people and community groups to support refugees financially and otherwise for 12 months (or until the refugee is self-sufficient, whichever comes first). Sponsors can include private citizens working together (a “Group of Five”) or a group that holds a sponsorship agreement with the Canadian government, such as a religious institution or cultural organization. In an important contrast with the U.S. program, the refugees can stay permanently after the sponsorship period, and the program is not limited to people from specific nations. The combination of monetary assistance with more personal support, such as helping refugees find language classes or sign their children up for schools, gives the refugees a chance to hit the ground running. The recipients of private aid must be a refugee as defined by the United Nations (or according to a few other criteria). In 2022, Canada’s target number for privately sponsored refugees is 31,255, while the goal for government-sponsored refugees is 19,790. Relative to Canada’s population size — just over a tenth that of the United States — these figures are several times higher per capita than Biden’s unmet quota of 125,000.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Creative “out of the box” thinking, innovation, practical solutions, expertise, bold moves, and moral courage have been largely lacking in the Biden Administration’s approach to refugees and asylees.

While the authors seem largely focused on the plight of Ukrainian refugees, there is no reason why their proposal couldn’t be used for many refugees of color from Haiti, Latin America, and elsewhere at the Southern border.

Additionally, there are no known legal avenues for racist GOP AGs and GOP scofflaw Federal Judges to successfully challenge refugee admissions. Doesn’t mean they won’t try. But, the DOJ should be able to fend off the effort.

Undoubtedly, out of control righty judges have helped GOP states with ugly White Nationalist xenophobic agendas to improperly seize control of immigration policy from Congress and the Executive. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-republican-states-lawsuits/. Their target — individuals of color and women — is clear.

The result — an ungodly mess that empowers cartels and smugglers while putting “life or death” decisions in the hands of lower level bureaucrats who can act arbitrarily and without effective guidance — is totally unacceptable and a mockery of the rule of law. The Administration must use every tool at its disposal to resist this dangerous right-wing judicial overreach that undermines democracy.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-24-22

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts:

Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

IN MEMORIAM: Hon. David Crosland, Judge, Former Legacy INS Acting Commissioner & General Counsel, Civil Rights Activist, Private Practitioner, Professor, Dies At 85

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

🇺🇸Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

At a minimum Garland must:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Why The Chief Immigration Judge & BIA Chair Must Be “Working Judges” — No More “JINOS” (“Judges In Name Only”)!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

July 26, 2022

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: