Federal Employees – Page 6 – immigrationcourtside.com

🏴‍☠️🤯☠️ INVITE ‘EM TO DEFECT, THEN ARBITRARILY REJECT — Russian Allies Find Broken U.S. Asylum System Akin To Russian Roulette! — “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all,” says Jennifer Scarborough, Refugees’ Lawyer!

Jennifer Scarborough, EsquireLaw Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: Firm — Jennifer Scarborough, Esquire
Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC
Harlingen, TX
PHOTO: Firm

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=df3af6fe-6f28-47f0-a65a-95a9e0272c10

Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.

Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.

The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.

Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.

Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.

“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.

Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.

“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.

But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.

In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.

“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”

The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.

Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.

More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.

By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.

One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.

The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.

“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”

“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete report at the link.

Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).

As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!

That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!

Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-23

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️💰 DECADES OF DEADLY FAILURE FAIL TO DIM PROFITS OF BORDER DETERRENCE GIMMICKS!

Border Death — Full coffins mean full coffers for the “border deterrence industry.” 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

Todd Miller reports for the BorderChronicle:

https://substack.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.w-bNM02eUaZHfY7ojKTD4aVI7br24RMUUozCM32pBPs?

When I first came across Cochrane International, the company that built the floating barrier deployed in Eagle Pass, Texas, I watched a demonstration the company gave with detached bemusement. I was at a gun range just outside San Antonio. It was 2017, three months after Donald Trump had been sworn in and the last day of that year’s Border Security Expo, the annual gathering of Department of Homeland Security’s top brass and hundreds of companies from the border industry. Among industry insiders, the optimism was high. With Trump’s wall rhetoric at a fever pitch, the money was in the bank.

All around me, all morning, Border Patrol agents were blasting away body-shaped cutouts in a gun competition. My ears were ringing, thanks in part to the concussion grenade I had launched—under the direction of an agent, but with great ineptitude—into an empty field as part of another hands-on demonstration. The first two days of the expo had been in the much-posher San Antonio convention center, where companies displayed their sophisticated camera systems, biometrics, and drones in a large exhibition hall. But here on the gun range we seemed to be on its raw edge.

So when a red truck with a camo-painted trailer showed up and announced its demonstration, it wasn’t too much of a surprise. The blasting bullets still echoed all around as if they would never cease. Two men jumped out of the truck wearing red shirts and khaki pants. They frantically ran around the camo trailer, like mice scurrying around a piece of cheese trying to figure out the proper angle of attack. Then the demo began. One of the men got back in the truck, and as it lurched forward, coiling razor wire began to spill out of its rear end as if it were having a bowel movement. As the truck moved forward, more and more of Cochrane’s Rapid Deployment Barrier spilled out until it extended the length of a football field or more. It was like a microwavable insta-wall, fast-food border enforcement.

Little did I know that six years later, this same company, Cochrane, would give us the floating barrier, with its wrecking ball–sized buoys connected side by side with circular saws. The floating barrier, as the Texas Standard put it, is the “centerpiece of Operation Lone Star,” Texas governor Greg Abbott’s $4.5 billion border enforcement plan. For this barrier, which has now been linked to the deaths of at least two people, the Texas Department of Public Safety awarded Cochrane an $850,000 contract.

. . . . .

When I first saw Cochrane back in 2017 among the ear-ringing gunfire on the last day of the Border Security Expo, I had a feeling I might see them again. No matter how ludicrous the rapid barrier deployment camo truck seemed to me then, there was, indeed, plenty of money to be made.

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

Money and profit over humanity, common sense, and the rule of law. Read the full article at the link.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

0-19-23

☠️🤮🏴‍☠️ “NO EXCUSE,” SAYS NDPA MAVEN DEBI SANDERS AS NPR REPORTS THAT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PLAYED “HIDE THE BALL” ON HORRIFIC CONDITIONS IN THEIR “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” (“NAG”)! — Tom Dreisbach Reports For NPR On Yet Another Grotesque Failure By Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, & Prelogar To Do Their Jobs!

Inside the Gulag
The legacy of Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Prelogar and others will be truly ugly for the abuses in the “New American Gulag” that Mayorkas continues to operate while DOJ aids cover up and inexcusably defends grotesque human rights abuses! What happened to the concept of integrity and ethics at DOJ?

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/16/1190767610/ice-detention-immigration-government-inspectors-barbaric-negligent-conditions

In Michigan, a man in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was sent into a jail’s general population unit with an open wound from surgery, no bandages and no follow-up medical appointment scheduled, even though he still had surgical drains in place.

A federal inspector found: “The detainee never received even the most basic care for his wound.”

In Georgia, a nurse ignored an ICE detainee who urgently asked for an inhaler to treat his asthma. Even though he was never examined by the medical staff, the nurse put a note in the medical record that “he was seen in sick call.”

“The documentation by the nurse bordered on falsification and the failure to see a patient urgently requesting medical attention regarding treatment with an inhaler was negligent.”

And in Pennsylvania, a group of correctional officers strapped a mentally ill male ICE detainee into a restraint chair and gave the lone female officer a pair of scissors to cut off his clothes for a strip search.

“There is no justifiable correctional reason that required the detainee who had a mental health condition to have his clothes cut off by a female officer while he was compliant in a restraint chair. This is a barbaric practice and clearly violates … basic principles of humanity.”

. . . .

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

Many thanks to my friend Debi Sanders for sending this my way with her succinct, “says it all,” two-word comment! Read and listen to the full report at the link.

Yet one more example of the failed Attorney Generalship of Merrick Garland! Where is the integrity, decency, and adherence to the rule of law that we were promised from a former Federal Judge and Supreme Court nominee?

Sure, the inhumanity flourished under the Trump regime! But, the last election was about a change and improvement, particularly in immigration. Garland’s performance on immigration, human rights, and racial justice should be a totally unacceptable to Dems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-17-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑‍⚖️ CONGRATULATIONS TO HON. KATHERINE E. (“KATE”) CLARK, NEWLY APPOINTED APPELLATE JUDGE AT THE BIA: Practical Scholar, Legacy Arlington Immigration Court Intern Alum, Former EOIR JLC, Georgetown Law Grad, AYUDA Supervisor, Hill Staffer, Civil Servant, Judge Clark’s Broad Background Appears “Just What The Doctor Ordered” For Failing & Flailing “Supreme Court of Immigration!”😎

Hon. Katherine E. Clark — Honorable Katherine E. Clark
Appellate Immigration Judge & Board Member
U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals
PHOTO: AYUDA website

Here’s the EOIR press release:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1593116/download

EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Katharine E. Clark as a Board Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including Immigration Judges.

Biographical information follows:

Katharine E. Clark, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Katharine E. Clark as an Appellate Immigration Judge in August 2023. Judge Clark earned a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, in 2003 from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Georgetown University Law Center. From 2022 to 2023, and 2007 to 2018, she served as a senior litigation counsel and trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice. From 2019 to 2021, she was a managing attorney at Ayuda in Silver Spring, Maryland, where she also handled cases on a pro bono basis. From 2018 to 2019, she was counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. From 2006 to 2007, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the Boston Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Clark is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the Pennsylvania State Bar.

— EOIR —

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

Proud to say Judge Clark is a graduate of not only Georgetown Law (where I am an Adjunct), but one of many distinguished alums of the Legacy Arlington Immigraton Court Internship Program, established by my good friend and colleague Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Mario Christopher Grant. I later inherited the “Mentor Judge” position upon Judge Grant’s retirement. Judge Clark is the first, hopefully of many, of those we mentored to be appointed to the BIA.

I am also a member of the Advisory Board at AYUDA, where Judge Clark worked as a supervisory attorney from 2019-21.

Judge Clark’s experiences give her an exceptionally broad, varied perspective. She has seen the system from the inside, at EOIR, as an NGO advocate assisting those struggling to deal with EOIR’s dysfunction and institutional unfairness, as an OIL attorney defending EOIR’s work, and as a legislative aide attempting to address the system’s many shortcomings.

She is well positioned to help the BIA and EOIR move beyond the flawed decision-making, unrealistic guidance, and backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that has plagued the Immigration Court System over the past two decades. Hopefully she will be a force in returning EOIR to it’s proper (though long-abandoned) vision of: Through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!

It’s far away from that now! But, there are some judges at EOIR like Judge Clark qualified and capable of leading a “due process renaissance” at the beleaguered tribunals. Whether and to what extent they will be able to do so remains to be seen.

Congratulations again and good luck to Judge Clark!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-23

☠️👎🏼 ANOTHER SUPER-SHODDY PERFORMANCE BY BIA ON CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM OUTED BY 9TH CIR. — Reyes-Corado v. Garland

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house?
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/11/18-70225.pdf

SUMMARY** Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.

The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.

The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3

ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.

As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.

The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.

4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND

The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.

COUNSEL

David A. Schlesinger

(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina

Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.

Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION

KOH, Circuit Judge:

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

Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!

I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.

There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?

This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”

Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!

Lots of “talk,” not much “walk” from Dems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-15-23

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑‍⚖️ GARLAND APPOINTS 38 NEW U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES — More Prosecutors Than Private/NGO Practitioners; Approximately 70% Have Immigration Experience, By My “Quick & Dirty” Analysis!

FROM EOIR:

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmp1c3RpY2UuZ292L2VvaXIvcGFnZS9maWxlLzE1OTI4NjYvZG93bmxvYWQiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjMwODExLjgxMDE3NjIxIn0.ULrCqsgnirmemmGnS6ggXxbrT28kWH28Ezp2rQdHI4E/s/842922301/br/224124905134-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. 11, 2023

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 38 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Attorney General Merrick Garland administered the oath of office and delivered remarks during the investiture, which was held today at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.

EOIR continues 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.

Immigration judges are career employees, and each one is selected after a thorough and competitive application process. Today, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland officially appointed the following individuals as immigration judges: Sameer Ahmed, Adrian N. Armstrong, Jody L. Barilla, Elanie J. Cintron, Ghunise L. Coaxum, Benjamin Davey, Alberto A. De Puy, Jennifer A. Durkin, Carla I. Espinoza, Zahra Jivani Fenelon, David A. Gardey, Cynthia D. Goodman, Jonathan H. Hall, Tanya L. Hasbrouck, Jacquelyn Jo Joyce, Jennifer M. Kerby, Heather A. Libeu, Kyra S. Lilien, Brandi M. Lohr, Nicole C. Lomartire, Robert K. Lundberg, Margaret R. MacGregor, Kimberly Charon McBride, Justin R. McEwen, Christopher D. McNary, Jane Chace Miller, George R. Najjar, Douglas D. Nelson, Tania T. Nemer, Monica Barba Neumann, Colleen O’Donnell, George D. Pappas, Irma Pérez, Daniel I. Smulow, Elizabeth I.Treacy, Adrián F. Paredes Velasco, ShaSha Xu, and Juliana Zach.

Biographical information for the newly appointed immigration judges follows:

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 2

Sameer Ahmed, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Sameer Ahmed was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Ahmed earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Stanford University, a Master of Science in 2005 from the University of London, a Master of Studies in 2007 from the University of Oxford, and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Yale Law School. From 2020 to 2023, he was a clinical instructor at the Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at Harvard Law School. From 2019 to 2020, he was an assistant teaching professor at Northeastern University School of Law. From 2017 to 2019, he was an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. From 2015 to 2017, and previously from 2013 to 2014, he was an attorney at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston. From 2014 to 2015, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. From 2009 to 2011, he was a Skadden fellow at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, New York. Judge Ahmed is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.

Adrian N. Armstrong, Immigration Judge, Elizabeth Immigration Court

Adrian N. Armstrong was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Armstrong earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 from Longwood University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. From 2020 to 2023, he served as a judge at the New York State Court of Claims and was designated an acting Supreme Court judge in Bronx County. From 2015 to 2020, he served as a judge at the Mount Vernon City Court and was designated as an acting Family Court judge in Westchester County. From 1993 to 2015, he served as a law clerk at the New York State Office of Court Administration. From 1990 to 1993, he served as assistant district attorney at the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Armstrong is a member of the New York State Bar.

Jody L. Barilla, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Jody L. Barilla was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Barilla earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from the Ohio State University and a Juris Doctor in 1992 from Cleveland Marshall College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she served as the court administrator for the Chicago Immigration Court. From 1997 to 2021, she served as a magistrate at the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court in Elyria, Ohio. During this time, from 2013 to 2021, she also served as the court administrator for the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court. From 1992 to 1997, she worked as an associate attorney with the law firm of Smith & Smith Attorneys. Judge Barilla is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Elanie J. Cintron, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Elanie J. Cintron was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Cintron earned a Bachelor of Science in 2005 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Juris Doctorate in 2013 from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. From 2017 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 3

Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Denver. From 2014 to 2017, she was an associate attorney with Lichter Immigration in Denver. During this time, she provided pro bono representation through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Artesia Pro Bono Project and the AILA CARA Pro Bono Project. Judge Cintron is a member of the Minnesota State Bar.

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court

Ghunise L. Coaxum was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Coaxum earned a Bachelor of Science in 1991 from the University of Florida and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the University of Florida College of Law (now known as the Frederic G. Levin College of Law). From 2000 to 2023, she was bar counsel at the Florida Bar in Orlando, Florida. From 1998 to 2000, she was a senior attorney with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, in Orlando. From 1996 to 1998, she was an assistant public defender with the Office of the Public Defender, 9th Judicial Circuit in Orlando. Judge Coaxum is a member of the Florida Bar.

Benjamin J. Davey, Immigration Judge, Detroit Immigration Court

Benjamin J. Davey was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Davey earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts in 2002 from Otterbein University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Cleveland State University College of Law. From 2013 to 2023, he served as a magistrate in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations and Juvenile Division, in Elyria, Ohio. During this time, from 2022 to 2023, he provided pro bono legal services through Catholic Charities, assisting individuals seeking affirmative asylum before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. From 2007 to 2013, he served as an assistant prosecuting attorney for Lorain County, Ohio. During this time, from 2011 to 2013, Judge Davey also served as counsel for the Lorain County General Health District. Judge Davey is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Alberto A. De Puy, Immigration Judge, New Orleans Immigration Court

Alberto A. De Puy was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge De Puy earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from Louisiana State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Tulane University Law School. From 2021 to 2023, he served as an administrative law judge for the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law. From 2014 to 2021, he served as an assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office. From 2011 to 2014, he served as a policy advisor at the Louisiana Office of the Governor. From 2007 to 2011, he served as an assistant district attorney at the Calcasieu Parish District Attorney’s Office. From 2006 to 2007, he served as an assistant district attorney at the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. In 2005, he completed a legal internship at the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States, Department of State. Judge De Puy is a member of the Louisiana State Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 4

Jennifer A. Durkin, Immigration Judge, New York – Varick Immigration Court

Jennifer A. Durkin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Durkin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Buffalo and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. She has practiced immigration law her entire career. From 2022 to 2023, she was Deputy Attorney-in-Charge of the Immigration Law Unit at the Legal Aid Society in New York. From 2020 to 2022, she was a supervising attorney at the Legal Aid Society on the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, which represents detained immigrant New Yorkers facing removal. From 2010 to 2020, she was in private practice at Durkin & Puri in New York where she represented noncitizens before EOIR; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State. From 2005 to 2010, she was a partner at Yee, Durkin & Puri in New York (known as Yee & Durkin until 2008). From 2003 to 2005, she was an associate at Spar & Bernstein in New York. From 1999 to 2003, she was an associate at the Law Office of Roni P. Deutsch in Encino, California. Judge Durkin is a member of the State Bar of California and the District of Columbia Bar.

Carla I. Espinoza, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Carla I. Espinoza was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Espinoza earned a Bachelor of Science in 2009 from the University of Texas at El Paso, and a Juris Doctor and a Certificate in International and Comparative Law in 2012 from DePaul University College of Law. From 2020 to 2023, she was the managing partner, and from 2013 to 2020, she was supervising and managing attorney, for Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices. From 2012 to 2013, she served as a supervising attorney with Solis Law Firm PC in Chicago. Judge Espinoza is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Zahra Jivani Fenelon, Immigration Judge, Houston – Smith Street Immigration Court

Zahra Jivani Fenelon was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Jivani Fenelon earned a Bachelor of Science in 2003 from Houston Baptist University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from South Texas College of Law. From 2015 to 2023, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, where she prosecuted crimes of child exploitation, human trafficking, cybercrime, and white-collar fraud. From 2006 to 2015, she was an assistant district attorney at the Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted felony crimes. Judge Jivani Fenelon is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

David A. Gardey, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

David A. Gardey was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Gardey earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the Notre Dame Law School. From 2005 to 2023, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, in various capacities, including: special counsel to the U.S. Attorney, chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit, and chief of the Drug Task Force Unit. From 2001 to 2005, he served as an AUSA with the U.S. Attorney’s

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 5

Office for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. From 1997 to 2001, he was a supervisory attorney for Butzel Long PC in Detroit, and from 1995 to 1997, he was an associate with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York. From 1993 to 1995, he served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Gadola of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Gardey is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and the New York State Bar.

Cynthia D. Goodman, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

Cynthia D. Goodman was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Goodman earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of North Texas and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Texas Tech University School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as a pro se staff attorney for the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas. From 2013 to 2016, she was a private practice immigration and criminal defense attorney with Stockard, Johnston, Brown LLC in Amarillo, Texas. From 2008 to 2013, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Dallas. During this time, from 2011 to 2013, Judge Goodman served a detail as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas. From 2006 to 2008, she served as an assistant county attorney for Potter County, Texas. Judge Goodman is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Jonathan H. Hall, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Jonathan H. Hall was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Hall earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from The University of Rhode Island, a Juris Doctor in 2011 from Suffolk University Law School, and a Master of Laws in 2013 from American University Washington College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, he served as an administrative law judge at the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings. From 2016 to 2021, he served as assistant general counsel at the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. From 2013 to 2016, he served as assistant attorney general at the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Judge Hall is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Tanya L. Hasbrouck, Immigration Judge, LaSalle Immigration Court.

Tanya L. Hasbrouck was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Hasbrouck earned a Bachelor of Science in 1985 from Montana State University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from the University of Mississippi School of Law. In 2023, Judge Hasbrouck was an attorney with the Hasbrouck Law Firm in Pascagoula, Mississippi. From 2019 to 2022, she served as a chancery court judge for the 16th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 2012 to 2018, she was with the Hasbrouck Law Firm in Pascagoula, Mississippi. During this time, she also served from 2017 to 2018 as the municipal public defender for the city of Gautier; from 2016 to 2018 as the municipal public defender for the city of Pascagoula; and from 2013 to 2018 as the board attorney for West Jackson County Utility District. From 2004 to 2012, she served as an assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 2000 to 2003, she was an associate attorney for Cumbest, Cumbest, Hunter & McCormick in

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 6

Pascagoula. From 1996 to 1999, she served as an assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 1994 to 1996, she served as an assistant public defender for Jackson County, Mississippi. From 1991 to 1994, she served as an associate attorney with Bryant, Colingo, Williams & Clark in Pascagoula. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Mississippi Supreme Court. Judge Hasbrouck is a member of the Mississippi Bar.

Jacquelyn Jo Joyce, Immigration Judge, Houston – South Gessner Immigration Court

Jacquelyn Jo Joyce was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Joyce earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the Florida State University and a Juris Doctor in 2010 from the University of Florida Levin College of Law. From 2018 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Pearsall, Texas. From 2015 to 2018, she served as assistant public defender in the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida in Lake City, Florida. From 2010 to 2015, she served as a trial court law clerk for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida in Live Oak, Florida. Judge Joyce is a member of the Florida Bar.

Jennifer M. Kerby, Immigration Judge, Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center

Jennifer M. Kerby was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Kerby earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from the University of Virginia, a Master of Education in 1995 from the University of Virginia, and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Georgia State University College of Law. From 2005 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2002 to 2004, she served a two- year appointment as a staff attorney/law clerk with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Kerby is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Virginia State Bar.

Heather A. Libeu, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Heather A. Libeu was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Libeu earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Chapman University and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she served an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Santa Ana, California. From 2010 to 2021, she served an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, in Los Angeles. From 2009 to 2010, she served as an associate legal advisor, and from 2007 to 2009, she served as Presidential management fellow, OPLA, in Washington, D.C. Judge Libeu is a member of the State Bar of California.

Kyra S. Lilien, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Kyra S. Lilien was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lilien earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Smith College and a Juris

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 7

Doctor in 2006 from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she was the director of immigration legal services at Jewish Family & Community Services – East Bay in Concord, California. From 2016 to 2021, she served as staff attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. From 2013 to 2016, she served as asylum officer and interim training officer at the San Francisco Asylum Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security. From 2010 to 2013, she was the immigration program director at Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California, where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and USCIS. From 2007 to 2010, she was an associate attorney at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in San Francisco, where she handled immigration cases on a pro bono basis. From 2006 to 2007, she was a research fellow on behalf of the University of California, Berkeley, War Crimes Studies Center at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Judge Lilien is a member of the State Bar of California.

Brandi M. Lohr, Immigration Judge, Buffalo Immigration Court

Brandi M. Lohr was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lohr earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from the State University of New York at Buffalo and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from Duquesne University. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Batavia and Buffalo, New York. From 2007 to 2010, she served as a management and program analyst and presidential management fellow, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in Buffalo and Washington, D.C. Judge Lohr is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Nicole C. Lomartire, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Nicole C. Lomartire was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lomartire earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Hofstra University and a Juris Doctor in 2003 from the University of Maryland School of Law. From 2017 to 2023, she served as a deputy chief counsel, and from 2015 to 2017, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Baltimore. From 2004 to 2015, she served as an assistant state’s attorney for the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. Judge Lomartire is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Robert K. Lundberg, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Robert K. Lundberg was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lundberg earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2010 from Arizona State University and a Juris Doctor in 2012 from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, he served as a trial attorney with the Appellate Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2018 to 2021, he served as an associate counsel with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Washington, D.C. From 2014 to 2018, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS, in Florence, Arizona. From 2013 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 8

2014, he practiced civil litigation with the Law Firm of Bert Moll in Chandler, Arizona. Judge Lundberg is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.

Margaret R. MacGregor, Immigration Judge, Port Isabel Immigration Court

Margaret R. MacGregor was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge MacGregor earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctorate in 1999 from the University of Arizona College of

Law. From 2009 to 2023, she was an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2007 to 2009, she was an associate with Berry, Appleman & Leiden, and from 2005 to 2007 with Reina & Associates, both in Dallas. From 2003 to 2005, she was a deputy attorney general representing the Division of Youth and Family Services for the State of New Jersey. From 2002 to 2003, she clerked for the Honorable Vincent J. Grasso, presiding judge of the Family Part, in Ocean County, New Jersey. From 2000 to 2002, she was the senior editor of the Products Liability Law Reporter for the American Association for Justice in Washington, D.C. From 1999 to 2000, she was a staff attorney at the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, D.C. Judge MacGregor is a member of the New Jersey Bar.

Kimberly Charon McBride, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Kimberly Charon McBride was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McBride earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from the University of Maryland at College Park and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the University of Baltimore School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as a family magistrate for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. During this time, she presided over juvenile delinquency and child welfare cases involving complex issues of child abuse and neglect, substance use disorders, domestic and family violence, and mental health. From 2005 to 2010, and previously from 1996 to 2000, she was a solo practitioner, serving as a panel attorney for the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) in Baltimore City, where she represented parents in child welfare and juveniles in delinquency matters. During these years, she also provided representation to parents in divorce, child custody, guardianship, and child support matters. She also provided representation in civil and criminal matters in the Circuit and District Courts of Baltimore City and surrounding counties, including, but not limited to, family law, real estate, employment, personal injury, traffic, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy. From 2000 to 2005, she served as a senior associate at The Miracle Makers Inc. in Brooklyn, New York. Judge McBride is a member of the Maryland Bar.

Justin R. McEwen, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Justin R. McEwen was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McEwen earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Southern Utah University, a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, and a Master of Laws in Trial Advocacy in 2013 from California Western School of Law. From 2003 to 2023, Judge McEwen served as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Navy, which culminated in his service as the Circuit Judge for Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia from 2019 to 2023. During his time as a Judge Advocate, he served as

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 9

an attorney and judge in the following locations: Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C.; Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Japan; Central Criminal Court of Iraq, Bagdad, Iraq; Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy; Naval Station Newport, Newport, Rhode Island; Naval Station Mayport, Mayport, Florida; and Naval Support Activities, Naples, Naples, Italy. Prior to entering the U.S. Navy in 2002, Judge McEwen clerked for a year at the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, Texas. Judge McEwen is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Christopher D. McNary, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Christopher D. McNary was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McNary earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2008 from the University of San Francisco and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of San Francisco School of Law. From 2018 to 2023, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Los Angeles. From 2017 to 2018, he served as a senior asylum officer, and from 2013 to 2017, he served as an asylum officer, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in San Francisco. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a staff attorney with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant in Berkeley, California. Judge McNary is a member of the State Bar of California.

Jane Chace Miller, Immigration Judge, Laredo Immigration Court

Jane Chace Miller was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Miller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1984 from Chestnut Hill College and a Juris Doctor in 1987 from Dickinson School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as a Maryland parole commissioner. From 2003 to 2016, she was in private practice, specializing in family law issues and criminal matters. From 2001 to 2016, Judge Miller served as the trust clerk for the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Centreville, Maryland. From 1998 to 2003, she was in private practice on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, focusing on criminal cases, family law cases, and civil litigation. From 1988 to1997, Judge Miller served as an assistant State’s attorney in Wicomico County, Maryland. Judge Miller is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

George R. Najjar, Immigration Judge, San Diego Immigration Court

George R. Najjar was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Najjar earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from California Western School of Law. From 1993 to 2023, he was in private practice in San Diego, California. During this time, from 2000 to 2023, he served as a judge pro tempore in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, and from 1997 to 2023, he served as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. Judge Najjar is a member of the State Bar of California.

Douglas D. Nelson, Immigration Judge, Salt Lake City Immigration Court

Douglas D. Nelson was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Nelson earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Brigham Young University and a Juris Doctor in 1994 from the University of San Diego School of Law.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 10

From 1995 to 2023, he worked as an immigration attorney in private practice for Alejandro O. Campillo APLC and the Law Office of Douglas D. Nelson. During this time, from 2002 to 2004, he served as chair of the Immigration Section for the San Diego County Bar, and from 1996 to 2021, he was liaison between the San Diego chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and numerous Federal immigration agencies. From 1994 to 1995, he was a judicial law clerk at the San Diego Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Nelson is a member of the State Bar of California.

Tania T. Nemer, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

Tania T. Nemer was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Nemer earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2001 from John Carroll University and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. In 2023, she was appointed as a magistrate of the Summit County, Ohio Probate Court where she presided over cases involving guardianships, civil commitments, and estates. From 2020 to 2023, she served as the community outreach prosecutor and assistant prosecutor for the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office. In 2019, she was appointed as a magistrate of the Akron Municipal Court. She also served as the managing immigration attorney at the International Institute of Akron. From 2014 to 2019, she was the senior immigration attorney for Catholic Charities Diocese of Cleveland, Office of Migration and Refugee Services, and she was the lead attorney representing mentally incompetent individuals through the National Qualified Representative Program. From 2008 to 2014, she was of counsel for McGinty, Hilow & Spellacy Co LPA, practicing criminal and immigration law and representing clients before municipal and county courts as well as before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. Judge Nemer is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Monica Barba Neumann, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

Monica Barba Neuman was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Neumann earned a Bachelor of Science in 2004 from the University of Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Florida International University College of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Miami. From 2015 to 2016, she served as an asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, in Miami. She was in private practice at Monica Barba PA in Miami from 2009 to 2010 and at Grisel Ybarra PA in Miami from 2010 to 2015, representing cases before EOIR, USCIS, state criminal courts, and state family courts. Judge Neumann is a member of the Florida Bar.

Colleen O’Donnell, Immigration Judge, Laredo Immigration Court

Colleen O’Donnell was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge O’Donnell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Miami University (Ohio) and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. In 2023, she served as an attorney in the Public Utility Commission of Ohio’s Office of the Federal Energy Advocate. From 2013 to 2023, she served as a trial judge

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 11

in Ohio’s Franklin County Common Pleas Court, General Division. From 2007 to 2013, she practiced with the law firm of Carpenter Lipps LLP in Columbus, Ohio. Previously, in 2007, she served as a judicial law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and from 2006 to 2007, as an assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection section of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. Judge O’Donnell is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

George D. Pappas, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

George D. Pappas was appointed as an immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Pappas earned a Bachelor of Science in 1982 from the London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, a Bachelor of Laws in 1998 from the University of London), a Master of Laws in 2000 from Widener University School of Law, Widener University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in 2014 from Birkbeck School of Law, University of London. From 2003 to 2023, he was principal attorney at George D. Pappas Esq. PC, practicing immigration, family law, criminal law, and civil litigation. He also provided pro bono legal services to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (Washington, D.C.), Pair Project (Boston), Latin American Coalition (Charlotte, North Carolina), El Centro (Hendersonville, North Carolina), and True Ridge (Hendersonville, North Carolina). Judge Pappas is a member of the North Carolina State Bar and the Massachusetts Bar.

Irma Pérez, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Irma Pérez was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Pérez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of California Law San Francisco (formerly University of California Hastings College of the Law). From 2015 to 2023, she was in private practice at the Law Office of Irma Pérez PC in Pasadena, California, practicing before EOIR, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of State (DOS). From 2012 to 2015, she was an associate with Daniel Shanfield Immigration Defense PC in San Jose, California, representing noncitizens before EOIR, DHS and DOS. Judge Pérez is a member of the State Bar of California.

Daniel I. Smulow, Immigration Judge, Baltimore Immigration Court

Daniel I. Smulow was appointed as an immigration judge in August 2023. Judge Smulow earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Tufts University and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. From 2008 to 2023, he served as trial attorney and senior counsel for national security, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2006 to 2008, he served as an associate legal advisor, National Security Law Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. From 2004 to 2006, he served as an assistant attorney general in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. From 1998 to 2004, he served as an assistant district attorney in Essex County, Massachusetts. During this time, from 2001 to 2004, he was a lecturer with Boston University School of Law. Judge Smulow is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 12

Elizabeth I. Treacy, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Elizabeth I. Treacy was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Treacy earned her Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of Georgia Law School. From 2019 to 2023, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. From 2010 to 2019, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2007 to 2010, she was practicing immigration law as an associate attorney at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. Judge Treacy is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Adrián F. Paredes Velasco, Immigration Judge, El Paso, Texas, Immigration Court

Adrián F. Paredes Velasco was appointed an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Paredes Velasco earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from Lawrence University, a Master of Arts in 2005 from the University of Iowa, and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from Phoenix School of Law. From 2015 to 2023, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in El Paso. From 2011 to 2015, he was a legal clerk and attorney at the Lehm Law Group in Phoenix, Arizona. Judge Paredes is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.

ShaSha Xu, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

ShaSha Xu was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Xu earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Duke University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the Temple University Beasley School of Law. From 2019 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York. From 2016 to 2019, she served initially as an asylum officer and then as a senior asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in New Jersey. From 2011 to 2016, she was in private practice at various law firms in New York and Pennsylvania. Judge Xu is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Juliana Zach, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Juliana Zach was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Zach earned a Bachelor of Law in 1994 from the Universidade Católica de Pernambuco, a Master of Business Administration in 2004 from the Florida Metropolitan University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. From 2013 to 2023, she worked in private practice at Zach Law Firm LLC specializing in family and criminal litigation in Connecticut, as well as immigration law at the Zach Law Firm LLC. From 2013 to 2020, she also served as an attorney for the Brazilian Consulate General in Hartford, Connecticut. From 2009 to 2011, she served as an assistant state attorney for the felony division at the 18th Judicial Circuit in Sanford, Florida. Judge Zach is a member of the Connecticut Bar and the Florida Bar.

— EOIR —

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 13

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

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

By my “quick analysis,” of the 38 new IJs:

9 primarily private immigration practice/NGO

15 primarily government prosecutors

4 mixed private immigration practice/prosecution backgrounds

10 “other government” backgrounds

26 with significant prior immigration experience

One name that stands out for me:

Judge Jennifer A. Durkin, Varick (NYC) Immigration Court, who has spent her entire career practicing immigration law in the private/NGO sector and most recently served as Deputy Attorney-in Charge of the Immigration Law Unit of the Legal Aid Society in New York.

EOIR-provided bios for Judge Durbin and the other new IJs are reproduced above.

Congratulations to all the new IJs, and remember the most important part of your job on the bench, providing:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-23

😂 FRIDAY SATIRE FROM ANDY BOROWITZ @ THE NEW YORKER: ⚠️WARNING: THE PRICE OF A JUSTICE JUST WENT UP! — Justice Thomas Raises Prices, Cites Inflation!

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/clarence-thomas-hikes-price-of-supreme-court-decisions-to-keep-pace-with-inflation

Satire from The Borowitz Report

Clarence Thomas Hikes Price of Supreme Court Decisions to Keep Pace with Inflation

By Andy Borowitz @ The New YorkerThomas

Andy Borowitz
Political Satirist
The New Yorker

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Citing “unfortunate economic realities,” Clarence Thomas is hiking the price of Supreme Court decisions to keep up with inflation.

The jurist disclosed his new rate card in a mass e-mail sent to more than a hundred super-donors.

“I have tried to keep my prices reasonable, but, as inflation proves more stubborn than predicted, I have no choice but to adjust my rates accordingly,” he wrote.

“Sadly, the days of shredding civil rights in exchange for ten private-jet flights are over,” he added.

It remains to be seen whether the billionaires who received Thomas’s e-mail will tolerate his steeper prices or whether they will explore a budget option such as Neil Gorsuch.

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

Predictably, no public hearings were held on the Justice’s sudden rate hike, which blindsided many right wing billionaires with business before the Court! “We believed in good faith that Clarence & Ginni were bought and paid for at least until the end of the upcoming term,” complained one super donor. “I mean, if the guy demands any more private flights to fancy vacation retreats, we’ll probably have to consider buying him his own private jetliner. Perhaps, he should spend at least a little more time in his chambers in D.C. spouting originalism and obstructing justice! After all, that’s what we’re paying him for!”😨**

Unhappily, in the days of GOP mega-corruption, satire has become almost a lost art.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-23

** The above paragraph is fictionalized. Any resemblance to any real person, persons, organizations, and/or situations is purely coincidental and entirely unintended.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 ANDREA R. FLORES @ NYT: We Know That “Uber Deterrence” Fails At The Border — Title 42 Debacle Under Trump Proves It: Biden Must Abandon The Restrictionist Remnants & Restore Legality & Integrity To Our Current Refugee & Asylum Systems!

Andrea Flores
Vice President for Immigration Policy and Campaigns at FWD.us.
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/H7Demr4HzkuwqSIi_5Cg4g~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRmt1VqP0TpaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8wOC8xMC9vcGluaW9uL2FzeWx1bS1zZWVrZXJzLWltbWlncmF0aW9uLXJlZm9ybS5odG1sP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTM5JmVtYz1lZGl0X3R5XzIwMjMwODEwJmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTk5NzE5Jm5sPW9waW5pb24tdG9kYXkmcmVnaV9pZD03OTIxMzg4NiZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE0MTYxOCZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9OGExZjQ3Mzc0MGIyNTNkOGZhNGMyM2IwNjY3MjI3MzdXA255dEIKZNNq0NRk4LcZOlISamVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29tWAQAAAAD

Andrea writes in a NYT Op-Ed:

U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.

The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.

When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.

This approach would have been a great step forward if it wasn’t paired with a counter measure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure an appointment at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.

. . . .

If proponents of a secure border are serious about lowering border crossing numbers and decreasing unauthorized migration, they should support Mr. Biden’s attempts to create new legal pathways. Instead, a coalition of Republican attorneys general is challenging the president’s parole program. In Congress, Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the same parole authority that allowed Afghans to temporarily resettle in the United States. There have been no challenges to the use of the parole authority to bring Ukrainians to the United States.

These actions reveal that our current fight over the border is not about the number of people trying to come here — it is about which should be allowed to come. American voters may not have strong opinions about the future of the asylum system or the legal pathways being created, but voters of both parties dislike the chaos and human suffering that have subsumed this issue for the past 10 years. Over a million American citizens have signed up to sponsor migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

At a moment of record global displacement, we can’t keep waiting for Congress to modernize our immigration laws. Safe legal pathways are good for the people who use our immigration system. Mr. Biden has taken some critical steps to give migrants better options, but with no hope of congressional action in the near future, more is needed.

Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.

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

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

Much of what Andrea says echoes what I have said over and over on Courtside and has been repeatedly recommended by experts, who are then largely ignored by the Biden Administration.

As I have argued before, the “low hanging fruit” here would be EOIR reform: A new BIA of “practical scholars;” better IJs with proven asylum and human rights experience; ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling On Steroids” (which drives many poor policy and legal decisions); and getting some dynamic, fearless, expert leadership on human rights and immigration at the DOJ — which is either the driver or the facilitator of many of the problems at the border, depending on how you look at it.

We can also see how Garland’s lackluster performance on immigration affects other areas of justice such as civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights, to name a few of the most obvious ones. Nobody at today’s DOJ appears to possess the “big picture” knowledge and experience to “connect the dots” on these critical issues.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-10-23

⚖️🤯 UNJUSTIFIED! — Federal Judge Charges USG $22,601 For DHS’s Scofflaw Actions & DOJ’s Mindless “Defense Of The Indefensible” In Colorado Detention Case! — Wanton Cruelty & Stubborn Stupidity Cost In More Ways Than One!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/habeas-eaja-fee-victory-in-colorado-viruel-arias-v-choate

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.217942/gov.uscourts.cod.217942.16.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.217942/gov.uscourts.cod.217942.28.0.pdf

Michael Karlik, Colorado Politics, Aug. 2, 2023

“A federal judge has determined the government was unjustified in its fight to keep a woman locked up in an Aurora immigrant detention center while her deportation case proceeded. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney ordered the federal government last September to hold a hearing to determine whether Brenda Viruel Arias should be released from custody. Sweeney found the circumstances of Viruel Arias’ 14-month confinement required a bond hearing to avoid infringing on her constitutional right to due process. Shortly afterward, an immigration judge permitted Viruel Arias’ release after the government failed to prove she should remain behind bars. Viruel Arias’ lawyers then requested $22,601 in attorney fees from the government. Under federal law, victorious parties in civil cases against the government may receive attorney fees if, among other things, the government’s position was not “substantially justified.” On July 12, Sweeny agreed the government was not substantially justified in resisting a release hearing for Viruel Arias. In recent years, she observed, federal judges in Colorado have been sympathetic to non-citizens’ claims of unconstitutional confinement where the detention has exceeded one year. The government, as a party those cases, was aware of the judiciary’s attitude toward prolonged detention. “(T)hey do not justify why they did not follow a clear legal trend,” Sweeney wrote.”

[Hats off to Conor Gleason and Laura Lunn!]

Connor Gleason, Esquire
Senior Staff Attorney, Detention Program
Rocky Mountain Imm

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

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

RMIAN is “on a roll” these days. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=34101&action=edit.

Garland’s DOJ, “not so much.”

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Sweeney’s decision: “At bottom, Respondents were not substantially justified in their pre-litigation and litigation practices because they disregarded a clear legal trend in the District and their own agency policies in the underlying action.”

Similar to the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration is wasting taxpayer money on cruel, unnecessary, expensive, illegal detention, and then squandering even more money on the arguably frivolous, and clearly mindless, defense thereof! Somebody should be asking Garland why?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-05-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS SAVE ANOTHER LIFE!😎 — “[He] clicked the trigger of the gun, which made a sound, but did not fire a bullet.”

GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera

Professor Alberto Benítez reports:

This past Wednesday, August 2, Immigration Judge (IJ) Dinesh Verma of the Hyattsville Immigration Court granted asylum to Immigration Clinic clients R-R- and her 17-year-old son, D-R-. R-R- and D-R- have been Clinic clients since 2019 and their asylum applications were filed that year with the assistance of the Clinic. Their merits hearing was originally scheduled for 2020, but was postponed until this past Wednesday due to the pandemic. They were represented at their hearing by Immigration Clinic summer intern Brennan Eppinger, a rising 2L.

R-R- and D-R- fled Honduras after R-R- stood up to a gang member who was trying to recruit her son, D-R-, to transport drugs. D-R- was 11 years old at the time. The gang member later broke into their home, put a gun to R-R- ‘s head, asked R-R- if she had ever played Russian roulette, and the quote in the subject line is what happened next. R-R- and D-R- sought safety in the United States shortly after.

Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Navil Infante, Alex North, Rachel Kidd and Jasmine Elsmasry, who all worked on the case. IJ Verma is a GW Law alum and was a student in my Immigration Law I class in 1997. Brennan noted this fact on the record but the IJ (who did remember me) and the ICE trial attorney waived any conflict issue.

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

650 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-7463

(202) 994-4946 fax

abenitez@law.gwu.edu

THE WORLD IS YOURS…

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

Many congrats to all involved!

Interestingly, I used the “Russian Roulette analogy” yesterday in referring to AG Merrick Garland’s dismissive attitude toward the outrageous inconsistencies and abuses in his EOIR asylum adjudications.

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

This is a wonderful, inspiring result, produced by great student lawyering, a thoughtful IJ, and an ICE ACC with a sense of justice and practicality. It should be the rule, not the exception, in EOIR asylum adjudication! But, sadly, it isn’t!

Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

I virtually guarantee that if this case had been adjudicated at the border, in detention, and/or on one of Garland’s “expedited/dedicated” dockets, the result would have been unfavorable. And, depending on the circumstances, it’s not even clear that an applicant with this type of very grantable claim would have access to the asylum adjudication system under Biden’s “enjoined but stayed transit rules!” See, e.g., https://twitter.com/Haleaziz (A “temporary win” for the Biden Administration, engineered by two 9th Cir. Dem judicial appointees, is a big loss for humanity and the rule of law, defended only by dissenting Trump appointee, Judge VanDyke, a result that should leave advocates scratching their heads about their place in today’s mushy Dem Party.)

Cases like this illustrate how the EOIR system could be run in a fair, efficient, professional, and properly humane manner! But, they don’t answer the question of why isn’t set up to run that way in every case under Garland!

Also, and quite perversely, the failure of the Biden system to produce fair and equitable results at the border puts a premium on individuals who can avoid border processing and get to the interior (the exact opposite of the result Biden claims to be trying to achieve)!

This is a totally screwed up system being “administered” by a Dem Administration that sorely lacks both courage and a clear vision of how to insure that asylum seekers and other immigrants, particularly those of color, receive due process and justice in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-23

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

Colorado AILA reports:

From: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io> on behalf of Aaron Hall via groups.io <aaron=immigrationissues.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io>
Subject: [ColoradoAILA] Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland

A HUGE congratulations to RMIAN and Laura Lunn on today’s 10^th Circuit win in Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland. I was lucky enough to be in the court at oral argument to watch Laura expertly navigate tough questions from a difficult panel and today the published decision came out holding (1) that the PFR filed within 30 days of the BIA order affirming the IJ denial of relief in withholding-only proceedings is timely filed and (2) that the IJ and BIA “defied logic and law” in misapplying the under-color-of-law element of the CAT claim, requiring remand.

Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!

Please note that you can contact your attorney and paralegal at their direct phone lines. For all future phone communications, please contact us directly instead of using the main phone number. Our direct phone lines are listed at the bottom of our emails, located in our signature blocks.

Aaron C. Hall

Senior Partner

Pronouns: he/him/his

12203 East Second Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Direct: 303.962.6630

www.immigrationissues.com

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

Folks, the IJ’s “reasoning to denial” in this case was beyond totally absurd! It’s an example of the type of judicial misconduct and incompetence that still flourishes in parts of Garland’s “any reason to deny” dysfunctional EOIR!

After more than two years of the Biden Administration under Garland, we still have not seen the type of systemic, merit-based “house cleaning” of biased and incompetent judges and the replacement of deadwood (and worse) at the totally unjust and dysfunctional EOIR that could and should have been a “day one priority” for Garland’s DOJ.

There is simply no excuse for this type of disingenuous, life-threatening performance by both EOIR and OIL under Garland’s deficient leadership! There are literally thousands of qualified experts out here who could have done a better job than the IJ and the BIA in this case!

It’s Garland’s job to get better judges on the EOIR bench — judges who will be fair, impartial, due-process focused, and experts in all facets of immigration and human rights laws! His failure to do his job is undermining our justice system and endangering human lives! How is this “OK?”

In the “real world,” folks who “can’t do their jobs” find themselves “out of a job!” Why is Garland’s DOJ an “exception,” with lives and the future of American justice on the line? Isn’t it past time to “just say no” to continuing to treat the ongoing national disgrace at EOIR as “just an afterthought” in the elitist, disconnected world of Garland’s DOJ, where the human lives being destroyed by DOJ’s failures are treated as “somebody else’s problem?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-23

⚖️🤯 BIA SEEKS AMICUS INPUT ON HOW THEY CAN HELP DHS “REMEDY” ITS OWN MISTAKES!

Former AG Jeff Sessions openly despised immigrants and their attorneys and encouraged “his judges” at EOIR to help out their “partners at DHS Enforcement.” That attitude lives on even under AG Merrick Garland!
This caricature of Jeff Sessions was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Gage Skidmore’s Flickr’s photostream.
DonkeyHotey
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1592111/download

Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08

AMICUS INVITATION (NOTICE TO APPEAR) DUE August 31, 2023

AUGUST 1, 2023

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s):

ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:

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

1. Should an Immigration Judge allow DHS to remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear?

2. To remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear, is either (1) issuing an I-261, or (2) amending the Notice to Appear, permitted by the regulations, and would either comport with the single document requirement emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)? If not, how can a non-compliant Notice to Appear be remedied?

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a written request labeled “REQUEST TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE” pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix A (Directory), and Appendix E (Cover Pages) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider an amicus brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case, including the parties’ contact information, may be available. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at the below address for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 25 double-spaced pages.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by August 31, 2023. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief may not be entertained. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae) and Chapter 4.6(i) (Amicus Curiae Briefs) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.

Notice: A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae may only be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(d). A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Where more than three attorneys or representatives sign an amicus brief or filing, the Board will name only the first three individuals in the published case. If you wish a different set of three names or have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk

Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.

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

Seems like the obvious “remedy” would be to require that DHS issue a new compliant NTA!

Respondents don’t get to “remedy” all mistakes, even inadvertent ones! Why should the USG be allowed to weasel its way out of a situation they intentionally created in a misguided effort (aided and abetted by EOIR “management”) to cut corners and generate statistics to please their political masters?

Ever since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has functioned less and less as an independent quasi adjudicative body and more and more as an apologist for, enabler, or justifier of each Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda! In other words, the BIA’s role has become largely to slap a “quasi-judicial veneer” on DHS enforcement policies and priorities so that OIL can argue Chevron deference or even “Brand X” in the Article IIIs!

Of course, using EOIR as a “deterrent” and “enforcer” over the past two decades has been a spectacular failure! It has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on Steroids,” absurdly insurmountable backlogs, and frequent rebukes from the Article IIIs.

Indeed, having helped create and magnify exponentially the mess at EOIR, many of the Trump and Biden Administration’s “gimmicks” appear aimed at avoiding or sidestepping the EOIR process altogether.

It’s the height of disingenuousness! At the urging of the White House, DOJ and DHS “break” the fair hearing system at EOIR. They then use their own misconduct and mismanagement as an excuse to deny asylum seekers and others access to the fair and impartial adjudication system to which they are legally entitled!

And, while the Article IIIs, even the Supremes, have “called out” EOIR on frequent, particularized errors, they have been happy to sweep the obvious “big problem” under the rug in a monumental exercise of “judicial task avoidance!”

That problem is that as currently operated, the EOIR system is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle that individuals facing removal, an often irreparable, even deadly, loss, are entitled to a reasonable decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). While justice is served in some EOIR decisions, the systemic failures push in the exact opposite direction.

Without the necessary systemic safeguards in place, life and death decisions are largely an arbitrary and capricious “crap shoot” where wildly inconsistent results on the same or similar facts too often depend on the attitude of the judge, the whimsical decisions by “management” on whether to interfere in decision-making, and the location and circumstances of the hearing.

This is NOT the way to run a legitimate court system in compliance with due process and fundamental fairness!

For now, advocates should continue to vocalize their strong opposition to “how can we help our partners at DHS Enforcement” adjudication passing for justice at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-02-23

⚖️ LAW YOU CAN USE! — 1st Cir. & Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Combine To Provide Expert Guidance On How To Handle BIA’s Inexpert Treatment Of Experts! 👍🏼

Star Chamber Justice — Experts find the BIA’s treatment of expert witnesses to be unduly harsh!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/7/28/expert-guidance-from-the-first-circuit-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.

However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.

When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”

Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).

Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.

The recency of the expert’s knowledge:

May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?

In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.

The basis of the expert’s knowledge

Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?

In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3

In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.

The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization

Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?

In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4

Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).

The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise

Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?

In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Prior statements of the expert

How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?

In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”

However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.

– –

Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.

Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).

Id. at 1284.

Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).

Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”

JULY 28, 2023

Republished with permission

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

The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!

Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void. Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-23

🏴‍☠️ ADMINISTRATIONS CHANGE, BUT SCOFFLAW MISTREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS DOESN’T — US District Judge Jon S. Tigar Blows Away 💨 Biden Administration’s Bogus Asylum Rules — Again! — Round Table 🛡⚔️ Weighs In On Winning Side — Again! — Order Delayed Pending Filing of Appeal, So The Carnage Continues for Now!☠️

EBSC III MSJ order

Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:

Hi all: As you know, our group filed an amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary v. Garland, challenging the new rules at the border that would make most of those unable to get an online appointment through an app ineligible to apply for asylum.

District Court Judge Jon Tigar just issued the attached order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

From Judge Tigar’s order:

“Congress granted the agencies authority to impose additional conditions on asylum eligibility, but only those consistent with section 1158…Two of the conditions imposed by the Rule have been previously found to be inconsistent with Section 1158…

The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum. The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress’s clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.”

The order is stayed for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.

Our group has once again helped make a difference in providing fairness and due process. Congrats to all.

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

Congrats to the plaintiffs and to my Round Table colleagues!

This was basically a blowout for the plaintiffs on all issues! The USG argument essentially was that complying with the law would be too difficult and/or politically unpopular. Therefore, they have chosen to violate the law and to use rather transparent pretexts (actually misrepresentations about the bogus “presumption”) to evade it.

Really, folks, how do we have a Dem AG who 1) approves such complete legal nonsense; 2) advances essentially frivolous and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to defend the indefensible; and 3) can’t make the legal system for asylum work in a fair and legal manner at EOIR or DHS?

How immoral and intellectually dishonest are Garland’s arguments. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Judge Tigar’s opinion:

While they wait for an adjudication, applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and non-state actors.

See, e.g., PC 32446–68 (2022 State Department report noting credible reports of gender-based violence against migrants; reports of migrants being tortured by migration authorities; “numerous instances” of armed groups targeting migrants for kidnapping, extortion, and homicide; and that asylum seekers and migrants were vulnerable to forced labor); PC 22839–42 (NGO report documenting violent crimes against 13,480 migrants in Mexico, by both state and non-state actors, between January 2021 and December 2022); PC 76248–87 (table of crimes summarized in preceding report); PC 21752–58 (2022 NGO report discussing gender-based violence in northern Mexico border cities, including against LGBTQI+ and Black migrants); PC 21610–11 (2022 NGO report concerning gender-based violence against Venezuelan women and LGBTIQ+ migrants in southern Mexico).16

16 In addition to these examples, the record is replete with additional documentation of the extraordinary risk of violence many migrants face in Mexico. See, e.g., PC 22129–30 (2023 news report documenting instances of kidnapping of asylum seekers in northern Mexico); PC 23247–50 (2022 news report quoting Chihuahua state police chief stating that “organized criminal gangs are financing their operations through migrant trafficking”); PC 23082 (2023 NGO report discussing treatment of migrants and asylum seekers); PC 20937–43 (2021 NGO report documenting kidnapping and extortion of Venezuelan migrants in Mexico); PC 29740–29744 (2021 NGO report documenting instances of rape, kidnapping, and other violence experienced by migrant women in Mexico); PC 75946–48 (2022 NGO report documenting violence against migrants in Mexico); AR 4881 (2022 NGO report noting that asylum seekers from Central America have been pursued across the border and found in southern Mexico by their persecutors).

Only somebody who avoids the border, has never represented asylum seekers there, and is impervious to facts and reality could make such outlandish arguments in favor of an outrageously deficient and illegal “policy.” Sounds like something out of the “Stephen Miller Playbook!” Why is it coming from a Dem AG?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-25-23

👎🏼 EOIR’S 3-DECADE QUEST TO DENY PROTECTION TO COPTIC CHRISTIAN ENDS BADLY IN 3RD CIR. — BIA Applies “Overly Rigorous Standard” & Fails To Recognize A Prima Facie Case For Asylum In Latest Blow To DOJ’s “Asylum Wrecking Crew!” 🏴‍☠️

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212957np.pdf

Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)

PANEL: AMBRO, RESTREPO, FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION: JUDGE RESTRO

KEY QUOTE:

i. The BIA applied an overly rigorous standard to the new evidence.

Gebra argues that the BIA applied an “overly rigorous standard” when analyzing the new evidence presented when determining whether he established a new claim. Pet’r Br. 44 (citing Tilija v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2019)). In Tilija, we held that unless the new evidence is inherently unbelievable, it must be taken as true. 930 F.3d at 172; see also Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313 (“Facts presented in the motion to reopen

are ‘accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.’”) (cleaned up). If the BIA fails to accept new evidence as true, then it applies an “overly rigorous standard.” Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Furthermore, not accepting such evidence as true is an abuse of discretion if the petitioner would have established a prima facie case for eligibility with the rejected evidence. Id. (citing Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313).

Here, the BIA did not find that the new evidence was inherently unbelievable but nevertheless refused to accept new evidence, such as Gebra’s medical report after the 2009 attack, as “persuasive” or true because it “provide[d] little specificity or detail with respect to the alleged attack.” JA4; cf. Tilija; 930 F.3d at 172 (finding that where the BIA asked for “more details” and questioned the veracity of the evidence, it impermissibly failed to accept the evidence as true). By requesting that the medical record, on its own,

corroborate that the injuries were caused by “Islamic fanatics,” the BIA imposed an

overly rigorous standard. JA4; Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that the report from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (“EUHRO”) pro- vides “no details” with respect to when, where, how, nor “any other details surrounding the circumstances of the alleged incident,” was an abuse of discretion. JA4; Tilija, 930

11

F.3d at 172. The BIA treated the new evidence with the same “overly vigorous standard” that it applied to the new translation of the 1993 police report that was previously dis- credited.

Having concluded that the BIA held Gebra to an excessively rigorous standard, we next determine whether Gebra established a prima facie case for asylum.

ii. Gebra’s new evidence established a prima facie case for asylum.

Gebra’s new evidence, accepted as true, establishes a prima facie case for asylum. A motion to reopen an asylum case must establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Se- voian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 173, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). This standard requires an applicant to produce objective evidence that shows a “reasonable likelihood” that they can establish eligibility for relief. Id. at 173. In this context, to “establish” means that the evidence in favor of asylum outweighs the evidence against. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 564 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (Dec. 3, 2004). A “reasonable likelihood” merely means showing a realistic chance that the applicant can later establish that asylum should be granted. Id. Prima facie “would lack meaning” if it required that evidence submitted at the prima facie stage conclusively establish eligibility for asylum. Id. Thus, Gebra need only provide objective evidence that shows a reasonable likelihood that he is

entitled to asylum relief. Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Specifically, Gebra would need to

demonstrate that he suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future perse- cution, on account of his religious beliefs. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (enumerating reli- gion as a protected ground).

12

Here, Gebra provided objective evidence in the form of medical records and hu- man rights reports regarding his 2009 attack. For example, a December 8, 2009, medical report from Victoria Hospital in Egypt corroborates the statement in his affirmation that, due to the attack, he was “wounded and sent into the Victoria Hospital due to multiple contusions and dermal bleeding on [his] back and different parts of [his] body.” JA167, 175; see Doe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a single

beating, “if sufficiently egregious,” may constitute persecution, such as where petitioner was beaten by a mob, causing him to bleed and suffer injuries to his head and back). Ge- bra also included medical reports of the psychological trauma he experienced and therapy sessions he attended as a result of the attacks. Doe, 956 F.3d at 145–46 (“Persecution may be emotional or psychological, as well as physical.”) (citation omitted). Further- more, the December 30, 2009, report from EUHRO stated that they independently “veri- fied” Gebra was “attacked by some [Islamic] fanatics” who thought Gebra was behind demonstrations for the rights of Coptic Christians due to his work as a cameraman for Fa- ther Zacharia Botros, a Coptic Christian priest known for critiquing Islam. JA173.

Taken together, this evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Gebra could es- tablish he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.

In sum, the BIA abused its discretion when it did not accept Gebra’s evidence ask true and concluded that he did not establish a new claim for asylum in his third motion to reopen.

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

Let’s apply a tiny bit of common sense here, in contravention of the BIA’s current practices. How likely is it that a guy would pursue asylum claims for 30 years, even after being denied, deported, and actually persecuted in Egypt upon return, if there weren’t some merit in the claim? At least enough to earn him a new hearing! It’s not rocket science to know that Coptic Christians often face persecution in Egypt! Was it really wise to push this clearly flawed (one could say “scofflaw”) denial all the way to the Circuit, thus wasting even more time and further undermining the BIA’s credibility? What are they thinking at Garland’s DOJ?

Think what efficiencies, not to mention due process and fundamental fairness, a BIA of well-qualified judges who were actual experts in asylum law — focused on legal protection, not specious rejection — could bring to our broken asylum system! Why not give due process and justice a chance at DOJ?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-21-23

Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Todd Miller reports for the BorderChronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the EOIR press release:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FROM EOIR:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

** The above paragraph is fictionalized. Any resemblance to any real person, persons, organizations, and/or situations is purely coincidental and entirely unintended.

Related posts:

Andrea writes in a NYT Op-Ed:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexusNexus Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Alberto Benítez reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Colorado AILA reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: